Newsgroup: it.cultura.storia.militare
Titolo: interessante

Anyone who supports increased US military spending is greedy, ignorant, or
advocating the economic sabotage of the United States.  Since most Americans
are ignorant of economic realities, this chart of discretionary spending
explains why military spending must be slashed unless taxes are dramatically
raised.  The other category of federal spending is mandatory spending, money
that is spent in compliance with existing laws that govern the particular
program or function, like:  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food
Stamps, Federal Retirement, and interest payments on the national debt.  The
"National Defense" category accounts for 51% of all discretionary spending,
and that excludes the Veterans Administration which was spun out of this
category during the Reagan years, and ignores the $87 billion in planned
"Terrorism Spending"; which is not counted as spending by Presidential
decree.
     An August 2003 Congressional Budget Office estimate put the FY2004
deficit at $480 billion.  This estimate did not include the recent request
for $87 billion to occupy and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan next year,
boosting the projected deficit to $567 billion.  However, this total does
not include costs for the recently passed prescription drug benefit for the
elderly.  It does not include the billions of dollars needed to bail out
pension funds of failing corporations, nor the annual supplemental spending
Congress adds each year for "emergencies".  Tax revenues remain flat as the
USA remains in the longest economic slump since the Great Depression of the
1930s while interest rates have begun to rise.  This has caused the interest
on Treasury bonds to rise, which will add several billion more in interest
payments.  Nevertheless, the Bush Administration is pushing for another
increase in military spending after a 17% rise this year (excluding costs in
Iraq and Afghanistan).  When these factors are included, next years' budget
deficit is likely to exceed $600 billion.  It will actually exceed $800
billion if the $200 billion borrowed from the Social Security Trust fund is
counted as debt.
     This deficit  is so reckless that the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
recently scolded the United States for fiscal irresponsibility, criticism
normally directed at Third World regimes.  Last February, a US Department of
Treasury report said that income taxes must be raised 66% to balance the
budget, yet no one took notice.  Few Americans are concerned because
corporate cheerleaders like Larry Kudlow at MSNBC and the young models at
Fox News tell them everything is great.  Many Americans think budget
problems can be solved by just cutting welfare and foreign aid.  However, if
Congress eliminated all federal welfare programs, the military budget would
still have to be cut to balance the budget.  In reality, the Bush
administration and the Republican controlled Congress have increased social
spending much faster than during the Clinton era.
     While the rest of government can be trimmed, it is obvious that at
least $100 billion must be cut from annual military budgets to help save the
nation from hyperinflation or bankruptcy.  This is not unreasonable since
the annual military budget has grown by over $100 billion the past three
years; a figure which does not include war costs in the Middle East.  In
addition, other federal government spending must be slashed, and Congress
should scrutinized the outrageous request for $87 billion for colonial
adventures in the Middle East; which is several times the annual GDP of both
Iraq and Afghanistan.  Another $55 billion will be requested early next year
unless a fantasy plan succeeds in collecting that much from foreign
contributions for the "war on terror."  The entire world is perplexed as to
why the US Government has asked them for funds and troops to rebuild Iraq
after the USA defied the United Nations and international law to conduct an
unprovoked bombing campaign and ground invasion.
     A recent US Census report revealed that median household income has
declined 3.4 percent  between 1999 and 2002 and continues to fall while GDP
"activity" rises, but only matching population growth.  Keep in mind that
GDP is not a measurement of wealth, but an indicator of activity.  So when
the federal government borrows and spends an extra $600 billion, GDP does
rise, just like credit cards allow people to increase spending.  However,
none of this money is directed at improving America's productive private
sector, and all of this money must be repaid with interest.  In contrast,
government spending diverts resources and skilled manpower away from
America's economic engine.  For example, some 200,000 military reservists
have been diverted from productive tax paying employment in the private
sector to tax absorbing work in the military.
     Those in the rapidly growing government sector may feel immune to a
faltering economy, yet they should remember that their pay and retirement
benefits depend on a healthy economy to generate taxes.  Federal workers and
military personnel should be alarmed that 27 cents of each dollar they are
paid next year was borrowed.  Politicians tell the public that this year's
deficit is not as bad as the worst year of Reagan's borrow and spend spree
in 1983, as a percentage of GDP.  However, the nation had just $1 trillion
in debt and did not have to allot $323 billion for interest payments in
1983, and there was outrage in Congress which forced mandatory cuts like the
unpopular "Gramm-Rudman".  In contrast, the budget deficit will be much
worse next year and there are no plans to cut anything, just more spending.
What is truly alarming is the speed this deficit has grown, from a surplus
when Bush took office to a record deficit three years later.
      The only thing keeping the nation afloat is a huge trade deficit which
pumps a half trillion in surplus dollars overseas, which is used to buy US
treasury bonds.  China/Hong Kong have $469 billion in foreign currency
reserves (mostly US dollars), and lent the poor USA $41 billion last year
through the purchase of US treasury bonds.  China spent nearly as much on US
treasury bonds as it did on its military last year, and billions of US tax
dollars now flow to China as interest payments.  The USA will waste $323
billion for interest in FY2004 on a $6.7 trillion national debt which will
grow by another $600 billion next year.  This represents a birth tax
invented by the "greatest generation" that must be paid by all future
generations.  Since political leaders ignore this looming disaster, the USA
cannot avoid hyperinflation when Asian nations decide to unload their
dollars and shed what Gore Vidal calls: "The Yellow Man's Burden."
Ironically, the USA has pledged to spend an additional $14 billion to
improve defenses in South Korea, money it must borrow, while South Korea
sits on a hoard of $133 billion US dollars.
      Inflation has begun to rise in the USA, and may prove impossible to
stop from doubling each year even if political leaders grow a backbone and
raise taxes or slash spending.  This is because the Clinton Administration
lowered the budget deficit by introducing Treasury Inflation-Indexed
Securities which promise buyers of US Government debt their investment will
not be decimated by inflation.  However, this means that each time inflation
rises by 1%, the federal government eventually owes another $67 billion in
interest each year.  Unless the US government can find buyers for this
exploding debt, the Federal Reserve must "print" money, causing inflation to
rise further. So a moderate inflation rate of 8% will result in another $335
billion that must be borrowed to make annual interest payments.  Buying US
Treasury bonds will become risky even with the inflation guarantee, so rates
will soar, or the Federal Reserve will print money and "buy" them, which in
turn will push inflation even higher.
      All this assumes there is no panic in which a trillion dollars
overseas are dumped on the world market for safe currency and precious
metals.  Hyperinflation has destroyed hundreds of foreign economies
throughout history.  Even the brilliant and frugal Germans ended up shopping
with wheelbarrows full of cash in the 1920s.  More recently, the Soviet
Union's economy collapsed from overspending by a centralized government
focused on the production of weaponry and foreign adventures.  Unless the US
Congress and the President quickly cut spending or raise taxes, the
automatic inflation tax will rise quickly; and 50% or 100% annual inflation
is possible.  This will continue until Congress takes serious action,
probably by limiting spending increases to a point where pay, pensions and
the Pentagon's budget falls to half of today's value.  The Auerbach Report
contains more background on this probable catastrophe.
    Nevertheless, some people insist the Pentagon budget deserves to grow to
5% of GDP, which was the average during the Cold War.  First, this assumes
that protecting the USA from a few hundred nomadic terrorists costs more
than preparing for total nuclear war with the Soviet Union.  Second, the
amount spent on "National Defense" is much greater than just Department of
Defense funding.  Most funding for the Department of Energy is for building
and storing nuclear weapons, while money spent on veterans is no longer
counted, and neither are the tens of billions of dollars in annual
"supplemental" spending for the Pentagon.  In addition, the soaring annual
interest on the national debt represents 2% of GDP, and the Pentagon's
budget does not share that cost.  Finally, at least 10% of GDP is
artificial, fueled by foreign lending in the form of bond purchases and
trade credits, which cannot continue much longer.
      The biggest threat to the national security of the United States is
exploding debt which will lead to hyperinflation.  If Americans truly care
about US servicemen, they should demand higher taxes or reduced military
spending to ensure that GIs receive the retirement benefits they expect.
Its well past time for American military leaders to rein in plans for bigger
budgets and eliminate some programs. Billions of dollars are wasted each
year on future military programs when it is obvious there will never be
enough money to produce all that equipment.  Is it possible that military
leaders in the United States can overcome their inbred service loyalty and
do something patriotic?  They should tell their President that unless taxes
are raised, cutting military spending is advisable until the overall budget
situation improves.  Since the USA spends seven times more on its military
than any other nation, a $100 billion a year cut will still allow the USA to
spend five times more than anyone else.  Even as a percentage of GDP,
military spending by the USA is more than twice that of most modern nations
around the globe.  So why is it unthinkable to slash military spending to
help save the nation from collapse?

http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersFY03.html
Spendere nella difesa 7 volte più del secondo paese al mondo (che per di più
non è considerato "nemico" se non da qualche pazzo) per forniture militari è
intelligente? Non basterebbe spendere il doppio rispetto alla Russia per
mantenere una indiscussa superiorità militare rispetto a qualsiasi
concorrente?

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:lrAfb.224169$R32.7...@news2.tin.it...

Beh, ma così facendo taglieresti processi di sviluppo min corso da anni e
vorrebbe dire bruciare anche soldi passati.
se tagli i soldi x la ricerca "bruci" soldi spesi precedentementi, se tagli
sulla manutenzione ti trovi col culo x terra, e sugli uomini nn te lo puoi
permettere xkè già non bastano x le missioni che hai in giro x il mondo.
E' un circolo vizioso


Diglielo tu ai 30 milioni di americani senza assistenza sanitaria "scusate,
ma siccome abbiamo speso miliardi su miliardi in armi durante la guerra
fredda non possiamo aiutarvi riducendo la spesa militare anche se
effettivamente non ci serve tutta la potenza di fuoco che abbiamo, perchè se
no butteremmo via i soldi che abbiamo già inutilmente speso 10 anni fà...
Mai sentito parlare di riconversione dell'industria bellica? I russi anche
se dopo 10 anni di passione (più che altro per la disastrosa situazione
economica lasciata da Gorby) sono riusciti a ridimensionare di circa 5 volte
il loro potenziale militare senza che sia morto nessuno. Gli usa potrebbero
farcela tranquillamente....


Cavolo non sapevo che l'Iran spendesse nella difesa più che Israele!

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:lrAfb.224169$R32.7...@news2.tin.it...

Scusa, ma hai presente l'industria bellica statunitense?
Il giorno che smetteranno di fare guerre e di aggiornare continuamente le
loro forze armate, la loro economia collasserà.
Idem la vendita di armi da guerra nel mondo e la vendita dia rmi nello
stesso paese.
Cacchio, con 6 dollari ti compri le "Pistole del Sabato Sera" ... Sparano 6
volte e le butti, ma potenzialmente uccidi 6 persone ...


Cos'è sta storia della pistola del sabato sera? Hai qualche link?.


No purtroppo, un mio carissimo amico è per metà Americano, di boston e
spesso (stà facendo il dottorato in agronomia) Và nei grandi parchi
americani e si ferma semrpe dai aprenti a Boston.
Me ne parlò tempo fà, uno zio rimase ferito in una rapina (Ha un market).
Comunque, non sò bene dove, forse nelle cronache dei giornali americani
dovresti trovare qualcosa.
Tra la'ltro me ne hanno parlato più fonti, personalemnte ritenute assai
attendibili.
Da quel che sò, sono pistole a tamburo, pittosto grezze e di amteriale
scadente.
Sono suate da drogati o piccoli rapinatori.
Mi dispiace non poterti fornire dati precisi e sinceramente ho voglia
anch'io di trovarli
Il reiferimento più diretto è stato proprio di questo mio amico mezzo yankee
(come amo prenderlo in giro).
Mi ha riferito che la città più pericolosa è Washinton, mentre in genere si
pensa sia New York.

 Sparano 6 volte e le butti, ma potenzialmente uccidi 6 persone ...
L'ultima frontiera dell'usa e getta? questa se la potevano risparmiare...
;Ź___Ź
-- 
Halman

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:blncvf$e21na$1...@ID-124186.news.uni-berlin.de...

Per quanto costa, risparmiano con quella.

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:bPEfb.9742$vO5.3...@twister1.libero.it...


 ora come ora non ne ricordo il nome
Si' la pistola monocolpo "Liberator" che era gettata a milioni nel sud-est 
asiatico per incentivare la lotta antigiapponese.
Era paracadutata insieme ad un manualetto solo a figure che ne spiegava l' 
uso, ed era intesa come arma usa e getta (se nn mi sbaglio non si poteva 
ricaricare !) per eliminare un fante Giapponese isolato, per prendere le 
sue armi e munizioni.
Spero che basti.
Saluti.
-- 
Dottor Piergiorgio d' Errico-Storico militare e Navale
ICQ: 208180385
Niitakayama Nobore ichi ni rei ya

 x i partigiani?
Riporto un post di Echo risalente a circa 2 anni fa :
Trascrivo parte del testo da "Armi da Guerra":
Prodotta dalla General Motors Corporation tra il giugno e l' agosto 42 in un
milione di esemplari gli fu dato il nome di copertura  "Flare Pistol"
(pistola lanciarazzi).Descritta come arma semplice anzi addiruttira
elementare, era costruita il metallo stampato e a canna liscia, monocolpo.
Una specie di leva di armamento veniva afferrata e tirata indietro per
armare
l' arma, quindi con una rotazione la si bloccava in sito mentre una
cartuccia
M1911 cal. 11.43 veniva introdotta in canna. A questo punto era sufficente
ruotare in senso inverso la leva di armamento perchè fosse libera di tornare
in avanti mentre veniva premuto il grilletto. Per espellere il bossolo si
tirava nuovamente indietro la leva ed introdurre dalla volata un qualsiasi
oggetto adatto allo scopo (una matita, una cannuccia etc.). Ogni pistola era
impacchettata in un sacchetto di plastica trasparente unitamente a 10 colpi
ed un manualetto a fumetti senza parole. Nel calcio vi era spazio per
contenere 5 dei 10 colpi in dotazione. Era efficace solo a distanza molto
ravvicinata. Fu paracadutata in Europa ma soprattutto nell' Estremo Oriente
ed in Cina. Da essa derivò il modello "Deer Gun" nel 64' per l' impiego nel
Vietnam.
Lungh tot . :114 mm
Lungh canna : 102 mm
Peso : 0.454 Kg
V. iniz. : 336 m/sec.
Il testo fa notare la mancanza di dati precisi riguardo l' utilizzo, l'
impiego e la distrubuzione dell'arma  essendo una pistola gestita dall' OSS.
Nelle foto che ho dimostra tutto il suo orrore, appare come un pezzo di
latta
malamente assemblato da tre rivetti.
Ho anche trovato questo link estremamente interessante :
http://www.soonresources.com/liberator/index.html
Byez
Aleks
--
"World War XIV, my first Sony
Beatles wrote the Nike song and called it macaroni
Billy Jean Burger King chauvinist pig pen
U.S. Army only wants a few straight men"
Http://www.MACV.has.it/
 - Military Assistance Command Vietnam HQ
Http://www.saigon-bunker.tk/
 - Mil Graphix Proving Ground
Http://www.sherylove.it.tt
 - 1st Sheryl Crow Italian Webiste (96/03)