OT your tax returns

He's not screwing us individually. He's screwing us collectively. You can't talk about money the feds are getting (or not getting) without also discussing what they're spending. It's not possible.

The spinless congress (both parties) delegated war authority to the president. He's equally to blame for the resulting costs. If you ran your household money the way the government does, a financial advisor would laugh you out of his office.

There was no subject change. dbu presented one half of a budget picture. I reminded you of the other half. You can't lower your income (taxes) while suddenly undertaking a major project (a war).

Oh, but you can.

The need for the war in Iraq aside, a proper U.S. budget would have more than enough money to pay for a war. All this requires is elimination of those items for which no Constitutional basis is stated or implied within said Constitution.

"Provide for the common defense..."

The war is an off budget thing. But, you already knew that, right? Of course you did.

"The Bush administration has chosen to finance the war by off-budget emergency supplemental appropriations, rather than include Iraq spending in the budget sent to Congress. It was only after the war began, on 25 March

2003, that President Bush asked for $75bn extra to pay for the initial costs of the war. And it was more than six months later before the next supplemental appropriation, for another $87bn, was made. That has reduced the political flack over appropriations for the war - and has also meant that the war spending does not formally count as part of the budget deficit in the future."

You doubt the fact you were presented with?

There was no factor involved other than presenting you with a financial fact. You will now disagree because you have no other choice. How childish.

What about the per capita interest on the national debt? One conservative Nobel economist said deficits were taxes.

Military spending is 4%, or higher than it used to be.

Name some major countries that spend a greater percentage of their GDP on the military than the US does.

You were unprepared before joining this discussion. This is your pattern. Give it up. Go watch TV.

Easy. China is on par. Saudi Arabia leaves us in the dust.

Deficits aren't free and therefore must be considered equivalent to taxes.

The choice to increase our national debt was primarily Bush's because he chose to start a war in Iraq.

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money..

I didn't ask for countries that spent less but more.

Wikipedia, which is never wrong (cough!), gives the following figures for 2005:

The US has long said that China understates its defense spending, but even when the much higher US estimate for them is used, China spends only 3% of GDP on defense. Saudi Arabia and Israel each spend 10% of GDP.

The

This wikipedia page says otherwise:

Several countries are on par with us within the stated divisions. Saudi Arabia and Oman are higher.

I wonder if it's a valid comparison. Here, at least in theory, defense spending is vetted by congress, sent to the president, banged up, sent back, run through the press for approval, ad infinitum. In the two countries you mentioned, it's like Bill Gates deciding to buy another car. He just buys one.

If you didn't notice, I wasn't the first to use wikipedia results to prove the point.

IOW, one result is as valid as the other.

Remember "Sleeping with the Devil"? The book you recommended?

Baer also states the same.

Yeah, but we're talking about budgets here. You can't compare your household budget to Warren Buffett's. The Saudi royals answer to nobody. Neither does Buffett (except maybe his wife).

Earth calling JSB. Earth calling JSB. The thread refers to percentages. SA and Oman trump the USA.

Allow me to not change the subject: