This week, the President signed a budget for one year of military expenditures for around 800 billion dollars. There is no country on the planet that spends anywhere near that amount. In fact, if you combine all the budgets for military in the entire world, they do not total our single year outlays. We are told we need it to keep us safe. Safe from whom? I have no clue. Here is the paradox. All of us are going to die anyway. So, if you accept that fact, what exactly is the most likely way for any of us to die? Is it in a war? A terrorist attack? Nope. It's due to some kind of health related issue. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes and so on are the real threats to our lives.Why do we prefer spending 800 billion per year on war and seem to think spending that amount over 10 years will bankrupt our country and turn us into commie scum?

Does anyone see the tragic contradiction in this simple comparison? How can anyone on the right who claims to be pro-life fear war more than a disease? Are we completely mad?

* With the exception of the military.

It's not about safety; it's about maintaining an empire.

Woolley:

This week, the President signed a budget for one year of military expenditures for around 800 billion dollars. There is no country on the planet that spends anywhere near that amount. In fact, if you combine all the budgets for military in the entire world, they do not total our single year outlays. We are told we need it to keep us safe. Safe from whom? I have no clue. Here is the paradox. All of us are going to die anyway. So, if you accept that fact, what exactly is the most likely way for any of us to die? Is it in a war? A terrorist attack? Nope. It's due to some kind of health related issue. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes and so on are the real threats to our lives.Why do we prefer spending 800 billion per year on war and seem to think spending that amount over 10 years will bankrupt our country and turn us into commie scum?

Does anyone see the tragic contradiction in this simple comparison? How can anyone on the right who claims to be pro-life fear war more than a disease? Are we completely mad?

Help me get to your numbers Woolley:

<link>

<link>

<link>

President Signs Defense Authorization Act

but how does that change the fundamental question which is why do we thiink war is more important than health? The logic defies me...

<link>

U.S. military spending 48% of world total, i.e., for all practical purposes, as much as rest of world combined:

Why does the US number seem so high when the budget announced $517.9 for the Department of Defense?

Unfortunately, the budget numbers can be a bit confusing. For example, the Fiscal Year budget requests for US military spending do not include combat figures (which are supplemental requests that Congress approves separately). The budget for nuclear weapons falls under the Department of Energy, and for the 2009 request, was about $29 billion.

The cost of war (Iraq and Afghanistan) is estimated to be about $170 billion for the 2009 spending alone. Christopher Hellman and Travis Sharp also discuss the US fiscal year 2009 Pentagon spending request and note that “Congress has already approved nearly $700 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and an additional $126 billion in FY'08 war funding is still pending before the House and Senate.”

Furthermore, other costs such as care for veterans, health care, military training/aid, secret operations, may fall under other departments or be counted separately.

but the real issue is how did we get to here? What kind of jingoism justifies this vast amount of money to kill people in the hope we can prevent them from killing another 3000 of us in some suicide plot? Then, we think spending money on health care is socialism or bad. What kind of warped shits are we?

industrial complex. Just watch any Congresscritter respond to any suggestion a base, weapons system contract, etc., etc., affecting their state/district is unneeded. Suddenly, its utter indispensability for "keeping us safe" (now there's a chimera for you) is both self-evident and sacrosanct.

We're all going to die anyway. If that's the way you see it, then why the socialism? If our lives aren't worth defending then why are they worth sustaining at the forced expense of another? There are alot of whys that go along with that point of view.

A: We are all going to die.

B: We want very much to delay it.

C: If A is true and B is true, then C means we should do everything possible to increase our chances of living as long as possible.

D: A prudent man would ask, what are the highest risks affecting my ability to live longer?

E: Obviously, war is not a large risk factor for collective death that has the same percentage mortality rate as poor health.

F: If war then has a lesser chance of killing each of us, then the money spent on it should reflect that lower risk.

Woolley:

A: We are all going to die.

B: We want very much to delay it.

C: If A is true and B is true, then C means we should do everything possible to increase our chances of living as long as possible.

D: A prudent man would ask, what are the highest risks affecting my ability to live longer?

E: Obviously, war is not a large risk factor for collective death that has the same percentage mortality rate as poor health.

F: If war then has a lesser chance of killing each of us, then the money spent on it should reflect that lower risk.

You said it yourself, our mortality rate is 100%. If defending our lives is a waste of time, so is sustaining our lives at the expense of our neighbors. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you are going to stand behind your "we all die anyway" argument then the rest of your argument is bunk. If you are looking to discuss foreign policy in general that's one thing, but you are basing your argument for your position on a false justification.

the Ikester

How do you back out? There is no way out. Literally: there is no way out. You just run out the string.

p.s. ain't that great music?

But I think each generation should be asked the same question and forced to answer.

Maybe its my horrible syntax. We are all going to die. We all want it to be later rather than sooner. So, a logical person would invest in those things that eliminate the greatest risk. What are the greatest risks? Well, its not war.

You're still relying on the "we're all going to die anyway" justification for neutering our military. It's the worst argument I've ever heard on the topic. If we concede that we're all going to die anyway so why bother defending ourselves.....then why bother putting off the inevitable? It makes even less sense if you are expected to try and prolong your neighbor's life with the fruits of your own labor. An excercize in futility with no benefit to yourself. Your foreign policy philosophy doesn't even enter into the equation when you use your justification, so there's no point in challenging or conceding your assertions about the dangers of war.

Did you forget how much we already spend on healthcare, via govt., corporate, and individual expenditures? Just checking in, don't let this hurt my chances for a stay at the beach house.