<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Staggering Facts About our Government and Spending</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thepresenttense.net/2009/01/staggering-facts-about-our-government-and-spending/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thepresenttense.net/2009/01/staggering-facts-about-our-government-and-spending/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Mar 2011 02:30:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lars</title>
		<link>http://www.thepresenttense.net/2009/01/staggering-facts-about-our-government-and-spending/comment-page-1/#comment-75</link>
		<dc:creator>Lars</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:23:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepresenttense.net/?p=350#comment-75</guid>
		<description>Yuck. There&#039;s a reason they call economics &quot;The Dismal Science,&quot; ya know.

As far as the military spending goes, it&#039;s long been known that the United States military budget exceeds that of its nearest thirty or so competitors &lt;strong&gt;combined&lt;/strong&gt;, even in &quot;down&quot; years when the military budget wasn&#039;t increased dramatically due to the panic/&quot;police action&quot;-du-jour.

But you wanna know something even more thought-provoking (in the way that &quot;perhaps I shouldn&#039;t have eaten that green mayonnaise which was dated 4-14-93&quot; could be considered &quot;thought provoking&quot;)? Try this on for size:

&lt;strong&gt;Permanent Members of the UN Security Council&lt;/strong&gt;:

United States
Russian Federation
France
United Kingdom
China

Not exactly news, right? I mean, everybody knows &lt;strong&gt;THAT&lt;/strong&gt;, don&#039;t they? Sure they do. Now, compare that with the top arms dealers in the world (2000-2007, as rated by the web site globalissues.org &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;at this link&lt;/a&gt; - check out the handy-dandy chart!). GlobalIssues, in turn, got &lt;strong&gt;their&lt;/strong&gt; data straight from the horse&#039;s mouth, i.e.: our own government - in this case, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/asmp/factsandfigures/government_data/2008/RL34723.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Congressional Research Service&#039;s October 23, 2008 report on global arms sales&lt;/a&gt; (.pdf). Here&#039;s what we learn from that report: the top five global arms dealers are &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt;, as you might expect, shadowy, wealthy Arabs who buy and sell black-market weapons systems, but large governments, who sell directly (and perfectly legally) to any nation with the green to buy. Specifically, these days, that means the developing world, whose leaders are always interested in better &quot;defense&quot; - meaning more, newer weapons. And the cash to pay for that comes straight out of their country&#039;s treasuries, instead of going to things like, say, universal access to clean drinking water, or modern, redundant sewage systems. Or education. Or....well, you get the idea. Anyway, without further ado, here&#039;s the list of....
&lt;strong&gt;The Top Five Arms Dealers In The World:&lt;/strong&gt;

United States
Russia
France
United Kingdom
China


Heeeyyyy....wait a minute! Why, if I&#039;m not mistaken, there seems to be some, ah....&lt;em&gt;overlap&lt;/em&gt; between those two lists. Who&#039;d-a-thunkit? As that old geezer Sting once put it:
&lt;blockquote&gt;How can you say that you&#039;re not responsible?What does it have to do with me?What is my reaction, what should it be?Confronted by this latest atrocity

&lt;blockquote&gt;Driven to tearsDriven to tears&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Hide my face in my hands, shame wells in my throatMy comfortable existence is reduced to a shallow meaningless partySeems that when some innocents dieAll we can offer them is a page in some magazineToo many cameras and not enough foodThis is what we&#039;ve seen

&lt;blockquote&gt;Driven to tearsDriven to tears&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Yep. And if we turn to page 41 of that CRS pdf I linked to above, we see that not only are the five permanent members of the UN Security council &lt;strong&gt;ALSO&lt;/strong&gt; the world&#039;s largest arms dealers, it actually gives us a nice &quot;percentage of total&quot; breakdown. Here&#039;s the breakdown of sales to the &lt;strong&gt;developing&lt;/strong&gt; world (though the total to the &lt;strong&gt;ENTIRE&lt;/strong&gt; world isn&#039;t much different: all figures averaged over eight-year period 2000-2007):

United States - 34.995%
Russia - 27.969%
United Kingdom - 8.091%
France - 6.259%
China - 4.701%

My goodness! If you&#039;re following along on our lovely home edition of our game (&quot;Global-Earth Total Mutually-Assured Destruction,&quot; or &quot;G.E.T.M.A.D.&quot; for short), you&#039;ll have already totaled up the figures, and discovered that, between the five of them, the five permanent members of the UN &quot;Security&quot; Council account for a rather astonishing &lt;strong&gt;82.015%&lt;/strong&gt; of all arms sales to the developing world.
Can you see why I put the &quot;Security&quot; part of UN Security Council in scare-quotes?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yuck. There&#8217;s a reason they call economics &#8220;The Dismal Science,&#8221; ya know.</p>
<p>As far as the military spending goes, it&#8217;s long been known that the United States military budget exceeds that of its nearest thirty or so competitors <strong>combined</strong>, even in &#8220;down&#8221; years when the military budget wasn&#8217;t increased dramatically due to the panic/&#8221;police action&#8221;-du-jour.</p>
<p>But you wanna know something even more thought-provoking (in the way that &#8220;perhaps I shouldn&#8217;t have eaten that green mayonnaise which was dated 4-14-93&#8243; could be considered &#8220;thought provoking&#8221;)? Try this on for size:</p>
<p><strong>Permanent Members of the UN Security Council</strong>:</p>
<p>United States<br />
Russian Federation<br />
France<br />
United Kingdom<br />
China</p>
<p>Not exactly news, right? I mean, everybody knows <strong>THAT</strong>, don&#8217;t they? Sure they do. Now, compare that with the top arms dealers in the world (2000-2007, as rated by the web site globalissues.org <a href="http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations" rel="nofollow">at this link</a> &#8211; check out the handy-dandy chart!). GlobalIssues, in turn, got <strong>their</strong> data straight from the horse&#8217;s mouth, i.e.: our own government &#8211; in this case, the <a href="http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/asmp/factsandfigures/government_data/2008/RL34723.pdf" rel="nofollow">Congressional Research Service&#8217;s October 23, 2008 report on global arms sales</a> (.pdf). Here&#8217;s what we learn from that report: the top five global arms dealers are <strong>not</strong>, as you might expect, shadowy, wealthy Arabs who buy and sell black-market weapons systems, but large governments, who sell directly (and perfectly legally) to any nation with the green to buy. Specifically, these days, that means the developing world, whose leaders are always interested in better &#8220;defense&#8221; &#8211; meaning more, newer weapons. And the cash to pay for that comes straight out of their country&#8217;s treasuries, instead of going to things like, say, universal access to clean drinking water, or modern, redundant sewage systems. Or education. Or&#8230;.well, you get the idea. Anyway, without further ado, here&#8217;s the list of&#8230;.<br />
<strong>The Top Five Arms Dealers In The World:</strong></p>
<p>United States<br />
Russia<br />
France<br />
United Kingdom<br />
China</p>
<p>Heeeyyyy&#8230;.wait a minute! Why, if I&#8217;m not mistaken, there seems to be some, ah&#8230;.<em>overlap</em> between those two lists. Who&#8217;d-a-thunkit? As that old geezer Sting once put it:</p>
<blockquote><p>How can you say that you&#8217;re not responsible?What does it have to do with me?What is my reaction, what should it be?Confronted by this latest atrocity</p>
<blockquote><p>Driven to tearsDriven to tears</p></blockquote>
<p>Hide my face in my hands, shame wells in my throatMy comfortable existence is reduced to a shallow meaningless partySeems that when some innocents dieAll we can offer them is a page in some magazineToo many cameras and not enough foodThis is what we&#8217;ve seen</p>
<blockquote><p>Driven to tearsDriven to tears</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>Yep. And if we turn to page 41 of that CRS pdf I linked to above, we see that not only are the five permanent members of the UN Security council <strong>ALSO</strong> the world&#8217;s largest arms dealers, it actually gives us a nice &#8220;percentage of total&#8221; breakdown. Here&#8217;s the breakdown of sales to the <strong>developing</strong> world (though the total to the <strong>ENTIRE</strong> world isn&#8217;t much different: all figures averaged over eight-year period 2000-2007):</p>
<p>United States &#8211; 34.995%<br />
Russia &#8211; 27.969%<br />
United Kingdom &#8211; 8.091%<br />
France &#8211; 6.259%<br />
China &#8211; 4.701%</p>
<p>My goodness! If you&#8217;re following along on our lovely home edition of our game (&#8220;Global-Earth Total Mutually-Assured Destruction,&#8221; or &#8220;G.E.T.M.A.D.&#8221; for short), you&#8217;ll have already totaled up the figures, and discovered that, between the five of them, the five permanent members of the UN &#8220;Security&#8221; Council account for a rather astonishing <strong>82.015%</strong> of all arms sales to the developing world.<br />
Can you see why I put the &#8220;Security&#8221; part of UN Security Council in scare-quotes?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

