Probably anyway... I can't make much sense of it.   The 50% only spending 3% i understand... because any given year, most people are healthy. 

That 10% spending 63% is harder to reconcile.  I wonder who they are, and why they spend so much... and how much these stats differ from other countries.

10% of the country is repsonsible for spending 10% of the countries GDP on healthcare.  It's interesting to say the least.

I'll have to do more digging.  It's why i love the internet though... you can know practically anything and all it takes is effort.

The paragraph you dubed "1" tells me that any further typing on my part wont get through to you. I've given many reasons already why the US had to invade for the safety of our soldiers in Afghanistan and. our resources (transported goods) and also settling a score. If it makes it any simpler then here:

Mission Afghanistan - Find bin Laden, Oust Al Qaeda, Eliminate the tools that make Afghan a safe haven for terror.

Mission Iraq - Find Hussein and cronies, Oust Al Qaeda, Eliminate the tools that make Iraq a safe haven for terror.

Both of these missions were in the direction of the war on terrorism.

Now the finer point isn't if he had WMD's our care about India and Pakistan or North Korea tells us that US policy isn't to invade at the first acknowledgement of unsanction WMD's. It's that Iraq wasn't and ally and we had troops in the area, and if we respected their borders we would never have been able to call Hussein's bluff.

- As for Iran's anguish over US action with Iraq... I found this quote from Henry Kissinger on the matter "It's a pitty they can't both lose." As for the chemical weapons usage, the assumption was that Iran was using them as well.

It should also be noted that the US was not involved in the Persian Gulf War which began in 1980 I believe until 1987 after shipping had been threatened by Iranian offensives.

It should also be noted that the gas used by Saddam was not of US make or USSR make, which brings up the question of could Iraq manufacture them?

Out of time.

You know what I wonder with the above graph?  How the hell is our awful health care resulting in us spending a far greater percentage of our GDP than countries that have better health care than us?

What I would prioritise:

(I am addressing the American government as "you" for the sake of simplicity)

1) I agree: balance your god damned budget. If Bill Clinton was able to preserve frontline public services with low spending, any other President should be able to do the same. America's debt is 97% of GDP, which does not even approach being sustainable. How should you reduce it?

2) Cut healthcare spending. There is seriously no excuse to be spending close to $2 trillion on the level of nationalised healthcare that the USA provides. If you want a proper health service, go all the way like Scandinavia or, hell, even like Britain. If you don't, don't try to find this absurd middle ground where you spend the money for none of the benefit.

3) Get people working again. 9.6% unemployment is very troubling. Cut corporation tax and incentivise entrepreneurship. Your companies cannot deal with the enormous American work force. Hell, start ambitious development projects if you like. Just get people off state pensions and food stamps and into work.

4) Stop fighting pointless wars; they are a waste of money. I should add that Afghanistan is not a pointless war. Iraq, on the other hand, is a pointless war. I know that the official government view is that the USA has pulled out of Iraq, but I don't call leaving 50,000 armed troops in the country "pulling out". The Iraqi security forces are strong enough to take care of themselves. They are no longer your responsibility.

5) Whatever you do, do not abolish political parties. If I go into the voting booth and see Fred Smith, Joan Green, Phillip Blake and Steven Jones on a ballot paper (I, in this case, being the average citizen of any country in the world), I have no idea who the hell they are. Voter turnout will drop enormously. But that's not even the real problem. If anything, that's an advantage.

The problem ties in with a similar suggestion of mine: do not ever try to form a third party. Government efficiency will become a distant dream. The House of Representatives will refuse to ever work together to get anything done. They will constantly bicker about slightly different interpretations of inane issues with the result that very few laws actually get passed. Thanks to the separation of powers and the superiority of the Constitution, laws hardly ever get passed anyway.

Oh, and as for these suggestions flying around about how America should stop policing the world:

• America's intention is not to police the world. The fact that it does so is a coincidence.
• The invasion of Afghanistan was well within American interests, and not invading would have constituted an enormous danger to national security.
• Iraq is more questionable, but there's no doubt that there were selfish motives involved. That is, America did (intend to) gain from the war.
• Libya confuses me slightly. I think it's because America (and Britain and France and Italy) expected the rebels to win from the very beginning and wanted to align themselves with the correct side. Libya also requires a much smaller investment than Afghanistan or Iraq
• America does not exist in a vacuum. The last time you tried to stay isolationist, we ended up with a six year long war that killed 70 million people, and an intense 45 year cold war to boot.
• As (I'll be honest here) the brightest beacon of liberty, democracy and justice on Earth, it is America's duty to spread those virtues. If it doesn't, it ends up surrounded by authoritarian dictatorships with no free speech and a rigged justice system, and that's not good for anyone, least of all America.
• Global co-operation will help the USA in the long term. It is worth the investment of a few hundred billion dollars a year to save yourself the expense of enormous wars (real wars, not invasions), not to mention the inconvenience (and, I daresay, danger).

My list:

1) Target unemployment through the use of discretionary fiscal and monetary (although we've already sucked dry that well with interest rates so low).

2) Medicare/Medicaid reform.

That's pretty much it... dunno why so many people are worried about the budget and inflation.