7 ms·

Are you seriously suggesting that US government deficits are run to invest in education and infrastructure? Deficits are mostly attributable to military spendi

Are you seriously suggesting that US government deficits are run to invest in education and infrastructure? Deficits are mostly attributable to military spending. I'm doubtful that killing people in other countries who present absolutely no threat to you is productivity-enhancing.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Deficits are mostly attributable to military spending. Post-WWII federal deficits are mostly attributable to declining total effective income tax rates.
- theprop 9y ago
  To some extent. Military spending as a % of GDP isn't that high, ~4%...but may still be a bit higher than usual for relative peacetime.
- arkis22 9y ago
  Source? The first couple of graphs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_State..., suggest otherwise. We've rarely had income taxes as a higher percentage of GDP than we do now.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    If you just look at federal income tax (not payroll tax which is stacked on top of it, and not state and local taxes on top of that), the long term trend is downward since the end of WWII.
    - arkis22 9y ago
      It makes complete sense to not ignore them though.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        State and local taxes have nothing to do with the federal deficit, so excluding them is obviously correct when talking about the federal deficit. Social Security is the bulk of payroll taxes, and most of the increase in payroll taxes, and remains self-funded (though that would cease to be the case if the trust fund was to be exhausted and full benefits maintained.) So it makes sense to exclude that. But payroll tax also includes Medicare taxes (the payroll tax portion, not the additional income tax portion on certain income not subject to payroll a tax imposed under the ACA) as amuch smaller component, and while Medicare Part A is self-funded, Parts B and D have significant general revenue contributions as well. But Medicare payroll tax hasn't changed significantly (and the share of GDP subject to it has dropped as returns move out of labor and into capital), so if you kept it in but split out Social Security for the reason above, it wouldn't change the declining trend shown by income taxes (except to enhance it). So, again, the federal deficit is driven by declining federal income tax share.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
pmorici 9y ago
GI bill pays for a lot of education
- theprop 9y ago
  That was after WWII...it still does a bit because there aren't enough "volunteers" to work in the US army... Remember that the volunteer army was formed after Vietnam and all the objections to the draft (mostly by better-off, educated Americans...)...
  - pmorici 9y ago
    Your comment isn't very coherent. The GI bill was originally enacted after WWII, yes, but it has applied to service members ever since. They enacted an enhancement to it post 9/11 and service members have a choice between the original Montgomery GI bill and post 9/11 GI bill education benefits now. They can even transfer those benefits to their spouse or child if they don't want to use them.
- reirob 9y ago
  In my opinion, in a modern society education should be free, for everybody, and not influenced by private or religious interests. If a society fails to provide this to their youth, then somebody else will influence the kids, but not necessarily provide education. It's just my opinion. Otherwise we are back to Middle Age.
WillPostForFood 9y ago
I know there is some fake news floating around with a chart that purports to show 57% of spending goes to the military, but it's been debunked. 28% goes to healthcare (Medicare), 25% to Social Security, 16% to Defense. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- vectorpush 9y ago
  I think you're correct to point out the inaccuracies of the image, however I disagree with the cavalier use of the term "fake news" to describe arbitrary instances of false or misleading information. The problem of "fake news" is actively perpetuated in part by the impulse to use the term as a catch-all pejorative for information we deem to be specious. Fake news is when a media source that claims to report an accurate account of events deliberately peddles stories they know (or can safely assume) are false. Random images floating around the internet are not fake news.
  - axaxs 9y ago
    like CNN, you don't get to define fake news. Fake news is as simple as it sounds: articles that are factually incorrect. Sadly, from random images to all major media, everyone is guilty of it.
    - vectorpush 9y ago
      > you don't get to define fake news. Fake news is as simple as it sounds: articles that are factually incorrect. I'm happy to debate the nuance of the term fake news, but I think it's ironic that you presume to glibly assert your own definition of fake news right after exclaiming that one cannot do so (unless you're suggesting that CNN and myself, in particular, are forbidden from doing so). Anyway, fake news is not simply "articles that are factually incorrect", otherwise every misreported fact or journalistic error could be classified as fake news which any intellectually honest person will admit is not what is intended to be described by the term fake news. Further, something cannot be fake news if it is not "news". Random images floating around the internet is not news. People posting memes and rumors on social media is not news. Honestly, even partisan bias and selective reporting by news organizations is not "fake news", and the terms "bias and selective reporting" accurately convey those qualities. Fake news is a loaded pejorative that carries the baggage of the 2016-2017 zeitgeist, so if you're going to use it at all, stick to the definition that common sense would have given us prior to 2016: reporting of current events that is deliberately presented as true when the authors know it is false.
ryandamm 9y ago
No, I was making a general point about what's productive investment and what isn't. In the US, we're doing a bad job of making our deficits count. That will be bad in the medium and long term. In the short term, any spending is mildly stimulative. (Though spending that doesn't create future growth is essentially what creates the situation China is in: you're creating future debt-servicing obligation without creating debt-servicing capacity -- so you're making yourself poorer.) I was just making a point about economics. I'll spare you my political opinions about the utility of US deficits, or the direction we're going, but based on your tone I imagine we might agree quite a bit more than you think.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Deficits are mostly attributable to military spending. Post-WWII federal deficits are mostly attributable to declining total effective income tax rates.

theprop 9y ago
To some extent. Military spending as a % of GDP isn't that high, ~4%...but may still be a bit higher than usual for relative peacetime.
arkis22 9y ago
Source? The first couple of graphs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_State..., suggest otherwise. We've rarely had income taxes as a higher percentage of GDP than we do now.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  If you just look at federal income tax (not payroll tax which is stacked on top of it, and not state and local taxes on top of that), the long term trend is downward since the end of WWII.
  - arkis22 9y ago
    It makes complete sense to not ignore them though.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      State and local taxes have nothing to do with the federal deficit, so excluding them is obviously correct when talking about the federal deficit. Social Security is the bulk of payroll taxes, and most of the increase in payroll taxes, and remains self-funded (though that would cease to be the case if the trust fund was to be exhausted and full benefits maintained.) So it makes sense to exclude that. But payroll tax also includes Medicare taxes (the payroll tax portion, not the additional income tax portion on certain income not subject to payroll a tax imposed under the ACA) as amuch smaller component, and while Medicare Part A is self-funded, Parts B and D have significant general revenue contributions as well. But Medicare payroll tax hasn't changed significantly (and the share of GDP subject to it has dropped as returns move out of labor and into capital), so if you kept it in but split out Social Security for the reason above, it wouldn't change the declining trend shown by income taxes (except to enhance it). So, again, the federal deficit is driven by declining federal income tax share.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

pmorici 9y ago

GI bill pays for a lot of education

theprop 9y ago
That was after WWII...it still does a bit because there aren't enough "volunteers" to work in the US army... Remember that the volunteer army was formed after Vietnam and all the objections to the draft (mostly by better-off, educated Americans...)...
- pmorici 9y ago
  Your comment isn't very coherent. The GI bill was originally enacted after WWII, yes, but it has applied to service members ever since. They enacted an enhancement to it post 9/11 and service members have a choice between the original Montgomery GI bill and post 9/11 GI bill education benefits now. They can even transfer those benefits to their spouse or child if they don't want to use them.
reirob 9y ago
In my opinion, in a modern society education should be free, for everybody, and not influenced by private or religious interests. If a society fails to provide this to their youth, then somebody else will influence the kids, but not necessarily provide education. It's just my opinion. Otherwise we are back to Middle Age.

WillPostForFood 9y ago

I know there is some fake news floating around with a chart that purports to show 57% of spending goes to the military, but it's been debunked. 28% goes to healthcare (Medicare), 25% to Social Security, 16% to Defense. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vectorpush 9y ago
I think you're correct to point out the inaccuracies of the image, however I disagree with the cavalier use of the term "fake news" to describe arbitrary instances of false or misleading information. The problem of "fake news" is actively perpetuated in part by the impulse to use the term as a catch-all pejorative for information we deem to be specious. Fake news is when a media source that claims to report an accurate account of events deliberately peddles stories they know (or can safely assume) are false. Random images floating around the internet are not fake news.
- axaxs 9y ago
  like CNN, you don't get to define fake news. Fake news is as simple as it sounds: articles that are factually incorrect. Sadly, from random images to all major media, everyone is guilty of it.
  - vectorpush 9y ago
    > you don't get to define fake news. Fake news is as simple as it sounds: articles that are factually incorrect. I'm happy to debate the nuance of the term fake news, but I think it's ironic that you presume to glibly assert your own definition of fake news right after exclaiming that one cannot do so (unless you're suggesting that CNN and myself, in particular, are forbidden from doing so). Anyway, fake news is not simply "articles that are factually incorrect", otherwise every misreported fact or journalistic error could be classified as fake news which any intellectually honest person will admit is not what is intended to be described by the term fake news. Further, something cannot be fake news if it is not "news". Random images floating around the internet is not news. People posting memes and rumors on social media is not news. Honestly, even partisan bias and selective reporting by news organizations is not "fake news", and the terms "bias and selective reporting" accurately convey those qualities. Fake news is a loaded pejorative that carries the baggage of the 2016-2017 zeitgeist, so if you're going to use it at all, stick to the definition that common sense would have given us prior to 2016: reporting of current events that is deliberately presented as true when the authors know it is false.

ryandamm 9y ago

No, I was making a general point about what's productive investment and what isn't. In the US, we're doing a bad job of making our deficits count. That will be bad in the medium and long term. In the short term, any spending is mildly stimulative. (Though spending that doesn't create future growth is essentially what creates the situation China is in: you're creating future debt-servicing obligation without creating debt-servicing capacity -- so you're making yourself poorer.) I was just making a point about economics. I'll spare you my political opinions about the utility of US deficits, or the direction we're going, but based on your tone I imagine we might agree quite a bit more than you think.