I'm pretty sure this is out, but couldn't find it online so I typed in the cover letter. It's the SECDEF showing that the DoD is implementing cost-saving initiatives aside from any detailed in the President's Budget. It's pretty odd to see the 349 generals/admirals/civilian executives cut, (almost all of the military ones by name) in the appendices. \ Enjoy. I look forward to the rest of the cutbacks that I'm sure are coming across the rest of the government's board.
2008 numbers US - 4.3% China - 2.0% UK - 2.5% France - 2.3% Russia - 3.5% Just for shits and giggles Libya - 1.0% Iran - 2.7% Saudi Arabia - 8.2% Canada - 1.3% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
I like how the Stockholm Institute for Peace doesn't have North Korea on there. But they do have those warmongering Saudis. And China's is MUCH higher than 2.0%. If you count military subsidies to places we don't want them subsidizing militarily, it's even higher than that.
Exactly. We historically spend about 3%, but since the war on terror, we've been spending a bit more. As a % of GDP, it's tiny. As an absolute number, it's big because our GDP is 1/3 that of the entire world.
Wow, posts actually claiming that America is less militarized than other countries. The reason isn't that the generals suddenly got unselfish. The reason is that the President is a Democrat. Under a Republican president, they'll return to budget expansion. Ever heard of economy of scale? The bigger an organization, the smaller of a percentage that a given function should eat up. Bigger countries should have a smaller %, not bigger. You're simply saying that there's a civilian side to the military-industrial complex. The same can be said about the U.S. The U.S. will have a much lower percentage of GDP for that than most countries, since the others are more socialist. You do know that last week the Saudi military invaded Bahrain and shot unarmed protestors who were going to overthrow the dictator, while N. Korea never invaded anyone, unless you count movements within their own country 60 years ago in the vacuum after Japan left (legally, Korea was and is one country). Last week is more recent than 60 years ago, and Bahrain is recognized by most countries as a nation, which the separate Koreas were not. Therefore, you want big cuts to military spending...
I didn't see the Bahrain thing, perhaps because I was too busy in Korea for the last month. You know, the place where NK artillery has bombarded SK islands, sunk one of their frigates, and landed special operations forces -- in just the last year. You may not have seen the news that they fired off a slew of missiles towards Japan on the 4th of July...because CNN and MSNBC were showing all-Michael-Jackson-funeral, all-the-time that week.
So is how much we subsidize old people in a ponzi scheme. I showed proof that the military is cutting back. So far, no one has shown anyone else doing so, which was kind of the point of the OP.
Cutting a $650 billion budget to $640 billion isn't really leading the way in much of anything. If the rest of the government is going to dig this deep we're fucked.
Cutting $10 billion isn't doing much of anything but cutting the millions (note the m at the start of that word) to NPR is routinely categorized as "a good start."
Cutting $10B is cutting $100B over 10 years. If we cut $10B for every $600B we spend, we'd save $600B over that same period. Chump change. It's a stark contrast to increasing spending while we have huge deficits. Like the president's proposed budget is $200B more than last year.
A few shells. The reason was that the U.S. insisted on playing war games out of islands whose possession is disputed between North and South Korea. To remind us of that, the North shot into them before the American war games shot out of them. I missed all those Japanese cities going up in smoke. Or did I miss it because the media considered it unimportant, like when the U.S. tests 100-mile range artillery off the California coast. After the excesses of the Bush years, Gates ordered generals to submit to him a tiny budget decrease. Congressional Republicans will adjust it right back.
So to recap...a few shells is the same thing as sinking a warship of another country? Missiles launched, but that didn't hit their targets, doesn't mean anything? Especially b/c the media considered it less important than the funeral of a singer? Shooting missiles at another country is the same as shooting them into a declared weapons range in our own territorial waters? The military is firing 300 generals and senior executives, cutting costs by the billions of dollars, and no big deal b/c it won't cover very much of the President's 1.4T projected deficit? Let's just say that maybe you should do a bit more research on military topics. Increase the fund of knowledge a bit.
