- how hard is it to understand? sigh..

"You can't just look at "income tax" and think you are getting an accurate picture of how much the government is taxing the nation."

Who said anything about "how much the government is taxing the nation"? Or that from looking at the "income tax" I can get that answer? YOU. Not me.

Did you read the original post? Doesn't it clearly say 54% of US federal income tax goes to military use? Doesn't it give a link with the total military expenditure of the US? Did I not say I found it particularly expensive in the US?

You make conclusions about what I did NOT say so you can say oh wait that's wrong.

Savio, ur name really should be Bulo. (I doubt you'll get it though).

+ Show Spoiler +

including 80% of the national debt interest payments as "past military" - u finally checked the site lol..
- u misread again though, it says "Past military represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt." - and with good reason too, keep reading you might actually learn a thing or two and understand how they came up with that pie chart. They even put the % the other side claims (50% not 80%). The veterans benefits is not the bulk of that particular slice but it is the interest of the debt that has sky rocketed in these last 2 wars, and that even your children will be paying for...
- did you know for example that not all military spending is done by the department of defense? e.g. the department of energy is responsible for nuclear weapons, I didn't.

Point taken. If you look at a minority source of government revenue (<50%) and define military spending very broadly, you CAN make it look bigger than you would see in the "standard chart". Whether this is particularly useful depends on your political goal...

The Storyteller

Singapore2486 Posts

May 26 2009 10:32 GMT

#143

On May 26 2009 04:35 Thrill wrote:

Show nested quote +

I don't really get this - i think it's bullshit to be honest. In the early 1930's i would join the service to get training in combat seeing how it was pretty obvious the world was on the brink of war.

During the 50's i would have done the same for the same reasons.

Currently in 2009 - i think i'm doing the world a better favour as a civilian doctor than as some uniform filler with the purpose to what - scare off attackers? Todays attackers will remain terrorists, not conventional armed forces and in the face of such a threat, clinical services will still be of better service IMO.

If China makes a real threat about Taiwan - that'll be my call to enlist as most likely we'll have a world war in <5 years and i need training to help out as a medic - but anything short of that i think the best weapon against foreign threats is civil pride and civil achievements. Let's build something beautiful rather than wall in a system that can't even look after its own (Katrina) - more CIVIL, not military service required!

Your argument is flawed. Just because a country is not at war does not make its army less important. The presence of an army is necessary for peace, just like the ability to get a higher paying job is what makes your current employer pay you more.

The original quote never said that the military was the ONLY thing keeping the country strong or that everyone had to join the army. It is just one very important factor.

The Storyteller

Singapore2486 Posts

May 26 2009 10:33 GMT

#144

On May 25 2009 16:10 thopol wrote:
This is basically in response to a subject of the OP and I have no intention of reading responses to what I say for the most part. This is because I am not willing to bother with the flaming situation that plagues so many threads in general with political overtones.

First, I have never served in the armed forces, so this is civilian perspective. I have, however, met many people, some of whom I know well, who have served. I must also preface by saying that this is an American perspective, which may well not be the norm internationally.

I feel that in terms of maturity specifically, military service has no effect. It may offer discipline, which can be part of maturity. I find that many servicemen/women are less mature than others of their age. I would attribute this phenomenon to leaping out of normal social situations into something totally foreign and then being reintroduced to that society. Upon return, I know many mid twenties who act like high-schoolers. Maturity is gauged by society, and by normalcy within that environment. In this sense, I do not think that maturity is gained. In fact, in terms of age in society, I think it may detriment maturity.

EDIT: formatting for clarity.

It's really interesting that you feel that way because most Singaporeans feel that way as well about people who sign up for the army, as opposed to those who are drafted. I do know a lot of exceptions, but certainly the general feeling is that people who sign up, especially those who make it their first job, are pretty... not immature, but inept at dealing with situations outside the military. This could be because the military doesn't function like any other organisation and so they're pretty lost when it comes to dealing with non-military institutions, just as you said.

MoltkeWarding

5195 Posts

May 26 2009 11:16 GMT

#145

I agree essentially; the presence of a large military establishment may have even more important effects on the shape or imagination of national identity, national sentiment, inter-national image, and domestic politics. In these respects, belief is more important than actual capability. Hence the debate over the present military capabilities of the Russian federation may be far more important than it superficially seems.

Prev 1 6 7 8 All

Please or register to reply.

Live Events Refresh