As Obama and the Republicans cut domestic spending - a reminder.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

http://costofwar.com/en/

[cutlassmama]

1. k&r

[DJ13]

2. "Obama and the Republicans" sounds like a bad boy band from the 80's

[mmonk]

8. LOL.

Yep.

[Metta]

15. And they govern as effectively.

Just saying.

[liberal N proud]

3. K&R

[lunatica]

4. Wow! That website should be posted very often.

It's definitely a good reminder. It has cost each of us a hell of a lot!

[ProSense]

10. Quite a few blogs used to have the running cost embedded on their home pages.

That would be a good reminder to a lot of people.

[EFerrari]

5. K&R

[RKP5637]

6. Recommend!!! n/t

[RKP5637]

7. It would be nice to see one more line racking up the $$$ labeled, "Profits to MIC!"

[GeorgeGist]

11. It would be nice to see that line = zero

[ProSense]

9. The wars need to end. In terms of Obama and Republicans, what's striking is

that Rand Paul is supposedly anti war, but compare Obama's proposal to Paul's.

Obama Plans $42 Billion Cut in War Costs With Iraq, Afghan Troop Reduction

The Obama administration’s plan to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will cut the Pentagon’s war budget by $42 billion -- a 26 percent decrease from this year’s level, according to government officials.

The proposed $117 billion for fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1, would be the lowest expenditure for the wars since fiscal 2005.

<...>

The Pentagon today has roughly 97,000 troops in Afghanistan and 47,000 in Iraq. The 144,000 total is the lowest since July 2006, when the U.S. had about 148,100 deployed, according to military data compiled by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. U.S. troops are scheduled to leave Iraq by the end of this year.

The war-spending number is the smallest since Congress approved $102.6 billion in fiscal 2005, said Amy Belasco, war cost analyst at CRS.

Rand Paul's budget

War funding from 2001 to 2010 has cost the taxpayer $1.109 trillion. That amount doesn’t include the $159 billion that will likely be spent funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for FY2011. The proposal seeks to reduce war funding for FY2011 by $16 billion, in other words to provide $144 billion (President Obama has requested $117 billion for FY2012, $27 billion dollars below our proposed level).

[HereSince1628]

12. That would leave us with a Peace Dividend...no one since GHW Bush

would even consider such a thing as GOOD for Amerika. :(

[CrispyQ]

13. Are the cost of these wars included in the budget?

I thought I had read that they are not.

[somone]

14. Don't forget the human cost of Obama's war

[lunatica]

16. that photo made me choke up

crap. I hate war. All war.

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. +10000!

x(

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Kick for the swing shift

[leftstreet]

18. K&R

Thanks for that link!

[Starry Messenger]

19. k&r

[Bluebear]

20. k/r

[pokerfan]

21. 54 percent of the world's defense spending in 2009

Or another way of looking at it:

More than all of the other countries combined!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10184610

[Major Hogwash]

22. Boehnor will NEVER agree to cuts to the Defense Department!!! NEVER!!!

He won't do it because he campaigned for several election cycles in a row on not letting us drop our shields and become vulnerable to attack.
Again.
Like what happened in 2001.

NEVER.

Never is a long time, and he will NEVER agree to make cuts in the DOD budget.

[RandomThoughts]

23. So how did tanks and fighter planes stop 9/11?

Or for that matter how did two tier justice, and information controls stop 9/11


And why was the same plot in this movie. Or was that TARP?

Die Hard 3 Trailer
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6c0fi_die-hard-3-trailer


Side note, the movie is actually about how things try to break people, by trying to get them to feel responsible for what other people do, but worth posting anyways.

Why I don't play games, or believe in 'doing what you are told'



Part 2 is a good movie also.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x37wf0_die-hard-2-die-harder-1990_shortfilms



And beer and travel money, and many experiences, is still due to me. :D

[Major Hogwash]

26. Obviously, we need more nuclear powered aircraft carriers like the USS Ronald Reagan

They're going to build a nuclear powered submarine named after George W Bush someday.

But, it will only be capable of sinking.

LoL

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. And, let us not forget where the money is going.

http://costofwar.com/en/

[Johonny]

25. I don't understand why we can invest in Iraq and Afghanistans future

but not Americas.

[dixiegrrrrl]

29. We are not investing in THEIR future at all.

the whole point of invading and staying in their countries is to own their natural resources, from which private corporations make a huge profit.
We are in investing in the future of corporations and the ruling party in this country.

[Johonny]

30. certainly not how the wars are sold to me

Republicans keep telling me how noble the wars are and how we are building a future democratic middle east. Once again I'm sold we need to send a trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan because investing in the countries is vitally important. However the same politicians balk at spending and investing in Americas future. Clearly an illogical loop.

Now what we actually are doing in those countries, is a totally separate issue.

[Scruffy1]

28. This is a vast underestimation

The real figure if you account like a business is more like twp to three trillion. The continuing medical costs will go on for many years and there is no accounting for the equipment that has been used up and all the management costs in the pentagon.