Where your tax dollars go in one chart

[tschu]

i am talking about the factory workers who are building the tanks.

Yeah that guy makes $11/hr while the Tanks, Inc Board of Directors pockets $200 million. Seems effective and not broken at all

[zoogs]

Cutting the military budget in half is similar fantasy land, though.

 

Probably the biggest battle is just keeping entitlement/safety spending (that 64% of the budget) from getting out of control while not gutting the necessary services that the federal government needs to offer in that area.

[sd'sker]

i am talking about the factory workers who are building the tanks.

Yeah that guy makes $11/hr while the Tanks, Inc Board of Directors pockets $200 million. Seems effective and not broken at all

you are just too pugnacious and combative. i am not arguing for this model. i am simply saying that it is the most acceptable gov't funded social program because it gives the illusion of security. i would much prefer it going to education and infrastructure or just giving it to those who would spend it. jeeze.

[tschu]

@ zoogs, I'd argue that I've explained quite a bit about how ridiculously out of control defense spending is; if you think you can somehow put together an argument about how our lazy entitled poors are more guilty of sapping the government's money than that, I challenge you to go right ahead and do so.

 

sd'sker, I'm not trying to be combative, sorry. I think we're more or less in agreement, I'm just examining a different angle.

[sd'sker]

sd'sker, I'm not trying to be combative, sorry. I think we're more or less in agreement, I'm just examining a different angle.

i know we are in agreement. i think there are some in gov't who would rather spend that money differently, but know that it is the only way to get it to their constituents and to workers. then there are those politicians in bed with military contractors. it is extremely broken and wasteful, but it is deeply entrenched.

[tschu]

I think that possibly the biggest thing to note from carlfense's graphic in the OP is that interest on our debt is only 6% of the budget. Our national debt, for all intents and purposes, is still quite small and nowhere near this imagined debt doomsday scenario.

[zoogs]

Here's an illustration from FY2010:

 

I'm sure procurement could be more efficient, but like anything ever, it's subject to politics and competing interests and as a result there's built-in efficiency that can't be erased. Let's say procurement is gutted by 25%, which is an extremely aggressive number. The effect on the total budget would be about 5%. The 140.1 figure is only 20.5% of the defense budget. Note that this does not reflect foreign military aid, which is rolled into the military budget in carl's OP. Military spending in 2010 was ~$690bn, down to $620bn for 2014 (probably the drawdown in Iraq/Afghanistan is reflected here, in addition to general cuts to spending).

 

The budget breakdown is right there in the original post. The vast majority of federal spending is dedicated to entitlement programs (and I don't mean that in a bad way, it's just a blanket term to cover social security, healthcare, welfare, veterans benefits, etc). That is and has for ages been the biggest challenge...right?

 

I'm saying, if you really think you can take the defense budget and simply slice it in half, I have a bridge I'd like to sell to you and Paul Ryan (who has/had? similar fantasies about nonmilitary, nonentitlement discretionary spending back during the 2012 election season).

[tschu]

I just want to be clear, I'm not advocating for the budget to be slashed in half. (Although I wouldn't argue against that, over a long period of time at least!). Clearly a military budget reduction would have to be gradual and would have to be the result of some long-term wholesale changes to how the military does business as well as the role that the US military plays worldwide.

[zoogs]

Ah, alright. One last thing I want to add; it's true that the U.S. military spending is huge compared to (insert countries here) combined, but I think we tend to take for granted a lot the result of that, which is a world in which the U.S. is the lone superpower. I don't particularly feel bad about that and wouldn't prefer a world where the U.S. gets pushed around instead just for the sake of a more humble-looking and egalitarian international defense budget pie chart.

 

(Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see a way to long-term slash the military budget to half current levels without relegating ourselves to the role of regional power in a much more dangerous world.)

[rawhide]

i am talking about the factory workers who are building the tanks.

Yeah that guy makes $11/hr while the Tanks, Inc Board of Directors pockets $200 million. Seems effective and not broken at all

Where do you get your income figures at???

[sd'sker]

Now this would never happen but wouldn't it be interesting to see a the same type of chart but if each individual taxpayer got to say where each dollar of their taxes went? I'd put at least half of mine toward science and med research and another good chunk toward education. What a mess that would be though.

http://www.thenewirs.com/taxplan/new

[strigori]

If we can manage to keep out of wars in countries we have no business in, that chart loses a lot of that giant green section. And while we are the lone super power, we are not the Planetary Police.

[TGHusker]

i believe the military budget is so high because that is an acceptable way to provide money and jobs to citizens that you could not otherwise through such social programs as unemployment.

 

you look at how much waste and excess there is in the military in building tanks that the military specifically asked not to be commissioned and it is pretty obvious that this is more about jobs than it is about security. especially given how intelligent based security is, as opposed to just brute force.

 

a more rational society would just see that it would be money better spent by just giving it to those who can not get jobs or by creating jobs dedicated to fixing our infrastructure and investing in becoming a leader in a future industry, like becoming forerunners of green energy.

Cut military spending by closing bases where there are not needed any longer - Europe, Japan for example. They have the resources to defend themselves and the financial viability to do so. With the wack job in North Korea, we'd probably should stay there. But even with that, S Korea has the financial engine to defend themselves if they were so tied to our apron strings. We've made whole countries dependent on our good will - this can work both ways - it protects them but also we are given control in ways we no longer need - After WW 2 & Korea - yes. The world need us a the military police to maintain liberty. But we cannot afford this any longer. As a result, and as Ike warned,, the military industrial complex has taken control of a large part of the economy - to shut it down is to but a knife into the gut of many local economies.

Stop nation building - let the middle east sort it self out - however, our tie to their oil keeps us involved. Thus oil independence is also a 'defense' option.

[TGHusker]

I just want to be clear, I'm not advocating for the budget to be slashed in half. (Although I wouldn't argue against that, over a long period of time at least!). Clearly a military budget reduction would have to be gradual and would have to be the result of some long-term wholesale changes to how the military does business as well as the role that the US military plays worldwide.

And also use the military industrial complex to get more involved in new energy technologies, etc. If they can design a faster stealth plane, they can design safer, cleaner transportation. Revamp NASA - I'm sure we can get much more out of NASA - we are thinking to small with the downsizing of it.

[tschu]

I'd be all for increasing our NASA funding as long as that comes with a much decreased military budget. Just recognize that NASA is plagued by many of the same corrupt inefficiencies as the military, although not nearly to the same extent.