JackassRiddler pushes a lie

[Carl]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024838837

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 09:20 AM

Star Member JackRiddler (20,753 posts)

Budget: 57 percent for the military - same old story






Anyone care to question the accuracy of the above graphic? Can you dig into the numbers and find a way to get it under 50?

When did it last look significantly different? Administrations change, but the realm (ever evolving, to be sure) of the military-industrial complex and national security state stays in place, along with its extensive private, deep-state and parapolitical extensions.

My God our defense budget is out of control!!
 

Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 09:28 AM

NobodyHere (198 posts)
3. The post is misleading

You're title says " Budget: 57 percent for the military - same old story"

But your graph is for discretionary spending, which is separate from medicare, medicaid, social security, debt interest etc..

Response to NobodyHere (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 09:31 AM

Star Member JackRiddler (20,753 posts)
6. That's the consolidated budget.

Last edited Fri Apr 18, 2014, 10:09 AM - Edit history (1)
The discretionary budget is the part up for debate. (And of course, "discretionary" is in the damn title of the graphic, but neveryoumind.)

Response to JackRiddler (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 10:26 AM

NobodyHere (198 posts)
23. So why not title your post to reflect the actual description of the graph?

nt

Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 09:32 AM

wercal (1,261 posts)
7. Can you dig into the numbers and find a way to get it under 50?





Include non-discretionary spending.

Give the man some credit - military spending dropped from 2012 to 2013, and the 2014 estimate is for another reduction....and the 2015 budget is below 2013 numbers.

The perhaps only part of the budget that is mandated by the Constitution and it is a pittance. 

[Dori]

Is the OP deliberately trying to mislead, or is it just stupid?

[Carl]

Is the OP deliberately trying to mislead, or is it just stupid?

Yes.

[JohnnyReb]

Is the OP deliberately trying to mislead, or is it just stupid?

(C). all of the above.

[dane]

Is the OP deliberately trying to mislead, or is it just stupid?

I vote choice B.

They have this kind of post from time to time (Discretionary spending vs total budget), and every time one of the not-quite-DUmmie will make an effort to explain the difference, but usually goes unheard.

They have a similar problem when there is a discussion about the vast number that have no federal income tax burden.  There are numerous cries of "But everyone pays taxes - sales, gasoline, and others."  Then a DUmmy with experience in dealing with 7 year olds will attempt to explain the difference between "all" taxes and "federal income tax."

Even if they read it, they won't remember it next time.

Sad.

[Dori]

They have a similar problem when there is a discussion about the vast number that has no federal income tax burden. 

Yes...there is a thread over there now trying to discuss de Blazio only paying 8% in federal taxes.  Watching them discredit the source (FOX) and twist themselves into pretzels is somewhat entertaining.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024838739

[Carl]

I vote choice B.

They have this kind of post from time to time (Discretionary spending vs total budget), and every time one of the not-quite-DUmmie will make an effort to explain the difference, but usually goes unheard.

They have a similar problem when there is a discussion about the vast number that has no federal income tax burden.  There are numerous cries of "But everyone pays taxes - sales, gasoline, and others."  Then a DUmmy with experience in dealing with 7 year olds will attempt to explain the difference between "all" taxes and "federal income tax."

Even if they read it, they won't remember it next time.

Sad.

There is a new one to me on that thread where they claim SS and Medicare don`t count because that is one worker paying another with the government simply handling the transaction so it is not really spending.

[Karin]

From Dori's thread:

Response to underpants (Original post)

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 10:32 AM

seveneyes (1,426 posts)

10. Even at 12%, why is it we peons pay 30%+ and the rich are so much lower?
 
That's more than 30% right off the top, not including property tax, sales tax etc. Shouldn't people like him making 200k+ be paying at least as much as the little guy?

They're chortling about "math fails."  This DUmmie doesn't understand "marginal tax rates."  Doesn't he look at his paycheck?  Oh wait, sorry. 

and look at this DUmbass:

Response to underpants (Original post)

Fri Apr 18, 2014, 12:03 PM

dilby (220 posts)

22. I need to hire a tax person because I am getting screwed.
 
He is making 3 times more than me and paying just $6000 more a year in taxes than me. I need to have someone go through all my financials and really tell me where I can make some serious deductions. 

You should be proud to pay 99% of your entire income to the government! 

[98ZJUSMC]

Even if they read it, they won't remember it next time.

A hell of an assumption.

[GOP Congress]

With Cold War II and it's real-world state-sponsored nuclear threat all but certain with Russia the new Soviet Union, coupled with Islamic terrorism far more intense now that they have the nuclear option (or soon to be), the next president will have to revamp the military. I hope our conservative members in congress are outlining the issue to help the new president in 2016* return our military to its absolutely necessary position of strength. Wars occur when weakness is shown, NOT strength.

But no worries. These DUmmies still would trash the US when NY, DC, and LA are obliterated in a nuclear heap.

*Of COURSE I'm assuming the president will be a conservative. If he/she isn't, the point is moot and this country is most probably over the brink, no matter who's in Congress.

[USA4ME]

That "Interest On Debt" is going to grow a lot bigger as the gov't becomes more and more liberal.

.