Quote:
Originally posted by theking
Did you bother to read?
"But by historical standards, this budget is a sustainable defense burden-one that is significantly less than the burden we sustained throughout the Cold War."
"FY 2004 DoD outlays will be 3.4 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 16.6 percent of total federal outlays-both WELL BELOW THEIR LEVELS AT ANY TIME DURING THE COLD WAR."
So there appears to be room for major increases in defense spending...since current spending (even with the current conflict) is "well below" levels at any time during the cold war...which of course includes two major conflicts...Korea and Vietnam.
Which still makes your statement..."The Bushes work on the "war machine" method of economics.. they are dinasours. They believe you have to goto war to stimulate the ecomony." factually incorrect.
FYI...defense budgets are never complete and the DOD on many, many occasions have had to go to congress and ask for supplements. Nothing new about that.
|
AND your statement "Which still makes your statement..."The Bushes work on the "war machine" method of economics.. they are dinasours. They believe you have to goto war to stimulate the ecomony." factually incorrect." is incorrect.
IF the report you referenced was solid and complete it STILL does not prove that Bush did NOT goto war for economical reasons... IF is was complete, which it isnt, it would only prove that SO FAR we've spent less money in the Iraq war then throughout the ENTIRE cold war. AND it doesn't take into accout the BILLIONS requested by Bush for the war on terror. So you have proven nothing.
Unfortunate. You seem like a bright guy. I'm not going into this specific issue anymore as you aren't looking at your own facts and what they say. No offense.. agree to disagree on this one.
