Where your tax dollars go in one chart

[BigRedBuster]

http://www.vox.com/2...go-in-one-chart

 

 

And, this is why our budget will never be fixed. The biggest ares of spending will never be reduced due to how politically hot those issues are.

[carlfense]

And, this is why our budget will never be fixed. The biggest ares of spending will never be reduced due to how politically hot those issues are.

Is the defense budget politically hot?

[sd'sker]

this is more about revenue than cuts, imo.

[carlfense]

this is more about revenue than cuts, imo.

That too.

 

As it turned out the claims about reduced taxes increasing revenue . . . combined with at least one unnecessary war . . . resulted in a hell of a deficit. Thanks Obama.

[Junior]

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.

 

I think one of NASA's biggest problems is that it is plagued by a demand for perfection. If something fails, they are raked over the coals by politicians looking to score points. But that's not really how science works. Sometimes things work and sometimes they don't. So they have to strive for perfection, and consequently, they spend so much money making sure that everything works perfectly.

[strigori]

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.

 

I think one of NASA's biggest problems is that it is plagued by a demand for perfection. If something fails, they are raked over the coals by politicians looking to score points. But that's not really how science works. Sometimes things work and sometimes they don't. So they have to strive for perfection, and consequently, they spend so much money making sure that everything works perfectly.

NASA also has a problem in that what they do and the science and tech they work on tends to be very long term in nature, and the clowns who only think on a yearly basis cant see value in what NASA does. We would be better off with scientists and engineers in Congress than businessmen and lawyers.

[BigRedBuster]

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.

 

I think one of NASA's biggest problems is that it is plagued by a demand for perfection. If something fails, they are raked over the coals by politicians looking to score points. But that's not really how science works. Sometimes things work and sometimes they don't. So they have to strive for perfection, and consequently, they spend so much money making sure that everything works perfectly.

NASA also has a problem in that what they do and the science and tech they work on tends to be very long term in nature, and the clowns who only think on a yearly basis cant see value in what NASA does. We would be better off with scientists and engineers in Congress than businessmen and lawyers.

 

Combination would be nice.

[Hooked on Huskers]

http://www.vox.com/2...go-in-one-chart

Safety Net Programs? Please explain.

[ZRod]

And, this is why our budget will never be fixed. The biggest ares of spending will never be reduced due to how politically hot those issues are.

Is the defense budget politically hot?

Don't you remember that senator making Hagel promise before he was approved that he wouldn't cut back on sub production because it was in his district but playing it off as a national security issue.

[carlfense]

And, this is why our budget will never be fixed. The biggest ares of spending will never be reduced due to how politically hot those issues are.

Is the defense budget politically hot?

Don't you remember that senator making Hagel promise before he was approved that he wouldn't cut back on sub production because it was in his district but playing it off as a national security issue.

I don't actually . . . but I do remember the F-35 bullsh#t.

[ZRod]

Or how about the brand new plane that went straight off the assembly line and into the bone yard...

[zoogs]

It's not nothing, but those inefficiencies are a small sliver of the defense budget and as long as there are competing interests fighting for slices of the budget pie, things like that will exist.

 

Also, as somebody mentioned, that kind of spending a) props up a lot of jobs, and b) maintains a certain level of skilled workers for that aircraft/tank/whatever in the country, neither of which are trivial considerations.

[tschu]

When you consider the massive number of "small slivers," it's death by 1000 cuts.

 

When you consider how little of the defense money actually goes into middle-class jobs, it makes the argument even weaker.

 

When you consider the opportunity cost of the jobs that are being created, there is almost nothing left to the "don't shrink" argument. We could either put government money into do-nothing jobs - people that aren't creating or innovating or teaching or making us smarter and healthier. Instead we're paying people to run around the world with guns, to clean tanks that aren't used, and to build weapons that have zero value outside of existing purely for the government to contract out. None of these things help America get ahead in the global economy and none of them directly improve things for the average American other than a paycheck for some.

 

The opportunity cost is this - we could use that same money to pay for more teachers and subsidize education, making our workforce smarter. We could use it for grants for medical research and subsidies for healthcare, making our workforce and our citizens in general healthier. We could fund scientific research. We could use it for domestic government personnel like police officers, funding for jails, funding for crime prevention programs, etc. We can build and maintain our roads and bridges (have you driven through Lincoln lately? Yikes...).

 

It's not a trade-off of Jobs vs. No Jobs. It's a trade-off between 'jobs and contracts that provide little intrinsic value to the everyday life of your average citizen' and 'jobs that by their very nature are focused on improving our economy, improving our workforce, and improving our quality of life.'

 

We'll of course always need the largest defense budget in the world; that kind of goes with the superpower status. We've dug ourselves some pretty deep holes where we can't just remove our military presence and expect things to be fine. We need to protect ourselves, that's a given. But we're pretending that it's "us against the world" and we have to have a giant military at whatever cost. There's a cost, and the opportunity cost is much greater than the number of dollars on a budget sheet.

 

That's why I get so fired up about it.

[tschu]

How do economies grow and remain world powers? They become smarter and healthier. This is a fact. I'd rather see our tax dollars go towards helping us out on an economic battlefield rather than a militaristic one. If WW3 breaks out, PM me so I know to change my mind.

[The Dude]

I'm at least a little disappointed a substantial portion of my tax money isn't going towards cake. Everybody loves cake.