minimal debate on close to Trillian dollar defense budget

What's that you say? I read that the 2008 defense budget passed by the house  395-13 with almost no debate, despite 1300 earmarks, was only $459.6 Billion.  

But that doesn't include the $147+ billion Bush wants from Congress for the Iraq supplemental (and will probably get - let's be real.)  Nor does that number include the many additional requests for Nuclear Weapons costs, international FBI expenses (including the war on drugs), etc.

It also doesn't include the debt service our grandchildren will be paying on this unfathomable and unconscionable waste of resources, and the sucking sound you here coming from the Pentagon and the DHS is the sound of social services, education, energy independence, and health care going down the drain.  And that's before the Senate gets a chance to add their 2 trillion cents.

According to the authoritative Center for Defense Information estimates, U.S. taxpayers will dole out at least $878 billion to cover military costs in 2008.  As CDI notes, the final total "will probably be even more."

Compared to the rest of the world in 2005 (from GlobalIssues.org)

US military spending was almost 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.

The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six "rogue" states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.

It was more than the combined spending of the next 14 nations.

Since 2005, which is the most recent year we have data to compare, U.S. spending has gone up, up up, not counting the under the table spending on Iraq and the War on Terra.

So much for cutting down on earmarks, huh? 1300!

The "no" votes included John Lewis, Barney Frank, Nydia Velázquez, & Dennis Kucinich, of course.  Tancredo and Ron Paul did not vote.

The Senate will vote after the recess - any bets on which pres candidates will vote no?  the over under on the final tally for the bill?