People Believe NASA Funded As Well As US Military

QuantumG writes "An essay on the Space Review site is reporting that a just-completed study indicates the average citizen has no idea how much funding NASA gets. Respondents generally estimated NASA's allocation of the national budget to be approximately 24% (it's actually closer to 0.58%) and the Department of Defense budget to be approximately 33% (it's actually closer to 21%). In other words, respondents believed NASA's budget approaches that of the Department of Defense, which receives almost 38 times more money. Once informed of the actual allocations, they were almost uniformly surprised. One of the more vocal participants exclaimed, 'No wonder we haven't gone anywhere!'"

I boldly post

[McGiraf]

where no one posted before.

Re:

[dgun]

That's not a troll. A troll for Slashdot would be something like:

OMG!1!@ Vista is awesome! I'm so glad Bill Gates invented computerz.

Or would that be flamebait?

Re:

[Ash Vince]

Or would that be flamebait?

No, that would be the best argument ever for a "-10, Completely Moronic" moderation option :)

Increasing wouldn't necessarily be good

[Anonymous Coward]

If NASA's budget was increased, it would probably be at the expense of education, or something else, but not the military, so increasing their budget may lead to even bigger problems elsewhere and would not benefit humanity significantly.

Re:

[vertinox]

If NASA's budget was increased, it would probably be at the expense of education, or something else, but not the military, so increasing their budget may lead to even bigger problems elsewhere and would not benefit humanity significantly.

99942 Apophis [wikipedia.org] would disagree.

Yeah... I know it will most likley miss in both 2029 and then again in 2036, but the point is that all of the threats to humanity impacts are the greatest threat. Imagine a Tunguska event happening today over even a sparsely populated area.

I mea

Re:At this point, you are correct

[The Iso]

There is no desperate need to balance the budget, and the deficit is certainly not "killing" America. America's debt is about 65% of its GDP right now - how does your debt compare to your income, and what does the bank think of you as a credit risk? - and federal receipts are currently growing faster than federal outlays, leading to a budget balance some time by late 2009. America has practically infinite credit, and millions of people are willing to lend to us at a very reasonable rate. At the height of our debt-to-GDP ratio, after World War II, the federal debt was over 200% of our GDP, yet we survived.

Don't trust anyone forecasting the imminent doom of America. As Adam Smith said when told the loss of the states would ruin Britain, "there is much ruin in a nation." People have been predicting disaster for America and the world forever, and it is easy to find many examples. So far, all of these people whose predictions are not still in the future (I'm looking at you, 2012 cranks) have shown to be cranks.

Re:At this point, you are correct

[mc moss]

Although we will be fine for the near future, anything can happen. Don't believe America is an empire that can last forever.

Re:At this point, you are correct

[vertinox]

There is no desperate need to balance the budget, and the deficit is certainly not "killing" America....At the height of our debt-to-GDP ratio, after World War II, the federal debt was over 200% of our GDP, yet we survived.

Actually, the reason that worked out is that the US was the only industrialized nation that didn't have her infrastructure hosed by war or owed another nation (looking at you UK which did just finally pay off their WWII debt to the US just recently) and the only other nation that was comparable industrial capacity wise was the USSR which was in its Stalinist era which didn't need a real GDP to get things done (Need a public project done? Thats what millions of German Pows and Russian prisioners for! No need to pay anyone)

Anyways, the point being is that the reason the US could afford to have such big debts is that there was no other player in town when it came to currency. You might as well be trading in gold because the US dollar pretty much was the life blood of Marshall Plan postwar Germany and Japan.

Secondly, the US produced more oil than it consumed and exported more products than any other nation (actually back then the US was a major exporter in oil) so it could deal with such large debts.

The problem now is that we don't produce much in our factories, import massive amounts of energy from overseas, and our currency isn't valued as much on the international market.

I'm not predicting doom and gloom, but unless we actually do something about our foreign energy addiction, debt, and weakened dollar we will have problems economically. Big energy exporters like Russia and cheap goods manufacturers like China will be the winners of the 21st century.

I'm sure some of you are saying "But with a weakened dollar, it will make US goods more desirable on the foreign market!". Even if China completely floated the Yuan to a fair and free market value against the dollar their goods would still be cheaper. Secondly, America has burned a lot of its goodwill overseas and most foreigners are currently frowning on US good due to political reasons.

Again this of course leads to the issue with energy imports. If Chinese goods were more expensive and it pushed for more manufacturing in the US it would still be at weakened pace due to the fact that energy costs of production, transportation, and wage inflation due to the fact it now costs more to ship and have people drive to get to the stores will mean the economy will be up the creek with a paddle of a while.

Again, we'll live and it won't be a place of anarchy but until we do something about the strength of the dollar and energy costs then things will be rather troublesome for a while.

And that is the problem

[WindBourne]

We HAD the capablity to absorb monster deficits at one time. As you point out (and I have as elsewhere), We have burned our resources and have lost our export capacity. Worse, America had a GREAT reputation post WWII (even post 911), but now, due to our invasion of Iraq, our friends are neutral to us, and all else would rather see China as the leader, than US.

I did not predict gloom and doom, but I feel that our deficit is already limiting our options. Congress debates the issue of adjusting NASA's budget

Re:And that is the problem

[HuguesT]

It's not that bad, really. The ol' USA is still the #1 economy, everyone wants to do business with US-based companies. No one in their right mind wants China to be the next superpower.

A slightly less gung-ho attitude towards world matters would probably be enough to restore confidence, love and trust with the US. In other words, don't start a war with Iran and North Korea right now. Try to fix Iraq by actually rebuilding infrastructure there instead of sending more soldiers. Even support *some *UN decisions perhaps?

Re:

[Attila Dimedici]

You do know that the US exports were a larger percentage of GDP than ever in 2006? http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HTP0L7C38GUJ:www.commerce.gov/NewsRoom/PressReleases_FactSheets/PROD01_002835+U.S.+trade+2006&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&client=firefox-a [64.233.169.104] Exports were 11.6 percent of GDP in 2006. They were 5.2 percent of GDP 50 years ago.
As for the weak dollar, the dollar is (mostly)falling against currencies of countries that fall into one of two classes (or in some case both classes)

Re:

[Attila Dimedici]

You are right that the U.S. has a trade deficit. It does not, however, mean that we are losing money. I do not fully understand the economics, however, even the article you refer to indicates that the meaning and impact of a trade deficit for an economy is highly debated among economists. The most clear thing from the article is that a trade deficit cannot be easily understood by saying that it means we are losing money.

Re:

[Mspangler]

"The problem now is that we don't produce much in our factories, import massive amounts of energy from overseas, and our currency isn't valued as much on the international market."

The last point will eventually correct the first point. The overvalued dollar nearly destroyed the domestic industrial base because all those lower-valued currencies made it cheaper to build new factories overseas. That situation is rapidly going away. Capital is starting to flow into the country again. My employer is putting in m

Re:At this point, you are correct

[transami]

That depends on a lot of factors.

• Are they counting the GDP in the same way as they used to? (No.)
• What does the GDP consist of these days versus back then? (More financial services and less product manufacturing.)
• Who owns the debt? (We're well over 40% foreign investment now.)

You can't just compare one time to another without considering the differences. And don't forget that we were paid back a good sum from WWII nations for our war efforts (In fact, the final payment was just two years ago or so).

Re:At this point, you are correct

[dcollins]

Hey, are you the same guy who last year said "Oil at $60/barrel is historically high, but there's *no way* it will hit $70/barrel -- anyone saying that is out of their mind!"

Good to see you again!

Re:At this point, you are correct

[Martin Blank]

Canada also has a national debt - about 40% of GDP as I understand.

According to NationMaster [nationmaster.com], the level of the US public debt is around the same level as that of Austria, France, Canada, Germany, and Portugal, around 65% of the GDP, give or take. These numbers are across different years, but are probably still accurate to within a reasonable degree.

Looking elsewhere, the deficit for FY2007 came in much smaller than predicted at $163 billion, about 1.2% of the GDP for the country. Comparing this to the deficits run by several European countries, such as France (2.5%), Germany (1.7%), and Austria (1.4%), it's not that bad (though it should be a mild surplus). The next year should prove interesting to watch, though, as various financial issues may hit tax revenues. We shall see.

Iraq War

[mrbill1234]

With what has been spent on the Iraq war, the US could have funded a national health service.

Re:Iraq War

[ozmanjusri]

the US could have funded a national health service.

It could have funded a a bit more than that.

There's a nice funding comparison chart that puts some perspective on it here [cosmicvariance.com]

Mod Parent Up

[Camel Pilot]

Now that puts things into perspective....

Not even close.

[mosb1000]

Considering that medicare has cost us significantly more during the course of the war than the war has, the money we've spent on the war is probably not enough to pay for national health care. We spend about $300,000,000,000 on medicare each year, while the total budget for the iraq war has been less than $500,000,000,000. Then again, it depends what you mean when you say "national health care". Perhaps the program you had in mind is significantly smaller medicare?

What ever happened to calling it "universal health care" or "socialized medicine". Calling it "national health care" almost makes it sound noble and patriotic. If it's a social program, what's so wrong with calling it what it is? Once we have it, it's more likely that we will refer to it with swear words anyway, just as we would any other government program or agency. Maybe we should just call it "bitch care" or "fucking shit" right now and get it over with.

Fun times will be had by all.

Re:

[mrbill1234]

Depending on who you ask, the total cost of the war could well be $2 trillion. If that money was spend for instance on giving every US citizen access to free primary care - where conditions can be caught early, and preventative steps taken for conditions which are likely to occur in a particular individual - I think it would be money better spent.

Re:Not even close.

[mosb1000]

The effect you mention is brought on by the Canadian "single payer" system. In canada it is illegal for people outside the government run health care system to offer health services. This gives the government a monopoly. Since the government does not have to compete with private industry, shortages in available health care do not drive up the price of health care as they do in the US. The government simply uses waiting lines and, and defines procedures with a low cost to benefit ratio as "discretionary" in order to deal with a shortage. Shortages are also easily overcome because Canadians who feel their "discretionary" procedures are essential can come to the US and pay for them.

Of course, the main thing driving up the cost is a shortage of available health care services. Demand vastly outstrips supply, and people are simply not willing to do without, so they will pay almost anything to obtain health care. It's easy to understand why there is a shortage of available health care. Medical schools set admissions caps, and refuse qualified candidates who would otherwise have become doctors. Hospitals require that doctors carry out duties that otherwise could be carried out by nurses or administrative assistants. In the end, doctors end up working long hours, and burn out quickly.

Before we try to implement a socialized health care system, we should address the artificial barriers to entry which are restricting our supply of qualified health care professionals.

You don't have to implement it that way...

[Goonie]

Here in Australia we have private and public health care systems coexisting - not perfectly, but reasonably well. If you want LASIK, cosmetic surgery, or your knee reconstruction done tomorrow rather than in a month's time, the private sector is happy to offer the service for a big enough fee.If not, our single-payer system, Medicare, covers you. You won't get a private room, and you might have to wait for elective surgery, but you'll get treated.

By the way, you have an excellent point about the artifici

Re:

[florescent_beige]

Canadian speaking. Yes you are right that people will curse at socialized medicine as we do. Like recently when I got a booboo on my finger (stupid hammer) and the emergency room wait was about 2 hours. This is annoying, but not deadly. I've had serious emergencies (an internal organ which will remain nameless went haywire) and I was wheeled in real fast and had a team of very serious people looking at me within seconds. To me the latter is far far more significant than the former.

As for the war vs health

Re:

[drsquare]

With what has been spent on the Iraq war, the US could have funded a national health service.

Are you sure about that? Considering that the British NHS costs about $200 million a year, and America having five times the population, it would cost at least a trillion dollars a year, over twice the budget of the entire US military.

Re:

[mrbill1234]

You mean $200 billion - right?

I'm not sure an NHS type system would be right for the US - but there are steps which can be taken to improve healthcare in the US. For instance, introduce free primary care - i.e. you're sick, and want to see a doctor, and for yearly checkups.

Even in the UK where all services are essentially "free" (it gets paid via taxation) - there is still a large private healthcare market. I don't see why this could not continue in the US alongside some sort of state funded primary care.

Re:

[cmat]

Erm, 200 million x 5 = 1 billion or 1/1000th of what you said it would cost... did you get your units wrong?

Re:Iraq War

[shbazjinkens]

With what has been spent on the Iraq war, the US could have funded a national health service.

Are you sure about that? Considering that the British NHS costs about $200 million a year, and America having five times the population, it would cost at least a trillion dollars a year, over twice the budget of the entire US military.

In response to you and the AC who responded to you, I did some searching. A NY Times article [nytimes.com] says the NHS costs Britain 30 billion (presumably in pounds) which equates to 61.5 billion US$. That means (assuming that the two countries are comparable per-capita) the USA could expect it to cost 307.5 billion US$ after the system settled, which is notably less than the USA military budget. This is assuming my source is correct, I don't have more time to find extra citations.

Re:

[Copid]

Are you sure about that? Considering that the British NHS costs about $200 million a year, and America having five times the population, it would cost at least a trillion dollars a year, over twice the budget of the entire US military.

Or, roughly about half of what we spend on health care now [chcf.org].

Military budget

[MichaelSmith]

I just can't believe USA people put up with spending 21% of their national budget on the military.

Re:Military budget

[dlevitan]

I, as a US citizen, actually don't have that many complaints about this. I'll also state that I'm a PhD student, so I have a bias towards more science spending

1. A decent chunk of the military budget goes to science and technology development. And very often, the military does a pretty good job of giving money to promising projects that otherwise would not get any money. The computer and arpanet are only two of the very cool military funded projects. Take a look at DARPA sometime - some of the projects are rather amazing if they work out (there was an article about this some time ago).
2. The military provides a good place for many people to go after high school and keeps me out of the military. Personally, I'm opposed to mandatory military service, though I do see some of its benefits. I just know that for me, it would have interfered too much with school for me to be happy with it. In any case, joining the military gives people a chance to mature, learn skills, and make a decent living. Its not for everyone, but from what I've seen it helps a lot of people. And I have no problem paying those people to protect the US. I'd much rather that many of these people are given a good chance at a good life than roaming the streets homeless. You can claim here that its not fair that the poor are more likely to serve in the military. I'm not debating that point but am stating the benefits.
3. As a US citizen, I'm happy that the US has the best military in the world. And I recognize that this costs a lot of money. I'm also glad that we are a superpower. This does not mean I support our foreign policy, but I like the fact that the US maintains a military force like this.
4. While a large chunk of the federal budget, other countries spend more on the military as a percentage of GDP. Yes its a lot, but I personally support the spending that is in the actual budget (though, again, not the wars). Take a look at Wikipedia's [wikipedia.org] page on the US military budget. Most of the money is spent on maintenance, personnel, procurement (building new weapons), and R&D. That doesn't sound too bad to me.

Re:Military budget

[stranger_to_himself]

3. As a US citizen, I'm happy that the US has the best military in the world.

I take issue with this statement, because I know for a fact that the UK has the best military in the world.

More seriously though, everybody I know believes as a 'well known fact' that their own country's military is the worlds best. These are otherwise sensible and not particularly nationalisatic people usually capable of making objective judgements. That's a startlingly good piece of marketing however you look at it.

Re:

[dbc001]

I think the evidence pretty clearly shows that Al-Qaeda has the best military. They have managed to stay in business after a prolonged conflict with the best-funded military in the world. Sure, you can nit-pick about details (guerrilla warfare, defense vs. offense, etc) but if you look at the numbers, they're the winners right now.

Re:

[halivar]

We did. Twice. They burned our capitol, and we dumped their tea in a river. The heavy cost has made us unwilling to engage in any further hostilities.

Re:

[Captain Vittles]

The money may be available under your scenario, but there's no guarantee it would be spent on science. Unless the budget is being allocated by science-minded people, or at the very least people who listen to science-minded advisers, a lot of that money might not ever be directed into useful research.

While everyone loves to demonize the military, the truth is a lot of that research is directed into some very pragmatic objectives (e.g. keep soldiers alive, protect infrastructure from damage, go farther on

Re:

[Fallingcow]

The fact that it's so low leads me to assume that they included Social Security as part of the national budget, but it's funded entirely from its own special tax rather than from general revenue, and is so different from the rest of the budget that it's usually worth mentioning it on its own. It's a program that's actually MAKING money right now, and the surplus, though it is used to finance debt (at interest) is not directly diverted to other programs, but is held out for future Social Security spending (

Re:

[hdparm]

Study-respondents actually put up with 33%, which what they believed was a figure. America is very specific in military needs, though but 21% seems hell of a lot of money. Must be more than 500b.

Re:

[BDew]

The Federal Budget requested by the President for FY2008 came to $1.7 trillion. So that's basically $340 billion for DoD.

That said, the $340 billion is for the basic operation of the military. Funding for the the war is extra and is not counted in the budget total. So yeah, your guess is pretty close.

Re:

[edwardpickman]

Part of it is we provide protection for other countries. An example is Japan. Japan spends very little of their budget on defense but we provide military protection. It began over WW II and not wanting Japan to maintain a sizeable military but we inherited a lot of the expense, Japan provides part of the funding. Similar with the Panama Canal. There are lots of examples including bases in Europe. Then there are things like arms subsidies for countries like Israel, but I'm not sure which budget those fall un

Re:

[tsotha]

A few months of gambling and brothel hopping would have taught them the error of their ways.

Except that it wouldn't. Not everyone thinks like Americans think, and not everyone considers hedonism a worthy pursuit. Some people just need killing.

yes "protection"

[QuantumG]

much like Al Capone provided to Chicago in the 20s.

Re:

[smoker2]

It's the downside of democracy there's always going to be a percentage that disagree with the majority.

Really ?
I thought the downside of democracy (in the first past the post system anyway) was that the ruling party rarely constitutes the majority. Hence the majority don't get a say in the governing of their country. Besides which, is dissent with popular opinion properly described as a "downside" ? Perhaps you would prefer totalitarianism.

Re:

[ConceptJunkie]

Let's face it, they would piss most of it way regardless of what it's supposedly being spent on. The U.S. government could eliminate 95% of its budget if it wasn't mired in management practices that were obsolete 50 years ago. It's no exaggeration that I feel it really doesn't matter, because the amount of money that is simply wasted far outweighs defense spending, entitlement spending or anything that could actually be considered a legitimate government expenditure, which I'm sad to say does not include

Re:

[mgpeter]

It is not 21%, it is more like 67%

http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/ [thebudgetgraph.com]

Re:

[king-manic]

Also, it's odd that people on slashdot are so quick to encourage massive funding for NASA, because of the technology they develop, yet disparage military spending, which includes a lot of advanced R&D.

Also, NASA is a PR friendly way to fund ballistics research. Making a bomb is one thing, making somethign to deliver the bomb accurately 20,000 km away is a harder engineering problem.

Re:

[Teancum]

Also, NASA is a PR friendly way to fund ballistics research.

You might have made a very well reasoned argument along that line back in the 1950's when NASA was first created, and certainly there have been some refinements of launch technology that have been transfered from NASA to the U.S. Air Force (who runs the actual ballistic missile program in the USA).

But who needs a ballistic nuclear missile to make the journey to Saturn? Or Pluto?

I just don't buy this common argument, and it has very little to do wi

Re:

[Fallingcow]

It seems only the US is willing to do the hard, thankless work, and the rest of the world is happy to enjoy the benefits, while criticizing everything the US does out the other side of their mouth.

Well, it's generally accepted that that's the state of affairs that tend to come around in a unipolar (one superpower, a global hegemon) world. That position is, in many ways, more precarious than a bipolar world, since there isn't as much of a necessity to rely on a superpower for protection from the other one,

Re:

[meringuoid]

Venezula

I never have quite got this. What on earth is America's big problem with Venezuela? Are they threatening to charge for their oil in euros or something?

Re:

[damburger]

One word: Socialism.

The US attempts to eliminate socialism wherever it finds any. The real reason there were so many authoritarian socialist regimes in the 20th century is that those are the only ones that can survive the assaults of the US (and to be fair, plenty of other states including the USSR) are the highly militaristic ones.

Re:Military budget

[D-Cypell]

As a Brit I will hold my hands up and publically state that I do, from time to time, engage in some playful anti-americanism. I don't offer any apologises for this however, as I happen to know that many Americans engage in some playful anti-britishness (we do, after all, receive many of your syndicated television programmes here, so get to see some of it first hand).

Having said that, I do appreciate certain benefits that the US provides and, I have visited the states on several occasions (not recently, as I am disturbed by stories I have heard on border policy) and I have found that most Americans that I actually meet to be generally quite nice folks (with some exceptions, but no more than anywhere else in the world).

What irks me, and you do this in your post, is when actions made by the US are made out to be uniquely selfless and benevolent. This simply *does not happen*. No government is a charity, every penny spent must be demonstrated to serve a self interest. What tends to happen is that an action is taken that has some kind of positive secondary effect and that secondary effect is made to look like the primary motivation, but this is nothing more than a bank robber bringing statistcs on how many innocent people that the bank he robbed happened to forclose on in the previous year.

Iraq is a case in point. Weapons of mass destruction, The oppresion of Saddam, or oil revenue/security. One of these things was a primary motivation, the other two were secondary effects spun to look like a primary motivation. Perhaps I am being arrogant myself here, but I am sure that anyone sensible understands that Iraq was a war for resources. Hell, I can even say I understand that motivation (although, the cost has been far too high).

If you are going to praise the US work that goes into protecting trade routes, at least be honest and say that this is done primary to protect the interests of US corporations (and this is true even if the actual goods move between two other states) and that the whole world benefits from the secondary effect of more secure trade routes. For that, I salute you and your culture, but please don't try to make it sound like it is done from the goodness of your hearts.

Re:Military budget

[ConceptJunkie]

but I am sure that anyone sensible understands that Iraq was a war for resources

While that sounds not unreasonable I have to ask... WHAT resources? What have we actually gotten out it? Nothing that I can see.
Where's all that cheap oil everyone claims we went to war for?

Re:Military budget

[meringuoid]

The UN doesn't send troops anywhere unless the US volunteers to spend the vast majority of them.

Why must you turn Slashdot into a house of lies?

Current UN peacekeeping operations [wikipedia.org].

MINURCAT: all European, half of them French.
MONUC: a wide variety of nationalities, none American; largest contingent is from Pakistan.
UNOCI: troops principally from Bangladesh, Bénin, France, Ghana, Jordan, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, Sénégal and Togo.
UNMEE: 1,500 of 3,300 troops are from India.
UNMIL: various nationalities, none American.
UNMIS: again many nations, none American.
UNAMID: not in Darfur yet, but among the nations stating that they are likely to participate you will not find the USA.
MINURSO: many nations, none American.
MINUSTAH: principally Brazilian, with other South American nations providing the rest.
UNMOGIP: no Americans.
UNMIT: no Americans [un.org] though Wikipedia does list the US; maybe there was one guy who's since gone home.
UNFICYP: no Americans, troops from many nations led by Argentina.
UNOMIG: this is the first one I've found where there ARE Americans, though the bulk of the force seems to be Russian.
UNMIK: substantial American presence, 3,000 of the 16,000 troops in Kosovo. At the height of the operation the US provided 7,000 of 50,000, just ahead of Germany on 6,000 and equal to France, but well behind Britain's 19,000.
UNDOF: Austria, Canada, India, Japan, Nepal, Poland, and Slovakia.
UNIFIL: no Americans, largest contingents from France, Germany and Italy. UNTSO: has some Americans, can't find a breakdown by nationality, but the total strength of the force is 150.

So, er, yes. Thank you, America, for your great contribution to UN peacekeeping operations worldwide. Now we see why that colossal defence budget of yours is good and necessary.

Re:

[IdleTime]

Most Americans have an artificial hatred for UN for some strange reason.

Re:

[ConceptJunkie]

Maybe it's because the U.N. has a very real hatred for the U.S. and its interests.

Re:

[cojsl]

The US pays the largest percentage of the peacekeeping budget at around 25%: http://www.state.gov/p/io/pkpg/ [state.gov] US personnel are active in 8 of the 17 peacekeeping operations, but actual US troop numbers were hard to find (or my search abilities were weak). This is further confused by the fact that the US is reluctant to place troops under direct UN control. Kosovo, for example, had US troops under NATO control, so though they were supporting the UN peacekeeping mission, they were not "UN peacekeeping troops"

What do you mean

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the more vocal participants exclaimed, 'No wonder we haven't gone anywhere!'"
We've gone to war, where you wanna be!

24% (it's actually closer to 0.58%)

[niceone]

So, 12%?

Re:

[Cassius Corodes]

And they say mathematics never ruined anyone's life...

The even more surprising thing is

[rolfwind]

that the Iraq and Afghanistan War aren't even part of that massive DoD budget!

Re:

[dgun]

Well of course not. Those particular expenses are on the Visa. Thank God we can just print more money, huh?

US military spending

[drDugan]

The amount of resources the US spends on the military is obscene, IMHO.

As I referenced in my /. post earlier this month
( here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=352789&cid=21263533 [slashdot.org] )

The US spends almost 60% of all global military spending, not counting the 2 undeclared wars, Iraq and Afganistan. That is $623 Billion out of a total of about $1.1 Trillion. The Iraq war is estimated to cost over 1.2 Trillion(ish), with about 500B spent so far. Those are direct costs - cash spent, and does not count indirect costs or opportunity costs or the human toll.

Some details can be found here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm [globalsecurity.org]

and here

For me, I'm done keeping quiet. I'm done being polite. I'm done hoping that these wrongs will be corrected, eventually. I bring up the reality of what is happening in the US in common discussions with people. It makes people uncomfortable, as it should. Criminals are running the show, and no one has or will step to stop them. Now that the US has installed a chief lawman that is covering up past crimes, there is no more room for polite waiting and hoping things get better legally.

Re:

[Planesdragon]

Criminals are running the show, and no one has or will step to stop them.

Psst. There's a presidential election next year. Bush & Co are out.

Re:

[Rocketship Underpant]

And most of Bush's potential replacements are as bad or worse, it appears. Ron Paul excepted.

Re:

[vought]

And most of Bush's potential replacements are as bad or worse, it appears. Ron Paul excepted.

Yeah, he only wants to shut down NASA.

The support he gets from racist and hate organizations like Stormfront is a bit troubling too, as are some of this statements from the 80s which are plainly racist.

But hey, he's got a bunch of maniacs on the web pulling for him.

Re:

[feronti]

Sure, there's an election scheduled. But as time goes on I become more and more skeptical that it will actually happen, or if it does that it will be free and fair. We are extremely close to being a police state, and Bush & Co. have been following the script for creating one fairly closely. One of the upcoming steps is suspension of elections for "security" reasons. The other option is they put in a hand-picked successor by manipulating the election. Either way, waiting for next year's election may be t

Re:

[mr_mischief]

Look at military spending as percentage of GDP. That's what makes a superpower these days. The US economy is so much larger than most others that a relatively small percentage of GDP adds up to a huge raw number.

Try Truth and Politics [truthandpolitics.org] for some interesting charts and numbers. Take a look at this PDF from the Library of Congress's Congressional Research Division [fas.org] for comparisons to other countries including charts to rank by total dollars and an alphabetical list.

The US spends far less of the country's total b

Re:

[Teancum]

The amount of resources the US spends on the military is obscene, IMHO.

If that is the case, what about the money that the USA spends on social programs?

Or worse yet, servicing federal debt?

Military spending in the USA isn't even the #2 item in the federal budget today, and if the Pentagon were to be demolished, every member of the armed forces discharged, all of the bases closed... or in effect the Department of Defense eliminated from the federal budget, there would be virtually no impact on overall federa

Re:US military spending

[tddoog]

Military spending in the USA isn't even the #2 item in the federal budget today, and if the Pentagon were to be demolished, every member of the armed forces discharged, all of the bases closed... or in effect the Department of Defense eliminated from the federal budget, there would be virtually no impact on overall federal spending.

That is completely false. Of the discretionary budget of ~1 trillion. $717 billion goes to military/national security. The Department of Defense gets 481 billion directly with 145 billion allocated separately for the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. Demolishing the pentagon would have a huge impact on the federal spending and would reduce by at least 480 billion, but it would throw us into a major recession because so many jobs rely in the military industrial complex.

The overall budget is approximately 2.9 trillion but Social Security(608 billion), medicare (386 billion) and medicaid (202 billion) are paid for by separate taxes and are not discretionary spending.

More on the budget http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/site/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1 [thebudgetgraph.com]

Re:

[Mork29]

Although I can provide no links, I do remember seeing many breakdowns of how "war money" is spent. A good portion of that was on equipment and R&D. When I say equipment, I mean non-expendables. A know alot of money has been spent on converting all of our HMMWVs (Humvee) to be up-armored. It seems obvious that having a whole bunch of troops running around on a battlefield without armor was a bad thing. So, the Army added armor to any vehicle that can handle armor. As a Soldier (but not speaking on behalf

Re:

[Gigiya]

I bring up the reality of what is happening in the US in common discussions with people.

You must be that guy at work.

Re:

[nbritton]

"As far as I can see, the war in Iraq is thoroughly justified, well-executed, and cheap in both material and human terms."

It would have been cheaper to buy Iraq outright. Every person in Iraq could have gotten $40,000 and the US a 51st state for a cool 1.07 trillion... George is an idiot.

Re:

[grumling]

Yea, ummm, we already tried that. We put a guy named Saddam in charge. Didn't work out so good.

The post may be wrong.

[cuby]

From CIA Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html [cia.gov]:
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 4.06% (2005 est.).
Does this 4.06% (~530 billion dollars) of GDP (2006 est.) correspond to 21% of the federal budget?

If this is true, the federal budget represents ~2.524 trillion dollars, or ~19.3% of GDP... It seems a lot.

Re:

[meringuoid]

Does this 4.06% (~530 billion dollars) of GDP (2006 est.) correspond to 21% of the federal budget? If this is true, the federal budget represents ~2.524 trillion dollars, or ~19.3% of GDP... It seems a lot.

Seems pretty low, actually. The British government typically spends something like 40% of GDP. The US tends to be a lot further right, and so generally has lower taxes, but I don't think it's that much less. Possibly the individual state budgets are not counted in that figure?

Re:

[everphilski]

Sounds about right. Middle class is in the 25ish% tax bracket, and most of us have mortgages and other things which reduce our tax liability.

Americans know lots of things.

[hyades1]

Americans might not know NASA versus Defense Department budgets and all that useless crap, but I bet the majority could pick Britney Spears' crotch out of a line-up.

Re:

[xkillkillx]

Leave Britney alone!

Federal budget vs. GDP

[FleaPlus]

Those are interesting figures, but I'd argue that the important figure (besides the straight-out money amounts) isn't NASA/defense spending as a portion of the federal budget, but rather how they compare as a percentage of GDP (gross domestic product). For FY 2006, the federal budget was 18.4% of total GDP, meaning that NASA was 0.107% of GDP and defense spending was 3.86% of GDP. Despite this, NASA still spends more on spaceflight and space science than the rest of the world combined.

That said, even though NASA could probably use more funding, misallocation of resources is still a huge problem. I agree heartily with this recent comment by Clark Lindsay over at RLV News:

http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=4926 [hobbyspace.com]

Keith Cowing responds to Mike Griffin's claim that he did not cause the VSE budget problems: Mike Griffin on VSE Woes: "I did not put us into this position" - NASA Watch - Nov.15.07

        You most certainly did get the agency into the predicament that it is in today. Instead of going off and reinventing the wheel (Ares 1) you could have bought EELVs off the shelf from a ULA catalog and focused only on CEV development. You forced a rigid and recycled architecture upon the agency - one that requires large monolithic launchers - when in fact you could have come up with one that used existing launchers or straightforward derivations thereof.

I can certainly support that scolding. I think Ares 1 is a disaster and Ares V is a bad dream. However, rather than NASA choosing an EELV outright, I would have preferred a Super-COTS competition in 2006 that went something like the following:
* A budget of two or three billion dollars for Phase 1
* As with COTS, the systems proposed should be capable of supplying a minimum amount cargo to the ISS per year but be upgradable to crew operations no later than 2011.
* The ULA firms would be invited to enter their proposals along with the entrepreneurial rocket firms
* Four commercial launcher proposals would be selected for Phase 1
* The entrants would decide for themselves whether a capsule or lifting body or whatever is the most cost effective system for cargo/crew delivery.
* Assuming at least two firms successfully fulfilled Phase 1, the two with the lowest cost/kg to the ISS would each be guaranteed half of all NASA launches to LEO in, say, the period 2010-2015.
* NASA would focus on lunar exploration systems that would work within the capabilities of the COTS transports. (This would no doubt involve a more modular approach than is currently envisioned.)

Too late now, of course, to run such a COTS competition. It's possible, though, that Lockheed-Martin has used the current studies with Bigelow and SpaceDev to prepare a proposal for NASA launch services just in case the next administration cancels Ares 1. On the other hand, if the Falcon 9 initial flights go well, there will be no need for such alternatives.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

... but rather how they compare as a percentage of GDP

Why does it make sense to divide this statistic by GDP?

Dividing by GDP is statistical trick used in the US to make numbers look lower. Did you know that the USA has the lowest IQ per GDP on the planet? What does that prove?

The war against humanity

[Ultimate Statement]

As many of you are already starting to realize, governments are not working for the total benefit of the public. They can be manipulated into making our lives harder than necessary, and they do it quite efficiently. Wars are invented, monetary systems hold a fierce grip on people making them their slaves, etc.
All this anxiety, hate, disillusion, and sorrow is one of their aims. Why? because an ignorant, weak and depressed humanity can be more easily manipulated into its own destruction, whether

Re:

[irtza]

All I am saying: The darkest moment is right before the dawn.

Are you trying to say its going to get darker?

budget

[m2943]

While the allocated military budget may be 21%, once you take into account all the related costs (i.e., costs you didn't have with so large a military), the military probably accounts for more than half of the federal budget.

What is truly scary, however, is not this little factoid about NASA, it's that people who are supposed to live in a democracy and keep whining about taxes have no idea where their money goes.

So, let me summarize it simply: if you want lower taxes, don't vote in a militaristic nut next t

We have been to ...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Typical uninformed citizen moans 'No wonder we haven't gone anywhere!'"

Not True! We have been to Iraq, Kuwait, Afganistan, Panama ... Soon we will be going to Iran, Pakistan... What rot these guys are talkin' 'bout?

I'm reminded of what Ike said:

[RichPowers]

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

A strong military is essential to safeguarding liberty and the Republic. But a strong military doesn't have to be one of excess. The military has become a tool for delivering profits to Lockheed Martin and Boeing and other conglomerates under the auspice of national security. It's a tool congressmen use to allocate military projects to their districts, whether or not such projects benefit the mission at hand.

Some examples of the Pentagon's famed waste and corruption:

The Crusader artillery project, finally canceled in 2002 after $11 billion was spent on it. Donald Rumsfeld said it wasn't mobile enough for the 21st century. What is so wrong with the current Paladin artillery platform that this project was required in the first place?

And what about the Coast Guard's troubled modernization efforts [reuters.com], contracted out to Lockheed and Northrop? The project is $7 billion overbudget and nine years behind schedule, yet both of these companies still continue to work on it. And Lockheed and Northrop will continue working on projects for decades to come despite this.

The Air Force and Navy have F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. But they're building the F-22 and some F-35 joint strike aircraft, too? At what point is enough enough? If the branches could afford dabbling in that stuff, then they should go for it. But it's a matter of prioritizing; money is not infinite, despite what the debt-ridden government believes. Maintain the systems we have, many of which are at the breaking point after years of service in Afghanistan and Iraq. Churning out more wonder weapons seems pointless when our current crop of fighters perform just fine.

There comes a point where we must see this game for what it is. The challenge is in creating a ready, able, and fearsome fighting force while not indulging the excesses of the military-industrial complex. And I know that many great things have come from Pentagon-sponsored R&D projects. But these programs can still exist without spending countless sums of money.

And this doesn't even take into account that such a fearsome military is all too often misused in wars of choice like Vietnam and Iraq. So we spend all of this money to build a huge military, then spend even more money to misuse it...without ever having declared war. Brilliant.

Re:I'm reminded of what Ike said:

[Mork29]

The military has become a tool for delivering profits to Lockheed Martin and Boeing and other conglomerates under the auspice of national security.
Is there another company better suited for designing aircraft and other military technolgies? If so, why aren't they bidding on more military contracts?

The Crusader artillery project, finally canceled in 2002 after $11 billion was spent on it. Donald Rumsfeld said it wasn't mobile enough for the 21st century.
Imagine the first pioneers in computing. To 99% of Americans, I'm sure it sounded impossible/stupid/wasteful/etc.. Guess who poured R&D money into computing? Guess who still does? Yes, several military projects have been nothing but giant sinks. They failed. The produced nothing. Can you show me a research institution that hasn't had a failed project? Yes, these failures have big dollar costs, but the successes that they have are immeasurably succesful.
Do you have any idea how much money the military has spent on developing medical technology and techniques? When we go to war, demand for this tech only increases...

The Air Force and Navy have F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. But they're building the F-22 and some F-35 joint strike aircraft, too? At what point is enough enough?
The F-15 was designed in the 70s. Yes, it's time to replace it if we're going to stay #1. I firmly believe that if you don't have the best airforce in a major war, you loose. I like a my countries military setting itself up for success by being the best. I'm sure if you were the pilot in one of these aircraft, or a Soldier on the ground being supported by these aircraft, you'd agree. Oh, and did you here about just the other day when an F-15 fell out of the sky? Have you heard about the numerous times that "maximum flight hours" for these craft have been extended because nobody expected them to still be in service?

And this doesn't even take into account that such a fearsome military is all too often misused in wars of choice like Vietnam and Iraq. So we spend all of this money to build a huge military, then spend even more money to misuse it...without ever having declared war.
What the military is used for, and how big its budget is are to different subjects. Always try to emphasize one point when making an argument and don't throw in a random tangent.

Re:

[CronoCloud]

Okay, the F15 is old, so why not build new F15's, which are STILL better than anyone else's shit, and not spend money to design a new aircraft, when we already have the ability to build one that is very much sufficient to defeat any foe.

Re:

[icebrain]

"so why not build new F15's, which are STILL better than anyone else's shit"

Not really. The Russian Su-27 and family are very close in capability to the F-15. Electronics-wise, they're a bit behind, but the airframes are about on par with current US aircraft. In exercises held recently, Indian Su-30s beat US F-15s pretty soundly.

The Typhoon, while a little smaller than the F-15, is just as (if not more) maneuverable, and has newer avionics and systems. It will eventually carry the Meteor, which outrange

Re:

[st0rmshad0w]

You seem to think that air superiority is still important. This is an old point of view which has been superseded with the renewn interest in improving the army.

Air superiority will always be necessary, as is ocean superiority. You cannot control the land if you cannot defeat what comes from the air and sea.

The Army can hide under bunkers and buildings, hide amongst the population, camouflage its tanks and anti-air guns and artillery. The army can move and occupy land. Not the air force.

Mission objectives a

NSF even worse

[belthize]

NSF entire budget in FY07 was ~37% of NASA's budget (16B vs 5.9B). Of that 5.9B
$215M went to astronomy. ~56% of that $215M went to facilities like NRAO, NAIC, Gemini and NOAO.

NSF has a much better track record than NASA in terms of ROI it's just not as sexy.

While I'd love to see NASA's budget increased I'd prefer to see NSF's increase.

http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2007/tables.jsp#tables [nsf.gov]

Belthize

What about scale?

[night_flyer]

seriously, this is the dumbest comparison I have ever read... how many people work for the military & how many vehicles do they have to maintain compared to NASA? Thats like bitching that the Oswego NY school system doesnt get as much as the NYC school system...

And?

[MSTCrow5429]

Hey, the US Constitution says to provide for the common defense, but nothing about sending up government bureaucrats on pointless joyrides. Oops?

Virgin Galactic et al will bring humanity into space, not central planners and their boondoggles.

Re:

[Nyeerrmm]

As much as I'm a supporter of the New Space industry, government still has a role. Everyone knows that NASA needs to get out of the role of ferrying stuff to LEO. It's possible for companies to make a profit on it now. However, the government still has the role of exploration, the so-called Lewis and Clark role, pushing the boundaries in ways that can't make a short term profit and that are too expensive for individual philanthropists to fund.

So while I'd agree that the current state is problematic, the

Part of NASA funding goes to the Stargate that the

[Joe The Dragon]

Part of NASA funding goes to the Stargate that the Military runs.

shrug

[bigdavex]

The average citizen doesn't know the difference between a billion and a trillion. The Pirahã with one, two, and many. We have 1 to a million and more money than we can imagine. I don't think we can conclude anything from the survey, except that people have no concept of how much money we're spending on the military.

   

But it's consistent

[BDew]

This study is done once very year or two, and people always seem to have forgotten the results by the next time it's done again. The key thing to know is that since the end of Apollo (which barely got NASA above 4% of federal spending) NASA has basically hovered at 0.5%. That's for nearly 40 years now (Apollo funding peaked around 1967), which I think represents an amazingly stable national consensus about how much we want to spend on the civil space program.

Don't be fooled ; military budget is far higher

[Quickening]

that statement actually closer to 21% so irritated me with its fallaciousness I had to reply. the question should have been "Do you keep up with the latest budget shell game of how we can hide spending for the military-industrial complex?" You have only to glance at who [dittmar-associates.com] ran this poll to realize their obvious conflicts of interest. In fact, 21% is absurdly low, as is 33%. It is actually 64% of net discretionary funding now [about.com]. Wake the _uck up, sheeple [drake.edu]

Re:Don't be fooled ; military budget is far higher

[wes33]

Net Discretionary spending is not the same as the total budget. In fact, NDS is about 40% of the total budget. I think the original figure of 21% is base military as percent of total government expenditure. And by military they mean base military funding, not WoT stuff.

So there is no big disagreement really between your figures and the article figures ...

Re:

[dgun]

They should be researching innovative computer and material technologies

I think they do that.

Re:

[Fallingcow]

Worse are what people think we spend on "welfare", especially in "red" states.

Re:

[Eddi3]

Actually, this war retains oil, which will otherwise be taken away from us, making the problem even worse.

Not that we didn't create the situation; If we hadn't started the war, we wouldn't be in this position in the first place. However, suggesting that the Iraq war was originally about profiting off of oil is ludicrous.