Quote:Military expenditure (% of GDP)

Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are judged to be trained and equipped for military operations; and military space activities. Such expenditures include military and civil personnel, including retirement pensions of military personnel and social services for personnel; operation and maintenance; procurement; military research and development; and military aid (in the military expenditures of the donor country). Excluded are civil defense and current expenditures for previous military activities, such as for veterans' benefits, demobilization, conversion, and destruction of weapons. This definition cannot be applied for all countries, however, since that would require much more detailed information than is available about what is included in military budgets and off-budget military expenditure items. (For example, military budgets might or might not cover civil defense, reserves and auxiliary forces, police and paramilitary forces, dual-purpose forces such as military and civilian police, military grants in kind, pensions for military personnel, and social security contributions paid by one part of government to another.)
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Yearbook: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security.

(05-05-2016, 11:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Do you think if Switzerland wasn't surrounded by friendly, NATO, nations with the United States guaranteeing their safety they'd be able to spend that little on their own defense?

(05-06-2016, 01:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Gots to pay the cost to be the boss.

I surmise there are those that wish we were weaker.

(05-06-2016, 02:40 AM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: There are also those who believe that there is more to strength than one's capacity to kill people.  At 3.5% of GDP, it seems more reasonable than it seems when compared to total expenditure by country, but it is still pretty excessive IMO and I would not be the least bit surprised if there were some sort of number fudging going on here.  Does this formula take into account how expensive "security services" such as the FBI, CIA, NSA or does it try to classify them as law enforcement?  I also notice that Saudi Arabia, Isreal, and Iraq are quite high on this list.  Interesting stuff.

(05-06-2016, 01:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Gots to pay the cost to be the boss.

I surmise there are those that wish we were weaker.

(05-06-2016, 11:10 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Ah the military, the one place where conservatives forget how much they preach about the awesomeness of competition, capitalism, and fiscal efficiency and support a huge government handing giant no-bid, competition-killing, price-fixing contracts to single entities.

Oh well, quick throw another bazillion bucks down a well so we can feel stronger!

(05-06-2016, 11:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Rep.

United States accounts for 40% of the worlds military spending.  I believe we spend more than the next 7 or 8 countries combined, and , yes, that includes China, Russia, and every other country on earth.

"Don't look at Haliburton getting $39 Billion in military contracts in Iraq.  Just think about people who buy soda with foodstamps."

(05-06-2016, 11:31 AM)michaelsean Wrote:   That's not a valid comparison on the face of it.  A company getting paid to do a job or supply a product is not the same as someone receiving something for nothing.  

(05-06-2016, 11:31 AM)michaelsean Wrote:   That's not a valid comparison on the face of it.  A company getting paid to do a job or supply a product is not the same as someone receiving something for nothing.  

(05-06-2016, 11:40 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Tax money should go to helping citizens, not profits for a private company.

(05-06-2016, 11:40 AM)fredtoast Wrote: US citizens got zero benefit from the $39 Billion paid to Haliburten.

Thousands of US citizens get benefits from food stamps.

Tax money should go to helping citizens, not profits for a private company.

(05-06-2016, 11:41 AM)Nately120 Wrote: True, Haliburton getting a giant contract with no competition and no accountability is more like that nightmare scenario that right-wingers attribute to unions.  The whole Haliburton contract just cut competition, capitalism, and accountability out of the equation and set taxpayers up to be reamed while thanking the government for "keeping us safe" the whole time.

It's infuriatingly brilliant. 


Well, yea if you want this country to be run based off the teachings of Christ.  You Jesus freak! 

(05-06-2016, 11:48 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So the  military, and by extension the entire US government, shouldn't buy any service or product from a private company?

(05-06-2016, 11:50 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.

Learn to read.  I never said anything close to that.

Come back when you want to discuss what I actually said instead of making up strawmen to knock down.

(05-06-2016, 11:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So you agree that no tax money should be spent on private companies?  Are you guys serious?

(05-06-2016, 11:52 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You think the only way the government can pay private companies is through zero comeptition bids?

Seriously?

(05-06-2016, 11:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So you agree that no tax money should be spent on private companies?  Are you guys serious?