Taxation without representation...

[vartan 0]

If the president didn't

Why must people stick on hating the president when our whole government makes these decisions.. the president alone can not make us go to war...

[Alex+R 0]

Just a thought:

If the president didn't send the troops to places where they shouldn't be, maybe they would need less funding.

JMHO, which I understand is not everybody's.

just keep in mind that the payroll won't decrease, active duty troops get paid whether they are sitting at home or in iraq.

I hardly think the payroll is the largest cost of war.

[Ban Hammer 14,290]

Just a thought:

If the president didn't send the troops to places where they shouldn't be, maybe they would need less funding.

JMHO, which I understand is not everybody's.

just keep in mind that the payroll won't decrease, active duty troops get paid whether they are sitting at home or in iraq.

I hardly think the payroll is the largest cost of war.

not saying it is. but it's a constant expediture.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How else do we pay for WAR and homeland security oh and dont forget cia and fbi...

Kezzie

You hit the nail on the head.

Dont be so ignorant. The US spends only 5% of its annual spending on the military, while social programs consume 15%.

Who's ignorant?

According to this White House document, the U.S. military budget for the fiscal year 2003 was $379 billion, an increase of roughly $48 billion from the year before. This budget represents roughly 18% of the federal budget, and 53% of the total discretionary money controlled by the Congress and the Administration.

The increase alone was larger than the annual military budget of any other country. From the $379 billion figure, the worldwide list drops precipitously to $34.8 billion for the United Kingdom, $29 billion for Russia, $27 billion for France, and $23.1 billion for Germany.

Next year, the budget is expected to increase to roughly $400 billion. Yahoo! has a category dedicated to U.S. military spending that features a number of relevant resources, including this table of U.S. military spending since 1945.

The U.S. military budget shows no signs of decreasing. According to a story in USA Today, Congress is pushing for the first increase in U.S. military troop numbers in 16 years.

[Ban Hammer 14,290]

The U.S. military budget shows no signs of decreasing. According to a story in USA Today, Congress is pushing for the first increase in U.S. military troop numbers in 16 years.

don't you think that we need more troops? the army at least used to have about 15 or so divisions in the 80's, that got cut back to about 2/3 so many of those over there now are on their 2nd or 3rd iraqi tour.

[dalegg 143]

According to this White House document, the U.S. military budget for the fiscal year 2003 was $379 billion, an increase of roughly $48 billion from the year before. This budget represents roughly 18% of the federal budget, and 53% of the total discretionary money controlled by the Congress and the Administration.

Where does it say this in this document? I haven't had my coffee yet so I cannot find it!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The U.S. military budget shows no signs of decreasing. According to a story in USA Today, Congress is pushing for the first increase in U.S. military troop numbers in 16 years.

don't you think that we need more troops? the army at least used to have about 15 or so divisions in the 80's, that got cut back to about 2/3 so many of those over there now are on their 2nd or 3rd iraqi tour.

I don't know, Charles. What kind of role do want the U.S. military to play in this world? How many more countries would we possibly invade in the next century? Isn't Democracy suppose to spread the way Communism did in the 50's without coming from the barrel of a gun?

[Joel Halfwassen 0]

Most of those taxes go directly to some service. Phone for example goes to help pay for rural areas which are government subsidized. Same with electric. It also goes to pay for the direct regulations that the government imposses on the companies (i.e. MAKING them run power and phone to rural areas). PLUS most of thoses taxes are LOCAL taxes. Not much is Federal except income tax. And in the last 2 years you get a deduction in non federal taxes paid on your income tax form too. PLUS some of those taxes are there to provide an incentive to either DO things or NOT do things.

Joel

[Ban Hammer 14,290]

The U.S. military budget shows no signs of decreasing. According to a story in USA Today, Congress is pushing for the first increase in U.S. military troop numbers in 16 years.

don't you think that we need more troops? the army at least used to have about 15 or so divisions in the 80's, that got cut back to about 2/3 so many of those over there now are on their 2nd or 3rd iraqi tour.

I don't know, Charles. What kind of role do want the U.S. military to play in this world? How many more countries would we possibly invade in the next century? Isn't Democracy suppose to spread the way Communism did in the 50's without coming from the barrel of a gun?

nice try at baiting steven. there's been some complaining about things in africa, but we don't have the trooops to go help. all of them are involved in iraq. heaven help us if something happens in korea.

[Alex+R 0]

The U.S. military budget shows no signs of decreasing. According to a story in USA Today, Congress is pushing for the first increase in U.S. military troop numbers in 16 years.

don't you think that we need more troops? the army at least used to have about 15 or so divisions in the 80's, that got cut back to about 2/3 so many of those over there now are on their 2nd or 3rd iraqi tour.

There's another solution to the problem of soldiers being on their 2nd or 3rd tour of duty besides adding more soldiers. We could, you know, bring the ones we've got home to their spouses and kids and parents...

[pedroh 21]

If the president didn't

Why must people stick on hating the president when our whole government makes these decisions.. the president alone can not make us go to war...

oh but he did.. he convinced every dumbarse in US that they needed to go to war and PROTECT freedoms, protect democracy and all that BS 'freedom' discourse he's been using for about 7 years

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The U.S. military budget shows no signs of decreasing. According to a story in USA Today, Congress is pushing for the first increase in U.S. military troop numbers in 16 years.

don't you think that we need more troops? the army at least used to have about 15 or so divisions in the 80's, that got cut back to about 2/3 so many of those over there now are on their 2nd or 3rd iraqi tour.

I don't know, Charles. What kind of role do want the U.S. military to play in this world? How many more countries would we possibly invade in the next century? Isn't Democracy suppose to spread the way Communism did in the 50's without coming from the barrel of a gun?

nice try at baiting steven. there's been some complaining about things in africa, but we don't have the trooops to go help. all of them are involved in iraq. heaven help us if something happens in korea.

I'm not baiting - I'm asking you that question becaue you asked me if I think we need more troops. Warfare evolves as you know, Charles, and up until the last Gulf War, there was the general consensus that future wars wouldn't be fought out on the battlefield, but through the air. Even in the current situation in Iraq - our troops are there more as police than as traditional combat soldiers.

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

— James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

[Ban Hammer 14,290]

I'm not baiting - I'm asking you that question becaue you asked me if I think we need more troops. Warfare evolves as you know, Charles, and up until the last Gulf War, there was the general consensus that future wars wouldn't be fought out on the battlefield, but through the air. Even in the current situation in Iraq - our troops are there more as police than as traditional combat soldiers.

the last gulf war showed that air alone don't work. israel found that out too. you need people on the ground - period.

Edited August 27, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm not baiting - I'm asking you that question becaue you asked me if I think we need more troops. Warfare evolves as you know, Charles, and up until the last Gulf War, there was the general consensus that future wars wouldn't be fought out on the battlefield, but through the air. Even in the current situation in Iraq - our troops are there more as police than as traditional combat soldiers.

the last gulf war showed that air alone don't work. israel found that out too. you need people on the ground - period.

Yes. So the question goes back to yours - how many troops should we have? How many is enough? How many more Iraqs do you foresee within the next decade? Seriously, do you think there's a chance we would invade another country? Iran? North Korea? How are we going to keep paying for such invasions?

World military spending in 2003 increased by about 11 per cent in real terms. This is a remarkable rate of increase, even more so given that it was preceded by an increase of 6.5 per cent in 2002.

* Over two years world military spending increased by 18 per cent in real terms, to reach $956 billion (in current dollars) in 2003.

* High-income countries account for about 75 per cent of world military spending but only 16 per cent of world population.

* The combined military spending of these countries was slightly higher than the aggregate foreign debt of all low-income countries and 10 times higher than their combined levels of official development assistance in 2001.

* … There is a large gap between what countries are prepared to allocate for military means to provide security and maintain their global and regional power status, on the one hand, and to alleviate poverty and promote economic development, on the other.

The main reason for the increase in world military spending is the massive increase in the United States, which accounts for almost half of the world total…. In the absence of [appropriations for the new war on terror, and on Iraq], US military expenditure would still show a significant increase, but at a much slower rate, and world military spending would show a rise of 4 per cent rather than 11 per cent in 2003.

… While US military expenditure is set to continue to grow and will continue to propel world military spending, the pace is likely to fall back somewhat in the next few years. In the longer term it is doubtful whether current levels will be economically and politically sustainable.

— Elisabeth Skons, Catalina Perdomo, Sam Perlo-Freeman and Petter Stalenheim, Military expenditure, Chapter 10, SPIRI Yearbook 2004, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, June 9, 2004

Edited August 27, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Ban Hammer 14,290]

Yes. So the question goes back to yours - how many troops should we have? How many is enough? How many more Iraqs do you foresee within the next decade? Seriously, do you think there's a chance we would invade another country? Iran? North Korea? How are we going to keep paying for such invasions?

another division or two would not hurt. as for how many iraqs in the future, i don't have a crystal ball. do you? yes there is always a chance we'll go into another country. as for paying for it, the same way we paid for ww2. bonds!