[B5JMS] And So It Begins...

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: kurtullman at yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 02:06:33 GMT
Lines: 26

In article <20030528205420.04369.00000477 at mb-m15.aol.com>, jmsatb5 at aol.com 
(Jms at B5) wrote:

>Sure, and it's all highly over-priced, and vast amounts of it are questionable,
>and for systems of dubious value.  Further to the point, does the military have
>the right to bankrupt the rest of the country to pay for massive systems like
>this, and again to my point, and this time please go back to and address my
>point, which you keep ignoring in your replies...you and others keep saying, of
>social programs, "Where is the money to pay for this gonna come?"  But how come
>no one ever seems to ask that of the military spending?  It's as if the
>military budget just seems to come out of nowhere, no problem, but when one
>wants to spend a few million feeding our citizenry, many of whom are now out of
>jobs thanks to the Bush administration, that evokes a hew and cry?
>
   The estimated 2002 defense outlays are 16% of the budget. Down from 18% in 
1995 and roughly the same as 2000. (Source Stat Abstract 2002).  Massive 
increases? If so, everything else (including all those people out of work) 
must have been increased by at least as much or the military spending would 
have increased as a percent of budget. 

------
For there is surely nothing more beautiful in this
world than the sight of a lone man facing singlehandedly
a half a ton of angry pot roast!
	Tom Lehrer on Bullfighting.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 29 May 2003 05:17:39 GMT
Lines: 39

>The estimated 2002 defense outlays are 16% of the budget. Down from 18% in 
>1995 and roughly the same as 2000. (Source Stat Abstract 2002).  Massive 
>increases? If so, everything else (including all those people out of work) 
>must have been increased by at least as much or the military spending would 
>have increased as a percent of budget. 
>

As Mark Twain said, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics.  Them's one of
'em.

Firstly, the Bush administration runs separate line items.  For instance, the
whole budget of the Iraq war was not put on the defense line, it was a separate
allocation.  So right there you've got at least $100 billion, and according to
the GAO, could go as high as $150 billion before this is done.  

Second, the percentage of the budet approach only works if all other factors
remain constant.  But the amount of the budget, and our deficits, have
ballooned to near nosebleed levels, so in that respect the budget (our universe
from which the percentage is extracted) is much larger; second, there have been
cutbacks in other areas to free up money in this sector.

To put it more simply...if your household budget last year was $100, and you
spent 18%, or $18, on ammo, and the second year the budget was still $100 and
you spent 16% or $16 bucks on ammo, that's a reduction.

If the budget for year two is four hundred dollars, then that 16% is now $64
dollars.  


 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)