Why America MUST Match Iran’s GDP, Defence Spending

Did you know: Iran spends 1.8% of its (tiny) GDP on defence, whilst the US spends 4.7%?
Did you know that: Iran’s defence spending accounts for 0.33% of world defence spending, and the US for 43%?

If not take a look at this list here…
en.wikipedia.org...

Here’s how some spenders compare…
Israel 6.3% GDP (=0.611% of world total)
US 4.7 GDP (=43% of world total, at 687 billion)
Russia 4.3 GDP =3.5%
UK 2.7 GDP =3.7
France 2.5 GDP =3.6
China 2.1 GDP =7.3
Iran 1.8% GDP (0.33 of world total)

You Should Also Know…
The 683.7 billion (officially) spent on defence in 2010, did not include…

many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energybudget. Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA.
en.wikipedia.org...-related_expenditures

I guess to include these in the official total spent (wasted!) on defence, could make even the most vegative US citizen, realise that they are actually government slaves, and that this government is fully subservient to the corrupting influences, of an oversized Military Industrial Complex.

Lower Estimates: According to the CIA world fact book… www.cia.gov...
The US only spends 4.06% of GDP on defence
Iran 2.5
And Israel 7.30
However (unlike Wikipedia) it is unclear when-where these figures were obtained. Even so I’m sure many Americans would welcome 2.5% being spent on defence.

What It All Means…
Assuming US defence spending is 687 billion (as opposed to Wiki’s other 683 number) then a 1.8% expenditure would = 263.1 billion, which is still 16.46% of the world total (more than twice the nearest rival, China’s 7.3)

What 423.9 Billion Would Do...
The U.S population is 307 million, so every billion dollars is equal to 3.25 dollars for person in the US.
Consequently: 423.9 billion is 1380.75 dollars for every man, woman & baby in the US. For every year.
Also: If given in tax cuts, the stimulating effect will be a lot more 1380.75 dollars, as the less any capitalist economy is taxed the more it grows.

And realise that: It is a statistical fact, that: “The poorer you are, the more of your income you spend” (as you have the same, basic living costs, as everyone else).
Consequently: Giving tax cuts to the poor benefits everybody, in addition almost all the money stays within the US –whatever country concerned. If however: You give tax cuts to the rich then that does benefit the economy, but not nearly as much e.g. because much finds its way into foreign investments, and also tax havens (both declared and non-declared!)

Remember: Defence cuts would be even more if the “hidden” defence spending was also included.

What if the US spent 10% of world defence spending…
Then 527.23 billion would be saved, which $1713.50 for every man, women, and baby. If US deported some illegal immigrants, then they’d be even more to go around (plus less jobless –plus higher wages & therefore overall higher growth for all).
You would still be spending 159.77 billion a year, which means you still get to keep nuclear weapons, nuclear submarines, a healthy air force & navy. You would be spending 2.78 as much money as the United Kingdom, and 1.39 times as much as China (nearest world defence spending, competitor). Therefore: Together with money already spent on defence equipment, plus the fact that this doesn’t include the total defence budget, America would still posses the world’s most powerful military, equipped with some of the most powerful allies (like Britain), and its therefore an achievable (Ron Paul) option.

One Inescapable Conclusion…
US “politicans” are one of two things…
1. Cowards: For letting the US lion, become petrified of the Iranian mouse
2. Corrupt Parasites: For spending so much money that should be helping the American economy through tax cuts, and-or investment in other things (like technology prizes, for solving world problems that do actually threaten all Americans).

Agree with me?

It does not cost much to only protect only your own homeland.

The US has to defend all of the nations it occupies.

As I have noted before.....The United States must have the highest single spending on Earth for defense. The world would be lost without us and relegated to sticks and stones before one knew what happened. Afterall, without U.S. research and development to create the techo-wizardry, where would the rest of the world steal it from to create their own generic version before ours even properly goes into production?

It's a dirty job, but someone has to stock the bank vault for everyone to rob occasionally.

reply to post by Liberal1984


The US military is set up to fight world powers like Russia and China and DEFEAT them. Israel's military can kick the butts of everyone in the middle-east all at once using only conventional arms and even if by some bad luck they were to lose, they have nukes and US backing.

Iran's military is a joke and all their announcements and threats are signs of a weak country... which they really are compared to Israel/US. Just like Iraq was.

Iran is no threat and don't let the paranoid warmongering pricks running the US and Israel convince you otherwise.

And yes, American politicians are corrupt parasites. Most Americans agree with that since congress has a 8% approval rating.

reply to post by Vitchilo


This is exactly why we shouldn't waste our time attacking Iran.

For a country that spends so much on defense, why do we always pick the nations that have either weak defenses or no defenses at all?

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

This is exactly why we shouldn't waste our time attacking Iran.

For a country that spends so much on defense, why do we always pick the nations that have either weak defenses or no defenses at all?

It's the nations that have the largest reserves of natural resources. Or ones that refuse to accept the current global climate, that draw attention from the West.

Simple politics...

Why is Saudi Arabia an ally? Because they play ball... Simple.

reply to post by Liberal1984


We should really add the GDP's of Israel, UK, US, and France together..

Yea Iran stands no chance by itself.

But we will keep pushing the propaganda to get us what we "need."

Vitchilo

The US military is set up to fight world powers like Russia and China and DEFEAT them.

But victory in a nuclear depends on how many bunkers you’ve built, not the amount you spent on the conventional weapons (which become incinerated).
Of course there is no real victory, because everything is destroyed and 99 percent are either dead or dying (especially if civilian reactors get damaged).
Isn’t it more likely the US military is set up, simply to spend taxpayer’s money? (Whilst investing a tiny percentage of the profits, into lobbying for more).

Wrabbit2000

Afterall, without U.S. research and development to create the techo-wizardry, where would the rest of the world steal it from to create their own generic version before ours even properly goes into production?

Yes, research and development in war has a long history of providing technologies which later have peaceful –economy stimulating, applications.
But it never avoids the question: “Why not get perhaps 90% more (useful) R&D by investing in civilian technology directly?”
Oh yeah; because you wouldn’t be paying the same, established, lobbyists (i.e. politicians would have to wait 1-2 years for new ones to turn up). The fact they can't wait this long, just shows how unpatriotic they are. What the US should really do (in my view) is limit the amount of private donations all political parties can receive. This too would stimulate the economy (by putting it into more productive things than so many TV adverts, themselves which compete against real services) and best of all it would make the power of donors-lobbyists (if not not extinct) then severely limited.