Menu

Home › Forums › Other › OT: Military budget

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 91 total)
1 2 3 … 5 6 7
  • Author
    Posts
  • February 3, 2010 at 10:54 AM #16994
    admin
    Keymaster

    http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/military-232279-billion-budget.html

    The Center for a New American Security calculates that, when adjusted for inflation, this military budget is 13 percent higher than at the peak of the Korean War, 33 percent higher than at the peak of the Vietnam War, 12 percent higher than at the peak of the Cold War and 64 percent higher than the Cold War average.

    February 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM #508445
    Allan from Fallbrook
    Participant

    We’re on our way to becoming the most well-armed Third World nation on the planet.

    Obama needs to go after the Defense Dept. budget with an ax. Until that happens, he isn’t serious about deficit reduction in my book.

    February 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM #509006
    Allan from Fallbrook
    Participant

    We’re on our way to becoming the most well-armed Third World nation on the planet.

    Obama needs to go after the Defense Dept. budget with an ax. Until that happens, he isn’t serious about deficit reduction in my book.

    February 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM #509100
    Allan from Fallbrook
    Participant

    We’re on our way to becoming the most well-armed Third World nation on the planet.

    Obama needs to go after the Defense Dept. budget with an ax. Until that happens, he isn’t serious about deficit reduction in my book.

    February 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM #508594
    Allan from Fallbrook
    Participant

    We’re on our way to becoming the most well-armed Third World nation on the planet.

    Obama needs to go after the Defense Dept. budget with an ax. Until that happens, he isn’t serious about deficit reduction in my book.

    February 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM #509353
    Allan from Fallbrook
    Participant

    We’re on our way to becoming the most well-armed Third World nation on the planet.

    Obama needs to go after the Defense Dept. budget with an ax. Until that happens, he isn’t serious about deficit reduction in my book.

    February 3, 2010 at 12:26 PM #508455
    Casca
    Participant

    Generally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.

    February 3, 2010 at 12:26 PM #509016
    Casca
    Participant

    Generally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.

    February 3, 2010 at 12:26 PM #509110
    Casca
    Participant

    Generally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.

    February 3, 2010 at 12:26 PM #508604
    Casca
    Participant

    Generally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.

    February 3, 2010 at 12:26 PM #509363
    Casca
    Participant

    Generally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.

    February 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM #508614
    2-stroke triple
    Participant

    At the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.

    February 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM #509026
    2-stroke triple
    Participant

    At the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.

    February 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM #509120
    2-stroke triple
    Participant

    At the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.

    February 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM #508465
    2-stroke triple
    Participant

    At the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 91 total)
1 2 3 … 5 6 7
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.