Slashdot Mirror

Yea, but the cost of opening the government is $5.7 Billion.... Out of a $44~ Trillion budget.

It's like arguing over $57 dollars for a fencing in the back yard to keep the kids safe when you make $44,000 / year and refusing to pay any of the utility bills, buy gas for the car or give the kids milk money for school until the demand for the fence is dropped.

I say we write the $57 dollar check so the kids can have their milk money and you can put gas in the car.

In the mean time, blame who you want...

Yeah. 5.7 billion is nothing, just piss it all away because it's not the highest item on the balance sheet. Not to mention your total cost estimate is over tenfold inflated but whatever. Alt facts, eh?

"In fiscal year 2015, the federal budget is $3.8 trillion." https://www.nationalpriorities...

Try looking at some numbers. 2015 Spending (pie graph breakdown) 2018 Spending (no graph) ... So in order of problems: Social Security very very very very big problem, Medicare and Health system very very very big problem, Military big problem, Debt not so bad a little a few more % points than on my home load, everything else chump change.

So, let's use your hypothetical situation on my home budget. My mortgage is the single largest cost I have month to month. Based on your logic, I should cut funds to that in order to free up funds for other more fun things that I would refer to as discretionary. Somehow I don't the bank would let me live in my house very long if I wasn't paying my mortgage...

There's a reason that no one talks about the mandatory spending when talking about budgets, they're systems that (in theory) cannot be taken away from (but it doesn't stop the politicians from finding creative ways to "borrow" from those funds with no intention of paying back...). The military is the single greatest discretionary spending situation. And, with military budgets that grow every year, and situations where branches are told "If you don't use it, you lose" when it comes to budgets, you better believe there's superfluous spending going on. Hell, the company I work for gets inundated by military branches this time of year because they need to use up the last of their budgets.

Going back to my home budget, if I'm trying to cut spending, I look at my discretionary purchases and my budget there and realize, I don't need to eat out 4 times a week and I can save about $40 a week by cutting that back to once a week. Meanwhile, my mortgage still gets paid the same amount and I have more money to spend on computer parts that I need to upgrade.

You forgot bank bailouts. ("Socialism for the rich"). Which cost far more than all the other stuff put together.

This is patently false, and you know it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.nationalpriorities...

Try looking at some numbers.

2015 Spending (pie graph breakdown)
2018 Spending (no graph)

Based upon the 2015 numbers (2018 number show increases in #1 and #2, and reductions to everything else)

Social Security is #1, with about 33% the total budget
Medicare and Health is #2, with about 27% the total budget
Military is #3, with about 16% of the budget (adding Veterans is another 4% ish, so 20% total)
Interest on debt is #4, with about 6% of the budget
Below this is chump change, at about 18%.

So if your broke, you don't start cutting thing #3 on your list, you start with #1, then move to #2, then #3 and so on. Heck, just cutting #1 in half would free up enough money to double military spending. Cutting #1 and #2 in half would free up 30% which would almost triple chump change spending and thats without touching military or debt spending.

So in order of problems: Social Security very very very very big problem, Medicare and Health system very very very big problem, Military big problem, Debt not so bad a little a few more % points than on my home load, everything else chump change.

However our taxes go mostly to the Military first, and what is left will get the crumbs. This creates a lot of holes in our safety net.

It's a common misconception that the military gets the majority of the federal budget. A better understanding is that the military gets the majority of the discretionary budget. That's a big difference because the discretionary budget is, as a complete category, is only 30% of the total. Mandatory spending is largely entitlements like social security and medicare and is ~65% of the total budget. Interest is also a huge factor, ~6% of the total, and is why fiscal conservatives like myself would love to see the federal debt paid down. Let me repeat that in case it was missed - the interest on the national debt was roughly half as big as military spending in 2015. Here's a great breakdown of everything: https://www.nationalpriorities... PS - If you're worried about the safety net kill illegal immigration. You can have nice things or you can have open borders. You can't have both when you're living next to poor countries.

You mean, like America generally?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
(it's at about $21.8 trillion as of this post)

We are the richest society in human history, and we still can't pay for all the shit we feel we need.
We borrow 1/4-1/3 of the US budget every year against "the future".

And before the inevitable comment: Yes, US military spending is huge, more than half of discretionary spending....however, discretionary spending is only about 1/3 the budget.
So when looking at "where does the US spend its $" from the total pile about 1/6 is military....while around 2/3 of the total US budget is spent on social spending.
https://www.nationalpriorities...

Either your understanding is wrong or mine is.

Congress allocates the money, the President spends the money.

Apparently, it is more complex than that: https://www.nationalpriorities...

TL;DR, The President submits a Budget Request. This budget request is then used by Congress when deciding an actual budget. Again, Congress is still to blame.

That's completely arbitrary.

No, it is not. It is a very clear case. Taxes can be — ethically — spent on things crucial to the country's existence .

So why draw a line between borde protection and healthcare?

Because a) individual's healthcare is not essential to the polity's existence, b) he can take care of himself. Whereas maintaining a capable military is of grave importance to the polity's survival and can only be done by the government.

Imagine a town faced by a barbarian horde. However undesirable, it is acceptable — ethical — to confiscate the materiel and the funds necessary to arm and equip the defenders, to feed them while they train, and to build and maintain fortifications. Ethical, because, if these measures, however oppressive, aren't taken, the town will be sacked, its men killed, women and children — raped and/or sold into slavery.

Nothing of the kind justifies forcing people to pay for the others and yet this "benevolence" overwhelmingly trumps the military spending... Because of you and your kind.

The Federal Government spent $986 billion directly in 2015, itself. It's beyond $1 trillion now. And that does not include State and local Governments. This does not include individual spending, as well - just Government spending.

I wonder of you realize we already spend more on healthcare than defense. Around $1 trillion a year is spent - at the Federal level alone - on healthcare. Given that level of spending (about $3,050 per man, woman, and child in the US), I don't think this amount (about $40 per man, woman and child) would help much, if anything.

Oh boo hoo. The government forces me to pay for killing people.

Maintaining a capable military is explicitly a government's responsibility, according to our Constitution. Benevolence is not:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

— James Madison

And yet, despite one being the government's mandate and the other — not — the military expenditures are dwarfed by the compulsory charity.

You sound like just another arrogant, selfish person

I may be all of these and worse. But you — the nicest and the kindest person in the world — still have no right to spend my money without my consent.

Your name fits very nicely with your philosophy.

Wow... I've been the target of many ad-hominem attacks before, but none quite so literally attacking my username...

The government outspends any company hundreds to one in this area

That's 100% false.

https://www.statista.com/topic...:

Oil (and gas) companies are among the largest corporations worldwide. Among the top ten companies worldwide based on revenue, six are in the oil industry. In 2016, Anglo-Dutch giant Royal Dutch Shell reported almost 234 billion U.S. dollars of revenue. Thus, Shell was the third-largest company worldwide based on revenue in 2015. ExxonMobil from Irving, Texas generated a revenue reporting some 219 billion U.S. dollars in 2016. However, ExxonMobil claims the highest market value within this industry, as well as having the second-highest market value of all companies worldwide in 2015.

https://www.nationalpriorities...:
In fiscal year 2015, the federal budget is $3.8 trillion.

So, no, the fossil fuel industry is probably larger than the entire US budget, making your statement 100% false.

Your statistics did not address the expenditures for climate change research in any way. They are a meaningless comparison between the gross revenue of oil companies and the total US federal budget.

Try reading the income statement for Exxon Mobile and learn the difference between gross revenue and net income. https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/...

In 2015 Exxon Mobile gave about 8 million dollars to public policy and policy research groups of all kinds
http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/me...

The US government 2014 budget for climate change expenditures was over $21B
https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...

The government outspends any company hundreds to one in this area

That's 100% false.

https://www.statista.com/topic...:
Oil (and gas) companies are among the largest corporations worldwide. Among the top ten companies worldwide based on revenue, six are in the oil industry. In 2016, Anglo-Dutch giant Royal Dutch Shell reported almost 234 billion U.S. dollars of revenue. Thus, Shell was the third-largest company worldwide based on revenue in 2015. ExxonMobil from Irving, Texas generated a revenue reporting some 219 billion U.S. dollars in 2016. However, ExxonMobil claims the highest market value within this industry, as well as having the second-highest market value of all companies worldwide in 2015.

https://www.nationalpriorities...: In fiscal year 2015, the federal budget is $3.8 trillion.

So, no, the fossil fuel industry is probably larger than the entire US budget, making your statement 100% false.

I wonder if you realize the Federal Government already spends about $3600 per year on healthcare for every man, woman, and child in the US? Shall we turn over the other 40% of our national spending on healthcare to that entity?

I guess you don't realize we pay about $2 in Federal healthcare spending for every $1 in defense spending already. And you want to INCREASE that amount, even though the Federal Government dominates healthcare spending now - and drives most of the cost structure?

Here's a 2015 chart, showing military budget as percentage of discretionary spending: https://www.nationalpriorities....
The entire total of discretionary spending was $1.11 trillion, and military spending alone (not counting VA, agriculture, etc) was over half of that.

I think you meant that the military budget PLUS all those other things will add up to over 1 T.

"Cutting the military budget would be like cutting the cable bill when you can't afford the mortgage."

Sort of. If social security and medicare are your $2300 mortage, the military is your $600 car payment. Education is your $100 cable bill.

https://www.nationalpriorities...

Take a look at the 3rd chart.

The military budget is not as large as you might think, relatively.

I guess it depends "what you think", but no matter how you slice it it is still a massive amount of money; especially when put into perspective:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Even if we cut it in half the US still has vastly more invested than anywhere else in the world. (And if you look at that chart, of the next 14 after the US, most of them are pretty close allies too; so in terms of spending the US + allies still would drastically outclass all plausible opponents combined.)

Returning the mortgage analogy; my first home cost me $1200/mo in mortgage payments for a single bedroom+den apartment; and was probably among the least expensive places in the area; the loan payment of $600/month for a Porsche 911; on the other hand was an extravagance. Yeah the mortgage was the bigger expense, but it was still the car that was the extravagance.

If cash had been an issue at the time, I'd have traded down to a more sensible vehicle without a second thought... I'd have bought a $5000 used honda or VW, had no payment at all, and freed up 10s of thousands in cash in the process too depending exactly where along the loan it happened.

Likewise, the US military is a collection of exotic hyper-cars; it may not be the biggest piece of the total US budget but it is still a ludicrous extravagance. It's perfectly legitimate to argue that you improve the efficiency and reduce costs in social security and medicare, because you absolutely should do that. But refusing to even consider selling even one of your 918 Spyders or Rolls-Royces or Pagani's when cash is tight is a bit absurd.

I think your post was a perfect example of lack of imagination.

1) You don't imagine any reason other than profit for going into space.
2) You don't imagine anyone wanting to spend the generations (you claim it will take) to set up a colony on Mars.
3) You don't imagine the general public can be interested in space travel for long enough to matter.

This isn't meant as a personal attack, I'm just pointing out that the desire for short-term profit is an unimaginative reason to do anything.

According to the Wikipedia page on The Apollo Program ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), the total cost in 2016 dollars is about $219 B. This is roughly equivalent to the federal budget item for interest on the national debt in 2015 ($229 B, https://www.nationalpriorities... ). Just a little perspective on the "most expensive thing ..." comment.

Personally, I would love to go into space. I might chicken out at the last minute*, but for now I think I'd do it. I read Science Fiction and I want to make it Science Fact. I would like to harvest asteroids for materials, use micro-gravity manufacturing techniques, be able to see an eclipse any time I like, perform scientific experiments with better precision than Earth-bound instruments. I'd like to go *because it's there*. In the society we've given ourselves, that boils down to money, which is just depressing as hell.

* I'm thinking about it a bit like bungee jumping - sounds cool, but when you're standing up there wondering if the cord is the right length for your weight, maaaaybe this isn't such a good idea after all.

Rich corporations and people will simply move their wealth out of reach. We've already seen this phenomenon with Apple and MS and how they structure their international holdings and with individuals with what was revealed in the Panama Papers.

Apple and MS of course both having their headquarters in the socialist united states. Excellent example! /s

Rich people and corporations are greedy and will work to evade taxes and distort democracy period. This argument is akin to "Well murders will just go to great lengths to hide their crimes if we make murder illegal."

Focus on making tax evasion and avoidance impossible. Don't say "Well we can't afford to take care of our citizens cause we need to lick the boots of our rich overlords."

A US UBI would eventually result in the US following Greece down the toilet. And if *that* happens, the entire world will dissolve into chaos and violence.

We've had three or four recessions/depressions that resulted from cutting taxes to placate the wealthy so they would let some wealth trickle down. Financial catastrophe and eventual violence followed.

Greece's problems were complex, but they were definitely not due to high taxes from UBI. A large cause of it was government failing to collect ENOUGH taxes. If the right wing rich-worshipers were correct, Greece should have lead us out of the recession with trickle-down economics.

The other side of the coin was that greece spent too much. If you want to talk cutting spending down, by all means, cut spending. Start with the biggest expenditure

Also, if you're going to talk about socialist financial ruin, you should cite more than a single example. The country that initiated the last financial catastrophe? The United States (again, we're not socialist.) The country that recovered the best? Socialist Sweden.

I mean, maybe the gods of capitalism and supply side economics will finally accept the sacrifices of our country and bless us THIS time, but I'd prefer to be evil, socialist, and have a roof over my head in retirement. Lets try eating the rich for once instead of licking their boots?

There's room for hundreds of billions of people on Earth given better designs. Even if there weren't there is room for quadrillions of humans and associated biosphere in self-replicating space habitats around the solar system.
http://pdfernhout.net/princeto...

Further, the big problem industrialized nations face now is actually falling populations. For an extreme example, Italy may be the future for us all (if we survive the slaughterbots and engineered plagues and nukes etc made by people with scarcity worldviews):
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
""We are very close to the threshold of non-renewal where the people dying are not replaced by new-borns. That means we are a dying country," Health Minister Beatrice Lorenzin said. "This situation has enormous implications for every sector: the economy, society, health, pensions, just to give a few examples," Lorenzin said. "We need a wake-up call and a real change of culture to turn the trend around in the coming years," added the minister.""

Even the USA is below replacement without immigration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"As of 2010, about 48% (3.3 billion people) of the world population lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility.[3] Nonetheless most of these countries still have growing populations due to immigration, population momentum and increase of the life expectancy. This includes most nations of Europe, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Russia, Iran, Tunisia, China, the United States and many others. In 2015, all European Union countries had a sub-replacement fertility rate, ranging from a low of 1.31 in Portugal to a high of 1.96 in France.[4]"

Let's say people do need an "arsenal" to keep the peace. How big should it be? The USA, for example, spends essentially all its surplus and then some on an arsenal. Which is part of why we in the USA can't have nice things like pothole-free roads without tolls, longer vacations, high speed broadband, first-rate medical care for everyone, community makerspaces everywhere, tuition-free college, and so on...
https://www.nationalpriorities...

Needless competition, artificial scarcity, and huge for-profit prison populations are other reasons we can't have nice things:
http://www.alfiekohn.org/artic...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

People are a lot less likely to support autocrats and so on if they aren't desperate.
"The Desperate Middle-Class Voters Who Made Trump the Republican Nominee"
http://time.com/money/4318531/...

Strangely, the USA has the most guns and now also is getting increasingly autocratic -- how does that fit into your model of why we need an arsenal?

16% approximately....

https://media.nationalprioriti...

About one-sixth of federal spending goes to national defense. The US accounts for around 1/3 of all military spending on planet earth, and more than the next 7-8 countries combined, depending on how you count. I'd love to avoid some of that. Then maybe there would be something in the budget for infrastructure and health care

"Something in the budget for healthcare"???? What about the 27% of the budget that already goes to healthcare? (you know, nearly double what we spend on defense) https://media.nationalprioriti... Sometimes I really wonder if you guys really do just leave your heads in the sand intentionally.

You make some reasonable points, but forget one of the big tenets of Capitalism. It's the quest for the allmighty dollar, and due to individual (or corporate) greed, it quickly becomes a "Screw you, I got mine and need more" mentality. Just look at the news regarding off-shoring corporate taxes. The Apples and Googles of the world make billions a year, yet pay minimal taxes and in some cases get paid instead. How exactly is that looking after your fellow man? How is that fair and even taxation?
 
  If you want another counter-example of just how great the U.S. is, take a look at our debts and where we borrow from. We owe billions, if not trillions, to China yet we send billions in foreign aide to places like Israel. That's right, we cut funding for our own education, increased spending on standardized testing (now ~10% of the school year), cut after-school programs, and still give borrowed money to other nations. Capitalism is a great way to make money, but it's not a great way to boost a nation. The middle class has been slowly disappearing, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The government doesn't step in to level the playing field because they are bought and paid for by the rich.

It's $54 billion from a $3.8 trillion budget. That's 0.14% of the entire budget. A budget where 75% is already spent on social services. And that $54 billion is 9% of what we borrow every year. The Federal Government is spending about $1,000 per MONTH per man, woman, and child in the US - and it's still not enough? The problem really isn't how much we spend, it's how much of it is simply wasted...

It doesn't make much sense to contribute to a plan that can't actually be implemented unless everyone has to contribute by law.The US will never have single payer healthcare for the same specious argument. So enjoy that bucket of crabs you're in.

The majority of US government spending is already benefits and direct payments to individuals - Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.

So you already have sufficient reason to donate extra money - if you were wont to.

You've de facto already reneged on your "Hell yeah" commitment.

Mark 2030 on your calendar. That's when the majority of baby boomers are retired, retirees will outnumber workers, and two-thirds of the federal budget will go to Social Security/Medicare. Taxes will have to go way up to pay for everything else.

No need to wait until 2030, it's pretty much there now: https://www.nationalpriorities...

And the majority of the revenue for those comes from taxes specifically laid to collect revenue for those.

And regardless of how you or anyone else feels about it, we spend far more money on the illusion of defense than we should.... by a vast amount. In 2015 the military ate up 54% of our discretionary spending. https://www.nationalpriorities...

And where did it all go? Well, we can't actually say because the DoD hasn't completed an audit since 1990. THAT is how fucked up they are at handling money. http://www.pogo.org/straus/iss...

For example, about half of people work, so that's half of it accounted for right there

What are all those children and retired people (the ones not in the workforce) supposed to account for?

social security + related programs are something like $1.25tn which accounts for a quarter of the rest.

$1.25tn is one quarter of $5tn. That's "the rest" of what?

And in fact, now that I look again, I notice that you use the per capita income

Of course. Reducing the standard of living is a complete non-starter.

which includes things like CEOs that get paid millions of dollars per year.

More utter math fail. Why? Because a CEO making $100M per year adds... thirty measly cents to PCI. Thirty cents.

It should pay somewhere around enough for food and rent, which is something like $8k per household + $4k per person in the household,

Keep all the unemployables at poverty wages, eh? (They poverty line in 2016 for a family of four is $24K. Guess what 8+4*4 is?)

I'm due $30k/year from SS, and my wife at least $17k (more by the time she retires). It's a guaranteed fact that we won't be the only pissed off mofos if that's suddenly chopped back to $16k (8+4*2) in the name of UBI.

by comparing it to the current US budget you gave the impression that that would be the amount of money we'd have to find on top of the budget.

1) We'd still want an army, navy & air force, and roads, dams, etc.
2) UBI isn't going to cut is as a Medicare/Medicaid replacement.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

Only 80 killed in 10 years, sounds like the defense was working for the most part.

The problem with healthcare is there is no ceiling to the cost and the end result is always the same, everyone dies eventually. Most of the early deaths appear to be lifestyle related anyway. Any reasonable person should prefer money to be spent on preventing unnecessary deaths (like terrorism) and just take care of themselves better to handle the longevity part.

The US now has 10 aircraft carriers, 2 under construction, and 1 planned. (source)

Military spending is 54% of our national budget, which is more than the amount of our deficit. More than the combined spending of the next seven countries.

What was that you were saying about spending ceilings?

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

...Dwight Eisenhower

.... and this was before the stupidly expensive weapons systems that cowards scream at the top of the lungs that we need, while they sit useless still on the drafting table, or on some tarmac collecting dust because they simply do not work. The death of the nation will be because of the loud mouth cowards who are scared of their own shadows.

$2.3T, according to this

Umm [Citation Needed]

SS, Labor, and Unemployment is a whopping 1/3 alone. Military is only 16%.
https://media.nationalprioriti...

while avoiding the nasty business of fixing the "human problems" like warlords, ignorance and superstition, and apathy.

I'm not trying to be crass, but we are working on rockets and flying cars because they are solvable engineering problems (and there is profit potential). Warlords, ignorance, superstition, apathy... Good luck with those. A couple generations of better information access might HELP the problem, but good luck doing anything that upsets the balance of power. Those in power will take drastic and severe steps to retain that power. Hell, we can't even get Internet to people in Cuba.

At least world hunger and clean drinking water are immediately solvable, we have the technology to do it. We could end world hunger in 5 years if we wanted to, but nobody is willing to pony up the dough. (The US, for example, spent $600M on defense alone last year. Source You can buy a lot of water filters for $600M dollars. I'm not bashing the gov't for their military spending, that's a different conversation for a different day. Just pointing out that the money is there, should we choose to prioritize our discretionary spending differently.)

A country needs military to continue to exist as a sovereign state...

Yeah, why don't I think that your level of spending is because if you just reduced it a tiny bit, the very existence of the US would be threatened...

Why, if you spent just a billion less on defence, the Canadian hordes would be pouring over the borders within the year.

If its the continued existence of the US against military threat that is the issue, you could probably secure that much cheaper than you currently do. Much cheaper...

A country needs military to continue to exist as a sovereign state...

Yeah, why don't I think that your level of spending is because if you just reduced it a tiny bit, the very existence of the US would be threatened...

Why, if you spent just a billion less on defence, the Canadian hordes would be pouring over the borders within the year.

If its the continued existence of the US against military threat that is the issue, you could probably secure that much cheaper than you currently do. Much cheaper...

Actually, even the War Resisters League estimates only 45% goes to the military, past and present.

The next two biggest chunks are Medicare and Social Security

If you want to look at discretionary spending, this chart breaks it down, with each subitem sized in proportion to the total.

No, the US does not spend over 50% of its budget on military. Over 50% of the discretionary budget is military, but nearly two-thirds of the budget overall is mandatory spending.

Over 50% of the US budget is for the military. The next largest slice is only about 6.5%.

I'd like to see your source for that claim. this shows that for Obama's 2016 budget, the military slice is 16%, at $634 billion. That puts it at a relatively distant third place behind Social Security, Unemployment and Labor (33%, $1.37 trillion) and Medicare and Health (27%, $1.1 trillion).

The problem with America isn't that we don't tax the poor enough.

Who said anything about taxing the poor more? We are talking about federal income taxes here, both corporate and personal, and none of that is directly paid by the poor. The top 20% of earners pay 84% of federal income taxes. Corporate income taxes comprise about 19% of all federal income taxes, and if that went to 0% the burden would not fall to the poor. It would overwhelmingly fall to households making over $110k per year (the top 20%). If the ratios of taxes spent per quintile of income stayed the same, the average family in the middle quintile would pay about $20 per month more in federal income taxes if the corporate tax rate went to 0%.

Arguments that the upper middle class are already taxed to much hold a little weight, but complaining about poor people paying more taxes is incredibly dishonest. They don't pay federal income taxes. Even the middle class pays next to nothing in federal income taxes.

Although, entitlements are reported to be two-thirds of the entire federal budget.

Although some would say more entitlements may not be the answer.

The US spends a lot more because it is the largest economy on the planet, but as a percentage of GDP, it isn't that much at 3.5%. Given that 2% is widely considered to be the baseline of what a nation needs to spend on defense to actually be able to defend itself, you can see that we're really picking up the slack for a lot of our allies. Could we spend what do more wisely? Yes. Ditching the idea that we need a "jack-of-all-trades" airplane like the F-35 would be a good place to start. Developing lots of common subsystems (engines, avionics, radar, etc) to save on development costs while having the airframes tailored to what each service needs would have been a much better strategy. Cutting more is unwise if it impacts training and readiness of these forces, and that is at the point where we're at, especially with the Army. http://data.worldbank.org/indi...

I was curious so I looked it up -> https://www.nationalpriorities...

In 2013 the US gave away $23 billion in foreign aid and another $14 billion on foreign military assistance. So that's $37 billion in 2013 alone and that is only for the United States. Presumably other developed countries provide foreign aid as well although at a much lower level I am sure. Multiply that by however many years the US has been participating in foreign aid and that adds up to a lot of money.

As for population growth take a look at this -> http://www.immigrationeis.org/...

From 2001-2010 immigration into the US was nearly 12 million people. I presume this only counts legal immigration. Current US population is around 350 million and is projected to grow to 440 million by 2050 according to the US Census Bureau. Given that the birth rate is around 2.05 per family almost all of the new growth will come from immigration.

Seems to me that you are the one that is confused.

"mostly spent on the military."

Although military spending is a nice chunk of the federal budget, most of it is spent on Social Security and Medicare:

https://static.nationalpriorit...

Thank you for finally agreeing with me, it is always pleasant when someone's eyes finally open to the truth.

In case you are being sarcastic (as I am sure is the truth of it), here is how the budget process works:

https://www.nationalpriorities...

How Does the Federal Government Create a Budget?
There are five key steps in the federal budget process:

The President submits a budget request to Congress
The House and Senate pass budget resolutions
House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees “markup” appropriations bills
The House and Senate vote on appropriations bills and reconcile differences
The President signs each appropriations bill and the budget becomes law

Congress can totally ignore the President's recommendations on the budget, there is nothing that says they have to use his budget. At the end, the president can either sign the budget, or ignore it, or veto it, but that isn't really input, as Obama demonstrated in the budget crises.

However, the president has no input at all into taxes except sign/veto, so he ultimately has no control over the money coming in.

So, it is good to see you linking to actual information rather than spouting off about stuff you clearly don't understand and saying how horrible those Republicans are and how mean they are for picking on the poor defenseless Democrats.

That's 43% of discretionary spending, which is itself about 30% of total spending. Spending Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are both individually 1.5x as large as medical spending.

Here's that in pie chart form and in infographic form. All numbers from the Congressional OMB.

That's 43% of discretionary spending, which is itself about 30% of total spending. Spending Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are both individually 1.5x as large as medical spending.

Here's that in pie chart form and in infographic form. All numbers from the Congressional OMB.

No its because we spend it on the wrong things.

discretionary spending, This is 29% of all spending: https://static.nationalpriorit...

mandatory spending This is 65% of all spending: https://static.nationalpriorit...

A tiny, tiny bit of our spending goes to infrastructure. Most is wasted on areas with a less then 1:1 return on investment.

No its because we spend it on the wrong things.

discretionary spending, This is 29% of all spending: https://static.nationalpriorit...

mandatory spending This is 65% of all spending: https://static.nationalpriorit...

A tiny, tiny bit of our spending goes to infrastructure. Most is wasted on areas with a less then 1:1 return on investment.

No idea where you got your facts. Your numbers are completely wrong. https://static.nationalpriorit...

Those are OMB numbers. The military budget is part of discretionary spending. Most the social programs are mandatory spending. We spend way more of our budget on social programs combined than the military.

https://static.nationalpriorit...

I'm not interested in arguing whether the balance is correct. Hopefully seeing the real numbers gives you a better insight that your idea of the budget is orders of magnitude wrong.

Russia has one aircraft carrier and China has at least one being refurbished from Russia. http://rt.com/news/china-super...

Since the 2014 election the only congressional representatives that are Democrats are Progressives. Greens, liberals, progressives, government unions all vote Democratic. The reason Congressional Democrat's voting record might look center right is because the absolute majority of America is center right. The modestly watered down progressive goal of government run Healthcare caused a huge repudiation of the Democrat's fortunes. America does not want progressive policies that's why Democrats in Congress can't push the ideas.

Ask the Weimar republic how spending out of a recession helps. Or better yet, we just had a huge stimulus. Did that get us out of a recession?

No idea where you got your facts. Your numbers are completely wrong. https://static.nationalpriorit...

Those are OMB numbers. The military budget is part of discretionary spending. Most the social programs are mandatory spending. We spend way more of our budget on social programs combined than the military.

https://static.nationalpriorit...

I'm not interested in arguing whether the balance is correct. Hopefully seeing the real numbers gives you a better insight that your idea of the budget is orders of magnitude wrong.

Russia has one aircraft carrier and China has at least one being refurbished from Russia. http://rt.com/news/china-super...

Since the 2014 election the only congressional representatives that are Democrats are Progressives. Greens, liberals, progressives, government unions all vote Democratic. The reason Congressional Democrat's voting record might look center right is because the absolute majority of America is center right. The modestly watered down progressive goal of government run Healthcare caused a huge repudiation of the Democrat's fortunes. America does not want progressive policies that's why Democrats in Congress can't push the ideas.

Ask the Weimar republic how spending out of a recession helps. Or better yet, we just had a huge stimulus. Did that get us out of a recession?