4 ms·

Currently, 51% of every tax dollar spent ends up in the hands of the DoD, supporting the war. 51% of our society's problems (which, rightly or wrongly, we look

Currently, 51% of every tax dollar spent ends up in the hands of the DoD, supporting the war. 51% of our society's problems (which, rightly or wrongly, we look towards our government for solutions and leadership) cannot be solved by the DoD. If you want "smaller government", you're going to have to demand a smaller standing army. And a spending cap for the DoD. His wealth isn't just being seized, but squandered.

steveplace 18y ago
Agreed. I've used this logic in several political discussions: Either get a smarter foreign policy, or raise taxes to fund our policies It's amazing how the meaning behind "Supporting the Troops" would change.
gaius 18y ago
If you want "smaller government", you're going to have to demand a smaller standing army. That's simply not true. The DoD's money doesn't go on salaries for Infantrymen. It doesn't even go on rifles and boots and jeeps. I'll give you a clue, how many planes do the Taliban have in their Airforce? How much does an F22 cost and how many of them is the USAF buying? What about the Al-Queda Navy, how many aircraft carriers they got? What does a Seawolf-class submarine cost? That's where your taxpayer dollars end up. Soldiers (and Marines) are cheap and if anything we need more of them.
- redrobot5050 18y ago
  I considered military hardware to be part of the "standing army". I know a fighter jet isn't exactly counted as personnel, but we need less of an inventory of them. So I'm sorry I was obtuse.
colonhyphenp 18y ago
Is this still true after the recent bailouts? (honest question)
astine 18y ago
Currently, 51% of every tax dollar spent ends up in the hands of the DoD, supporting the war. I'm curious, what's your source on that. I've heard dozens of statistics on that, all very different, all skewing the data in some way. Some of them only measure discretionary spending, some exclude it, etc.
- andreyf 18y ago
  One explanation: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm Measuring discretionary spending isn't skewing the results.
  - astine 18y ago
    I was hoping for a less partisan source. Even still, they don't place a figure of 51% of our income taxes on the occupation in Iraq. They don't measure it, but it looks closer to %5. Considering that they're including the national debt as part of the military budge (a very dubious assumption,) I have trouble taking these figures seriously. With regard to discretionary spending; there is a difference between including it as part of the US budget and portraying it as the US budget. I only cited is as an example; I make no claims about any particular survey.
    - andreyf 18y ago
      I was hoping for a less partisan source. Sorry about that, was in a rush. Here's one for total spending: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2... Here's one for discretionary: http://www.cdi.org/issues/discret.html http://www.cdi.org/issues/discret.html Here's one in relation to GDP, as well as historical discretionary: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php there is a difference between including it as part of the US budget and portraying it as the US budget Yes, absolutely. I think one would have to be quite confused about all this to mix up the two. One is what the president proposes and congress debates and votes on. The other is that, plus the laws that have already been passed in the past. The GDP figure is even farther complicated by uncertain estimates. This might be my bias coming in, but it's pretty clear that if you want to talk about what our elected officials are doing with our money, we have to talk about discretionary spending.
andreyf 18y ago
I agree with you whole-heartedly, but this false statement discredits your argument: ends up in the hands of the DoD, supporting the war Not true. It also supports most of the research done in this country.

steveplace 18y ago

Agreed. I've used this logic in several political discussions: Either get a smarter foreign policy, or raise taxes to fund our policies It's amazing how the meaning behind "Supporting the Troops" would change.

gaius 18y ago

If you want "smaller government", you're going to have to demand a smaller standing army. That's simply not true. The DoD's money doesn't go on salaries for Infantrymen. It doesn't even go on rifles and boots and jeeps. I'll give you a clue, how many planes do the Taliban have in their Airforce? How much does an F22 cost and how many of them is the USAF buying? What about the Al-Queda Navy, how many aircraft carriers they got? What does a Seawolf-class submarine cost? That's where your taxpayer dollars end up. Soldiers (and Marines) are cheap and if anything we need more of them.

redrobot5050 18y ago
I considered military hardware to be part of the "standing army". I know a fighter jet isn't exactly counted as personnel, but we need less of an inventory of them. So I'm sorry I was obtuse.

colonhyphenp 18y ago

Is this still true after the recent bailouts? (honest question)

astine 18y ago

Currently, 51% of every tax dollar spent ends up in the hands of the DoD, supporting the war. I'm curious, what's your source on that. I've heard dozens of statistics on that, all very different, all skewing the data in some way. Some of them only measure discretionary spending, some exclude it, etc.

andreyf 18y ago
One explanation: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm Measuring discretionary spending isn't skewing the results.
- astine 18y ago
  I was hoping for a less partisan source. Even still, they don't place a figure of 51% of our income taxes on the occupation in Iraq. They don't measure it, but it looks closer to %5. Considering that they're including the national debt as part of the military budge (a very dubious assumption,) I have trouble taking these figures seriously. With regard to discretionary spending; there is a difference between including it as part of the US budget and portraying it as the US budget. I only cited is as an example; I make no claims about any particular survey.
  - andreyf 18y ago
    I was hoping for a less partisan source. Sorry about that, was in a rush. Here's one for total spending: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2... Here's one for discretionary: http://www.cdi.org/issues/discret.html http://www.cdi.org/issues/discret.html Here's one in relation to GDP, as well as historical discretionary: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php there is a difference between including it as part of the US budget and portraying it as the US budget Yes, absolutely. I think one would have to be quite confused about all this to mix up the two. One is what the president proposes and congress debates and votes on. The other is that, plus the laws that have already been passed in the past. The GDP figure is even farther complicated by uncertain estimates. This might be my bias coming in, but it's pretty clear that if you want to talk about what our elected officials are doing with our money, we have to talk about discretionary spending.

andreyf 18y ago

I agree with you whole-heartedly, but this false statement discredits your argument: ends up in the hands of the DoD, supporting the war Not true. It also supports most of the research done in this country.