Author Topic: primitives get the federal budget all screwed up  (Read 1373 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58133
  • Reputation: +2247/-172
  • ^^^riding on the coat-tails of God
primitives get the federal budget all screwed up
« on: January 16, 2008, 04:30:17 AM »

Yeah, really, they do.

The primitives are still living in the Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson past.

The non-military portion of the federal budget has by exceeded the military portion since.....Nixon.

Primitives, always living in the long-ago past.

undercutter2006  (209 posts)      Wed Jan-16-08 02:10 AM
Original message
does united states spend more money on the military than it does on social programs ?

i got involved with a debate in another online forum where i am trying to argue that the reason our taxes are so high is that we spend much more tax money on the military than we do on social programs, so when conservatives try to argue that we should cut spending by cutting social programs they are being somewhat untruthfull

does anybody have any links/statistics to help me out in this particular discussion?

of course i am gonna look around the internet and find something on my own, just wondering if somebody who is educated on that issue here can help me out right of the top of their head

babylonsister  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jan-16-08 02:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. YES! I don't have a link at the moment, but assuredly.

sjdnb  (824 posts)      Wed Jan-16-08 02:14 AM
Response to Original message

2. Oh, Yeah ...

But many people don't want you to know that so they hide it in volumes of budgetary data that they've made a pain in the a$$ to retreive.

Fact is, our country spends way more on defense than any other country in the world. And, all the social programs combined for multiple years do not come close to what we have spent on defense/war mongering - even before Iraq.

undercutter2006  (209 posts)      Wed Jan-16-08 02:16 AM
Response to Original message

3. here is what the person i was argued with just posted

U.S. General Accounting Office

Financial Statements of the United States Government for the Years Ended September 30, 2007, and September 30, 2006

take a look at page 7

Statement of Net Cost
Net Cost YE 9/30/07

Dept of Health & Human Services- $666.8B
Dept of Defense- $664.5B
Social Security Administration- $626.1B

Take a look at Chart 4 (12 of 52):

Mid-Session Review
Budget of the U.S. Government 2008
Federal Outlays 2007

Total $2.779T

Social Security- 20.9%
Medicaid- 20.4%
Defense Discretionary- 20.1%
Non-defense Discretionary- 18.5%
Other- 11.7%
Interest- 8.5%

Now what were you saying about military spending? 50% or something like that?

Pigwidgeon (1000+ posts)      Wed Jan-16-08 02:17 AM
Response to Original message

4. Nope. Socal Security gets the biggest cut.   

Now let's see the Republicans try to eliminate SocSoc!

undercutter2006  (209 posts)      Wed Jan-16-08 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #4

6. yeah just looking through those raw numbers social securing takes about the third in taxed

a damn good program too

but combined with other social programs in make it over half of the taxes going to social prorams

but just barely

so yeah, looking at those numbers social programs do take more from our taxes than defense (offense) spending, unless you discount social security/medicare

Pigwidgeon (1000+ posts)      Wed Jan-16-08 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #6

7. The economics of war, though, is pretty harsh

Giving money to people keeps it in active circulation. The military is a mix of human and capital spending.

Paying the troops is economically positive, but all that spending for materiel is a huge sunk cost. And there is an enormous amount of inflation in the military contracting system.

Plus, a lot of money for this war is off-budget and hidden. But we are going to pay for it; yes, indeed. The de facto loss of 50% of the Dollar's value since Bush took office is only the start of it.

cynatnite  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jan-16-08 02:18 AM
Response to Original message

5. Are you including the costs of the war?

If I remember right, the money for the war is separate from the pentagon budget.

Hekate  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jan-16-08 02:39 AM
Response to Original message

9. Look up one of those pie chart illustrating the budget. Right away you see 50% is defense related...

And that 50% is just the beginning, because there's a whole lot of other money that keeps flowing toward stuff related to the military and defense contractors, but it's kind of spread around and hidden in other places. Like the spy programs.

Basically, when you look at the pie chart what you see is that over half of your tax money goes for war (or whatever you want to call it), and that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ELSE comes out of what is left. Roads, forests, schools, bridges, hospitals, public buildings, teachers and nurses, infrastructure, social programs, education, cops, art, music, drug rehabilitation .... every other government service and program is left fighting over the crumbs that are left after "defense."

It took me awhile to realize, but the truth is this: our President and Congress can afford to do anything necessary for the people, but choose not to. The money is there. We pay more in taxes and get less back than anyone else in the civilized world. We could have top of the line education for all. We could have excellent health care for all. We could have Social Security that really takes care of our old people. We could have veterans' benefits that really take care of our veterans.

But no. We are told the money is not there. The only reason the money is not there is that it is sliced right off the top, and we are left fighting over the crumbs.

laconicsax  (918 posts)      Wed Jan-16-08 02:40 AM
Response to Original message

10. Technically, no.

Last year, there was about $37 billion more budgeted Social Security than the Defense Department, so technically no. Supplemental military spending (not originally budgeted) was about $70 billion, making the DoD the winner. If you add the supplemental spending to their original budget, you have about $619 billion for the DoD.

Here comes the next "technically no."

Even at $619 billion, the DoD received less funding than Medicare ($395 billion), Welfare ($367 billion), Medicaid ($276 billion), and Veterans' benefits ($73 billion) combined. Those are all technically social programs, so technically, we spend more on social programs than the military.

If you compare the DoD with other departments not already mentioned, the DoD gets more money than all the others combined.

GloriaSmith  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jan-16-08 02:44 AM
Response to Original message

12. Google gave me this:

Where Does Your Tax Money Go?

* Military: 21%
* Social Security: 20%
* Medicare & Medicaid: 20%
* Other: 19%
* National Debt Interest: 12%
* Major Social-Aid Programs: 8%

On edit: from businessweek:

How Uncle Sam Spends Your Tax Money

There's been a surge of spending in recent years for the military and health-care programs—along with ballooning payments on the national debt

On Apr. 5 the left-leaning, Massachusetts-based National Priorities Project released a study called Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go? focusing on this discretionary chunk of spending. The median income for a U.S. family—defined as a household of one or more related persons—is about $46,500 a year, and the average federal tax bill is about $7,300. Of that, there's about $3,376 in discretionary federal income taxes, according to the project's analysis of data from the Office of Management & Budget.

The analysis reveals that the biggest share of discretionary tax dollars for that median tax bill—$1,014, or 31 cents per dollar—goes toward Pentagon spending and military-related debt service. Of the 2006 budget, $510 billion was spent on the Defense Dept., plus $32 billion for the Homeland Security Dept. The Defense figure is up about 75% since 2001.

The increases in military spending come as the American public is becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the war in Iraq. "Military spending this year is the highest it's been since World War II," says Pamela Schwartz, communications director for the National Priorities Project. "And to pay is to borrow, so spending spirals further. When Americans find this out, there is a shock and awe in the air; not enough people have the opportunity to trace the money they're giving up."

As for the bold part above, how much of the national debt is because of too much social services spending?

and-justice-for-all  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jan-16-08 03:28 AM
Response to Original message

17. You can bet your cookies they do...and the have actually cut many programs to support their warmongering.

The primitives aren't going to like this--but the primitives don't like franksolich anyway--but I think it's better to spend money giving Iraqi children a chance to live in freedom, than it is to spend money on social services programs for American primitives.

The primitives dine on some pie-charts, too; one of the pies carefully differentiates between social services programs for civilians, and social services programs for the military.
apres moi, le deluge

Offline Carl

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19644
  • Reputation: +1411/-99
Re: primitives get the federal budget all screwed up
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2008, 05:25:10 AM »
The economics of war, though, is pretty harsh

Giving money to people keeps it in active circulation. The military is a mix of human and capital spending.

Paying the troops is economically positive, but all that spending for materiel is a huge sunk cost.

Anytime DUmmies start talking economics they prove why they are called DUmmies.

The spending for material goes back into the general economy as private companies produce those goods.
This provides jobs,suspect some of them union,for civilian employees and injects money into local economies which helps all in those areas.