Isn't something like 75% of the budget spent to fund our debt?

The other 25% is what this poster is all about right?

I like the way they pile up all the DoD budget numbers, but the HHS budget leaves Medicare and Medicaid just in the general budget.


/Lies, Damned Lies, and Whut?

fuzzwell

Isn't something like 75% of the budget spent to fund our debt?

Debt? Oh, you mean the deficit? Nah, we can take care of all that by cutting taxes and borrowing from the Chinese.

A "visual image"? As opposed to an auditory image, or an olfactory image?

fuzzwell: Isn't something like 75% of the budget spent to fund our debt?

The other 25% is what this poster is all about right?

Nope, bottom right has a pretty good overview of where the money goes

I love how big Iraq/Afghanistan are compared to everything else, especially education. :/

Shouldn't there be a lot more red on there?

It would be interesting to see a graph like this that includes total federal, state, and local spending. It would give a much clearer picture of where American priorities lie.

A fascinating link. Never knew that the Dept. of Homeland Security receives less funding than:

Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
Dept. of Health and Human Services
Dept. of Education
Dept. of Transportation
Dept. of Veteran Affairs
Dept. of State (just BARELY)

DarthBrooks: I like the way they pile up all the DoD budget numbers, but the HHS budget leaves Medicare and Medicaid just in the general budget.

Are you kidding?

They should lump the following into "Military/Defense" spending:

the DoD
non military/national security discretionary
veteran's benefits
and a huge chunk of "National Debt Interest"

What's retarded is that "National Debt Interest" is 269 billion and the deficit is 239 billion.

It's enough to make you think the Republican party is owned by foreign banks and mega-rich Saudi princes...

KaponoFor3:
Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
Dept. of Health and Human Services
Dept. of Education
Dept. of Transportation
Dept. of Veteran Affairs
Dept. of State (just BARELY)

/That should help balance the budget.

It's nice to know my place in things...

Shouldn't there be a lot more red on there?

I like the way they used a blank wedge cut out of the revenue penny to represent the deficit. (Lower right)

D2T: It's nice to know my place in things...

lol, I was thinking the same thing about myself. Just need to zoom in more.

That poster must drive libertarians farking nuts.

Broken9754: Shouldn't there be a lot more red on there?

You'd think...but nope

Visual image, eh? I'm sick and tired of those aural images.

KaponoFor3: A fascinating link. Never knew that the Dept. of Homeland Security receives less funding than:

Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
Dept. of Health and Human Services
Dept. of Education
Dept. of Transportation
Dept. of Veteran Affairs
Dept. of State (just BARELY)

You'd prefer we be stupid, sick, homeless, and roadless rather than paranoid?

This is the 2008 DISCRETIONARY budget, submitter.

Massive difference. Non-discretionary spending is essentially social programs, and non-discretionary spending far outweighs discretionary spending.

/The social programs are massive budget eating monsters. They're the ones that are also currently growing out of control.

I always find it interesting how corporate income tax receipts are always WAY less than individual income tax receipts.

helix400: This is the 2008 DISCRETIONARY budget, submitter.

lower right corner

/subby
//wished i would have not put the word visual in the headline

keithgabryelski: /subby
//wished i would have not put the word visual in the headline

Yeah yeah, "he who" etc. .. . Awesome map, thanks!

AirForceVet: I always find it interesting how corporate income tax receipts are always WAY less than individual income tax receipts.




That's part of what a continued policy of shifting the tax burden from the upper to the middle classes gets you.

moothemagiccow: You'd prefer we be stupid, sick, homeless, and roadless rather than paranoid?

Easy there, cowboy. All he said was that it was interesting, not that he liked it this way.

keithgabryelski: lower right corner

Btw, I wasn't attacking you. Just wanted to make sure people don't think defense spending takes up most of our budget (because it definitely does not).

Anyway, that lower right corner tries to show inlays, outlays, and deficit in a really confusing pie chart. Here's a simpler chart from Wikipedia (from 2007), that shows how much is spent where:

Tsk, tsk. And how many here actually voted for any one of these expenditures? How many said, "yes, tax me more, and use that money for this cause!!!"

The sad truth is that when the progressive tax system was first put into place, it did target the upper class to bring in tax revenue. Since then, however, the average income has risen, yet the tax brackets have not. We're in a situation now where the middle class now shoulders the same tax burden that was once saved for the ultra-rich. Funny enough, the liberals are fine with this because it brings more largesse to the federal government; the conservatives are fine with this because it puts more of a burden on the middle class rather than the corporate fat cats.

Ain't that America...

Shaggy_C: Ain't that America...

You and me...

Let's just stop funding education because teachers' unions suck and our kids are getting dumber.

I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities...

II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person...

III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay...

IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the treasury of the state.

First, the levying of it may require a great number of officers... Secondly, it may obstruct the industry of the people, and discourage them from...business... Thirdly, by the forfeitures and other penalties which those unfortunate individ-uals incur who attempt unsuccessfully to evade the tax, it may frequently ruin them, and thereby put an end to the benefit which the community might have received from the employment of their capitals... Fourthly, by subjecting the people to the frequent visits and the odious examination of the tax-gatherers, it may expose them to much unnecessary trouble...

Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations, Book V Chapter II Pt II)

Prospero424: You and me...

Everyone who looks at that budget and smiles can take their little pink houses and shove them up their ass.

Prospero424: That's part of what a continued policy of shifting the tax burden from the upper to the middle classes gets you.

Any more where that came from? Thanks.

Yesdog: A "visual image"? As opposed to an auditory image, or an olfactory image?

People suffering from synesthesia are just as entitled to be informed about the federal budget as everyone else.

/this post tastes like purple

helix400: Btw, I wasn't attacking you. Just wanted to make sure people don't think defense spending takes up most of our budget (because it definitely does not).

According to your own chart, "defense" spending is the largest single category, especially if you include veterans' benefits (as you should). Face it, as fast as Social Security and especially Medicare spending are growing, "defense" spending is out of control. There is no way you can be a fiscal conservative and support the type of military spending we currently engage in. The two ideas are not compatible.

Bush reduces the Federal budget by losing four states.

Mnemia: There is no way you can be a fiscal conservative and support the type of military spending we currently engage in. The two ideas are not compatible.

Au contraire; defense spending is a legitimate cause of the federal government per the Constitution. Where in the constitution are retirement or medical funds guaranteed to the citizenry?

helix400:

Oh, and I almost forgot: arguably Social Security and Medicare shouldn't be considered part of the regular budget, since they are funded by separate dedicated taxes. Defense is by far the biggest part of the regular budget. Social Security is only linked to the regular budget in that the regular budget owes it money that will come due when the Social Security tax is no longer sufficient to cover benefits. So to make up the hole in the budget that this will leave, taxes will have to be raised or regular spending (such as defense) will have to be cut. There isn't a Social Security crisis so much as a general budget crisis.

EwoksSuck: Bush reduces the Federal budget by losing four states.

FAIL. Bush would lose the four most extreme Liberal states - California, New York, Oregon, and Washington State.

Shaggy_C: Au contraire; defense spending is a legitimate cause of the federal government per the Constitution. Where in the constitution are retirement or medical funds guaranteed to the citizenry?

I said "fiscal conservative". It's not conserving our fiscal resources to spend so much more than we need to on "defense" (read: largely corporate welfare for military/defense contractors). There is no way you can convince me that we need to spend so much to defend our nation. We only need to spend so much in order to retain the ability to wage massive war across the globe.

Shaggy_C Quote 2008-01-13 10:38:52 PM
Mnemia: There is no way you can be a fiscal conservative and support the type of military spending we currently engage in. The two ideas are not compatible.

Au contraire; defense spending is a legitimate cause of the federal government per the Constitution. Where in the constitution are retirement or medical funds guaranteed to the citizenry?

Uh...

since when does "fiscal conservative" mean merely (or even) "constitutionalist"?

Just because somethign is allowable doesn't mean it follows the principles of fiscal conservatism.

Mnemia: I said "fiscal conservative".

As evidenced by the last 30 years of 'conservatism,' being a fiscal conservative means expanding the size of government. Fiscal liberalism means expanding the scope of government. I still feel smaller government is a more laudable goal in general, but one cannot claim that defense spending is against the general idea of 'fiscal conservatism'.

Shaggy_C Quote 2008-01-13 10:40:29 PM
EwoksSuck: Bush reduces the Federal budget by losing four states.

FAIL. Bush would lose the four most extreme Liberal states - California, New York, Oregon, and Washington State.

And with it most of the nations industry and econmoy.

The so-called "blue states" would be way better off without the red states, which just leech off the blue states (they take in far more in government money and produce far less)

Bill Frist: Just because somethign is allowable doesn't mean it follows the principles of fiscal conservatism.

It's a nebulous term. It only applies inasmuch as the actions of the people claiming to support it. Kind of like 'family values'.

but one cannot claim that defense spending is against the general idea of 'fiscal conservatism'.

There is quite a difference between "defense spending" of some kind and defense spending to levels far more extreme than any other country in the world

Shaggy_C: As evidenced by the last 30 years of 'conservatism,' being a fiscal conservative means expanding the size of government. Fiscal liberalism means expanding the scope of government. I still feel smaller government is a more laudable goal in general, but one cannot claim that defense spending is against the general idea of 'fiscal conservatism'.

I guess we're using different definitions of "fiscal conservatism" then. Personally, I thought it meant adhering to the idea of only spending taxpayer money when necessary. Our defense spending is absolutely out of control and by no means necessary. Note that I don't believe either major political party actually adheres to "fiscal conservatism". The liberals just want to spend money on social programs and the "conservatives" want to spend it on corporate welfare and bombs.

Shaggy_C: Au contraire; defense spending is a legitimate cause of the federal government per the Constitution. Where in the constitution are retirement or medical funds guaranteed to the citizenry?

Well it depends on how you interpret Article I, section 8.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


I'm also a hardcore Smithist.

What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.


-Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter VIII)

I have no problem with the government providing for those who can't provide for themselves. We are pathetic as a culture if we allow our fellow citizens to needlessly suffer.

Bill Frist: The so-called "blue states" would be way better off without the red states, which just leech off the blue states (they take in far more in government money and produce far less)

Sigh...can we put this meme to rest already?

1) Red state rednecks produce the food and industrial supplies you blue faces eat and use for business
2) Red states are less populous, so the same amount of federal highways, land/parks, and programs cost more per capita

Mnemia: I thought it meant adhering to the idea of only spending taxpayer money when necessary

If you use the Hoover-style definition, yes. But in the modern world it means nothing close to that.

Mnemia: According to your own chart, "defense" spending is the largest single category, especially if you include veterans' benefits (as you should). Face it, as fast as Social Security and especially Medicare spending are growing, "defense" spending is out of control. There is no way you can be a fiscal conservative and support the type of military spending we currently engage in. The two ideas are not compatible.

If your lumping things together, then Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid should be lumped together as similar programs (health and welfare). They make up a whopping 57% of the budget (according to the above chart) vs 22% for Defense and VA.