Politics 2014

[lost highway]

Yeah less on welfare than defense, less on education, also I said medicaid not "all healthcare". I will say, and I think you'd agree, the budget this year is uniquely thrifty in the military percentages but following a recent trend.

 

I wont pretend to know your experiences, but the gig seemed to get a lot nastier after 2001. I've known a couple guys, and picked up some stories on the radio that made me think the best way to support troops is to prevent them from being forced into desert snipe hunts.

[Hixter]

I will say, and I think you'd agree, the budget this year is uniquely thrifty in the military percentages but following a recent trend.

No, if you go back and look at spending over the last decade or more you'll find that it hasn't changed that much, we still spend about 2/3 of our budget on health care and social programs and about 1/6 of it on the military.

 

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to cost the nation $4 trillion for their 13+ years. Do the division and you'll see that we spent more on welfare every year than we did on warfare.

 

I wont pretend to know your experiences, but the gig seemed to get a lot nastier after 2001. I've known a couple guys, and picked up some stories on the radio that made me think the best way to support troops is to prevent them from being forced into desert snipe hunts.

 

I was too old for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I have at least a dozen friends who served in both places and none of them regret their service, nor were any of them 'forced' to fight. They volunteered.

[KevinG]

No, we spend more on all of those things than we do on the military.

 

 

It is not the amount, it is the attitude. At least for me.

 

It is the willingness to just spend, on the military, at times on things the don't need or want. But even small domestic spending gets is shouted as unnecessary and not worth our tax dollars.

[tinnitus photography]

No, we spend more on all of those things than we do on the military.

 

that's pretty funny to lump in state and local budgets when comparing education and military budgets.... i think my town sponsored its own fleet of F18s.

[lost highway]

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to cost the nation $4 trillion for their 13+ years. Do the division and you'll see that we spent more on welfare every year than we did on warfare.

[/background][/size]

Your graphic suggests welfare is 385 billion and defense is 839 billion, so no. You're wrong on that.

[Doug C]

This new fangled cipherin' is confusing. The math I learned says 839.9 is much larger than 385.8 and 130.7.

[KevinG]

This new fangled cipherin' is confusing. The math I learned says 839.9 is much larger than 385.8 and 130.7.

 

probably because of Common Core.

 

And btw I found this which is more of a federal break down on the estimates of percentages of federal spending.  You can click on the top for the various years.  But for those that are click adverse here is a simple breakdown.

 

2012

Defense 24%

Welfare 12%

 

2013

Defense 24%

Welfare 11%

 

2014

Defense 21%

Welfare 10%

 

2015

Defense 19%

Welfare 10%

 

2016

Defense 18%

Welfare 9%

 

2017

Defense 18%

Welfare 9%

 

But as you can see as a percentage of federal spending we spend about twice as much on defense as welfare.  But if you include other social programs especially healthcare it is does get smaller.  

 

And of course you need to take a look at Hixler's statement (because he would want us to and not infer anything).  

 

 

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to cost the nation $4 trillion for their 13+ years. Do the division and you'll see that we spent more on welfare every year than we did on warfare.

 

 

And it is technically true.  Yes if you do that math that comes out to a paltry 307 billion a year and total welfare per year is just about 800 billion.  But that is like taking the amount spent on just food stamps and using that to compare against all defense spending.  The comparison makes no sense. 

[Hixter]

that's pretty funny to lump in state and local budgets when comparing education and military budgets.... i think my town sponsored its own fleet of F18s.

It's all tax money that our government collects from the citizens. When discussing what the country spends on something, I expect it to mean the nation as a whole, not only the federal government. I doubt anyone who dislikes large amounts of money being spent on national defense would change their opinion if the source of funding was property or state income taxes.

 

The fact remains that our nation's government spends far more money on social programs, healthcare and education than it does on defense.

 

Your graphic suggests welfare is 385 billion and defense is 839 billion, so no. You're wrong on that.

I was talking about the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and I was correct in saying that we spent more on welfare per year than we did on the wars every year.

 

This new fangled cipherin' is confusing. The math I learned says 839.9 is much larger than 385.8 and 130.7.

Again, we spend more on education than we do on the military. We also spent more on welfare per year than we did on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Hixter]

But if you include other social programs especially healthcare it is does get smaller.  

Yes, if you lump in all the "good" social programs like education, unemployment, welfare, Social Security, etc., you'll find that they dwarf defense spending. Our nation spends only about 1/8 of its tax money on defense. It's a large figure dollar-wise, but it's only a fraction of our nation's budget.

[KevinG]

I was talking about the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and I was correct in saying that we spent more on welfare per year than we did on the wars every year.

 

Again, we spend more on education than we do on the military. We also spent more on welfare per year than we did on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Why do you insist on cherry picking items from the defense budget and then comparing to welfare as a whole?  It is a stupid comparison.  See I can do it to: We spent only 80 billion on food stamps last year, way less than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Factually correct statement, but not an appropriate comparison.    

 

 

Yes, if you lump in all the "good" social programs like education, unemployment, welfare, Social Security, etc., you'll find that they dwarf defense spending. Our nation spends only about 1/8 of its tax money on defense. It's a large figure dollar-wise, but it's only a fraction of our nation's budget.

 

You said welfare, (which is listed as a line item in your chart).  Heaven forbid I infer anything from any statements you make, I have learned I need to take what you say literally.  And yes, I agree with you as a percentage of our federal government social programs is larger than defense.  But you are not the first person to make the incorrect assumption that all social spending is equivalent to welfare (http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/20/fox-news-echoes-gops-misleading-definition-of-w/190792).   So I can see where you might have that notion.  

 

 

Again, we spend more on education than we do on the military. 

 

And according your chart (education 430 billion, defense 840 billion) how is that remotely true? 

 

Lastly all of this is just sound a fury, signifying nothing.  I would like to focus on the original statement by losthighway.  There is a segment of the population and those in political power that see any domestic spending as a waste, but yet are more than happy to spend money in foreign countries and the military with little or no thought.  Take Paul Ryan, his budget plan from earlier this year would cut domestic programs to their lowest level in modern government accounting history, but yet still increase the defense budget.  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/us/politics/paul-ryan-budget.html?_r=0

 

You see that is key.

[Atticus]

I wonder what fraction of KevinG's 2014 was spent finding links to articles in order to argue with Hixter.

[Doug C]

Hilarious. Yes, you are correct that when including all 3 levels of government, more is spent on education and welfare than on defense. State and local governments spend virtually zero dollars on defense. If the federal government spent less on defense, more money could be spend on education and helping the poor in various ways.

[KevinG]

I wonder what fraction of KevinG's 2014 was spent finding links to articles in order to argue with Hixter.

 

I like links.  

[Atticus]

fair point.

[NoJ]

Poon, your avatar is looking odd.

[Atticus]

I don't understand that post

[tinnitus photography]

 

 

AtticusPoongoogler Atticus Dec 17 2010 11:53 AM N.A.P.E. AtticusPoongoogler Aug 28 2009 04:46 PM AtticusPoongoogler N.A.P.E. Jul 30 2009 07:41 PM whatdisay AtticusPoongoogler Nov 27 2008 11:39 AM AtticusPoongoogler whatdisay May 27 2008 12:06 AM whatdusay AtticusPoongoogler Jun 27 2007 06:28 PM whatdisay whatdusay Mar 14 2007 10:32 AM

[NoJ]

Poon, its better now.

[Atticus]

Oh good.

[John Smith]

Consider the information presented regarding the federal budget. Then note that social security and Medicare have specific taxes dedicated to them, but for those taxes they probably do not exist. Now remove both of them from the pie chart and them start the discussion again. im out of this ridiculous argument again... And of course I'm wrong, cue the reasons why 3...2...1...

[lost highway]

That's an interesting contrast because we pay social security tax under the theory that we're individually contributing and will one day be entitled one share of whatever's left (thanks a lot dad!). When we pay for bombs or school teachers we contribute a lump sum.

[Atticus]

Is that Obama still President?

 

I'm concerned that the government might be spending more money than it takes in.

 

My healthcare seems to have gotten more expensive.

 

and how about that abortion?!

 

 

Seems like we got most of this wrapped up

[lost highway]

Well the deficit is shrinking.  Obama is still president.  No one can do anything about abortion.  Now gay people can get married in more parts of the country.

 

It's been a very hard year for the world at large, but I'd say America is better off than it was 12 months ago.  Oh wait, there's a civil rights crisis... so maybe not entirely.

[KevinG]

Well since it appears that we are done talking about the our federal expenditures and what goes to what (which is a shame, because it was getting really interesting) and the various name changes of Atticus, I want to bring up Ted Cruz.  I was slightly amused by his political wranglings during the omnibus bill debate.  

 

Some background, in order to try to block funding for Obama's immigration executive order he and Mike Lee kept the Senate from adjourning.  Thus allowing the currently democratically controlled senate to confirm a lot Obama appointments.  Including the new Surgeon General, who was being blocked in an effort lead by the NRA, because of his views on guns.  

 

This is all politics in the true sense of the word which I find very fascinating.  The Senate is a very interesting in the way they do things and it can be very complicated.  What amazes me is that Ted Cruz tried something that he knew wouldn't pass, and ended up not only pissing off a lot of Senators (from both parties, but really mostly his side of the aisle), giving a win to the President, just so he could get more airtime for himself.  A true backfire.  He looks foolish and naive and he has created more tension within his party.

 

Slow clap for Teddy.

 

BTW - No links in this one, hope you can keep up.  

[KevinG]

and this is kinda of big deal too:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/17/obama-cuba_n_6340550.html