Where your tax dollars go in one chart

[tschu]

At least we can eat cake. Can't eat an M-1 Abrams battle tank.

[tschu]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ec86786aae30

[zoogs]

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

 

It's not that many, is it? I mean, look at the total procurement. Sure there's a fraction of that that goes into unwanted but politically protected tanks, but how much is it? If you can substantiate this more, I invite you to...but probably the most sizable decrease in military spending, on top of the reduction in force size that's already happening, is drawing down existing engagements.

 

And again -- keeping the assembly lines going & keeping the people employed aren't nothings. It doesn't 100% go to the workers, sure, but that's kind of how any form of "paying a company to do things" works. I do agree that using government money to prop up jobs isn't very productive, though.

 

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.

 

Why is this not a reason to get fired up about reforming social security and medicare? Those two, combined, are 2.5x the entire defense and international security budget -- of which the entirety of procurement forms 20%. You're talking 3-4% of the federal budget, and a small fraction of that 3-4% being 'problematic' at that. I maintain that there is no political process where you can achieve 100% efficiency in that 3-4%.

 

Meanwhile the entitlement programs aren't bad, but they are extremely problematic, and hard to keep controlled. That poses the greatest challenge. Although I'm right there with you on, if I were a player in this debate, I'd be arguing against the M1 production and for however the Army actually wants to use the money. As well as for greater investment in the nation's future.

 

Also, NASA shouldn't be skewered for spending on science projects that fail because, well, not every investment pans out and that doesn't mean you stop making them. The same should apply not only for DARPA-funded research, but also the various military projects that eventually get canceled.

[tschu]

Because social security and medicare are much more worthwhile. Guess it comes down to how much you hate poor people.

[tschu]

"only 3-4 percent" of the federal budget is 135 BILLION DOLLARS.

[tschu]

Look I understand what you're saying, but I countered everything in that post in the exact posts that you're responding to. Why focus on military? Because it isn't adding anything of intrinsic value to the country. Those tax dollars go to big contracts and paychecks, and are largely a dead-end. Whereas money going to social programs and education and research and whatnot not only creates paychecks, but adds a value to our country's citizens that help us in far greater ways. We'll get smarter and healthier, as well as getting richer. And this is all about money, right?

[tschu]

You want me to reform Medicaid to save money? Dude, I want a single-payer system. I think we all do, some of us just don't realize it yet.

[zoogs]

"only 3-4 percent" of the federal budget is 135 BILLION DOLLARS.

 

Yeah, and let's generously say 25% of military procurement is a total waste. Now we're talking about $34 billion.

 

The social programs are a dead end, too. They're important, but they're basically throwing dollars into a sinkhole. That 1600-2000+ billion chunk of the federal budget that nobody seems to quite know how to manage isn't going towards science or roads or bridges.

 

They are important and necessary, but it happens on a scale that is orders of magnitude greater than your canceled carbine rifle replacement programs and their like. We can get all hyper efficiency in that area but the wiggle room just isn't very much. Compare that to say, the $60 billion you quoted as the reduction in the defense budget for 2014, which just comes from scaling back the military size and operations. Although, why don't we take those savings and say, "OK you guys, screw it. This year, we're just gonna end world hunger. Kthx." That, I'm not sure I have an answer to.

[tschu]

Food for people is a sinkhole?

 

Like I said, it all comes down to how much you hate poor people.

[zoogs]

I'm not saying it's unimportant. It's hugely important. But yeah, to include welfare as well, all that kind of spending shores up the breach. It's providing basic social needs and safety nets, not investing in growth. You can't ignore welfare and still have growth because of the kind of society that results in. But you can't provide unlimited welfare either, because of the crippling burden of doing so.

 

The breach will always be there and need to be shored up, but spending on it doesn't really reduce the need to continue spending on it. There are other factors there outside any government's direct control (if it were, every government would use the magic push button). So that's what I mean by sinkhole.

[tschu]

I'm not saying it's unimportant. It's hugely important. But yeah, to include welfare as well, all that kind of spending shores up the breach. It's providing basic social needs and safety nets, not investing in growth. You can't ignore welfare and still have growth because of the kind of society that results in. But you can't provide unlimited welfare either, because of the crippling burden of doing so.

 

The breach will always be there and need to be shored up, but spending on it doesn't really reduce the need to continue spending on it. There are other factors there outside any government's direct control (if it were, every government would use the magic push button). So that's what I mean by sinkhole.

Fallacy. Providing safety nets IS investing in growth. Those single mothers making minimum wage have to provide for the next generation of workers, and sadly it's often the safety nets that put food on the table.

 

Which is exactly my point...I'm glad that money goes to social programs, to social security, to safety nets, to health care. Those are productive things. I'd like to cut military spending because it is grossly unnecessary, but more than that, I'd like to increase our taxes so that more funds are available. There are multiple ways to attack a budget deficit, and we aren't going to get anywhere by cutting our social programs. We need to increase REVENUE, but if we must cut spending I think that military is the only acceptable place to do so.

[Hooked on Huskers]

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

including B-2 lemon plane. The sticker price was $1B+ for ONE plane. CORRECTION: Actually program cost, $44.75 billion; number built, only 21. Thus, $2B+ instead of $1B.

 

The escalating cost of the B-2 program and evidence of flaws in the aircraft's ability to elude detection by radar. Today, some Russian and Chinese SAM radars was infrared signature, not skin. In other words, "stealth" is worthless. Actually, no aircraft is totally invisible to radar, stealth aircraft make it difficult for conventional radar (not infrared!) to detect or track.

 

Yet ancient B-52s are still flying because the "BUFF" (known as Big Ugly Fat F##ker) had the highest mission capable rate of the three types of heavy bombers. The B-1 averaged a 53.7% ready rate and the B-2 achieved 30.3% , while the B-52 averaged 80.5% during the Gulf war period. (wiki source)

 

Superior performance at high subsonic speeds and relatively low operating costs have kept the B-52 in service (80 units) despite the advent of later aircraft, including the canceled Mach 3 B-70 Valkyrie, the variable-geometry B-1 Lancer, and the stealth B-2 Spirit. The B-52 completed fifty years of continuous service with its original operator in 2005; after being upgraded between 2013 and 2015, it is expected to serve into the 2040s. B-2 expected life span: 2025.

[BigRedBuster]

Food for people is a sinkhole?

 

Like I said, it all comes down to how much you hate poor people.

 

 

Oh Good Lord......Dramatize things much?

[BigRedBuster]

Look I understand what you're saying, but I countered everything in that post in the exact posts that you're responding to. Why focus on military? Because it isn't adding anything of intrinsic value to the country. Those tax dollars go to big contracts and paychecks, and are largely a dead-end. Whereas money going to social programs and education and research and whatnot not only creates paychecks, but adds a value to our country's citizens that help us in far greater ways. We'll get smarter and healthier, as well as getting richer. And this is all about money, right?

This post is just strange to me. Now, before I say anything, I am all for cutting defense spending mainly by shutting down most of the over 700 military installations around the world and bringing those Americans back home along with stopping the absolutely stupid production of expensive equipment the military doesn't even need or want. Take that money and invest in infrastructure.

 

But....back to the post I quoted.

 

So.....paying a company to design and build something that is highly scientific and many times technologically incredible is a dead end while giving money to someone that doesn't work is stimulating growth. That to me is a very strange way of looking at things.

 

Now, I have said many times on here that I am all for support systems in the country for people who need them. So...no....I don't hate poor people like you obviously think some people do.

 

But, even though I agree there has been some spending done in the defense industry that is way out of line and unnecessary, that spending many times creates technology that is spun off into new products and sometimes complete industries for which creates more jobs.

 

Or...I guess we could just shut down all defense contractors, lay everyone off and put them on welfare because that is more pro growth than them having a job and creating something.

[tschu]

Or...I guess we could just shut down all defense contractors, lay everyone off and put them on welfare because that is more pro growth than them having a job and creating something.

Oh Good Lord...Dramatize things much?