Custom Search
Budgets
Submitted by fyl on Tue, 2010/02/02 - 18:38.
I was just explaining to Ana what the U.S. government budget looks like. That, of course, required a translation into per capita costs. Once I did that, even I was scared.
What I read is the new budget is $3.8 trillion dollars. Well, that worked out to about $1000 per month per person. Every person from age zero on up. As we debate whether the Canasta Basica should be $250 or $300 for a family of five here in Nicaragua, we see government overhead numbers in the U.S. of 20 times that ($1000 x 5).
Here we complain that the police don't have enough money for fuel, some of the roads are in bad condition, and that health care (which the U.S. government doesn't pay for for most people) is sub-standard? Get a grip—the government of Nicaragua is the ultimate bargain.
- fyl's blog
- Login or register to post comments
more about Costa Rica army
Hmmm. You think it’s a coincidence? Costa Rica is one of the very few countries to have abolished its army, and it’s also arguably the happiest nation on earth.
There are several ways of measuring happiness in countries, all inexact, but this pearl of Central America does stunningly well by whatever system is used. For example, the World Database of Happiness, compiled by a Dutch sociologist on the basis of answers to surveys by Gallup and others, lists Costa Rica in the top spot out of 148 nations.
That’s because Costa Ricans, asked to rate their own happiness on a 10-point scale, average 8.5. Denmark is next at 8.3, the United States ranks 20th at 7.4 and Togo and Tanzania bring up the caboose at 2.6.
Scholars also calculate happiness by determining “happy life years.” This figure results from merging average self-reported happiness, as above, with life expectancy. Using this system, Costa Rica again easily tops the list. The United States is 19th, and Zimbabwe comes in last…
http://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/?p=2533
US Military
Believe me these numbers are staggering, but would anyone like to see what would happen without the US military?
Why black or white?
Why does this have to be a black-or-white, all-or-nothing question? Regardless of whether we're 6x or 10x larger than the next-highest-spending country, or 41 or 49% of the world total, the reality is our military is FAR more massive than that of any other country. We could slash 75% or more of our military spending and *still* be the largest in the world.
And yes, I unequivocally believe that would be a good thing for the US as well as the world; particularly those countries who have been impacted by our military (mis)adventures, including Iraq, Iran, Panama, and Nicaragua - just to name a few.
-------
Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans
Yes
One positive vote here. Certainly all the Quakers. The majority of the people of Iraq. I could go on but, clearly, the answer i yes for a lot of people—extremely likely the majority of the people in the world.
What about the other armies of the world ?
The russian , the chinese , the north korean , Iran , the israeli , the british , the french and more . If we get rid of one we need to get rid of all the others . Whether we like it or not our actions make it necessary for armies to be . Can you imagine what the world be like if no one ,armies , rose to the task of stopping the germans and its allies , or ask the people of Vietnam , Argelia and Indochina how they felt about the french , or the Koreans how they felt about the chinese ;How about Angola and the russian backed cuban army and Afghanistan and Georgians with the russians . The list is long and pretty inclusive and the reasons well knwon by most . Armies are a necessary evil.
And if you can't use the Oreo Cookies in the budget....
Maybe a war can be funded by illegally buying and selling arms (sorry been done), selling cocaine (sorry been done).
While you are wondering what course of history the world would have taken had it not been for this or that, you may as well include Nicaragua and wonder how much further forward or (back) Nicaragua would be in the transformation process if Ronnie, Ollie and the boys hadn't come up with their own little jar of Oreo Cookies.
Just a thought.
Good question
I actually have a lot more respect for the Nicaraguan people than Ollie, Ronnie or lots of others did. While we will never know, my personal theory is that if Ronnie and Ollie had let Nicaragua alone (I believe we call it self-determination), Nicaragua would be a lot closer to a working democracy today. Each time someone external inflicts an anti-democratic kick in the ass to a country to try to get it to be "more democratic" we have years of backlash.
again lost
Even the same members of the FSLN directory has accepted the wrong doing in the 80's, from human rights violations , inefficiency till selfish and megalomaniac behavior.
out of records..
Can we remember too ? to Misha and Castro ? they also came wit their own little jar of cookies , not so good like Americans but with the same gastric effect.
The other armies are compared in the Oreo cookie cartoon
In all seriousness, the famous Oreo cookie cartoon - I posted the link below - gives a visual comparison of spending on armies by other countries, as well as how the U.S. spends its budget.
I have never figured out how Americans who get so upset about government run institutions, calling them socialist, can spend so much on their military. Why aren't they upset by all of this socialist military spending?.
According to your post, I just ate a small fortune.
From Sylvia Sanchez, SJdS, 10 cords for a small pack of Oreos, (10 cookies).
Nicaragua army
Nicaragua spend in the 80's decade more that $6,000 in arms, debt that fortunately was condoned by the debt owner countries (mainly Russia).
Right know Ortega want to upgrade the military army equipment, this has been discussed with Russia .
In the other hands Costa Rica has 63 years with out a army, but has a very different development.
Semantics
Nicaragua has an army. Costa Rica has a Fuerza Publica, the U.S. has a National Guard. In general, they perform very similar functions dealing with in-country issues such as natural disasters and such. In Nicaragua, they also deliver voting materials and other chores that just require transportation.
While it is hard to find real numbers that are up to date, Global Security has numbers for 2005:
Clearly these are not costs of an offensive military but, much like Costa Rica's green label, they market better than Nicaragua.
Some other numbers may be of interest:
Bottom line: I am not concerned that Nicaragua or Costa Rica are going to invade New Zealand, Israel or Colombia. Nor, no matter whether you call it "the Army" or something like the National Guard", the only country that seems a bit out of line with the region is Nicaragua with too low a budget.
semantics in the web
Costa Rica was the first country to formally abolish military forces. The constitution has forbidden a standing military since 1949. Seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the United Nations' University for Peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces
more semantics...
Costa rica has a army?
Short answer: No
Historically, Costa Rica has generally enjoyed greater peace and more consistent political stability compared with many of its fellow Latin American nations. In 1948, Figueres led an armed uprising in the wake of a disputed presidential election. With more than 2,000 dead, the resulting 44-day civil war was the bloodiest event in Costa Rican history during the twentieth-century. Afterwards, the new, victorious government, led by the opposition, abolished the military and oversaw the drafting of a new constitution by a democratically-elected assembly. Having enacted these reforms, the regime finally relinquished its power in November 8th, 1949 to the new democratic government. Since then, Costa Rica has held 12 presidential elections, the latest being in 2006. All of them have been widely regarded by the international community as peaceful, transparent, and relatively smooth transitions.
Instead of spending money in the army, Costa Rica invests in education and nature conservation
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_Costa_Rica_have_an_army
yes..
I will recomend to change the name of the Nicaraguan Army to HERMANAS DE LA CARIDAD.
Worse..
Worse yet, despite that 20x overhead, police are being laid off right and left, roads and bridges are in bad condition, and health care is sub-standard as well as overpriced in the States, too. That's what you get when you spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, and 9x that of the next-highest spender.
-------
Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans
Defense$
While it is surely nothing to brag about regardless of how it is tallyed up, the totals are perhaps more meaningful when measured as a GDP based assessment (as done by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), CIA Fact Book, and other outfits), and when this is done the U.S. usually in about position 20-25 in the world of big spenders (on par with Russia, Singapore Greece, China, Cuba, etc., and a little more than double places like Bolivia, Finland, etc.). The Russian and Chinese numbers are guesses, making the 9x comparative expenditure also a guess (though in total dollars the U.S. is usually about 9x that of Japan, France, U.K., etc. It is not particularly accurate to do as the Wikipedia article does and claim the U.S. is spending nearly that of the rest of the world combined, then reference it with sources that do not actually claim this, or project it as a total based on then 2003 numbers; SIPRI claims 40% not 47% or 49%). In fact, the source (esp. World Military Spending, Anup Shah) used for the Wikipedia article clearly state the U.S. spends 6x the second largest spender, though Wikipedia used 9x. It isn't clear why they feel the need to stretch numbers when criticizing the U.S. setup is so easy with real numbers.
Defense take 3
Point taken - Wikipedia is not always the most reliable source, even if it is the quickest and easiest to access.
Though that said, the 43% claimed in the World Military Spending article the Wikipedia numbers are based on (and which you claim do not support the Wikipedia analysis) do "not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars ($49.1 billion for Fiscal Year 2006), or Homeland Security funding ($41.1 billion for Fiscal Year 2006), for example.)" So, by the time you added another nearly $100 billion, you get up to that 9x figure.
Then this article, based on a 2008 report from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation shows US defense spending as 48% of the world total.
And while %GDP might better show the drain on the local economies, IRL militaries are matched up against others on a dollar by dollar basis. That is, $100 billion will buy X soldiers, Y fighter jets, Z tanks, and whatever else; whereas $10 billion will only buy some fraction of that. That means that in any kind of match-up the US *vastly* overpowers any other conceivable "enemy", at a far higher rate than seems rational or necessary. Yet defense spending continues to grow, and is treated as immune to budget cuts or "deficit reduction" initiatives.
-------
Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans
48%
Yes, all true. But, the 48% figure isn't really alternative research though as it is still Anup Shah, and that article offers the 48% as an alternative to the newer SIPRI 41% number. It is true that some expenditures are not counted in all models, but it isn't obvious they should all be counted for the U.S. when researchers do not always count comparable exenditures by other countries (for example, Homeland Security includes FEMA, ICE, TSA, USCBP, Secret Service, etc. - as well as work comparable to FBI; and, other countries do similar things by agencies often not classified as "military", etc., and not counted on their defense budgets). The drawback to a straightforward dollar-by-dollar analysis is that often assumes conflict is a one-on-one basis, which, when it really matters, is rarely ever the case historically; they also often assume expenditures are for fighting forces that would match up by type, which doesn't usually happen. That said, no part of the overall plan -if it can be called that- seems all that rational or necessary.
Some of you guys should be working for the Government...
I don't know if that is a compliment or not!!
Let's explain this budget visually
Although out of date, it's still relevant. Here's a link to Ben Cohen's (Ben & Jerry's) explanation of the U.S. budget and military spending, also know as the Oreo cookie cartoon.
http://www.truemajorityaction.org/oreos/