who else?


Figures are self explaining.
If you don't like them because they don't suit your side of the argument I suggest you try and convince the government to modify them.

Besides Energy and Homeland Security who else was lumped into those figures?

quote:

The Dep. of Homeland Security is probably the second largest contributor to this money

As of 2004 the Department on Homeland Security's Budget was $36.5 billion, that leaves the remaining military budget at $363 billion(All of this without counting the expenses derivated form the War).

quote:

It does not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars—$50 billion for Fiscal Year 2007 and an extra $70 billion for FY 2006, on top of the $50 billion approved by Congress.)

thats $170 billion more.
The Department of energy makes nukes.
The Department of Homeland Security is effectively a counter terrorist organization, and thus is included in the budget.

To make a comparison you could look at the graph and see how much the military expense grew during the kosovo bombing campaign(more bombs where dropped in less than a year than during all of WWII).
Also, during the first Gulf War the military expense actually decreased by aproximately $160 billion. . Although exact figures are not available the numbers for 1990 and 1992 are quite clear. Actually, when compared to the rest of the graph, the largest drop in military budget comes right after/during the First Gulf War.

I'm not, making a comparison with other war time periods precisely because this one is different from others.
First of all we're not waging war against a formal army, we are an occupation force, that changes the dynamic of warfare completely.
Second, the devaluation of the dolar on the international market keeps us from calibrating the true cost of the war correctly.
Third, the state of the economy is very different from that of past wars. Right now it's in recession, whereas during previous campaigns it was on a rising trend and most of the time it benefitted from the increase in employment and production that a war causes.

Hmm your missing a huge piece of this puzzle. In order for this to be an accurate portrayal of trends you need to perhaps show US defense spending during other times of war. Also it is admitted that these numbers include the Department of Energy and "other" which is bound to include the new Department of Homeland Security, which has nothing to do with international war efforts. Nevermind the fact that after 9-11 security was no longer provided by the airlines but by TSA which we pay for now in 10 dollar increments for every plane ticket.

The Dep. of Homeland Security is probably the second largest contributor to this money as they have had to take measures to beef up airport security to include new technology and more workers. So I would ask that before you present your "evidence" as irrefutable proof, you first analyze these factors.

I find that hard to believe when presented with this:

quote:

The current (2005) United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next fourteen biggest spenders combined, and nearly seven times larger than China's, which places second. The United States and its close allies are responsible for approximately two-thirds of all military spending on Earth (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority), and spend 57 times more than the six rogue nations combined (Cuba, Iran,Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria). Military spending accounts for more than half of the United States' federal discretionary spending, which is all of the U.S. government's money not spoken for by pre-existing obligations.

quote:

The United States, being the most formidable military power, it is worth looking at their spending.

The U.S. military budget request by the Bush Administration for Fiscal Year 2007 is $462.7 billion. (This includes the Defense Department budget, funding for the Department of Energy (which includes nuclear weapons) and “other” which the source does not define. It does not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars—$50 billion for Fiscal Year 2007 and an extra $70 billion for FY 2006, on top of the $50 billion approved by Congress.)

* For Fiscal Year 2006 it was $441.6 billion
* For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
* For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion
* For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
* For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
* For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
* This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.

These figures typically do not include combat figures, so 2001 onwards, the Afghan war, and 2003 onwards, the Iraq war costs are not in this budget. As of early 2006, Congress had already approved an additional funding total of $300 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As Chris Hellman, researcher of many of these statistics, also notes, when adjusted for inflation the request for 2007 together with that needed for nuclear weapons the 2007 spending request exceeds the average amount spent by the Pentagon during the Cold War, for a military that is one-third smaller than it was just over a decade ago. PDF formatted document

Compared to the rest of the world, these numbers are indeed staggering.

Note that in 2001 the increase rate rises exponentially

quote:

* World military expenditure in 2005 is estimated to have reached $1,001 billion at constant (2003) prices and exchange rates, or $1,118 billion in current dollars;
* This corresponds to 2.5 per cent of world GDP or an average spending of $173 per capita;
* World military expenditure in 2005 presents a real terms increase of 3.4 per cent since 2004, and of 34 per cent over the 10-year period 1996–2005;
* The USA, responsible for about 80 per cent of the increase in 2005, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for almost half of the world total;
* The 15 countries with the highest spending account for 84 per cent of the total;
* The USA is responsible for 48 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4–5 per cent each.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spend...p#USMilitarySpending
http://www.wikipedia.org
Also sourced from diverse books, including Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival.

I hope that's enough.

Ok, I'm just hoping you can explain to me how exactly the government is spending all this money backing militarism when in fact they are drawing down our numbers.

I'm leaving work right now, as soon as I get home I'll own you again. I hope you can be patient.

You might want to post those numbers showing a disproportionate increase of MILITARY spending over the last 6 years compared to the military spending in the last 20 years. Make sure you account for inflation and expected increases in military funding.