Heritage In Focus: Myths About Defense Spending: Part 4

Heritage In Focus: Myths About Defense Spending: Part 4

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Heritage
• Foundation
• Focus
• Defense
• Spending
• National
• Budget
• GDP
• Carafano
• Eaglen

[investortownhall]

Most military spending is 100% discretionary. Military pumpers and fat-cat arms lobbyist work diligently daily, to convince everyone it needs to be 100% entitlement.

"The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals." - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 Star General and President of the United States

[SashaShokolova]

Harry ... do you know what 'correlation' means? Please point out the false correlation I made in my earlier post. Otherwise, I shall assume you are merely trolling and not interested in honest discussion, merely polemics. I fancy I shan't be surprised by the outcome.

[SashaShokolova]

Harry, you fail to show any causality between standard of living and defense spending, yet cite Switzerland and Lichtenstein as reasons to spend less. You might as well say that less land area = prosperity, for surely there is a strong correlation there using your examples. Or how about percentage of mountainous terrain or proximity to Innsbruck? False correlations of unrelated facts are fuzzy thinking, at best.

[alonelychild]

Yes, but are they the hegemon? Is their currency the standart amongst international trade? Are they present in very hot spot in globe, preventing conflicts? Such as between India, Pakistan and China. Or in the 70s, between China and USSR? Or in Europe, for 1/2 century, between France and Germany? North and South Korea? Taiwan? China-Japan? Israel and Saudi Arabia? Turkey-Iraq? Brazil-Argentina? Colombia-Venezuela? Argentina-Chile?

Switzerland is a very small state, out of comparison

[alonelychild]

The Swiss are secure because they play the westphalian balance of power game very well, and that is only possible due to geography. Europe in general is safe only because USA spends their share in defense, through NATO. So, in other words, the american taxpayer pays for the european welfare state.

[brisas2k]

Not so fast.

Nuclear arms are very useful to deter conventional military agression. i.e., North Korea.

[ALITL8]

George Orwell's "1984"

Doublethink:

The power of holding two opposite beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies, all this is indispensably necessary.

[carafano]

the "black" budgetis buried in the regular defense budget. It does not represent additional spending. Iraq and Afghanistan have been funded with supplemental appropriations, but they are still considered part of the federal budget and at the end of the year are rolled into the overall total.

[greg2777mail]

THE INVASIONS OF IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN ARE FOUNDED OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL BUDGET, they are not included in the military budget.

In addition, the United States has black budget military spending which is not included in published military spending figures. Maintenance of the nuclear arsenal and the money spent by the Veterans Affairs Department, are not included in the official budget. Thus, the total amount spent by the United States on military spending MAY BE CONSIDERED EVEN HIGHER

[greg2777mail]

Looking at the CIA-The World Factbook, that amount is about the same as the rest of the world combined military expenditure.

PLUS ... THE INVASIONS OF IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN ARE FOUNDED OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL BUDGET, they are not included in the military budget figures listed above.