I'm going to try this one more time, before concluding that you just want to refuse to see the obvious for reasons of your own. I, too, support increased defense spending, but I think it makes us all look like liars to use such blatantly manipulative figures to promote our position.
I will of course acknowledge that the proportion of federal outlays going to defense has decreased year after year. However, that is a completely meaningless statement, since it has nothing to do with national security. It is an artifact of the explosion of non-defense governmental spending.
Will you, at least, acknowledge that defense spending, corrected for inflation, has gone up year after year? Will you admit that this, too, is a fact that cannot be denied?
Since actual expenditures for defense have gone up year after year, isn't it manipulative to present a graph that shows that trend going down?
Say what? Surely you jest!
Since actual expenditures for defense have gone up year after year, isn't it manipulative to present a graph that shows that trend going down?
Where is your foundational education? How can you say this?
There was NOTHING manipualtive about the graph/chart. It was a mathematical represenation of accurate numbers. Since when is math "manipulative"? Since when are FACTS manipulative? I thought only Marxist Democrats saw FACTS as manipulative.
Regarding "spending going up"-- . . .
JFK spent $51 billion on Defense, Bush is spending $444 billion. However, JFK spent "MORE" since that $51 billion was more than double Bush's spending in REAL INFLATION ADJUSTED DOLLARS".
What is the difference today between a first-class stamp at 37 cents versus a first-class stamp at 5 cents during JFK's time? It buys you the same amount of goods, since that increase is roughly the amount of inflation. More pennies--yes. Does it get you more? No! You fail to understand that raw dollars of spending can't be compared era to era but you must use % of total spending to get some meaningful comparison--using percents has a built-in inflation adjustment!
When I went to school, they taught me that percentages are the only way to represent changing trends over long periods of time. It is INCREDIBLE that you do not understand this. You must be a lot younger than me and attended modern day public schools where they don't teach math and science.
The % of total spending Defense receives today is less than HALF what it received during JFK's time and far less than what Reagan devoted to Defense. Social welfare is soaring. We have gone from about 57% of all spending directed to social welfare (just domestic, not counting global) to about 68% just since Clinton's first term. If this trend continues, welfare could be gobbling up 80% of all spending in the next 20 years. If you think this nation can afford to defend itself with 80% of all spending going to welfare, then you lack common sense.
Inflation plays tricks on you. Unless the United States can raise and keep the percent of spending devoted to Defense at the 25% level or higher, we will NOT be able to defend this nation in the coming years. Forget "raw dollars"! Raw dollars means nothing comparing period to period, due to inflation (and currency changes as noted below).
You make a gross error again when you claim "raw dollars" spent is meaningful. Not only is not inflation adjusted, but George Bush's increase in Defense spending (remember--raw dollars, not REAL dollars) has gone to the war in Iraq, has gone toward logistics moving supplies, has gone to terrorist nations as bribe money (like Pakistan), and has NOT been used to increase our military capability.
We have reduced the F-22 to insignificant numbers, we have cut back on naval procurement, we are falling behing Russia and China in advanced ICBMs, we are now closing military bases again, etc. Our increase in spending (raw dollars) has NOT increased our capability. It has decreased our capability since most of this money is NOT going to procurement, design and development, but to waging a war--$300 billion for the war in Iraq does not buy one bit of increased military capability. Reagan's increase in Defense (REAL dollars by the way), was spent on procurement and new weapon development.
When the value of the dollar dropped, what does that do to foreign built compnents for our defense industry? It makes them MORE EXPENSIVE! Right? It is not just inflation, it is also the value of the dollar that comes into the equation. This is why you MUST look at period to period as what % of total spending is going to each agency since it automatically adjusts for inflation and the increase or decrease in the currency rates. Actual dollars--raw dollars-- is meaningless taking currency changes and inflation into account.
You miss the core points because you are showing an inability to incorporate basic mathematical concepts into our discussion.