May 24, 2013
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword, and he who engages in exorbitant military spending kills a nation.
Preliminary Statement 1 of 2
The great hypocrisy of the Republican Party is that it obsesses itself with the idea
of small government, yet it advocates a huge military that comprises 41% of all
military spending on earth. In addition, the advocates of small government cow-
tow to big business, thereby contradicting themselves, again and again. Of course,
the Republican "small government" platform is a ploy to delete the watchdog that
is supposed to be overseeing their activities, regarding labor rights, fair trade, and
the environment, as well as pricing and futures contracts.
Now, the present American agencies need either streamlining or alternate sources
of income, due to the present wealth leeching off of sweatshop workers and hiding
their money in the tax havens that the common citizen cannot enjoy. None the less,
the Republican idea is to have no police watching over them in their transpirations.
Thus, they commit the diversionary tactic of pointing to the size of government, in
their desire to be free from laws. Okay then. Lets cut the size of government, in
all things which give advantage to the obscenely wealthy. Keep the watch dogs,
though. In fact, it's time to awaken those dogs.
The idea of small government is also a short-sighted folly in light of the occasional
natural disaster. A small government can't help the victims of a Hurricane Sandy.
Nor can it help the victims of corporate greed.
Preliminary Statement 2 of 2
Any Republican presdiential candidate who pledges to add two trillion accum-
ulative dollars to the military budget isn't in synch with the facts. He is obvi-
ously cow-towing to his campaign funders, especially in light of the fact that
the Pentagon didn't ask for the extra $2 trillion. Such a presidential candidate
is not a leader. Rather, he is being lead, as if to be surrendering the U.S. to a
greed-stricken few. In fact, he's being mislead, as the statistics below prove.
The U.S. military has had ample funding in the past decade, to the point of mak-
ing the military a costly maintenance nightmare for America. The 2011 military
spending update provided by the Stockholm International Peace Research Insti-
tute is similar to the price tage report of 2010. In 2011, the United States com-
prised 41% of all military spending throughout Planet Earth, to the tune of $711
billion. In 2010, its burden on the U.S. economy was $687 billion, according to
the same SIPRI. The Maoist dictactorship of China spent much less in 2011, to
the tune of $129 billion. Russian spent even less, at $64 billion.
America's allies France and the United Kingdom spend slightly over $58 billion
each. Saudi Arabia spent $46 billion, in keeping with its 2010 military expendi-
tures. Japan spent $54.5 billion in 2011, while Germany spent $43.5 billion.
All in all, the following article which reported on the world's 2010 military ex-
penditures remains applicable in the middle of 2012. The U.S. is spending an
inordinately wasteful amount on its military, especially in light of the fact that
it's protected by two oceans, several seas erroneously called Great Lakes, an
alliance with Canada, the presence of the Gulf of Mexico, and alliances with
with the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Scandinavia, Poland,
Australia, Argentina, and several other nations. Such spending shows tself to
be nothing more than the unconscionable ploy of certain politicians to have tax
dollars be injected into their constituencies, solely for re-election. Americans
are paying for politicians to be re-elected over and over and over again.
Before looking at the modern military stats, the following should place you in
the proper perspective. It's Ike's Iron Cross speech, where he stated that all
of humanity hung from a Cross of Iron. Today, it's one of depleted uranium.
Ike's Farewell Speech with a piano background that doesn't help the speech:
We go back to the Iron Cross Speech, for review purposes. Concerning it, keep
in mind that Dwight D. Eisenhower was the politician most experienced in war
and its tragedy:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, and every rocket fired signi-
fies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed; those
who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money,
solely. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and
the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: A modern brick school in more
than 30 cities. It's two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000
in population. It's two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It's some fifty miles of
concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of
wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed
more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has
been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the
cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Resulting in Wasteful Spending Squared and Cubed
Certain members of the US Congress repeatedly gave the impression that they would
rather have Americans go hungry than let America be without a wall-to-wall array of
armaments that possessed the firepower to destroy world after world. The fatal error
was that the maintenance cost of such a vast military infrastructure was guaranteed to
destroy the world of the American citizen, as well as the American dream.
The destruction of the dream would become assured as soon as manufacturing would
be taken out of the United States and placed in low-waged nations. This is because
military spending yield negative returns on investments and America accumulated to
$5.806 trillion Trade Balance Deficit for the past ten years, thanks to sweatshop la-
Let us Review:
1} Yes, there is the need for military spending, including overseas air and naval bases,
elaborate mine sweeping technology, precision bombing, nerve gas antidote tech-
nology, amphibious assault technology, aerial gun ships, SEAL training, and more.
However, the military is NOT to be an income-bearing industry for red state and
redneck state politicians who allowed the U.S. manufacturing base go to slave
wage sweatshop dictatorships, thereby sabotaging the American economy.
2} All military spending yields negative returns on investment. None the less, the out-
rage of present military spending is not the numerical price tag of the Department
of Defense per se. It's that the U.S. Congress spent as much on its Department of
Defense as did the next 22 highest military spending nations combined. This con-
stitutes 40% of all the military spending in the world in 2010, as well as 41% in
2011.vvThis is dangerous in light of the tremendous U.S. national debt and U.S.
trade balance deficit.
Acceptable U.S.military spending would still hover around the $520 billion dol-
lar mark, but not the exorbitant $660 to 720 billion total bill. In May of 2012, a
retired US nuclear missile technician of the most articulate communication skills
agreed with me. The amount of U.S. military expenditures is entirely too much.
If American needs an annual 3/4 of a trillion dollars to defense itself from zero
invaders, then its military personnel constitutes in slow thinking, slow reflexed,
unathletic, and unimaginative people. The truth is that America's politicians are
insufferable liars, deceiving Americans into believing them about the military.
In brevity, it's not a matter of the numerical stats as much as the proportionality
of spending that makes U.S. out of line. This includes per capita spending, as
in X amount of dollars per citizen spent on the U.S. military. Plus, there is no
need for the Dept. of Homeland Security. Give paranoia a rest in America.
There already exists the NSA, FBI, ATF, CIA, DOD, NBC, CBS, CNN, the
U.S. Coast Guard, Interpol, NATO, the alliance of the UK, and other entities
that don't result in a positive economic return on investment, as does highway
and infrastructure improvements.
The #1 way to defend America and ensure peace is to put the manufacturing base
back into America, all the while creating the lucrative environmental oversight
industry. When doing so, pay a livable wage to the workers. This WILL pre-
vent the oncoming riots and revolutions that are guaranteed to reach regions of
the Western Hemisphere, including the flag waving USA. The fruit of foreign
sweatshop importation is a nation of dead on the streets. History repeats itself.
3} There was much alarmist news about the U.S. military budget being cut by 7%
to 8% of the present Department of Defense budget and 6% to 7% of the total
DOD-CIA-HLS (Homeland Security) budgets. This is a scare tactic, because,
even if the congress were to cut the U.S. military budget by $100 billion per
year for the next five years, it would still be far in excess of the military bud-
gets of the Bush I years and the Clinton years.
4} Concerning present military industrialist price tags, keep in mind that the phe-
nomenon of price gouging is the plausible, if not the obvious, reason for the
obscenely high price tags of M1 Abrams tanks, fighters, ships, etc. In fact,
remember the $640 hammer as much as 19th Century Texans remembered the
Alamo. Price gouging is especially obvious in light of the fact that China was
able to sport 7,400 tanks on 1/6 of the U.S. military budget.
The Death Peddlers
According to the data provided by the Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute, of the $1.63 trillion spent on each nation's military last year, $687 bil-
lion of it was spent by the United States. This figure is based on constant 2009
dollars, and it only pertains to the costs accrued by the Department of Defense.
It doesn't take into account the CIA, Homeland Security, etc. Incidentally, the
discretionary budget for Homeland Security in 2010 was $42.7 billion.
In the Year 2001, United States military expenditures amounted to $379 billion.
In the year prior, they amounted to $376 billion the year prior. Then, in the year
that followed 2001, the bill for the military rose to $425 billion. In 2004, $527
billion was spent on the same military, and in 2006, expenditures elevated to
In theYear 2008, the cost rose to $619 billion, and in Obama's first year in office,
it increased to $668 billion. The United States government did Bin Laden's work
for him, in draining the strength and power out of America and individual Ameri-
cans, all the while provoking middle eastern terror mongers.
The Military Spending Scorecard of Planet Earth for the Year 2010
Understand that everything stated below is in approximate ball park figures:
The Russian Federation spent $52 billion in 2010, while China spent $114 billion
(another source marked it at $119.) France spent $61 billion during its year of riot-
ing, while Israel spent $13 billion, in the same year. Former Axis member, Italy,
spent $38 billion, while former WWII terror, Germany, spent $46 billion. This
means that Germany spent a mere 6.7% of what the United States spent. Mean-
while, the other former WWII terror, Japan, spent $51 billion. This amounted to
7.4% of what the United States spent.
Denmark spent $4.6 billion, while the nearby Netherlands spent $11.6. Drug infest-
ed Mexico, a nation much larger than Denmark, spent only $4.8 billion. Emerging
world power, Brazil, spent $28 billion, while an allied England spent $57 billion.
Continent-sized Canada spent $20 billion, while the subcontinent of India spent no
more than $35 billion. Nuclear powered Pakistan expended $5.1 billion, while
Saudi Arabia expended a determined $43 billion. Venezuela spent $3.1 billion,
as did Argentina (perhaps from the coins found in sofa cushions.)
Concerning "rogue" Iran, it's military spending is surmised at 2.5% of its Gross
Domestic Product. Inflation there reached 13.5% in 2010, according to media
reports, and numerical figures were missing from the data sheets. Secretive and
paranoiac North Korea was surmised to have spent $9 billion during 2009, while
a very tragic Cuba that feel into the displeasure of the Sicilian Mafia spent no more
than $1.4 billion during that same year.
Let's continue: In 2010, Turkey spent approximately $16 billion, as did Spain and
the United Arab Emirates. Sweden spent no more than $5.1 billion, while South Af-
rica spent only $3.7. Poland spent $8.3. New Zealand's bill was only $1.3, while
Australia's expenditures were $19.7. Egypt's expenditures, incidentally, were $3.9.
The extremely organized nation of Singapore spent $7.6, while South Korea spent
$24.7. Greece and Columbia spent close to $9 billion each.
In Doing the Math, We Find that ...
In the Year 2010, the United States spent more on its military than did twenty-two
nations combined. These were Nations #2 to #23 in military spending.
The United States spent more on its military than did the sum total of China, France,
England, Russia, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, Brazil, South Korea,
Canada, Australia, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Israel, the Nether-
lands, Greece, Columbia, Taiwan, and Poland combined. United States military
spending for the nine years prior to 2001 was over $3.4 trillion. Military spend-
ing for the nine years after the Year 2001 was over $5.1 trillion.
If China were to spend on its military what it did last year, year after year, it would
take it 44 years to spend $5 trillion. If the third highest military spender, France,
would do similar, it would take France 82 years to spend $5 trillion on its military.
It would take the Russian Federation 96 years.
Going one step further, it would take China six years to spend what America spent in
one year, if China were to spend the same for its military, pursuant to constant 2009
dollars. It would take France 11 years to spend what America spent last year, and
it would take Russia 13 years to do it, if Russia and France were to spend the same
amount for each successive year.
If France were the population of the United States, and if it spent in proportion to the
American population, then France would only have spent $305 billion on it's military
in 2010. That constitutes $382 billion less than America, when measuring per capita
costs. If China were the population of America and spent in per capita proportion-
ality to the United States, then China would have only spent $26.3 billion dollars on
its military last year. If Russia were to have done the same, then it would have spent
$113.2 billion. This is much less than America's expenditures.
If the U.S. had the population of China, and if it were to spend in exact per capita pro-
portion to the population of China, then America would have spent $2.974 trillion in
2010. This is almost $3 trillion of for one year. China only spent $114 to $119 bil-
lion last year, and China is still a nuclear power.
If the United States were the size of France and spent according to the 62.6 million
population of France, then the United States would have spent $140 billion in 2010.
France only spent $61 billion, and France is a nuclear power.
Finally, if the United States had the population of Russia and if it spent according
to the Russian population of 141 million, America would have spent $309 billion.
The Russian Federation only spent $52 billion. Russia remains a nuclear power.
In the Year 2010, $2,237 per American citizen was spent on the United States mil-
itary. That amounts to $4,907 to $5,284 per American taxpayer. Now, there are
approximately 130 to 140 million American income taxpayers. However, anyone
in American who buys an appliance, a book, a DVD, kitchenware, a car, art sup-
plies, or jewelry automatically constitutes a taxpayer at the cash register.
Continuing further, the equivalent of $368 dollars per Russian citizen was spent on
the Russian military. The equivalent of $974 dollars per French citizen was spent
on the French military, and the equivalent of only $85 per Chinese citizen was spent
on the Chinese military in the Year 2010. Concerning our closest allie, the United
Kingdom spent the equivalent of $922 per subjects of the queen. All of these na-
tions are nuclear powers with nuclear costs.
The equivalent of $1,699 per Saudi citizen was spent on the Saudi Arabian mili-
tary. However, Saudi Arabia can afford it. Israel, an imperiled nation, spent the
equivalent of $1,747 per citizen on its military in 2010. Yet, it's $490 less than
an America that is protected by two oceans and one gulf. The per capita military
expenditures of many other nations is much lower than Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The equivalent of $851 per Danish citizen was spent on Denmark's military, while
the equivalent of $703 per Dutch citizen was spent on the Netherland's military.
Former Ottoman power, Turkey, spent the equivalent of $213 per citizen, while
the former WWII power, Germany, spent the equivalent of $562 per citizen.
Japan spent the equivalent of $400 on its military.
The other former axis power, Italy, spent $631 per citizen on its military in 2010,
while Australia spent the equivalent of $903 per citizen. Venezuela spent $109
per citizen, while Argentina spent the equivalent of $77. North Korea spent the
equivalent of an estimated $1,000 per citizen, while South Korea spent $507 per
In all that you have viewed here, do you detect an unconscionable con game on be-
half of the United States Congress, at the expense of the American citizen? At the
very least, do you detect either a collective lack of conscience or an absence of
common sense? Would you still be inclined to disbelieve that politicians would
literally sell out their nation, in order to win votes? Such conduct would consti-
tute a political Ponzi scheme, where military spentthrift politicians expect the next
generation to pay for their re-election schemes. The military taht is supposed to
be protecting the United States is killing it instead. Those who have been in pow-
er have been draining the United States.
The Deadly Economic Trident
The following triple indicator, when combined,
is the warning sign of pending disaster:
1] When the national debt is over 92 or so percent of GDP.
2] When the ACCUMULATIVE trade balance deficit is as
high as has been in America throughout the past decade.
3] When military spending, in combination with the national
debt hovers near or above the 100 percent mark, when
gauging against GDP.
4] Tax breaks and IRS loop holes for wealthy corporations
increase the g-force of gravity by which a nation plummets.
Today's price of gasoline, in combination with oil company
profits, is an act of audacity. In addition, big pharma is a
big price gouger, and price gouging is grand larceny of the
There were members of congress who have recently placed themselves in the spot-
light, claiming that they will now stop the fleecing of America which, according to
them, is committed by entitlement recipients. Firstly, Social Security is an insurance
policy into which workers pay. It's an insurance contract, and not an entitlement
program. Secondly, congressional paychecks are part of the government entitle-
ment program. So, why not stop paying congress, until it does something good
for America, as opposed to continually cater to corporate CEO's and special in-
terest groups bearing lobby money? Moreover which one of the condemners of
entitlement programs had the honesty to admit that military spending is exorbitant?
The congress should wear train robber scarfs at Capital Hill, in order to reflect their
rapport with the American people. Train robbers did much less damage to Ameri-
ca than did congress, though. The $1.63 trillion worth of worldwide military spend-
ing provides further proof that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary hasn't
yet occurred, being that the promised era of world peace has not yet arrived. This
shows that the valid consecration of Russian to the Immaculate Heart of Mary has
not yet been done. This shows that the Pinochet cardinal lied to humanity in the
Year 2000. Meanwhile, the common American citizenry hangs from a cross of