Look at Military spending as a percentage of GDP  ...

Rank	Countries	Amount	Date
# 1	Korea, North:	22.9%	2003
# 2	Oman:	11.4%	2005
= 3	Qatar:	10%	2005
= 3	Saudi Arabia:	10%	2005
= 5	Jordan:	8.6%	2006
= 5	Iraq:	8.6%	2006
# 7	Israel:	7.3%	2006
# 8	Yemen:	6.6%	2006
# 9	Eritrea:	6.3%	2006
# 10	Macedonia, Republic of:	6%	2005
= 11	Burundi:	5.9%	2006
= 11	Syria:	5.9%	2005
# 13	Angola:	5.7%	2006
= 14	Maldives:	5.5%	2005
= 14	Mauritania:	5.5%	2006
= 16	Kuwait:	5.3%	2006
= 16	Turkey:	5.3%	2005
= 18	El Salvador:	5%	2006
= 18	Morocco:	5%	2004
# 20	Singapore:	4.9%	2005
# 21	Swaziland:	4.7%	2006
= 22	Bahrain:	4.5%	2006
= 22	Bosnia and Herzegovina:	4.5%	2005
= 22	Brunei:	4.5%	2006
= 25	Greece:	4.3%	2005
= 25	China:	4.3%	2006
# 27	Chad:	4.2%	2006
# 28	United States:	4.06%	2005
# 29	Côte d'Ivoire:	4%	2006
= 30	Tajikistan:	3.9%	2005
= 30	Libya:	3.9%	2005
= 30	Russia:	3.9%	2005
= 33	Djibouti:	3.8%	2006
= 33	Zimbabwe:	3.8%	2006
= 33	Cuba:	3.8%	2006
= 33	Cyprus:	3.8%	2005
# 37	Namibia:	3.7%	2006
# 38	Armenia:	3.5%	2006
= 39	Turkmenistan:	3.4%	2005
= 39	Gabon:	3.4%	2005
= 39	Colombia:	3.4%	2005
= 39	Egypt:	3.4%	2005
= 43	Algeria:	3.3%	2006
= 43	Botswana:	3.3%	2006
# 45	Pakistan:	3.2%	2006
= 46	Guinea-Bissau:	3.1%	2005
= 46	Lebanon:	3.1%	2005
= 46	Congo, Republic of the:	3.1%	2006
= 46	United Arab Emirates:	3.1%	2005
= 50	Ethiopia:	3%	2006
= 50	Solomon Islands:	3%	2006
= 50	Cambodia:	3%	2005
= 50	Indonesia:	3%	2005
= 50	Sudan:	3%	2005
= 55	Zambia:	2.9%	2006
= 55	Rwanda:	2.9%	2006
= 57	Comoros:	2.8%	2006
= 57	Kenya:	2.8%	2006
= 57	Ecuador:	2.8%	2006
= 60	Korea, South:	2.7%	2006
= 60	Chile:	2.7%	2006
= 62	Azerbaijan:	2.6%	2005
= 62	France:	2.6%	2005
= 62	Lesotho:	2.6%	2006
= 62	Sri Lanka:	2.6%	2006
= 62	Brazil:	2.6%	2006
= 62	Bulgaria:	2.6%	2005
= 68	Congo, Democratic Republic of the:	2.5%	2006
= 68	Iran:	2.5%	2006
= 68	India:	2.5%	2006
= 68	Vietnam:	2.5%	2005
# 72	Romania:	2.47%	2005
= 73	Australia:	2.4%	2006
= 73	United Kingdom:	2.4%	2005
# 75	Croatia:	2.39%	2005
= 76	Portugal:	2.3%	2005
= 76	Sierra Leone:	2.3%	2006
= 78	Uganda:	2.2%	2006
= 78	Fiji:	2.2%	2005
= 78	Taiwan:	2.2%	2006
# 81	Burma:	2.1%	2005
# 82	Malaysia:	2.03%	2005
= 83	Estonia:	2%	2005
= 83	Seychelles:	2%	2006
= 83	Finland:	2%	2005
= 83	Uzbekistan:	2%	2005
= 83	Venezuela:	2%	2006
= 88	Bolivia:	1.9%	2006
= 88	Mali:	1.9%	2006
= 88	Senegal:	1.9%	2006
= 88	Lithuania:	1.9%	2005
= 88	Norway:	1.9%	2005
= 88	Afghanistan:	1.9%	2006
# 94	Slovakia:	1.87%	2005
# 95	Czech Republic:	1.81%	2005
= 96	Italy:	1.8%	2005
= 96	Guyana:	1.8%	2006
= 96	Thailand:	1.8%	2005
# 99	Hungary:	1.75%	2005
# 100	Poland:	1.71%	2005
= 101	Slovenia:	1.7%	2005
= 101	Benin:	1.7%	2006
= 101	Guinea:	1.7%	2006
= 101	South Africa:	1.7%	2006
= 105	Togo:	1.6%	2005
= 105	Nepal:	1.6%	2006
= 105	Netherlands:	1.6%	2005
= 105	Tanzania:	1.6%	2006
= 105	Uruguay:	1.6%	2006
= 110	Germany:	1.5%	2005
= 110	Nigeria:	1.5%	2006
= 110	Bangladesh:	1.5%	2006
= 110	Kazakhstan:	1.5%	2006
= 110	Denmark:	1.5%	2005
= 110	Sweden:	1.5%	2006
= 110	Peru:	1.5%	2006
# 117	Albania:	1.49%	2005
= 118	Belize:	1.4%	2006
= 118	Ukraine:	1.4%	2005
= 118	Papua New Guinea:	1.4%	2005
= 118	Belarus:	1.4%	2005
= 118	Mongolia:	1.4%	2006
= 118	Tunisia:	1.4%	2006
= 118	Kyrgyzstan:	1.4%	2005
= 125	Niger:	1.3%	2006
= 125	Belgium:	1.3%	2005
= 125	Malawi:	1.3%	2006
= 125	Cameroon:	1.3%	2006
= 125	Liberia:	1.3%	2006
= 125	Argentina:	1.3%	2005
= 125	Somalia:	1.3%	2006
= 132	Latvia:	1.2%	2005
= 132	Spain:	1.2%	2005
= 132	Burkina Faso:	1.2%	2006
= 135	Philippines:	1.1%	2006
= 135	Central African Republic:	1.1%	2006
= 135	Canada:	1.1%	2005
= 138	Madagascar:	1%	2006
= 138	Paraguay:	1%	2006
= 138	Panama:	1%	2006
= 138	New Zealand:	1%	2005
= 138	Switzerland:	1%	2005
= 138	Bhutan:	1%	2005
= 144	Austria:	0.9%	2005
= 144	Ireland:	0.9%	2005
= 144	Tonga:	0.9%	2006
= 144	Luxembourg:	0.9%	2005
= 148	Ghana:	0.8%	2006
= 148	São Tomé and Príncipe:	0.8%	2006
= 148	Japan:	0.8%	2006
= 148	Dominican Republic:	0.8%	2006
= 148	Mozambique:	0.8%	2006
= 153	Cape Verde:	0.7%	2006
= 153	Malta:	0.7%	2006
= 155	Jamaica:	0.6%	2006
= 155	Nicaragua:	0.6%	2006
= 155	Suriname:	0.6%	2006
= 155	Honduras:	0.6%	2006
# 159	Georgia:	0.59%	2005
= 160	Bahamas, The:	0.5%	2006
= 160	Laos:	0.5%	2006
= 160	Mexico:	0.5%	2006
= 160	Gambia, The:	0.5%	2006
= 160	Antigua and Barbuda:	0.5%	2006
= 160	Barbados:	0.5%	2006
= 166	Haiti:	0.4%	2006
= 166	Guatemala:	0.4%	2006
= 166	Costa Rica:	0.4%	2006
= 166	Moldova:	0.4%	2005
= 170	Trinidad and Tobago:	0.3%	2006
= 170	Mauritius:	0.3%	2006
# 172	Bermuda:	0.11%	2005
# 173	Equatorial Guinea:	0.1%	2006
Equatorial Guinean Military
# 174	Iceland:	0%	2005

Even though it is still much higher than most other developed nations, the amount the United States spends on their military as a percentage of GDP is reasonable considering they want to be a military super-power and are engaged in multiple wars.

Well looking at history, Superpowers need to have a strong military to remain dominate.
It can led to severe Fin restrain, but imagine how the British would be if they did have the best Navy in the world in the past?
Also, it naive to think war will not occur and terrible things will not happen.

Looking at the spending, China will likley spend, double or triple or even more in the future as their economy expands.

So imo the US, can spend a lot of money on its military as great powers have in the past. They need to collect more revenue through taxes and this is something the US does not do well. Many loopholes mean Corporations avoid paying taxes and the wealthy can as well.

Although I agree defence spending is far too high. This is only discretionary spending. You need also look at mandatory spending, both current and future.

The Federal Government has a spending problem, period. The defense deparment is only one part of the problem.

Actually, I was referring to the war. Keynsians who believe that spending is spending should have no problem with billions being spent on bombs, etc.

That is the strange disconnect isn't it?  One war got us out of depression because of huge government spending, and another helped get us in one due to huge government spending and is why we can't recover.

I've never seen those two points reconciled.

These wars have helped business, to be certain. I would say the general changes in our economic factors (the much smaller share of manufacturing) makes the difference, but these wars have helped some smaller companies in manufacturing. My dad's steel forging company has benefitted most from the war and from (sadly enough) hydraulic fracking

Or we could ship them to Canada.

Wow that's got to be a pretty big ethical dilema for you.  It reminds me of the episode of Roseanne where Darlene realizes that all of the money she gets from stuff comes from her mother's loose meat restraunt despite her being a staunch vegetarian.  (Of course it only reminds me of this because I work a boring nightshfit job with a TV and that episode was just on recently.)

Still, in general all I hear on TV from liberals is how the Wars sent us into this crashing recession.  Went from watching no TV to way to much with no choice.  (Just active enough that reading a book doesn't work.)

Not an ethical dilemma as such. I'm not opposed to hydraulic fracking right off the top of my head, just how the fracking industry seems to be determined to avoid all environmental regulation or responsibility. Marcellus shale presents possibilities, but environmental standards must be enforced, and while i did not support the beginning of the Iraq war, i supported its continuation in the peacekeeping phase (in the "we made this mess, we clean it up" morality), and supported the war in Afghanistan

What we have here is the problem between the seen, and the unseen. War spending has aided business because the Government has bought steel, etc. What's not seen is how the money would have been spent IF the Government had not have gone to war, if it wasn't taken away in tax.