| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Global Military Spending; How much does YOUR country spend? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 8 2005, 12:10 PM (643 Views) | |
| ds9074 | Aug 9 2005, 06:11 PM Post #31 |
|
Admiral
|
I'm a sad person with too much time on their hands so I did a little maths. If you take the average since the end of the second world war for years when Democrats were in the White House the US spent 6.56% of GDP. When Republicans were in power it spent 6.94%. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Aug 9 2005, 08:19 PM Post #32 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Don't like that idea at all - it would essentially mean that the combined voting power of the USA would be increased beyond that is reasonable. Now if every single state in the USA became a independent and sovereign nation in it's own right, I might support it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Aug 9 2005, 08:22 PM Post #33 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
NO - thay are all independent nations (who just happen to cooperating to some extent.) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 9 2005, 10:17 PM Post #34 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Hey, while we're at it let's fudge some other statistics and use 1940 as a baseline instead, just like the chart did? Why quibble over five years? Kinda blows your when "such and such" were in power note, doesn't it? Also remember that terms in office do not start on even years (such as 2000, 2004), but odd years (2001, 2005), and the first budget is usually for the FOLLOWING year (2002, 2006) except during wartime. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Aug 10 2005, 04:18 AM Post #35 |
|
Admiral
|
I just took every year from 1946 onwards and counted a Presidents last year but not first. So 1993 when to President Bush and so was a Republican year whereas 2001 was counted as a Democrat year. I deliberately didnt take the war years into account because they were exceptionally high. I'm not suggesting it shows anything amazingly meaningful however its food for thought that in the post war period the USA on average spent more on the military when Republicans were President than when Democrats were. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 10 2005, 08:29 AM Post #36 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
It could also be that Republicans have to keep rebuilding the military, as Reagan did after Carter and Bush 43 after Clinton... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Mainiac | Aug 10 2005, 11:15 AM Post #37 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
What the numbers show (and you're right ds, clearly you have too much time on your hands ) is that there has been rough parity in spending between administrations of both parties since WWII, and Republican arguments of Democrats being "soft" on defense are specious. As far as Clinton gutting the armed forces, I seem to remember intense public pressure for a "peace dividend" under a Gingrich-led Congress...I think a realistic goal would be to limit spending to about 5% long term. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 10 2005, 11:44 AM Post #38 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Source? I heard the phrase "peace dividend" bandied about by a lot of people, especially Bill Clinton (he seemed to take credit for it). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Mainiac | Aug 10 2005, 09:09 PM Post #39 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
My source is my memory of events, abg. Let's see...After Desert Storm everyone thought Bush I was a wus for not putting paid to Saddam then and there, and Bill played a hot saxiphone... so "why not?" And yes, no doubt at some point he took credit for the peace dividend - he's a politician and it was a "good thing". But he didn't invent it, and Newt and the boys were busy ensuring "Murphy Brown" was publicly given their scarlet letter, and pursuing other futile witch hunts, instead of their business, "providing for the national defense." Plenty of blame to go around really, since you seem to prefer making this a partisan discusion, and fixing blame instead of the problems. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Aug 10 2005, 09:28 PM Post #40 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
You need a space between QUOTE and Admiral |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Aug 10 2005, 10:41 PM Post #41 |
|
Admiral
|
Actually an = did the trick |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


) is that there has been rough parity in spending between administrations of both parties since WWII, and Republican arguments of Democrats being "soft" on defense are specious. As far as Clinton gutting the armed forces, I seem to remember intense public pressure for a "peace dividend" under a Gingrich-led Congress...

2:07 PM Jul 11