If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   The coolest 2011 federal budget infographic you've seen all day   (nytimes.com) divider line 112
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

7530 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Feb 2010 at 11:51 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-02-02 01:54:51 AM
Alien Robot: Bush did is immaterial to dealing with present and future spending. What's done is done and you can't change it.

And I don't want to change it. We need to invest in this country for once.

You're the one conveniently sweeping the klstrfks under the rug.

What a shill. You'd make an excellent propaganda minister.
 
2010-02-02 01:56:17 AM
Huh. No gifted education, and education promoting safe and stable families (like pre-natal education I assume) is eensy-weensy. I would like to see that square a whole lot bigger. In fact I'd like to think that increasing most or all of the education boxes could hugely change the look of this graph 10+ years down the road.
 
2010-02-02 01:59:52 AM

That upper left corner is just obscene. Eisenhower was right, and we're farked.

Also, I predict this will turn up in every NASA thread for the next 2 years at least:

img198.imageshack.us
 
2010-02-02 02:07:50 AM
BretMavrik: ...

And I love how they call it "mandatory" spending. What twisted logic describes student loans as mandatory, but the federal judiciary as discretionary?


The mandatory spending is things where congress set up the conditions, but then has to pay whatever it ends up costing. They can't simply cut the social security budget and let the SSA figure out who doesn't get checks - they'd have to decide on a new set of rules to slash benefits.

Think of it as your cable bill. You've decided to get the expanded digital cable package and pay $120 per month. That's manditory spending. You could drop your cable package, but you couldn't just mail a check for $100.

You can however not buy that candy bar from the vending machine today. That spending is discretionary.
 
2010-02-02 02:08:40 AM
It's all spending on welfare right?

That's what the Republicans keep telling us and we know they never lie!!
 
2010-02-02 02:30:54 AM
The size of the science portion of the budget compared to the military portion makes me sad :(
 
2010-02-02 02:39:41 AM
XMark: The size of the science portion of the budget compared to the military portion makes me sad :(

We're a right-leaning country addicted to perpetual military operations...what do you expect?
 
2010-02-02 02:52:40 AM
whidbey: XMark: The size of the science portion of the budget compared to the military portion makes me sad :(

We're a right-leaning country addicted to perpetual military operations...what do you expect?


Scientifical bombs! Drone warfare! Cloned SuperSoldiers!

Laser beeeeeeems!

I love science when it blows things up. It's like religion.
 
2010-02-02 03:41:46 AM
Alien Robot: B-b-b-but Bush!" Dude,

get used to it, he farked us good and we will be lamenting his handiwork for a long while.
 
2010-02-02 03:44:24 AM
He's not programmed to respond in that area.

Just to rip on the Democrats and what horrible people they are. Foreign nationals usurping our Republic. The nerve!
 
2010-02-02 03:45:58 AM
XMark: The size of the science portion of the budget compared to the military portion makes me sad :(

it sucks no doubt about it.

If it makes you fell any better, the military also does a schnit load of research.

/it probably doesn't make you feel any better
 
2010-02-02 03:49:29 AM
brainiac-dumdum: the military also does a schnit load of research.

On better ways to kill people. Very useful.

Of course, it would be nice if we used our resources to do something else.

I suppose it wouldn't be in our nature. You can't have Manhattan Project style results without someone threatening us.
 
2010-02-02 03:59:11 AM
whidbey: On better ways to kill people.


Exporting Death Panels?
 
2010-02-02 04:06:50 AM
Panels that shoot laser beams out of bees' mouths...
 
2010-02-02 04:19:47 AM
whidbey: On better ways to kill people. Very useful.

they do (^) more than that, but obviously they sure spend a lot of money on destructive toys for power hungry toys.
 
2010-02-02 04:20:27 AM
brainiac-dumdum: toys

boys
 
2010-02-02 05:16:21 AM
brainiac-dumdum: skandalus: CitizenTed: We should totally end Medicare and Social Security immediately. I mean, who's gonna complain? Old people? Blind people? Mental retards? We could kick their asses EASY.

That's easy, until the Baby Boomers start Civil War II: Electric We're-Pissed-And-Off-Our-Meds Boogaloo. At that point, I'm emigrating to Canada.

Just ask them to tell you about the time they dropped acid and saw Hendrix at the Monterey Pop Festival back in '67. Then, while they drone on and on and on, swipe their cane out from under them and use it to beat their artificial hips.


I hope you people never live long enough to experience all the fun and games involved in getting old. I hope all the programs you're going to need disappear on your sixty-fifth birthday and you spent your declining years living in an alley in a refrigerator box.
 
2010-02-02 05:36:25 AM
nearly a billion going to the tobacco trust fund. what is that? i found the north carolina ttc on tah interwebs, they only handed out a few mills last year.
 
2010-02-02 06:19:32 AM
mksmith: I hope you people never live long enough to experience all the fun and games involved in getting old. I hope all the programs you're going to need disappear on your sixty-fifth birthday and you spent your declining years living in an alley in a refrigerator box.

we all need a vision for the future, I'm glad you have found yours.
 
2010-02-02 07:00:42 AM
That's a heatmap, I believe. They're commonly used for stock information.
 
2010-02-02 07:01:56 AM
Similar to Smartmoney's Map of the Market.

Link (new window)


Went looking for that. Found this first.

Link (new window)


*sigh*
 
2010-02-02 07:21:13 AM
mksmith: I hope you people never live long enough to experience all the fun and games involved in getting old. I hope all the programs you're going to need disappear on your sixty-fifth birthday and you spent your declining years living in an alley in a refrigerator box.

Or, you know, you could start at 22 putting money away because you're fairly sure that when you hit retirement age there will be no SS because it's full of government IOUs.

So many people put so much stock in the government and at some point it's all going to come crashing down. You think Wall Street banks failing sucked? Wait until the government is forced to say "No more."
 
2010-02-02 07:23:37 AM
Funding for scientific agencies:

NASA activities : 12.78 Billion (+7.8%)
Space operations : 4.89 Billion (-20.5%)
NSF Programs: 7.36 Billion (+8.1%)
DOE Research : 5.12 Billion (+4.6%)
Homeland Security Tech. Programs : 2.03 Billion (+1.8%)
NOAA : 5.6 Billion (16.6%)
NIH : 32.09 Billion (+3.2)

Total : 60.87 Billion (+4.0%)

Anything I missed?
 
2010-02-02 07:29:15 AM
I'm late to the party, but just wanna remind everyone this budget doesn't mean crap; it's what the President is suggesting Congress should pass, but what actually lands on his desk could end up much different.

Granted, Congress has been pretty deferential towards the President's budget proposals in the past (basically tweaking them at the margins), but with a lot of Democrats (especially Blue Dogs) in reelection panic mode and an organized opposition in the form of the Republicans, it's entirely possible there will be quite a bit of horse-trading to get anything passed this year.

Just be glad the budget has to go through the reconciliation process; I wouldn't put it past the Senate Republicans (and probably Evan Bayh or some other deficit peacock who wants to show off their bipartisan bona fides) to float the idea of a filibuster of a bill that isn't deficit neutral, suggesting it could be done by simply cutting "waste" and eliminating the estate, dividend, and corporate income taxes that create such a drag on the federal budget. You laugh, but you know it's true.
 
2010-02-02 07:29:47 AM
GAT_00: Hit the 'Hide Mandatory Spending' button. See everything that's still showing Republicans? That is what is allowed to be cut in the budget process. Could someone tell me what the biggest single item there is?

National Defence, but to be honest it is one of the things listed explicitly in the Constitution as something that needs to be provided by the Federal Government. Maybe not that much, but every president (and the citizens) believe a big military win is good for the country, even if it has nothing to do with national security overall.

Also, there really is no such thing as "Mandatory" spending. Sure there is pre-existing law that says it should be in the budget, but there is nothing saying that Congress can't pass another law changing that. This is only the Administration's budget taking the things they have to put in there.

whidbey: brainiac-dumdum: the military also does a schnit load of research.

On better ways to kill people. Very useful.


Don't forget military R&D also paid for you to rant on the Internet.
 
2010-02-02 07:37:48 AM
Zombie Neurosurgeon: Funding for scientific agencies:

NASA activities : 12.78 Billion (+7.8%)
Space operations : 4.89 Billion (-20.5%)
NSF Programs: 7.36 Billion (+8.1%)
DOE Research : 5.12 Billion (+4.6%)
Homeland Security Tech. Programs : 2.03 Billion (+1.8%)
NOAA : 5.6 Billion (16.6%)
NIH : 32.09 Billion (+3.2)

Total : 60.87 Billion (+4.0%)

Anything I missed?


DARPA?
 
2010-02-02 07:51:30 AM
syberpud: Also, there really is no such thing as "Mandatory" spending. Sure there is pre-existing law that says it should be in the budget, but there is nothing saying that Congress can't pass another law changing that. This is only the Administration's budget taking the things they have to put in there.

True, but you try to be the one who voted to rescind the protections on Social Security benefits when election day rolls around.

Oh, and fun fact: Social Security cuts are stupid because it's the one entitlement program that isn't expected to see much growth in the long term. Sure, we might need to adjust retirement age a few years (since we live longer than when the plan was first put into place), but it's Medicare and Medicaid that are going to bite us in the ass if we can't figure out how to fix them. Oh, and of course we wouldn't have to worry near as much if the additional payroll tax receipts of the babyboomers were actually held on to and not treated as "ooh, free money!" in previous decades.

syberpud: Don't forget military R&D also paid for you to rant on the Internet.

And we wouldn't have any satellite communication systems if NASA didn't start throwing them up there to be able to get in touch with astronauts. How much of military R&D is dedicated to building the next F22 even if the ones we have are still sitting on the runway?

Oh wait; that's because that spending is "stimulus" for jobs, which is hilaious to see the same people defend the F22s but balk at the idea of the stimulus bill last year because they claim that government spending has never created a single job.

s
 
2010-02-02 08:18:10 AM
This graphic is pretty lame compared to the www.wallstats.com represtation of the United States budget. I can't wait to see their 2011 poster. For those who have never seen it, take a look (new window). It really is very good.
 
2010-02-02 08:38:04 AM
AirForceVet: National Defense?

/No, I'm NOT a Republican.


Why isn't veteran's benefits calculated under "national defense"?

IT seems that veteran's benefits are a direct result of choices made in our national defense programs--why should those numbers be broken out separately?
 
2010-02-02 08:46:44 AM
AR55: GAT_00: Hit the 'Hide Mandatory Spending' button. See everything that's still showing Republicans? That is what is allowed to be cut in the budget process. Could someone tell me what the biggest single item there is?

As much as it should happen, it isn't going to. At least not well into the 2020s. The political climate doesn't favor it, people think the war on terror is something sustainable and worth pouring billions into. Any politician who dares suggest that we cut spending in the military will be seen as weak and enabling our enemies.

I mean look at the whole health care debate. Something that could of had the potential to help everyone in the country, turned into complete horseshiat with a few fabricated lies. Now imagine public reactions after you propose cutting the military budget.


And this is how empires die. It's really sad. I think there are actually few applicable lessons from history, but one of the few is that many empires fail b/c they overextend and keep spending on the over-extension well past the point where it makes sense, ultimately bankrupting the empire.

Basically what it comes down to is that the US can either have humane social policies and try to recreate a nation with a true middle-class or we can keep farking that chicken of empire until it bankrupts us and we have nothing.

Sadly, I'm pretty sure I know which way this whole thing is going.
 
2010-02-02 08:51:22 AM
eiger: Basically what it comes down to is that the US can either have humane social policies and try to recreate a nation with a true middle-class or we can keep farking that chicken of empire until it bankrupts us and we have nothing.

That's pretty much it. We have things to learn from Washington's farewell address.

* The Federal Government is a virtue.

* Party over nation is bad

* Responsible Public Debt is a virtue

* Stay out of foreign entanglements

* Be wary of the military
 
2010-02-02 09:22:01 AM
Skleenar: AirForceVet: National Defense?

/No, I'm NOT a Republican.

Why isn't veteran's benefits calculated under "national defense"?

IT seems that veteran's benefits are a direct result of choices made in our national defense programs--why should those numbers be broken out separately?


Probably because it's a separate agency (VA vs. DoD) - purely bookkeeping, but the VA submits its own budget doesn't go through the DoD for all its funds. There may be some cross funding (happens all the time - DoD, DoE or DHS may fund other agencies for support work).
 
2010-02-02 09:59:02 AM
bin_smokin: Fantastic Graphic.

I had no idea your FBI, government R&D, and Dept of Energy were all rolled into your national defense budget.

Makes sense


It's really great when I get chain emails telling me how terrible Carter was for creating the Department of Energy which exists ONLY to free us from dependence on foreign oil. How'd that work out stupidlibs. A lot of folks in our country have a knack for ignoring the elephant in the room. It stems from being incorrectly told what the elephant is over and over again for at least 3 hours a day.
 
2010-02-02 10:07:01 AM
That's kind of a sobering graphic. How much better off would the country be to emphasize the things in the lower right corner more over the things on the left side.

Geez. Freeze or half procurement for a couple years, take even half the money and use it elsewhere and you'd reap huge benefits. It would mean some short term impact on defense industry jobs, but the overall benefit would be immense - even if you just used the saved money to pay down debt.
 
2010-02-02 10:17:33 AM
bin_smokin: Fantastic Graphic.

I had no idea your FBI, government R&D, and Dept of Energy were all rolled into your national defense budget.

Makes sense


The DoD has a R&D funding arm (as well as its own internal research). Other civilian agencies also do research (NIH, NIST, NOAA, NSF, DHS, etc.) but are smaller and barely register at this scale (DHS S&T is here, NOAA is too). The DoE is partially responsible for the nation's nuke arsenal, so the DoD probably requests the funds on their behalf for that.

Not sure why the FBI (and CIA) are listed here (FBI is part of Dept of Justice and CIA is State Dept.). I'm guessing it's to pay for their role in the "War on Terror". The FBI is also tasked with counter-espionage so that might be this pot of money too.

/Think about how confusing it is at this level... the details are much, much worse.
 
2010-02-02 10:35:47 AM
Alien Robot: what Bush did is immaterial to dealing with present and future spending

So the invasion of Iraq has no impact on present or future spending? Really?
 
2010-02-02 10:56:50 AM
Alien Robot: what Bush did is immaterial to dealing with present and future spending.

Except for those increased interest payments due to a ballooning deficit signed by Bush, and oh yeah, reduced federal income directly related to tax cuts that don't expire for another 6-8 years.

Bush is totally in the clear.
 
2010-02-02 11:04:18 AM
J Man: Alien Robot: what Bush did is immaterial to dealing with present and future spending.

Except for those increased interest payments due to a ballooning deficit signed by Bush, and oh yeah, reduced federal income directly related to tax cuts that don't expire for another 6-8 years.

Bush is totally in the clear.


Huh? The first round was passed in 2001 (meaning they expire next year), the other round was 2003 (so they expire in 2013).

The 10-year timeline was specifically set to avoid the prospect of a filibuster (Republicans only had 55 seats), so they shoved them through using reconciliation. (NB: Permanent tax cuts like that can't use reconciliation, but I'm not sure of the specifics.)
 
2010-02-02 11:21:04 AM
eiger: AR55: GAT_00: Hit the 'Hide Mandatory Spending' button. See everything that's still showing Republicans? That is what is allowed to be cut in the budget process. Could someone tell me what the biggest single item there is?

As much as it should happen, it isn't going to. At least not well into the 2020s. The political climate doesn't favor it, people think the war on terror is something sustainable and worth pouring billions into. Any politician who dares suggest that we cut spending in the military will be seen as weak and enabling our enemies.

I mean look at the whole health care debate. Something that could of had the potential to help everyone in the country, turned into complete horseshiat with a few fabricated lies. Now imagine public reactions after you propose cutting the military budget.

And this is how empires die. It's really sad. I think there are actually few applicable lessons from history, but one of the few is that many empires fail b/c they overextend and keep spending on the over-extension well past the point where it makes sense, ultimately bankrupting the empire.

Basically what it comes down to is that the US can either have humane social policies and try to recreate a nation with a true middle-class or we can keep farking that chicken of empire until it bankrupts us and we have nothing.

Sadly, I'm pretty sure I know which way this whole thing is going.


Ouch. You pretty much spoke my thoughts with more eloquence than I would have.
 
2010-02-02 11:25:27 AM
actually subby, this was:

Obama Budget Request for 2011 (new window)
 
2010-02-02 11:25:33 AM
J Man: Bush is totally in the clear.

Yeah, Bush has just as much blame on this as anyone. Sadly, this administration is pretty much on the same track.

One item that I would like to know more about is the net interest item. I am assuming that it is talking about interest on the National Debt. Accoring to the NY Times, they are reporting this number as 188 Billion for this year, while most of the items I have read indicate that it will be tracking up around $420B range. Right now for the first 3 months of FY 2010, we are at $104B. (new window)


This year, it looks like interest on the debt will be eating up around 20% of the total federal tax revenue.

/if you think that number is bad, wait until interest rates go up
//om nom nom
 
2010-02-02 11:27:22 AM
Manhigh: Zombie Neurosurgeon: Funding for scientific agencies:

NASA activities : 12.78 Billion (+7.8%)
Space operations : 4.89 Billion (-20.5%)
NSF Programs: 7.36 Billion (+8.1%)
DOE Research : 5.12 Billion (+4.6%)
Homeland Security Tech. Programs : 2.03 Billion (+1.8%)
NOAA : 5.6 Billion (16.6%)
NIH : 32.09 Billion (+3.2)

Total : 60.87 Billion (+4.0%)

Anything I missed?

DARPA?


Make no mistake, DARPA is not interested in science to help anyone except the Government.
 
2010-02-02 11:39:29 AM
Zumaki: Make no mistake, DARPA is not interested in science to help anyone except the Government.

Is posting this on a message board on the Internet considered ironic?
 
2010-02-02 12:01:02 PM
Excuse me if this is over my head, but it seems to me like these are all programs that republicans would never cut. So why does the blame fall on democrats, and why do republicans still want to lower taxes?
 
2010-02-02 12:07:41 PM
100 Watt Walrus: That upper left corner is just obscene. Eisenhower was right, and we're farked.

Also, I predict this will turn up in every NASA thread for the next 2 years at least:




Just so you know, the air force has a bigger space program than NASA; they do more space missions, they have more equipment in space.

It's kind of like having TWO space organizations, except neither are yours.

Space. No. Not yours.
 
2010-02-02 12:15:11 PM
Zumaki: Manhigh: Zombie Neurosurgeon: Funding for scientific agencies:

NASA activities : 12.78 Billion (+7.8%)
Space operations : 4.89 Billion (-20.5%)
NSF Programs: 7.36 Billion (+8.1%)
DOE Research : 5.12 Billion (+4.6%)
Homeland Security Tech. Programs : 2.03 Billion (+1.8%)
NOAA : 5.6 Billion (16.6%)
NIH : 32.09 Billion (+3.2)

Total : 60.87 Billion (+4.0%)

Anything I missed?

DARPA?

Make no mistake, DARPA is not interested in science to help anyone except the Government.


How about that internet, folks?
 
2010-02-02 02:11:02 PM
1. This is a remarkably clear infographic. Kudos to the web developer who came up with it.

2. At first glance, this looks a lot like most of the George W. Bush proposed budgets to me.
 
2010-02-02 02:24:37 PM
seanpg71: BretMavrik: ...

And I love how they call it "mandatory" spending. What twisted logic describes student loans as mandatory, but the federal judiciary as discretionary?

The mandatory spending is things where congress set up the conditions, but then has to pay whatever it ends up costing. They can't simply cut the social security budget and let the SSA figure out who doesn't get checks - they'd have to decide on a new set of rules to slash benefits.

Think of it as your cable bill. You've decided to get the expanded digital cable package and pay $120 per month. That's manditory spending. You could drop your cable package, but you couldn't just mail a check for $100.

You can however not buy that candy bar from the vending machine today. That spending is discretionary.


I understand their definition, it was a rhetorical question.

The fact that you decided to get the expanded cable means it's not mandatory. If you only want to pay $100, drop to a plan that costs $100 or less. You're not going to jail if you drop cable. You will, however, go to jail if you decide not to pay your property taxes, child support, those sorts of things as applicable; that's what I consider "mandatory". The gov't equivalent would be core, constitutionally-mandated obligations. I don't recall any amendments that require the gov't to dole out cash to art history majors so they can find themselves, or to extend unemployment benefits another 26 weeks. They might be worthwhile, but I would not call them "mandatory".

Congress created those programs and they're constantly tweaking the benefits formulas, expanding who qualifies, etc. They can do it in the opposite direction. It would, however, require skills that seems to be lacking on Capitol Hill... prioritizing and living within your means.
 
2010-02-02 05:19:31 PM
whidbey: Alien Robot: We will never attack the structural problems in our spending until Democrats pull their heads out of their butts and address the "mandatory" spending categories which are only going to increase

Spoken like a true one-dimensional Repub shill.


What are you talking about? He made a completely valid point; until you structurally reform entitlements' spending, reductions in defense spending are like putting a bandaid on a bullet-hole wound.
 
2010-02-02 05:20:59 PM
whidbey: Alien Robot: Just as "Nixon was the only one who could go to China" President Obama is the one who should address starting the process of trimming social programs.

What a load of crap.

About what I expect from you. Something negative, and always directed at Democrats.

Republicans are saints to you. So saintly, you claim to have never voted for one, I predict.


Ah, whidbey is just trolling, here... three calls for it, and he/she/it still hasn't addressed you point with anything but a "b...b...b...Bush"
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report