If you think historical spending is measured in nominal dollars, you lack the requisite intelligence to carry on a conversation.
Oh, so you can't read either. That explains all your ridiculous posts where you pretend to know everything about economics and budgetary matters. Noted.
The top of the graph says "Inflation-adjusted".
I can read the chart. You're supposed to have enough exposure to the US Federal Budget to realize that those are not inflation-adjusted dollars, at least not by any measure economists would recognize.
Federal spending is measured in %GDP and % revenues. In both statistical categories, military spending has been cut in half. Cutting the military budget in half is the main source of power for our inept social bureaucracy, and they know that gullible people are eager to believe that US military spending is perpetually rising, like gun crime or gun ownership rates any other fictitious liberal talking points.
Congrats. You guys fall for it, which would be less annoying, if you'd actually look at the source of the data. Military spending as a % of outlays 1962 = 46.91% by 2015 it's 14.99%. The author doesn't highlight this stat because it doesn't jive with his ideological orientation or the political objective of OMB.
This is what military spending looks like.
[/quote]
Every time that graph shows rising defense spending, the white working class males you love to talk about suffered economically because of
deindustrialization. Reagan's military build-up coincided with a net loss in manufacturing jobs compared to the 1979 peak, and the increase in defense spending during the 2000s saw the loss of a whopping 6.1 million manufacturing jobs (3.8 million of which were lost 2001-2007, before the Great Recession). Oh, not to mention massive run-ups in debt.
The military became the only way out of the now welfare-dependent, drug-infested, poverty-stricken industrial wastelands. "Send your kids into the armed forces! They may get killed or injured or suffer horrible mental/emotional problems afterwards from their experiences, but at least they're not on welfare!". What happens to them after they are 40 and no longer of much use to the armed forces? They can't all be generals. I saw you said the job training programs would be beneficial. Well, why not just spend a couple billion on the job training and not the hundreds of billions on war, pay, military toys, and insane medical treatment costs?
You are confusing me with the "liberals" on this site by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of supporting an inept bureaucracy, yet you worship the military which is the most wasteful (see: F-35 program, War on Terror) and has an enormous amount of evils such as sexual abuse, killing civilians, torture, and pretty much everything bad a military does?
So, pray tell, what would you have America's budget look like? Even
more spending on the military industrial complex? Because the vibe I'm getting from you is that you want a military-based welfare state. You don't care where the debt comes from then; it just has to be spent on the military.
You sound as out-of-touch as Mitt Romney did when he kept pushing the "defense spending should be no less than 4% of GDP". Who cares about the percentage? If our military is able to provide for the defense of the nation in a cost effective way, why keep throwing money at such a bloated bureaucracy so Boeing can keep making tons of money? Just pulling an arbitrary statistical number out of the air based on history during different geopolitical realities won't save those communities in the Rust Belt that badly need jobs and income
there.
Poll
