Talk:Military budget of the United States

message: It is important to protect Wikipedia from polemicism. In this article unreliable and invalid budgetary data from a leftist organization, SIPRI, are manipulated to advance an ideological perspective. We should ask the writer to remove the absurd graph or at least admit the distortions.
Consider these observations from truthandpolitics.org:
"Many caveats should be kept in mind when making international comparisons of military expenditures: 
Data for developing and nondemocratic countries may be incomplete, which may lead to crude estimates or underestimates of military spending. 
Conversions from local currencies to a common currency (here, US dollars) may lead to misleading comparisons of the spending of different nations. Currency conversions can be done using official (or market) exchange rates or with "purchasing power parity" (PPP) 
The previous two caveats imply that estimates of world military spending must also be treated with caution."
A better comparative tool for examining US defense expenditure is to use percent of gdp, both from the perspective of history (perhaps since 1960) and relative to other countries (with the caveats above). I suspect that would provide equitable ammunition for both sides of the defense expenditure debate, and would serve to provide a more objective start point for the conversation. (end).
I find the opinion above very interesting. The individual above mentions "unreliable and invalid budgetary data from a leftist organization", but then points to the clear right-wing bias of truthandpolitics.org for "objective" observations. There is not an objective, unbiased economist on the planet who would recommend examining trends in regards to US military/defense expenditure solely through comparison to the GDP. Take something that has exploded in size within the past sixty years (the US GDP), and use that as a base for the formulation of a ratio to measure the objective, independent growth of US military/defense expenditure in comparison to other countries? Now that's misleading.--Jackbirdsong 05:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: bias and objectivity

message: It should be noted that determining the amount of money actually spent on "military" expenditures is not as clear cut as it seems. For example, in government figures, interest on indebted past military expenditures is generally ignored, and unbudgeted military requests are rarely calculated in the total picture of government spending. Lord help you if you want to find a percentage, because the total nature of government spending is
This infamous POV documents the wide discrepancy better than i can. I'm not saying either of the POVs on that page are correct (tho I have my leanings), but I do think this is an issue that ought to be documented further. --Combuchan 07:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow that POV is really biased. It inflates the percentage of military expenditures by removing large portions of the federal budget, like the vast majority of federal entitlement programs. Then it credits the overwhelming majority of the federal debt (80%) to past military spending instead of basing it on the military's percentage of actual previous federal spending. Jeff the Baptist 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See: War_Resisters_League#Current_activities, for a critical look at this graph. In this section is the link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi59.html How Much Does It Cost Your Household for War? by Bill Sardi, apologetic to these groups, which lists four organizations estimates of actual military spending. Ikip (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

text: "removing large portions of the federal budget, like the vast majority of federal entitlement programs" -- to call that "biased" is biased. Suppose I gave you several billion dollars for safekeeping. In your budget, you must now include paying that money back to me. Should your expenditures on groceries (for instance) now be considered a much smaller percentage of your overall budget? -- 98.108.202.17 (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual accounting of military expenditures

message: I think the table is biased. Not enough to make an NPOV dispute, but it ought to be rationalised with purchasing power parity or not displayed at all. Another option would be to compare the actual percentages of military spending (if we ever determine that, see my complaints above). The USA wouldn't be at all on top then.
Then again, I think a certain part of expenditure comparsion between countries is meaningless. During the Cold War, NASA developed a ballpoint pen at an enormous sum for pilots in low gravity conditions. The russians simply used a pencil. Both did the exact same thing. --Combuchan 07:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above statement about NASA is untrue.  -- Scott5834 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The principle it is trying to explain, on the other hand, is not in error. 67.11.70.176 (talk)rohny —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "principle" is not only based entirely on false anecdotes, it is also completely bogus in its own right ... expenditures are expenditures, whether wise or not. -- 98.108.202.17 (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Multicountry comparison

message: Specifically, with respect to this: "As of the early 21st century, the United States is the only military in the world which is capable of global operations." - it certainly sounds like a gross overstatement to me. What about China, Russia, EU? --int19h 05:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted and edited. China is lagging in some areas like having an operational carrier, which seven other countries do other than the US. Shawnc 12:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: "National belief that the United States must maintain a global military presence to uphold democracy". I suppose the word "belief" is crucial here, because the US is _very_ selective in "upholding democracy". In fact, I think an analysis of the US actions rather than the rethorics would show that economic interests are a lot more fundamental in US military decisions than politics. Unless someone objects, I will rephrase this to simply "that the United States must maintain a global military presence". Piet 16:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uphold democracy? 

message: I would say that parts of this section may not be totally objective. It seems to me that this section was written with the aim of justifying the military budget amount, rather than objectively stating facts. For example;
In the first reason: "Since the 1940s, there has been a national consensus within the United States...", and "there remains a national belief that..."
In the third reason: "while there is a national consensus...there is also a national consensus..."
The phrases 'national consensus' and 'national belief' stand out here. Does every single American agree that '<the> military must maintain the capability to fight and win wars overseas in order to defend American allies and to maintain control over the high seas to protect American trade from disruption.'? If a majority of Americans do agree, it might be good to cite a reference that states this.
In the second point, we see that 'the spending represents only a fraction of its enormous national economy.', and 'the current rate of expenditure is sustainable'. I hope I do not misinterpret these statements when I say they are pro-military spending.
The third reason outlines 'improvements in technology' that have been the result of 'an expensive research program'. Has there been any detriment to Americans, or the world, as a result of these 'improvements'? Here, as in the first two reasons, we see only one side of the story.
Perhaps by looking at the first three reasons, it can be seen that the fourth reason may be more justification of military spending than objective, non-partisan commentary.
I certainly do not wish to get into a discussion about the merits/demerits of the US military budget. Also, I don't wish to suggest that the author(s) of this section had ulterior motives. I would merely suggest that this section may be better suited to another article, or possibly left out in its entirety. It would be rude of me to make such a massive edit without seeking the opinion of other editors.--ThurstonZ 04:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for large U.S. military expenditures 

message: The article claims the US spends 4% of its GDP on the military. 2005 GDP: $12,455,825 Billion. 2005 GAO Military Budget: $420.7 Billion. My calculator shows that's 3.37%. With the '06 Budget and '05 GDP, you get 3.77%. Where does 4% come from?
From the CIA factbook. There is a reference in the article. Mathijs Romans 11:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage of GDP 

message: Looking back at older revisions, I see budgets from 2004, etc. The present version has only 2007 data. I was trying to look up the past budgets, but now I have to sift through older versions .. why? Could these brought back and either placed here or in separate articles? Thanks! +mt 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, there should be data on past defense budgets in its own section, as the data is out there. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older budgets 

message: I have a great article that hits dead on regarding the problems with the R&D portion of the budget. This problem has been ongoing for many years. I know this from personal experience and the article states it well. I'd like to know what the best approach to incorporating this information into the page is. Advice? Thanks.--The Founders Intent 14:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense Budget Composition 

message: #Increase number of links to this article, for example in budget-related articles, military-related articles, military-industrial complex-related articles.
#Take information from the GAO () instead of just from the presidential budget. Their numbers are very different. johnpseudo 17:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement possibilities for this article 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: They may fall under the same secretary, but as seperate services the combined listing betrays the lack of funding for the Navy and especially the Marine Corps and the gross overfunding of the Air Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.192.60 (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segregate Navy/Marine Corps 

message: "The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined [6] and is less than eight times less than the official military budget of China."
Am I crazy, or is this sentence self-contradictory? zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: China

message: There is signifigant military spending outside of the DOD's budgetary purview. Specifially the Department of Energy which maintains the nuclear weapons stockpile as well as other nuclear actives which add up to several billion. Also, the Department of State which finances foreign militaries as well as other programs and actions of strategic military importance, are not counted in the DOD budget. The FBI also has a highly funded counter terrorism operation which is of military importance too. Not to mention various other programs and 053 and 051 functions which add up to almost 800 billion for 2009. Should these other military related activities be included?--Mibs (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. According to the article's definition, spending on nuclear weapons doesn't count as part of military spending. The definition and figures should be revised to include portions of the Department of Energy and probably Homeland Security spending. kd24 (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military spending outside of the DoD 

message: This statement makes no sense:
:This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999-2001).
This is nuts. You can't compare military spending in peacetime to the height of WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.15.121 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historically low? 

message: It didn't fit with Wiki's neutrality, and was also inappropriate for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.163.66 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've removed the political comments "American Empire" 

message: At least according to this article from CATO (I know, not the most neutral sources, but still...): http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10263 Cameron Nedland (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the confusion here has to do with the year chosen. In 2007, it was 4.0% of GDP, but the expected number in 2009 is 4.5%. (OMB) Still, I don't know where the 4.7% number came from. johnpseudo 19:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The amount also differs with whether or not the supplemental is included with the base budget, so that might be the source of the difference. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The budget is closer to 5%, not 4%, of the national GDP 

message: Hcobb, this article is not the place for discussions of whether the U.S. should spend more or less on its military. PRRfan (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the value of a number without a context? Hcobb (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that one man's "Obama defense crunch" and "expanded missions" are another's "return to sanity" and "U.S. adventurism." Not defending these points of view; just saying we could find citations for them. Neither is appropriate for this article, in my view. On the other hand, I see a "Commentary" section at the end of the piece. This is also inappropriate, in my view, but I'm not up for launching a consensus-based assault on it. What if we agree that the "Military budget and total US federal spending" section, at least, is not the place for discussions of whether the U.S. should spend more or less on its military? PRRfan (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Not saying CRS was biased; saying the discussion is much bigger than this section. PRRfan (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a policy discussion

message: The subject of this article is the "military budget" of the united states, but some of my recent edits have dealt with the more-general "spending" (as distinct from "budgeted" spending) for "defense" (as distinct from simple military purposes). Am I wrong in thinking that these numbers are relevant? And what are the most reliable sources for "spending" and "budgets"? This article always seems to vary in where it gets its data from year to year. It's frustrating to me that the data is so opaque. It seems like you almost need to be a military budget expert to sort the spin from the facts. johnpseudo 22:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some expert advice, or at least someone who knows what to look for 

message: I know that anyone can look back at an older version of this article, via the history tab, however, it would be nice if we could have a basic history of each year previously given on this article within it. By basic I mean amount spent, percentage of GDP, and percentage of total budget. Of course that may be more difficult then I imagine, as current active editors appear to disagree on what the scope of the article is. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree- the article is much too focused on the current year and not enough on how it has changed over the course of U.S. history. I presume you're referring to me as a "current active editor", but what disagreement about scope are you talking about? johnpseudo 19:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, yah, you are the most active editor recently, and I just watch this article for the most part (and others), to make sure that nothing to erogenous or what I see as to POV is added/subtracted. As for the scope question lets move that to the relevant area of discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: A Shrinking Military Budget May Take Neighbors With It by BINYAMIN APPELBAUM published NYT January 6, 2012. A version of this article appeared in print on January 7, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition.
97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  potential resource 

message: It seems a little misleading to compare the current US military budget as a percentage of the GPD to that at which it peaked without proper context, as the peak year mentioned, 1944, was both the third year that the US was in WWII, and it was the year before they used the first atomic bomb in history, as well as the fact that there was a large drop in GDP at the end of the war, referenced on Wikipedia as the Recession of 1945. Providing no context when comparing to the relatively low necessity we have for military action today and the significantly higher GDP when adjusted for inflation seems to be somewhat misleading and may be biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.114.65 (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point yet I believe most readers will quickly understand why the WWII years' spending is much greater than normal "peace-time" spending or even Cold War spending. Indicating the years of expenditure should be a good enough context. In any case it is informative to see what share of GDP belonged to the military throughout history. ArticunoWebon (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly Deceptive Comparison 

message: 2010 Budget request
 
Percentage of Total
Army
 
$244.9 billion 31.8% In FY2011 $17,175,805,014.00 dollars was paid to retired Soldiers and Survivors, which is about 6.9% of the total Army Budget
 
Navy $149.9 billion 23.4% excluding Marine Corps
 
Marine Corps $29.0 billion 4% Total Budget taken allotted from Department of Navy
Air Force $170.6 billion 22%''
Thats in the article. But there is an error with the Navy (because of the Marines I guess?) and the Air Force. The Air Force got 170,6 Billion and 22% - the Navy with her 149.9 Billion got 23.4%? This is 20.7 Billion less and however 1.4% more? The Marines 29,0 Billion and 4% would make the Navy 178.9 Billion (23.4 + 4% = 27.4%?). This however doesn't work if you compare the 170.6 Billion and 22% from the Air Force. I mean the amounts are useful but the percent are wrong. If you take 244.9 / 31.8 you get = 7,701 Billion for 1%. If you take 170.6 / 22.0 you get = 7,754 and if you take 29 / 4 you get 7,250 and 149.9 / 23.4 = 6,4059829059829059829059829059829, 178.9 / 23.4 = 7,645. I think the numbers have been rounded up or down (7,701 - 7,754 and 7,645 are in such a small corridor, only the Marines 7,250 is completely wrong).
I would remove all of the percents or at least the Navy-Percents. That a large amount of money is spent for many many other projects doesn't make this thing easier. Army 31,8% + 23,4% Navy + 22% Airforce makes "only" = 77,2%. Since the values are in the one table from the FY 09/10 and the next chart shows FY 2011 numbers this is really confusing, since the USA got Fiscal Year 2013 already since 44 Days and the FY 2012 (Oct 2011 - Sep 2012) is not mentioned in the charts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilon22 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percent of Budget 

message: The entire US debt is financed with $200 B in interest. How can defense be more than that amount?
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43904-Historical%20Budget%20Data-2.xls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.172.40 (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interest for financing defense spending 

message: 66.161.110.44 (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 8 is unreliable 

message: This is far from accurate. While it is a widely credited estimate, the U.S. military has not spent this much already on the wars. While the argument is that future costs in interest will cause it to reach these levels, they have yet to actually make it there. It suggests over a trillion in interests and medical will be paid, but has yet to be. 
Whether or not we want to argue secret hidden costs, future costs, medical care costs, or whichever costs that they assume or predict to occur, these are not what have actually been spent on the war. I believe a more objective expenditure on the war should be listed, as in the actual cost spent on the war, with the additional estimates provided, but that it should be reworded not to imply that this much has actually been spent already, or directly. The "cost" of the war may be higher, but that isn't the same as what has been spent. 
The congressional budget office of the U.S. has stated it has spent approximately 1.6 trillion dollars on both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; "Between September 2001 and June 2014, lawmakers appropriated about $1.6 trillion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other war-related activities. Of that amount, about $1.4 trillion has gone to the Department of Defense, with about $165 billion provided for training indigenous security forces and for funding diplomatic relations and foreign aid for Iraq and Afghanistan."
https://www.cbo.gov/topics/national-security/iraq-and-afghanistan/reports
Everybodydothatdinosaurs (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  As of June 2011, the total cost of the wars was approximately $3.7 trillion 

message: Citation 14, "Historical Outlays by Agency", returns a 404 error.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.201.34 (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Need updating 

message: In addition to explaining the military budget in contents of components, entity, and programs. An in-depth analysis may be helpful in explaining spending to maintain military bases and presence in other countries. This may provided a global view of the military spending to the reader and provided knowledge of U.S. presence in other countries. Furthermore, in comparison of spending with other countries, the writer might want to expand in explaining the spending of our allies involved in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. This will allow the reader to understand the spending of various countries involved in the most recent war. Finally, the writer may want to expand on explaining the overall spending of the U.S. in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Including military spending in training non-US military entities in Iraq and Afghanistan and spending on the reconstruction of these countries. This is will allow the reader to understand the context of military spending involves non-U.S. military needs. 
Jose a cantu (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Military budget of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091102154942/http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/summary.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/summary.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Military budget of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090731012845/http://opencrs.com:80/getfile.php?rid=82228 to http://opencrs.com/getfile.php?rid=82228
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The "By Entity" percentages do not make any sense.  The Marine Corps is listed as receiving $40.6 billion, which is claimed to be 4% of the total, while Defense Intelligence is listed as receiving $80.1 billion, equaling 3.3% of the total.  The other numbers are similarly screwy: the Navy's $149.9 billion is supposedly 23.4% of the total, which implies a 2010 budget request of $640.6 billion, while the Air Force's $170.6 billion is 22%, which implies a 2010 budget request of $775.5 billion.
I don't know what the right numbers are, but this table should probably be stricken until a reliable source can be identified for more recent figures.
144.211.186.253 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "By Entity" Percentages 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Military budget of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622052209/http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/103719-gates-concerned-about-delayed-war-supplemental-, to http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/103719-gates-concerned-about-delayed-war-supplemental-,
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121002254/http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Weapons.pdf to http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Weapons.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist03z2.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150307195222/http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1341 to http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1341
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A few other users and I have completed a rewrite of this page, with some additional information added to reflect recent events. This proposed page can be found at User:Cameronjbird/sandbox. Let me know if you find any errors in what we believe to be a vast improvement. Cameronjbird (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed full rewrite

message: I think there are lots of more recent sources for this that could replace this primary source.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary source

message: The openening concludes with:
"By 20 January 2017, when President Trump took office, annual military spending had reached its highest peak ever—$596 billion—representing three times the military spending of all other NATO countries combined."
But the table below the content-list shows the budget of 2010 having $721 billion and others having more as well, therefor I have deleted that sentence. Nevfennas (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction in opening statement

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Military budget of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107010807/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/103719-gates-concerned-about-delayed-war-supplemental-%2C
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108034831/http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=62351 to http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=62351
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Most information on this page comes from 2009 through 2011. Very few references to recent military budget changes other than current administrations fiscal year goals.Liam.Guevara (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs an update 

message: The federal waste page makes the claim that the U.S. government is wasting a lot of money on the DoD. Would like to see how DoD spending could be justified, not just one viewpoint. Liam.Guevara (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal Waste Page Has No Debate 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Military budget of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114012750/http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist04z1.xls to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist04z1.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214071610/http://comptroller.defense.gov/cfs/fy2010/01_DoD_Agency-Wide/Fiscal_Year_2010_DoD_Agencywide_Agency%20Financial%20Report.pdf to http://comptroller.defense.gov/cfs/fy2010/01_DoD_Agency-Wide/Fiscal_Year_2010_DoD_Agencywide_Agency%20Financial%20Report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214071610/http://comptroller.defense.gov/cfs/fy2010/01_DoD_Agency-Wide/Fiscal_Year_2010_DoD_Agencywide_Agency%20Financial%20Report.pdf to http://comptroller.defense.gov/cfs/fy2010/01_DoD_Agency-Wide/Fiscal_Year_2010_DoD_Agencywide_Agency%20Financial%20Report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214071610/http://comptroller.defense.gov/cfs/fy2010/01_DoD_Agency-Wide/Fiscal_Year_2010_DoD_Agencywide_Agency%20Financial%20Report.pdf to http://comptroller.defense.gov/cfs/fy2010/01_DoD_Agency-Wide/Fiscal_Year_2010_DoD_Agencywide_Agency%20Financial%20Report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214071610/http://comptroller.defense.gov/cfs/fy2010/01_DoD_Agency-Wide/Fiscal_Year_2010_DoD_Agencywide_Agency%20Financial%20Report.pdf to http://comptroller.defense.gov/cfs/fy2010/01_DoD_Agency-Wide/Fiscal_Year_2010_DoD_Agencywide_Agency%20Financial%20Report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022070642/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040421054444/http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php to http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111027120232/http://comptroller.defense.gov/cfs/fy2010/01_DoD_Agency-Wide/Fiscal_Year_2010_DoD_Agencywide_Agency%20Financial%20Report.pdf to http://comptroller.defense.gov/cfs/fy2010/01_DoD_Agency-Wide/Fiscal_Year_2010_DoD_Agencywide_Agency%20Financial%20Report.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The second paragraph of "Comparison to other countries" starts :
"In 2015, out of its budget of 1.11 trillion, the United States spent $598 billion on military."
But in the table under "Budget by year", the defense budget is 637 bn out of a total budget of 3.97 trillion. 
Am I missing something? Do point it out if I am. 
:I agree that the 2015 numbers as stated look incorrect; the table numbers look correct based upon the sources I've seen.Barnhorst (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are different ways to compare to other countries. Absolute spending is certainly one way, but % of GDP also paints a useful picture. This section could certainly be cleaned up to make that clearer.Barnhorst (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd paragraph of "Comparison to other countries"  

message: The source for the "budget by year" table is a large document that breaks down federal spending in a bunch of different ways.  I wanted to add recent years so I'm looking at the 2020 versions of the source, but I can't find a breakdown that matches the table exactly.  I want the recent year numbers to be comparable to the older year numbers.  Does anyone know which table or page number I should be using?  Or am I better off picking some breakdown - maybe "outlays by function and superfunction", which is the first spending table and within a couple percent of the current numbers - and replacing the entire table with slightly different numbers that I can find? Warren Dew (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly is included in "Budget by Year"? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Raygazzo (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session22

message: Hi @Ninel, I just reverted your edit, because you added 2023 data to a section that is only about 2017. If you want you could expand the table under the Budget by year section and convert it into a main section (Header 1) instead of a subsection, but please add all of the missing years (FY2016 onward) so there are no gaps. Thanks! Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 16:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks @Exobiotic. You were correct that I added that data in the incorrect section. I added missing summary budgets in section "Budget by year". Ninel (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data by Year table