4 ms·

> What a fantastic argument in which you completely ignore the gargantuan shadow of the US War budget against our social spending programs. Cutting the programs

by creato 7y ago

> What a fantastic argument in which you completely ignore the gargantuan shadow of the US War budget against our social spending programs. Cutting the programs will never come close to the money saved by producing just a few less bombs and aircraft a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_Uni... In 2018, the "war budget" was 12% of the total. For comparison, education spending was 15%, health care 23%. I don't think the "war budget" piggy bank will go as far as you think it does.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zuminator 7y ago
The difference is that if taxes didn't pay for education and health care, people would still have to foot those costs out of pocket. But fewer bombs and aircraft carriers is pure cost cutting.
- fjsolwmv 7y ago
  The difference is wealth transfers, which are approximately zero sum, and waste spending (paying people to consume raw materials do create useless things or destroy things), which is negative sum.
soulofmischief 7y ago
That chart is deceptive. Try this one out: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... This only compares our actual discretionary budget, aka the money we are able to reappropriate as we see fit, which is not locked into specific channels. This is the only comparison that makes sense; comparing a ratio of part of our discretionary budget against the entire discretionary+undiscretionary budget is not statistically sound. And as you see in the chart I provided, in 2015 our military spending was over half of our available budget, compared to less about 1/5th of the budget being spent in total on social programs, which were like, I'm pretty sure, the point of a government. Sure, the point of a government is also to defend its people from foreign invasion. But you can't justify our War budget that way when you consider how the money is mostly spent offensively, as we engage in countless proxy wars, paramilitary coups, and arms deals with totalitarian nations. We've been hoodwinked.
- creato 7y ago
  Funny, I'd say the chart that omits 2/3rds of the budget because it doesn't fall under a somewhat arbitrary label is the one that is deceptive. There are no "mandatory taxes" or "discretionary taxes".
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    Surely you aren't suggesting the difference between discretionary and non-discretionary spending is "somewhat arbitrary". Pretty much every economist in the nation would disagree with you there.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      Spending is spending, when you're trying to see where the money goes.

by creato 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

zuminator 7y ago

The difference is that if taxes didn't pay for education and health care, people would still have to foot those costs out of pocket. But fewer bombs and aircraft carriers is pure cost cutting.

fjsolwmv 7y ago
The difference is wealth transfers, which are approximately zero sum, and waste spending (paying people to consume raw materials do create useless things or destroy things), which is negative sum.

soulofmischief 7y ago

That chart is deceptive. Try this one out: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... This only compares our actual discretionary budget, aka the money we are able to reappropriate as we see fit, which is not locked into specific channels. This is the only comparison that makes sense; comparing a ratio of part of our discretionary budget against the entire discretionary+undiscretionary budget is not statistically sound. And as you see in the chart I provided, in 2015 our military spending was over half of our available budget, compared to less about 1/5th of the budget being spent in total on social programs, which were like, I'm pretty sure, the point of a government. Sure, the point of a government is also to defend its people from foreign invasion. But you can't justify our War budget that way when you consider how the money is mostly spent offensively, as we engage in countless proxy wars, paramilitary coups, and arms deals with totalitarian nations. We've been hoodwinked.

creato 7y ago
Funny, I'd say the chart that omits 2/3rds of the budget because it doesn't fall under a somewhat arbitrary label is the one that is deceptive. There are no "mandatory taxes" or "discretionary taxes".
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  Surely you aren't suggesting the difference between discretionary and non-discretionary spending is "somewhat arbitrary". Pretty much every economist in the nation would disagree with you there.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Spending is spending, when you're trying to see where the money goes.