Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal Bill Dog's Journal: changes in percent of federal spending 11

Journal by Bill Dog

Posted this link as part of a reply to a JE today, but I think it's interesting enough on its own. From the two pie graphs at the top, the largest three entitlement programs have majorly eaten away what was once military spending.

Which is only a problem, of course, if your philosophy is that the federal govt.'s main job is/should be defending the nation from foreign forces who would deny our God-given liberties. As is mine. Unfortunately things are projected to only get worse with these programs.

"We're heading for a circumstance in which all of federal spending will be consumed just by Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security," Conrad [D-N.D., chair of the Senate Budget Committee] said Thursday. "There'd be nothing left for national parks, for highways, etc. That's the outlook in the long term, if we fail to act. The conclusion one reaches is that we're on a completely unsustainable course."

Which, the senator has only his own party (historically, pre-Dubya, that is) to blame.

In 1954, 3.3 million Americans were serving on active duty in the military. That compares to 1.4 million on active duty today, a 57 percent decline in personnel since 1954.

Maybe if we still had 3.3 million active-duty soldiers the whole Iraq thing would have gone a lot smoother.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

changes in percent of federal spending More

changes in percent of federal spending

Comments Filter:
  • From their own taxes. I mean, I realize that the Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security Trust funds have been raided recently for the general fund, but shouldn't those programs be self supporting otherwise? If not, they need to raise FDIC and Medicare withholding taxes on paychecks.

    In addition to that, why shouldn't we make the Department of Defense profitable as well? Let's start raiding the places we invade, and stealing their stuff to sell on e-bay to pay for our war. Either that, or redefine the Dep
    • From their own taxes.

      Ah, yes. It's okay that entitlements are bloating out to some day maybe consume 90% of the federal budget (which would be 1xx% of federal inflows), no worries, they're "paid for", by their own separate taxes. So American families working hard to make ends meet only have to continue to keep supporting the small remainder of the budget, as these monstrous programs are funded by "other taxes". I.e. hooked into some separate, magical, infinite money source in the sky, right? We should switc
      • Ah, yes. It's okay that entitlements are bloating out to some day maybe consume 90% of the federal budget (which would be 1xx% of federal inflows), no worries, they're "paid for", by their own separate taxes. So American families working hard to make ends meet only have to continue to keep supporting the small remainder of the budget, as these monstrous programs are funded by "other taxes". I.e. hooked into some separate, magical, infinite money source in the sky, right? We should switch every program to "p
        • Well, our money source IS rather magical at this point- in that there is an infinite supply of it, physical money doesn't count, and theoretically we could just cut the value of the dollar down to nothing and print all we need.

          Isn't that basically what the federal govt. is already doing?

          Physical money is manipulated, but the relative values are still there. You can double peoples' wages, but if it halves the value of money so that their expenses double, they're no further ahead (which is one of the reasons
          • Isn't that basically what the federal govt. is already doing?

            Been doing it since 1935 or so, yes. In fact, the whole Social Security Administration and the New Deal is based on an infinite money supply.

            Physical money is manipulated, but the relative values are still there. You can double peoples' wages, but if it halves the value of money so that their expenses double, they're no further ahead (which is one of the reasons I think increasing the minimum wage is silly).

            That's only partially true- if yo
            • Look, I'm very skeptical of a lot of what you've said. But I would agree with what I think is your general theme that the tax code should be structured to encourage the rich to keep their money in their businesses. Towards expanding them and creating new jobs. Or, similar to the recent (as of a few years ago) change to the tax law affecting the sale of one's home to purchase another, money can be taken out of the business without incurring a tax hit as long as it is put into another business (creating new j
              • At least, for now, anyway, that will work. There is still the eventual problem of automation being cheaper yet, but I think (despite starting The Oregon Project) that affecting a significant percentage of the work force is at least 50 years away, maybe 130. One thing I don't agree with Mr. Brain on is that it's less than 30 years away- despite the "proof" of Hyperactive Bob taking over management of retail fast food right now (got a pretty primative interface though- workers have to go to the central touc
    • Those programs are indeed funded by their own separate taxes, but the federal budget includes those amounts in its total revenue.

      When we say the federal government has a budget of 2.5 trillion, that is including social security tax and medicare tax. When we say the federal government is spending 2.8 trillion, that includes spending on social security and medicare. There's nothing wrong with that - it is an integral part of the federal budget, indeed, it is a majority of what the federal government does t
      • Those programs are indeed funded by their own separate taxes, but the federal budget includes those amounts in its total revenue.

        That's a rather stupid way to do it. Let's drill down and talk about the GENERAL budget then. Where's the repeated billions for this war coming from and going to? Is somebody breaking the law and using money from the wrong pot?

        When we say the federal government has a budget of 2.5 trillion, that is including social security tax and medicare tax. When we say the federal gove
        • It only takes 50%+1 to change how social security and medicare get funded.

          And money from those trust funds are always being used for other purposes - both parties have been doing that for decades. That is to say, the trust funds are invested in Treasury securities (i.e. loaned to the federal government!) which are supposed to be paid back eventually, with interest, when the SSA needs the money, but good luck with that. Basically, it's just a bunch of IOUs that don't really have anything backing them since
          • It only takes 50%+1 to change how social security and medicare get funded.

            True- but nobody's going to vote to turn the Department of Defense Budget over to Social Security, like that general was claiming.

            And money from those trust funds are always being used for other purposes - both parties have been doing that for decades. That is to say, the trust funds are invested in Treasury securities (i.e. loaned to the federal government!) which are supposed to be paid back eventually, with interest, when the S

Slashdot Top Deals

Overdrawn? But I still have checks left!

Close