Let’s put this in perspective.
Let’s start at year one hour zero…2003 years ago
8760 hours in a year…
17546280 hours since hour zero
let’s go with $20k an hour…
$350,925,600,000
The military budget for 2003?
$396.1 billion
So you could have spent $20,000 an hour since hour one…and not have spent the military budget for this year.
That is utterly astounding.
Yet we have people going hungry here in the land of the free.
It’s only ‘utterly astounding’ if you just recently learned how to multiply. Most of us are quite aware of how much the military budget is, and how it compares to GDP and other budgetary items.
What’s the debate? My gosh, it’s a lot of money?
The current U.S. military budget is actually not particularly high by post-WWII levels, if you look at it in constant dollars.
If the OP thinks that the only thing causing people to go hungry in the USA is the military budget, the OP is IMO being a bit, er, simplistic. And that number game doesn’t impress me in the slightest; you want to really bake your noodle, run the same formula on the GDP.
Actually, I think the idea having a huge miltary, but not using it for anything but parades and air shows might be a sort of ideal situation. Lots ‘o’ people owe their livings to the military, after all; not just in the various services but in the private sector, from suppliers of toilet paper to high-level scientific research. There’s a good possiblity that unemployment would be considerably higher than it currently is without the military absorbing young job seekers.
Yeah, air shows and parades. That’s the ticket.
Y’all do realize that many of the lower ranks in our military qualify for food stamps don’t you?
I would like to know what portion of the budget goes to payroll. Does anyone have those figures?
So why aren’t you arguing that the military budget should be increased?
If I can find it, I will. But you might want to remember that the payroll of persons in the military is only part of what you need to consider. There are also, as I said, all the suppliers of various goods, research scientists, participants in the economy of towns and cities where the military has a presence, etc.
The point is, if the military budget were zeroed tomorrow, you’d have quite a large number indeed of people without jobs . And thus the number of hungry in the US would most likely go up, not down.
Now, of course you really haven’t said what specifically you want to do with money earmarked for the military budget, so I’m assuming an extreme scenario. This is where you come back and clarify your point.
Actually, one could argue that more of the military budget should be shifted to payroll from R&D projects that seem to be rather…less then needed. Like the development of a new military rifle that is very similar to the M-16 system, but cooler looking.
There’s also the whole “being completely defenseless” aspect of it.
To derive a figure more appropriate to the current administration, I’d suggest using the biblical date of creation (4004 BC) as your starting point. Google tells me the burn rate would work out to $6,668.8863 for every hour since the world began. 
Here’s a general breakdown of the FY 2003 US military budget, from:
From other sources it would appear that actual payroll is about half of the “Personnel” budget, but I couldn’t find any links for that.
Do with the info what you will.
Do you think you could have helped the elderly portion of our population lead better lives for $27,269 per hour since time began? And yet, too many people relying on social security benefits are struggling along. And you know why that $27,269 per hour since time began number hasn’t helped them? Because it means absolutely nothing other than being yet another in a long line of OPs that you have started that have nothing to do with a Great Debate and make very little sense.
Oh my gosh! Did you guys know if you took like, the entire military budget, in ones and fives, and piled it up, like, really really high…and jumped in it, like it was a pile of leaves…
That would be fun.
Did you remember to correct for inflation? What would $350billion be worth in hour one of year zero?
Whoa! Excellent point. Are we dealing with $20,000 (US) as the base value from which we should calculate or should we alter that down to be more in line with the historical period…say a jackass?
This looks to be more like something that should go in MPSIMS. I mean, I don’t see any debate - no point for argument being put forward, no argument whatsoever. Actually, I don’t even see you saying anything except that there are hungry people in the US.
Could you clarify what your OP is supposed to say and maybe, I don’t know, put forth some kind of argument or (the Great is optional for you) debate.
You know we could do the same exercise with any big number: how much Americans spend on pizza and ice-cream or movies or whatever.
Do what exercise with it sailor? Use it to blame the Republican party that there are people in the land of the free going hungry? Or, jump into it like a pile of leaves in the fall?
I have a third idea. If the money comes in big blocks on pallets that they have at the FED reserve then we could make a big fort out of it, and like, ah, have a snowball fight. Weee!
From the responses I take it that americans dont care how their tax money is being spent… or about better options for the use of money. Spending money in schools and construction also creates jobs… more than making bombs.
From Rashak Mani
How you got this from the previous responses where they ridiculed the OP for not posting anything of substance escapes me. Last time I checked, we DID spend money (and LOTS of it) on other things besides the military. My understanding is that the social programs actually take a slightly higher percentage of our gross budget than the military, though I could be wrong about this. Please correct me if I am.
Maybe living here, as opposed to living in Brazil and only seeing America on your favorite dart board, actually gives a different perspective though. My view is, liberal or conservative, people DO care how the money is spent. Most of the people actually fall somewhere close to the center of the political spectrum (IMO, crossing over on separate issues, being ‘liberal’ on some issues and ‘conservative’ on others), and I think, with the exception of some percentage points here or there (liberals would like to lower the percentage on military spending a bit and increase into other things, conservatives lower spending a bit on some social programs and re-allocate it into other areas including the military) most people are fairly happy with the gross allocation of how our tax money is spent. This doesn’t constitute ‘not caring’ by any stretch of the imagination IMO.
Maybe in YOUR world things are rosy, there are no other countries out there that would like to take what you have, no mad men ready to sieze or destroy other countries. In that kind of world, making bombs (or more accurately equiping, training and providing for an armed force that can actually DO something) is not necessary, and you can be free to build your social utopia in bliss.
In my world view though, having a military is not a bad thing. There are definitely countries out there that, if left unchecked, will be aggressive towards their neighbors for a whole variety of reasons. Countries like Japan, the various countries in EU, Brazil, etc can afford NOT to have a large standing military force, because we do. Small comfort to you, I’m sure, as we have a mad man at the helm. Of course in your world view, America is the bad guy out to take over the world I’m sure…thats been the drift of the few posts I’ve read by you anyway. Maybe you should be wishing Brazil had a military…you never know, in your mind you may be next on the hit list of our mad emperor, George II…
Its not like we spend ALL our money on the military either, after all. Anyone have the actual percentage of our budget is taken up by the military? I’m guessing its less that 20% total. From my own perspective, it seem a modest enough investment. I wish it were a bit more efficient and flexable, and the money was spent more wisely sometimes (smaller, more effective, flexable and efficient military). But then, I feel the same way for the social aspects of our budget…I agree with the spending of the money on such programs, but wish that the money was more efficiently used to get to the people in need.
Where does the concept that people are starving in America come from btw? I came from a barrio in South Tucson. Life wasn’t nice there, but I never starved. When I was young, my folks had to use food stamps and welfare. Its not a proud memory, but you do what you have too and you try your best to get out of such situations. Where are people starving in America? Anyone have a cite for that? I’m curious…you have anything on the starving masses in America, Rashak Mani?
-XT