3 ms·

Realistically? National security. I know that sounds like a cop-out but if you think about it, it makes sense that the government has to classify some things.

Realistically? National security. I know that sounds like a cop-out but if you think about it, it makes sense that the government has to classify some things. The question is where does the line get drawn. I agree it's too far to one side right now but the extreme you suggest is far far on the other extreme.

jezclaremurugan 10y ago
Why can't military spends be in one classified bucket and the rest be open and 100% transparent? I don't think information on how much is spent on roads, healthcare, police, education will affect security.
- thomastjeffery 10y ago
  Because that's 550 billion dollars. A very significant portion of that does not need to be secret.
  - walljm 10y ago
    And a lot of it isn't. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/backissues.htm https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/b... breaks out how military spending is allocated to some level of detail.
grandalf 10y ago
> Realistically? National security. This is absolutely not the case. Sure there are some classified programs but the majority of government spending and money flows should be 100% transparent. It's not because there is some degree of corruption and those involved wish to evade accountability.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  > the majority of government spending and money flows should be 100% transparent. Agreed. But that wasn't what the parent was suggesting and not what I was arguing against.
devoply 10y ago
National Security is a scam and a racket. It's the goto excuse for racketeering government money whether through war or through financial means which are closely linked. The people who want to know the secrets know the secrets. China, Russia, etc. They all know the secrets. The only people who don't know the secrets are people who are not sophisticated enough to do anything with those secrets and the people who pay for it.

jezclaremurugan 10y ago

Why can't military spends be in one classified bucket and the rest be open and 100% transparent? I don't think information on how much is spent on roads, healthcare, police, education will affect security.

thomastjeffery 10y ago
Because that's 550 billion dollars. A very significant portion of that does not need to be secret.
- walljm 10y ago
  And a lot of it isn't. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/backissues.htm https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/b... breaks out how military spending is allocated to some level of detail.

grandalf 10y ago

> Realistically? National security. This is absolutely not the case. Sure there are some classified programs but the majority of government spending and money flows should be 100% transparent. It's not because there is some degree of corruption and those involved wish to evade accountability.

abritinthebay 10y ago
> the majority of government spending and money flows should be 100% transparent. Agreed. But that wasn't what the parent was suggesting and not what I was arguing against.

devoply 10y ago

National Security is a scam and a racket. It's the goto excuse for racketeering government money whether through war or through financial means which are closely linked. The people who want to know the secrets know the secrets. China, Russia, etc. They all know the secrets. The only people who don't know the secrets are people who are not sophisticated enough to do anything with those secrets and the people who pay for it.