7 ms·

The other thing that would be good to see is the percentage of GDP that the spending represents. Here is one here: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spendin

by sien 14y ago

The other thing that would be good to see is the percentage of GDP that the spending represents. Here is one here: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1903_2010USp_13s1li011lcn_F0t_US_Government_Spending_As_Percent_Of_GDP http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1903_2010...

_delirium 14y ago
The most amazing thing I take away from that chart, having lived in both Europe and the U.S., is how little the U.S. taxpayer gets for their money in comparison, I'm guessing because spending crept up slowly without any real planning. For example, the U.S., Canadian, and Norwegian governments each spend about 40% of GDP, but somehow Norwegians and Canadians get a much stronger set of social services (including state-provided healthcare and much cheaper education) within the same budgetary level. It seems U.S. spending has gotten to similar levels without actually having any sort of solid planning, so taxpayers are left in the worst of both worlds: 40% of GDP spending, but somehow you still have to buy everything yourself (like health insurance or college), because the state hasn't figured out how to provide it for that price. There are some exceptions; e.g. healthcare for the elderly is covered, and the interstate highway system is good. But not as much as I would expect for that size budget.
- aurelianito 14y ago
  Gas is subsidized by wars in the US. If you keep that in mind, the value that they get from their money is not that low. Edit: Please do not down-vote just because you don't agree. The second Gulf War was explicitly called OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Military_aspects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Military_... and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM
  - aneth 14y ago
    This is a claim that requires some justification. Gas in many countries is far cheaper than in the US, and the reason it is more expensive in others is heavy taxation and regulation, not lack of coercive negotiations.
    - aurelianito 14y ago
      I'll bite. The second gulf war was officially called OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation). See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Military_aspects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Military_...
      - rickyconnolly 14y ago
        It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom. OIF
        gouranga 14y ago
        OIL was pretty much on the ball though :)
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        aurelianito 14y ago
        It was renamed as Operation Iraqi Freedom after the public relations nightmare it generated. Just look at the links I posted before.
        rickyconnolly 14y ago
        That's a pretty silly oversight. Somewhat akin to the supervillain revealing the details of his plan to the captured secret agent.
        aurelianito 14y ago
        Yes. It was really silly.
      - aneth 14y ago
        Yes, the Iraq war had much to do with protecting the world oil supply. While the oil and gas industry is heavily subsidized, that war did not give the US a better deal on oil than anyone else. While it may have impacted oil prices, it did so globally.
- adventureful 14y ago
  A big part of our problems are the calculations that were used to justify Social Security and Medicare (over half our budget). Neither program was built to last more than two generations. The politicians that created them didn't care about that (FDR and LBJ), in typical intentional short-sightedness. Both programs were designed to be flush early so they could be plundered. Instead of having trillions sitting in a sovereign fund earning interest, we have a blackhole of entitlement liabilities. In other words, the biggest problem with our social systems is theft. The money was used over two generations to buy votes. edit: it's interesting to try to calculate it roughly, but, it seems fair to estimate that the politicians have spent an inflation adjusted $30+ trillion beyond their means over the last 70 years ($16 trillion public debt, plus the money that should have been put aside and earning interest from SS and Medicare etc).
  - parasubvert 14y ago
    That's just not true with regards to Social Security. 100 years of projected life before dragging on other Federal finances and one major reform so far (another will be needed) is usually the sign of a successful government program. It's not in dire crisis: we will start to see it drag on other government finances in 20 years, as FICA will only fund about 75% of payouts once the trust fund is exhausted. Medicare on the other hand is a different story. Costs are growing too high to make it sustainable. But that doesn't have to do with the efficiency of the program itself vs. other insurance companies - it's actually quite a bit efficient than private insurers. The problem seems to be the broader U.S. system of health cost/benefits compared to other countries. We spend more and get less.
    - anamax 14y ago
      > It's not in dire crisis: we will start to see it drag on other government finances in 20 years, It's actually a drag now, as it has been paying more in benefits than it receives for the past few years. Yes, I know about the bonds. Paying them back is a drag because they weren't used to create profitable assets.
      - 14y ago
- nosse 14y ago
  Norway is using about 7% of their gov budget to defense. U.S. 22% gotta show somewhere.
- fffggg 14y ago
  There's a very simple explanation: Unlike all the countries you mention, the majority of our US tax dollars goes toward military spending. The npr graph from the parent post is extremely misleading, and understates the US military budget by roughly a factor of 2. Huge portions of the "non-military" budget entries are covers for military spending. For example, the npr graph counts $141 billion dollars in VA health care for soldiers, but this isn't listed as part of the military budget. The same games are played with weapons r&d (often budgeted to the Dept. of Energy). Our recent Dept. of Homeland Security contains a great deal of military spending as well. When one separates the budget by spending intent rather than the politicized department budgets in the above graph it becomes quickly apparent why we don't have good social services -- we're spending it all on military.

by sien 14y ago

_delirium 14y ago

The most amazing thing I take away from that chart, having lived in both Europe and the U.S., is how little the U.S. taxpayer gets for their money in comparison, I'm guessing because spending crept up slowly without any real planning. For example, the U.S., Canadian, and Norwegian governments each spend about 40% of GDP, but somehow Norwegians and Canadians get a much stronger set of social services (including state-provided healthcare and much cheaper education) within the same budgetary level. It seems U.S. spending has gotten to similar levels without actually having any sort of solid planning, so taxpayers are left in the worst of both worlds: 40% of GDP spending, but somehow you still have to buy everything yourself (like health insurance or college), because the state hasn't figured out how to provide it for that price. There are some exceptions; e.g. healthcare for the elderly is covered, and the interstate highway system is good. But not as much as I would expect for that size budget.

aurelianito 14y ago
Gas is subsidized by wars in the US. If you keep that in mind, the value that they get from their money is not that low. Edit: Please do not down-vote just because you don't agree. The second Gulf War was explicitly called OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Military_aspects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Military_... and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM
- aneth 14y ago
  This is a claim that requires some justification. Gas in many countries is far cheaper than in the US, and the reason it is more expensive in others is heavy taxation and regulation, not lack of coercive negotiations.
  - aurelianito 14y ago
    I'll bite. The second gulf war was officially called OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation). See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Military_aspects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Military_...
    - rickyconnolly 14y ago
      It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom. OIF
      - gouranga 14y ago
        OIL was pretty much on the ball though :)
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - aurelianito 14y ago
        It was renamed as Operation Iraqi Freedom after the public relations nightmare it generated. Just look at the links I posted before.
        rickyconnolly 14y ago
        That's a pretty silly oversight. Somewhat akin to the supervillain revealing the details of his plan to the captured secret agent.
        aurelianito 14y ago
        Yes. It was really silly.
    - aneth 14y ago
      Yes, the Iraq war had much to do with protecting the world oil supply. While the oil and gas industry is heavily subsidized, that war did not give the US a better deal on oil than anyone else. While it may have impacted oil prices, it did so globally.
adventureful 14y ago
A big part of our problems are the calculations that were used to justify Social Security and Medicare (over half our budget). Neither program was built to last more than two generations. The politicians that created them didn't care about that (FDR and LBJ), in typical intentional short-sightedness. Both programs were designed to be flush early so they could be plundered. Instead of having trillions sitting in a sovereign fund earning interest, we have a blackhole of entitlement liabilities. In other words, the biggest problem with our social systems is theft. The money was used over two generations to buy votes. edit: it's interesting to try to calculate it roughly, but, it seems fair to estimate that the politicians have spent an inflation adjusted $30+ trillion beyond their means over the last 70 years ($16 trillion public debt, plus the money that should have been put aside and earning interest from SS and Medicare etc).
- parasubvert 14y ago
  That's just not true with regards to Social Security. 100 years of projected life before dragging on other Federal finances and one major reform so far (another will be needed) is usually the sign of a successful government program. It's not in dire crisis: we will start to see it drag on other government finances in 20 years, as FICA will only fund about 75% of payouts once the trust fund is exhausted. Medicare on the other hand is a different story. Costs are growing too high to make it sustainable. But that doesn't have to do with the efficiency of the program itself vs. other insurance companies - it's actually quite a bit efficient than private insurers. The problem seems to be the broader U.S. system of health cost/benefits compared to other countries. We spend more and get less.
  - anamax 14y ago
    > It's not in dire crisis: we will start to see it drag on other government finances in 20 years, It's actually a drag now, as it has been paying more in benefits than it receives for the past few years. Yes, I know about the bonds. Paying them back is a drag because they weren't used to create profitable assets.
    - 14y ago
nosse 14y ago
Norway is using about 7% of their gov budget to defense. U.S. 22% gotta show somewhere.
fffggg 14y ago
There's a very simple explanation: Unlike all the countries you mention, the majority of our US tax dollars goes toward military spending. The npr graph from the parent post is extremely misleading, and understates the US military budget by roughly a factor of 2. Huge portions of the "non-military" budget entries are covers for military spending. For example, the npr graph counts $141 billion dollars in VA health care for soldiers, but this isn't listed as part of the military budget. The same games are played with weapons r&d (often budgeted to the Dept. of Energy). Our recent Dept. of Homeland Security contains a great deal of military spending as well. When one separates the budget by spending intent rather than the politicized department budgets in the above graph it becomes quickly apparent why we don't have good social services -- we're spending it all on military.