--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > [snip] > > > Also in their favor is that Euro-nations have not spent > > > the decades since World War II spending literally *half* > > > of their Gross National Product on "defense," which is > > > a euphemism for both "Better ways to kill people," and > > > "Subsidies for Defense Industries." America has. > > [snip] > > > > Before you open your big, fat mouth about > > things you know nothing about, why don't > > you actually do some research? > > > > Show me one year since WWII when half of > > the GDP was spent on "defense". For goodness > > sake's, even with Obama's $3.8 trillion budget > > this year (which includes defense as just one > > category of spending, which is not even the > > largest one) that only represents about 25% of > > the entire GDP. > > What he's most likely thinking of is the stat > that U.S. defense spending amounts to more > than half of *global military spending*.
Here's a strange situation. I agree with Turq, and disagree with Judy and Shemp. Obviously Turq. meant Government discretionary spending, not GDP ! If you take social security out of the national budget (which is not SUPPOSED to be factored into it), then military spanding is half the US budget. Even if you leave in SS, then military is STILL more than one fifth. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spendi\ ng_-_FY_2007.png/350px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png>
