--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "shempmcgurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > > <mailto: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". > > > > > I have to agree with Turq on this. If you take Social Security out of > > the equation, then almost every year more than half was spent on > > military. Social Security trust fund was inserted into the equation by > > the Republicans in the 1960's to try to hide their exorbitant defense > > spending. It has no business being in there because it is a trust find > > and not the Government's to use, spend, or touch. > > > > OffWorld > > > > You guys are mixing up "GDP" with "Federal Budget". > > They are NOT the same thing. The entire federal budget even at the exhorbitant $3.8 trillion is but 27% of the 14.3 trillion GDP in 2008 for the United States. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal> ) > > And, yes, I may agree with you vis a vis the Social Security spending inclusion. Both Social Security and Medicare are essentially insurance programs. Their contributions and benefits are taken and meted out completely differently than all other spending and taxing by the federal government and, as such, should be segregated from the budget. > > But defense is NOT about half of the budget even when SS and Medicare are taken out. See the following and do the math:>>
Looks like you need some math lessons. If you take out Social Security and medicare are taken out, Defense is more than half of what is left. Offorld > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008> >
