4 ms·

"The remaining $13,130 represents this year's staggering budget deficit per household, which, along with all prior government debt, will be dumped in the laps o

"The remaining $13,130 represents this year's staggering budget deficit per household, which, along with all prior government debt, will be dumped in the laps of our children" It's strange these wind-bag budget pseudo-hawks suddenly emerge with Democratic presidents. How much of these -- the figures are from the palpably dishonest writer -- are not due to Bush's wars and recession? Antipoverty programs: $5,466 Interest on the federal debt: $1,585 Unemployment benefits: $1,640 Defense: $6,071. ----- Total: $14,802 People who supported the Bush madness should just be precluded from commenting on these matters.

gaius 17y ago
OK, but if your government is going to spend money at all, defence isn't a bad way to do it. You get lots of jobs directly and indirectly, you pay for the development of lots of interesting tech that has civilian/commercial applications (i.e. you are creating wealth), and you get the defence of the realm "for free" on top of all that! (Esp. if you have no wars on, admittedly). Whereas those other programmes you mention, regardless of any other merits they may have, constitute paying people to not create any value. Which seems a bit of a weird way to spend the taxpayer's money.
- msg 17y ago
  The safety net encourages people to create value by taking on more risk, e.g. starting a business. If you are going to talk about all the economic side effects of creating bombs and surveillance systems, you need to talk about the side effects of entitlements and social programs too.
  - gaius 17y ago
    OK, but there's little or no evidence that that is what welfare recipients are doing. Whereas you and I are having this conversation using a spin-off of defence spending.
    - applicative 17y ago
      Welfare ... what program are you talking about?
    - msg 17y ago
      I think it's a little disingenuous to say you can't find evidence of secondary economic implications to health, education, welfare, and social security, and can't imagine how or why they contribute to economic growth.
- adamhowell 17y ago
  The US spends 600b a year on defense. The rest of the world combined spends less than 400b (http://risingpowers.foreignpolicyblogs.com/files/2009/03/military-spending.jpg http://risingpowers.foreignpolicyblogs.com/files/2009/03/mil...). I'd say we could cut a few billion here and there, wouldn't you?
- jfoutz 17y ago
  Defense spending for the sake of having a big army is a waste. Weapons don't create resources. Weapons help the exchange of resources, enabling the full spectrum of trade, from don't take my stuff! all the way to give me all your stuff! but sticking mostly to reasonable trades. The value from defense spending came from darpa or specialized research projects by the various branches of DoD. It's a pretty small fraction in relation to total spending. darpa itself is about .5% of defense spending. Building that first stealth bomber is really cool, it drives a ton of innovation and research. building the 12th one doesn't do a whole lot for the economy. It seems to take a bridges worth of taxes and park it on a runway in saudi arabia. social spending is weird. there are homeless folks in town that rack up 300k emergency medical bills from, well, living on the street. it would be a lot cheaper just to rent them an apartment and hand over a case of beer every day. The big win of social security, it's way cheaper to give someone who couldn't work more than an hour a day 6k/year to heat their house and feed themselves. way cheaper than nursing homes or whatever. fwiw, medicare and medicaid pay fixed amounts, making more money means being more efficient. a lot of the private hospital profitability comes from meeting federal requirements more efficiently every year.
  - gaius 17y ago
    But the nth stealth bomber includes 1/n of the development cost of the 1st.
dgabriel 17y ago
He also doesn't mention the effects of the Bush tax cuts coupled with increased spending. Medicare part D is such an expensive clusterfuck -- seniors don't understand it, the federal government is barred from negotiating drug discounts with pharmaceutical companies, and it will cost us approximately $727.3 billion by the end of 2018. And, of course, the pharmaceutical companies won again with the latest health care bill.
billybob 17y ago
I'm not one to defend Bush, but "everything is Bush's fault" is not any more reasonable than "everything is Obama's fault." I do agree that a similar report should have been made during Bush's administration, and if this think tank didn't make it, it's hypocritical.

gaius 17y ago

OK, but if your government is going to spend money at all, defence isn't a bad way to do it. You get lots of jobs directly and indirectly, you pay for the development of lots of interesting tech that has civilian/commercial applications (i.e. you are creating wealth), and you get the defence of the realm "for free" on top of all that! (Esp. if you have no wars on, admittedly). Whereas those other programmes you mention, regardless of any other merits they may have, constitute paying people to not create any value. Which seems a bit of a weird way to spend the taxpayer's money.

msg 17y ago
The safety net encourages people to create value by taking on more risk, e.g. starting a business. If you are going to talk about all the economic side effects of creating bombs and surveillance systems, you need to talk about the side effects of entitlements and social programs too.
- gaius 17y ago
  OK, but there's little or no evidence that that is what welfare recipients are doing. Whereas you and I are having this conversation using a spin-off of defence spending.
  - applicative 17y ago
    Welfare ... what program are you talking about?
  - msg 17y ago
    I think it's a little disingenuous to say you can't find evidence of secondary economic implications to health, education, welfare, and social security, and can't imagine how or why they contribute to economic growth.
adamhowell 17y ago
The US spends 600b a year on defense. The rest of the world combined spends less than 400b (http://risingpowers.foreignpolicyblogs.com/files/2009/03/military-spending.jpg http://risingpowers.foreignpolicyblogs.com/files/2009/03/mil...). I'd say we could cut a few billion here and there, wouldn't you?
jfoutz 17y ago
Defense spending for the sake of having a big army is a waste. Weapons don't create resources. Weapons help the exchange of resources, enabling the full spectrum of trade, from don't take my stuff! all the way to give me all your stuff! but sticking mostly to reasonable trades. The value from defense spending came from darpa or specialized research projects by the various branches of DoD. It's a pretty small fraction in relation to total spending. darpa itself is about .5% of defense spending. Building that first stealth bomber is really cool, it drives a ton of innovation and research. building the 12th one doesn't do a whole lot for the economy. It seems to take a bridges worth of taxes and park it on a runway in saudi arabia. social spending is weird. there are homeless folks in town that rack up 300k emergency medical bills from, well, living on the street. it would be a lot cheaper just to rent them an apartment and hand over a case of beer every day. The big win of social security, it's way cheaper to give someone who couldn't work more than an hour a day 6k/year to heat their house and feed themselves. way cheaper than nursing homes or whatever. fwiw, medicare and medicaid pay fixed amounts, making more money means being more efficient. a lot of the private hospital profitability comes from meeting federal requirements more efficiently every year.
- gaius 17y ago
  But the nth stealth bomber includes 1/n of the development cost of the 1st.

dgabriel 17y ago

He also doesn't mention the effects of the Bush tax cuts coupled with increased spending. Medicare part D is such an expensive clusterfuck -- seniors don't understand it, the federal government is barred from negotiating drug discounts with pharmaceutical companies, and it will cost us approximately $727.3 billion by the end of 2018. And, of course, the pharmaceutical companies won again with the latest health care bill.

billybob 17y ago

I'm not one to defend Bush, but "everything is Bush's fault" is not any more reasonable than "everything is Obama's fault." I do agree that a similar report should have been made during Bush's administration, and if this think tank didn't make it, it's hypocritical.