Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Columbia Journalism Review)   National security consumes nearly every dollar of federal income tax collected   (cjr.org ) divider line
    More: Sick, military intelligences, Homeland Securities, social security, United States Secretary of Defense  
•       •       •

3374 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Feb 2013 at 10:59 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



146 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-02-01 10:28:05 AM  
Wait, a second subby.  you mean to tell me that no one in DC ever presents a full and comprehensive view of everything included in the budget?  Truly, I am shocked and dismayed.   :o

Snark aside though, the true total cost is staggering to say the least.  But god forbid we build a few less planes, or make 10 more bombs.  Surely, if we do that, China will invade us next week.
 
2013-02-01 10:49:00 AM  
newsgrift.com
 
2013-02-01 10:50:45 AM  
So what I'm hearing is that Subby hates Freedom and Israel.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-01 10:53:51 AM  
There are still countries left to invade, we need to spend more.
 
2013-02-01 10:56:58 AM  
We crap ourselves every time someone says "ISLAM" - what do you expect?
 
2013-02-01 11:00:55 AM  
There must be some mistake. I was assured that my taxes were wasted on making sure the poorest 47% of Americans have a cell phone and flat screen TV.
 
2013-02-01 11:01:29 AM  
National security is what the US Taxation was SUPPOSED To cover.

Is the entitlement state present in the Constitution?  NO.

Is defense of the nation present in the Constitution? Yes.
 
2013-02-01 11:01:42 AM  
This is good because that's what the federal government is suppose to focus on.
 
2013-02-01 11:02:52 AM  
Hey, bombing Pakistani 12-year-olds isn't free.
 
2013-02-01 11:03:04 AM  
Does that include the TSA? If so, I know a place where we can start cutting.
 
2013-02-01 11:04:24 AM  
How much could we save by dismantling DHS?
 
2013-02-01 11:05:44 AM  
Yet we cannot even protect our children while they are at school.
 
2013-02-01 11:06:27 AM  
Meh, we can pay for all that just by doubling all personal income tax rates and removing the Social Security cap on income.
 
2013-02-01 11:07:06 AM  

Citrate1007: Yet we cannot even protect our children while they are at school.


That is just the price we pay to insure that everyone has access to the tools of freedom.
 
2013-02-01 11:07:12 AM  
If we spent more of that money on an economy we'd not have to worry about defense.  No one would be able to stand up against us.  Instead we've become insular and belligerent to the world.  Immigration and desire to work for something better made this country what it is.
 
2013-02-01 11:08:17 AM  
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
 
2013-02-01 11:09:53 AM  

mahuika: There must be some mistake. I was assured that my taxes were wasted on making sure the poorest 47% of Americans have a cell phone and flat screen TV.


Don't forget about the refrigerators.
 
2013-02-01 11:11:25 AM  
Stephen Walt raised a good point in Foreign Policy the other day: isn't it past time we make Japan defend itself, or at least pay for its defense?  Nobody even talks about that anymore.
 
2013-02-01 11:15:31 AM  
Why say national security consumes 100% of every tax dollar.

Couldn't the same be said of entitlements if someone with a differing agenda looked at the other column of spending and wrote an article about it?

Article is as stupid as the ones claiming if you taxed everyone at 100% you still would end up with a country in debt at the end of the year.
 
2013-02-01 11:15:51 AM  
That is pretty much all income tax should be spent on.  Sounds like we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
 
2013-02-01 11:15:54 AM  
If we have over 1000 bases overseas, we get the 1001st base free!
 
2013-02-01 11:16:59 AM  

Giltric: Why say national security consumes 100% of every tax dollar.

Couldn't the same be said of entitlements if someone with a differing agenda looked at the other column of spending and wrote an article about it?

Article is as stupid as the ones claiming if you taxed everyone at 100% you still would end up with a country in debt at the end of the year.


I think the idea here is that killing brown people is a crappier economic investment than say the health of our countrymen.
 
2013-02-01 11:17:01 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: That is pretty much all income tax should be spent on.  Sounds like we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.


This is what a stupid person says.
 
2013-02-01 11:19:18 AM  

Thune: National security is what the US Taxation was SUPPOSED To cover.

Is the entitlement state present in the Constitution?  NO.

Is defense of the nation present in the Constitution? Yes.


Somethin something common welfare something something.
 
2013-02-01 11:19:39 AM  
Your kids can still be massacred at school, but we can kick the shiat out of weddings on the other side of the planet.

So money well spent I guess.
 
2013-02-01 11:19:54 AM  

StRalphTheLiar: mahuika: There must be some mistake. I was assured that my taxes were wasted on making sure the poorest 47% of Americans have a cell phone and flat screen TV.

Don't forget about the refrigerators.


Who the fark needs refrigerators? IT'S WINTER! Just leave all your food outside. Goddamn whiny poor people.
 
2013-02-01 11:20:59 AM  

Ned Stark: Thune: National security is what the US Taxation was SUPPOSED To cover.

Is the entitlement state present in the Constitution?  NO.

Is defense of the nation present in the Constitution? Yes.

Somethin something common welfare something something.


That's just, like, your opinion, man!
 
2013-02-01 11:21:35 AM  

Thune: National security is what the US Taxation was SUPPOSED To cover.

Is the entitlement state present in the Constitution?  NO.

Is defense of the nation present in the Constitution? Yes.


Can you explain this phrase, please? Thanks!
 
2013-02-01 11:23:34 AM  

Ned Stark: Thune: National security is what the US Taxation was SUPPOSED To cover.

Is the entitlement state present in the Constitution?  NO.

Is defense of the nation present in the Constitution? Yes.

Somethin something common welfare something something.


A phrase that had nothing to do with entitlements until it was twisted by the people naming the programs.
 
2013-02-01 11:24:25 AM  

coeyagi: I think the idea here is that killing brown people is a crappier economic investment than say the health of our countrymen.


scarydad.com
"SOCIALIST!"

 
2013-02-01 11:24:34 AM  

Millennium: A phrase that had nothing to do with entitlements until it was twisted by the people naming the programs.


That seems a little "re-writing history" to me, unless you have some documents from the Framers stating how we should definitely not take care of our citizens in any active or meaningful way.
 
2013-02-01 11:25:05 AM  

Thune: National security is what the US Taxation was SUPPOSED To cover.

Is the entitlement state present in the Constitution?  NO.

Is defense of the nation present in the Constitution? Yes.


How dare you not be ignorant!
 
2013-02-01 11:27:59 AM  

coeyagi: Giltric: Why say national security consumes 100% of every tax dollar.

Couldn't the same be said of entitlements if someone with a differing agenda looked at the other column of spending and wrote an article about it?

Article is as stupid as the ones claiming if you taxed everyone at 100% you still would end up with a country in debt at the end of the year.

I think the idea here is that killing brown people is a crappier economic investment than say the health of our countrymen.



A neccessary evil...just like keeping the checks going to those who have turned gaming the entitlemment system into a career.
 
2013-02-01 11:28:28 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: That is pretty much all income tax should be spent on.  Sounds like we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.


You are retarded.

Courts
Transportation / infrastructure (all types)
Weights & Measures
Communications
Education
Law Enforcement (numerous types)
Social safety net
Public land management
Trade

I could go on, but you apparently have no idea how government works on any level.
 
2013-02-01 11:29:20 AM  

unlikely: We crap ourselves every time someone says "ISLAM" - what do you expect?


I expect you to buy me another pair of underwear.
 
2013-02-01 11:29:29 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: How dare you not be ignorant!


He's ignoring the entire premise of HOW much we spend and pretending that literally the only thing the government should be doing is military. He sounds rather strikingly ignorant, actually.

/in fact, not to put too fine a point on it, but I have the dude favorited as "willfully ignorant."
 
2013-02-01 11:30:04 AM  

Giltric: A neccessary evil...just like keeping the checks going to those who have turned gaming the entitlemment system into a career.


Our health care system and military industrial complex?
 
2013-02-01 11:30:55 AM  

LasersHurt: Millennium: A phrase that had nothing to do with entitlements until it was twisted by the people naming the programs.

That seems a little "re-writing history" to me, unless you have some documents from the Framers stating how we should definitely not take care of our citizens in any active or meaningful way.

We

should; they were clear enough on that. That the government should is another matter; the Framers were not at all keen on such social engineering. The Framers had an idea of society and state being distinct entities that the contemporary Left has forgotten, this giving rise to Mitt Romney's comments about creating a "government-centric society."

Those who started these programs honestly believed that they would somehow increase the common welfare, thus their twisting of the phrase to try and tie them together. That experiment has failed.
 
2013-02-01 11:31:26 AM  

Thune: National security is what the US Taxation was SUPPOSED To cover.

Is the entitlement state present in the Constitution?  NO.

Is defense of the nation present in the Constitution? Yes.


Bankrupting the US was one of the 5 things Bin Ladin wanted to accomplish.
 
2013-02-01 11:32:09 AM  
While that's a staggering amount of money, it's not like it's all just flushed down a $600 toilet.

Thousands of Americans are employed in the defense industry... unless we're willing to put many of those people out of work, we need to continue to spend most of that money (at least in the short term). IMO, the right thing to do is to shift most of that spending into things that will have a positive impact on our economy.... energy technology, infrastructure, etc are all much better investments than building a few more aircraft carriers.
 
2013-02-01 11:32:21 AM  

Giltric: Article is as stupid as the ones claiming if you taxed everyone at 100% you still would end up with a country in debt at the end of the year.


Saying that we wouldn't solve the budget at a 100% tax rate isn't true, of course.

The 2012 budget deficit was $1.327 Trillion.

There are roughly 138 Million taxpayers in the United States.

To make up the budget deficit, we would need to increase taxes an average of $9,615 per taxpayer.

The average Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of a US taxpayer is $56,798, so to plug the budget deficit, we would need to take roughly 16%  more of everyone's current income.

This is all pretty simple math. We either need to raise another $1.3 Trillion in taxes (a massive increase across all income strata) or cut that much from the budget.
 
2013-02-01 11:32:46 AM  

Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: Why say national security consumes 100% of every tax dollar.

Couldn't the same be said of entitlements if someone with a differing agenda looked at the other column of spending and wrote an article about it?

Article is as stupid as the ones claiming if you taxed everyone at 100% you still would end up with a country in debt at the end of the year.

I think the idea here is that killing brown people is a crappier economic investment than say the health of our countrymen.


A neccessary evil...just like keeping the checks going to those who have turned gaming the entitlemment system into a career.


Yes, you mean 10% of that 47%?  Because 90% are students, disabled, veterans, elderly.

But of course you don't think the defense budget is an entitlement program.  You've never held the magic $400 hammer, my friend.  Once you get one of those, you'd become a welfare queen too.
 
2013-02-01 11:33:03 AM  

Millennium: That experiment has failed.


By what metric, the "I decided so" metric?

The rest of the developed world seems to be doing fine.
 
2013-02-01 11:37:12 AM  

Millennium: We should; they were clear enough on that. That the government should is another matter; the Framers were not at all keen on such social engineering. The Framers had an idea of society and state being distinct entities that the contemporary Left has forgotten


What was all the "we the people" stuff then?
 
2013-02-01 11:39:08 AM  

Ned Stark: Thune: National security is what the US Taxation was SUPPOSED To cover.

Is the entitlement state present in the Constitution?  NO.

Is defense of the nation present in the Constitution? Yes.

Somethin something common welfare something something.



"Common welfare" was for damns and bridges, it wasn't so fat uneducated baby factories could stay home and pop out 40 kids and live off of everyone else.
 
2013-02-01 11:39:42 AM  
Oh good, he went with "Welfare Queens." That's how you know he's a fool.
 
2013-02-01 11:40:43 AM  

coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Giltric: Why say national security consumes 100% of every tax dollar.

Couldn't the same be said of entitlements if someone with a differing agenda looked at the other column of spending and wrote an article about it?

Article is as stupid as the ones claiming if you taxed everyone at 100% you still would end up with a country in debt at the end of the year.

I think the idea here is that killing brown people is a crappier economic investment than say the health of our countrymen.


A neccessary evil...just like keeping the checks going to those who have turned gaming the entitlemment system into a career.

Yes, you mean 10% of that 47%?  Because 90% are students, disabled, veterans, elderly.

But of course you don't think the defense budget is an entitlement program.  You've never held the magic $400 hammer, my friend.  Once you get one of those, you'd become a welfare queen too.


The hammer has to be made to mil-spec. Has to be fire retardent, vibration resistant lightweight and durable. All that R&D and design cost money so do the molds and tooling so does the testing.

Just like with the 600$ toilet seat for the P3 Orion.

Veterans are in the other group according to the article. In regards to the elderly...why am I paying for their poor financial planning over the course of their lives?

If you plan on relying on the government to take care of you where is the incentive to take care of yourself?
 
2013-02-01 11:41:01 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: What was all the "we the people" stuff then?


It was a typo. The QWERTY keyboard was still about 100 years away.
 
2013-02-01 11:41:05 AM  

Thune: it wasn't so fat uneducated baby factories could stay home and pop out 40 kids and live off of everyone else.


Poor people have it made in this country!

Prisoners really sit atop society in terms of luxury though.
 
2013-02-01 11:41:19 AM  

madgonad: Courts
Transportation / infrastructure (all types)
Weights & Measures
Communications
Education
Law Enforcement (numerous types)
Social safety net
Public land management
Trade


The vast majority of those are state services, paid for by state taxes.

While the Federal government has some limited federal overlap rolls, why on earth does anyone think that the most efficient way to run a government is to shovel the majority of tax revenue to the feeding troughs of Washington DC, only to have $0.70 of each tax dollar fed back to the states after being politically allocated?

Really, the Federal government's job (as per the Constitution) is basically national defense, the functions of the state department, insuring state governments operate in a constitutional manner and insuring that commerce is absolutely free across all states (so Kentucky doesn't go off and make their own currency or something similarly stupid).

The country was designed to be a series of relatively free states with a lot of latitude in how they operate. This is a smart idea - 50 "laboratories of democracy," each cooking up their own theories on how to best accomplish things like law enforcement, health care, taxation and the like. States with really solid models and implementations are rewarded by people moving there and businesses starting there. Other states are fully free to explore what other states have done and implement it themselves.

Better yet, if any single state fails, the impact is inherently limited to that state and muted by the strengths of the states around it.

If California wants to implement single payer health care? Go for it. If it works, they will enjoy the benefits of more businesses and citizens, while other states can use the California experience to implement their own systems. Wanna make a "Free State" with a highly libertarian government, low taxes and all that jazz? Go ahed. If it works, it works. If it fails, the failure is (mostly) insulated from the rest of the country.
 
Displayed 50 of 146 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report