General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe voting public needs to see THIS image and see it OFTEN.
The voting public needs to see THIS image and see it OFTEN.
We could cut 40% and would be as strong.
https://twitter.com/hypocrazy104/status/731212315790585856
scscholar
(2,902 posts)It's nothing but a form of corporate welfare.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)Non-discretionary would include payments on the national debt, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and certain federal pensions.
Oh, here it is:
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)I believe. Not sure about the vet benefits and food and ag portion.
Jeffersons Ghost
(15,235 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)ish of the hammer
(444 posts)TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)We, not so much.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)ish of the hammer
(444 posts)and don't have any children.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)nuclear war will wipe out humanity.
The 20,000,000 megaton Toba supervolcano didn't do it (that's 2,000x the entire nuclear arsenal. I know they would be more dispersed but still).
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)and if you do survive, your children will be born weird looking.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)entity. Yeah supervolcanoes don't release radioactivity, just means they release even more heat and shock (also, for large nuclear weapons, heat and shock are much more significant than ionizing radiation).
And you mock the energy of it, but it's true. The Toba supervolcano was 2000x stronger than the world's entire nuclear arsenal - that's put ALL the world's nukes in a big pile and blow them up. Do that again tomorrow. And the next day. And the next day after that. Do that every day for over 5 years. And humanity still survived.
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)10,000 fukushimas will do what to the biosphere?
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)humanity unless we get hit with another double whammy right after (ie supervolcano or impact event)
valerief
(53,235 posts)puffy socks
(1,473 posts)about the military industrial complex, we failed to prevent it and the country fell all over itself over Ronald Reagan's acting like a president and CIC and it ballooned from that point on into the monstrosity it is today.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)of our current Democrats. I remember when I was very, very young hearing my father COMPLAIN about Eisenhower because he was as REPUBLICAN! I was raised as an Army brat and it's one of the things I have never been able to forget! He was a Democrat then and I've been pone since!
Probably won't be soon!
SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)Instead of when he had, I dunno, a bully pulpit or something.
kacekwl
(7,017 posts)shadow money spent we no very little of.
Nictuku
(3,614 posts)I found the source of the chart, and there are a lot of interesting charts at this site.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2015/presidents-2016-budget-in-pictures/
I've not heard of that site before, so I can't vouch for it personally. Anyone know anything about NationalPriorities.org?
gelatinous cube
(50 posts)A quick google search got me these 3 links, all of which say that the site was created by the National Priorities Project. It is a national, non-profit, non-partisan research organization.
Wikipedia
Boston Globe
About National Priorities
For the purpose of honesty, I have to point out that the OP's chart shows Discretionary Spending, not the total budget, which is closer to $3.8 trillion. Military spending is only 15.88% of the overall budget, at $609.3 billion (Federal Spending).
Of course this is still a ridiculous amount, especially considering that free college tuition for the nation would cost about $60 billion, only 10% of the military budget.
(Edit) On the second scan through the replies I found out another DUer beat me to pointing out discretionary spending. Sorry about the duplicate point.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)it is disgusting.
Wednesdays
(17,381 posts)Some basic needs would be a good start.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Nice things like new more modern aircraft carriers. Maybe we could even start building battleships again.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)employment program. We'll pay you to risk your butt pounding sand. Then you can send money home to your family, hope you make it back alive and reasonably intact physically and psychologically. And good luck getting a job when you get back.
babylonsister
(171,074 posts)getting the healthcare you need after being in that sand. And I'm not talking about throwing pills at people. All the suicides? Who might be taking the time to counsel these people with PTSD? The VA is not impressing me.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)in harm's way. Proudly anti-war since the 70s in Nixon's alma mater. Hung in effigy...quite an emotional time. One friend did not get back alive.
babylonsister
(171,074 posts)in at least two too many wars that had no reason, I am anti-war to the max. That is probably my biggest issue with anyone.
kpete
(71,997 posts)yep
peace to you sister,
kp
babylonsister
(171,074 posts)Long time on here. Thank you as always for your sanity.
procon
(15,805 posts)They certainly aren't perfect, and probably even less so than other govt agencies just because they get vast sums of unchecked money and have no oversight of what they do with it all. If the Republicans treated the military with the same zealous supervision as they apply to the EPA, the military would by reduced to a bi-plane, a rowboat, and three guys with BB guns.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)So far, the DOD's book are so tricked up, no one seems able to audit the department...
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)funny that
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)The Wizard
(12,545 posts)makes the gutless feel attached to something strong.
midnight
(26,624 posts)can't provide the services to our veterans that they were promised. Leaving to many veterans with staggering health care issues that they ignore, along side homelessness, and unemployment.
Food and agriculture, educations expenditures-this is not acceptable!
sheshe2
(83,793 posts)F35
The program is the most expensive military weapons system in history, and it has been the object of much criticism from those inside and outside governmentin the US and in allied countries.[20] Critics argue that the plane is "plagued with design flaws," with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time, instead of ... [identifying and fixing] defects before firing up its production line."[20] By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule."[21] Critics further contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill."[22]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
Vermont/ Sanders
Bernie Sanders Doubles Down on F-35 Support Days After Runway Explosion
By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News
03 June 14
Me: You mentioned wasteful military spending. The other day ... Im sure youve heard about the F-35 catching fire on the runway. The estimated lifetime expense of the F-35 is $1.2 trillion. When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program?
Bernie Sanders: No, and Ill tell you why it is essentially built. It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and of NATO. It was a very controversial issue in Vermont. And my view was that given the fact that the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful, thats a good question. But for better or worse, that is the plane of record right now, and it is not gonna be discarded. Thats the reality.
snip
The Lockheed Martin F-35 is the epitome of Pentagon waste. The program has already cost taxpayers roughly half a trillion dollars, with $700 billion or more to come during the programs lifetime. During an interview, Pierre Sprey, a co-designer of the F-16, went into great detail about how the F-35 was a lemon aircraft. Sprey explained that the fighter is an excessively heavy gas guzzler with small wings, a low bomb-carry capacity, low loiter time, is incapable of slow flight, is detectable to World War II-era low-frequency radar, and costs $200 million apiece. And just a little over a week ago, the F-35 caught fire on a runway at Eglin Air Force Base.
To his credit, Sanders acknowledged that the program was wasteful in his defense of it. The contention over the F-35 in his home state of Vermont is that the program is now responsible for jobs in his hometown of Burlington, where he served as mayor before running for Congress. Some front doors of homes in the Burlington area are adorned with green ribbons, signifying support for the F-35. Sanders, like his colleagues in 45 states around the country, doesnt want to risk the wrath of voters angry about job losses related to F-35 manufacturing, assembly, and training if the program were to be cut. And thats where Lockheed Martins political savvy comes into play.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion
So, it is all about jobs for HIS state and screwing the the tax payers in the rest of the country. Nice.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)as jobs to be handed out to the states who need or want them. It is the obscene profits that lure in almost all politicians...who would be voted out if they did not take the money/jobs.
I'm not making it any better for Bernie, but it's a national problem...jobs....and the military has a number of ways to get that money to return the jobs. It's an unholy alliance. Remember Dwight D. Eisenhower...I can't quote it, but he said way back then that this MIC would lead to what we have.
This is disingenuous and a crass political attack. Many who abhor war have been complicit in enabling the MIC. It's how it's structured.
Go figure.
sheshe2
(83,793 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,981 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)which seem to be delayed or non-existent.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)and brain washes our youth. Those few who go to war get a licence to kill, return with PTSD and end up suiciding because they cant face what they did, nor fit into society. Others become assassins for hire as militants for hire, such as our police force or Homeland Security contractors
SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)The real money is in the arms supply and other defense industries. They lobby Congress well and with defense contracts controlled by Congress being doled out to contractors in - just a guess here - 435 or so Congressional districts, it is a jobs program. The actual troops are just a necessary expense, as is war, to feed the beast.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)target military families, etc., I think the answer is yes, our military personal are treated as throwaways.
I never served nor pro-military, but my father and some of his siblings did. Some were voluntary during WWII, my father volunteered during the Cold War (never, ever close to danger and enjoyed his time in Europe, a great adventure for a small town kid with limited options at home). I was lucky to have come of age post draft, with a choice. I never really considered the military, but have friends who did (some out of a sense of obligation/duty, some because of the poor economy we graduated into from high school, some for the chance for some adventure).
I hate how our government on one hand praises and glorifies our soldiers and sailors and marines while on the other hand don't keep up our end of the bargain to those who do serve. Most of all, I hate how and where they make them serve.
McKim
(2,412 posts)Dear Kpete:
This is the most important post of the entire election. This is why we are not getting the benefits that we are all paying for. With Hillary we will have war and more war. This chart is the elephant in the livingroom of our country. No one is talking about it. Foreign policy and our bloated military budget are not common topics. A lot of people figure we need it everytime they start up the fear machine.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I tried to explain this to someone who was quite good at referencing "the budget", and I think it's purposely not as available.
Thanks.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)enabled our service people's lives and deaths in other wars of convenience, and is still The Hawk of the Democratic Party ready to proceed in other war theaters.
Others are forced to support the troops pounding sand. Surely we cannot forget them. But also, to provide them...at the very least...support for themselves and their families if and when they return.
No more wars for Empire. That is the position I take and vote for NOW.
elleng
(130,974 posts)if it DID, it would not appreciate the significance.
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk
Throughout her career she has displayed instincts
on foreign policy that are more aggressive than
those of President Obama and most Democrats.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)more than
NJCher
(35,688 posts)This chart shows our craven priorities.
I have never, ever felt like I belonged or could support such a system. I have worked against it all of my adult years.
Cher
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Sick in so many ways. This election has demonstrated for all the world that we can no longer even do basic democracy. Basic education and reasonably priced heath care are out of the question.
But......................(in case you forgot)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)newblewtoo
(667 posts)seldom a problem to those interested in an honest discussion based on facts. People need to realize the military budget covers more than ground pounders.
The DOD employs some 700K civilian and 600K contract employees.
https://www.afge.org/index.cfm?ContentID=6288
You want real wailing and moaning? Try cutting them ladies and gentlemen and see what happens. BtRAC? Oh yeah! That can turn out mobs of people in a hurry.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)lot of lining the pockets of CEOs of BigPharma and Insurance companies.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)All of insurance profit (as well as just admin overhead) is in that "overhead" category, and all of pharma is in that "stuff" category. The big thing is services, which is mostly hospitals and physicians:
But, yeah. We actually spend more tax money on health care per person than Sweden does right now.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)What could be done with even half of that 57%.
13Dogs
(45 posts)Sure does put the lie to that Home of the Brave bullshit we've been spoonfed for the last 50 years. If we're so brave as a nation, why does our budget make us look like we're the biggest cowards ever? Paying obscene amounts of money on the military because our politicians are gutless tools who try to compensate for their cowardice by making the US the bully of the world. That line should be removed from the National Anthem.
The Wizard
(12,545 posts)since December 7, 1941.
valerief
(53,235 posts)2cannan
(344 posts)would spark a national conversation about how much we spend on the military vs other countries and the benefits that those citizens have because they don't spend so much on defense. Also the benefits people in other countries receive from "our" corporations because their governments require it (health care, vacation) from McDonald's, for example. Many of these benefits (40 hr workweek, etc.) were started here due to the actions and bravery of workers long ago. I continue to hope that if those benefits were widely known, Americans might rise up and finally demand these things. What is wrong with us?!
2cannan
(344 posts)in getting Americans to dream and question, "Why not us?"
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)FUCK war and our bloated Pentagon killing machine.
Gary 50
(381 posts)Obama has hollowed out our once great military. We need someone like Chris to up the paltry percentage spent on the military to something more reasonable like 90 percent. It would be easy to do. Just cut out the useless stuff like education, health, housing and community, energy and environment and science. Hey, there might even be enough money left over to start a department of religion, end all corporate tax, build a few hundred new prisons, and cut the outrageous 17 percent income tax (down to a more reasonable 3 percent) that the top one percent of earners are now forced to pay.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)FairWinds
(1,717 posts)". . it risks conservatives responding with this chart."
"This chart" that you offer uses phony accounting - and I know that
conservatives do use it. But we do not have to, nor should we.
And in fact, all the charts cited above contain major errors that reflect
the lies of the militarists.
Just to begin with the most obvious phony accounting trick, does it
make any sense at all to count "Veterans' Benefits" as non-military spending?
Answer: No, it does not.
Similarly, the construction and testing of nuclear weapons is considered
spending on "energy." What a sick joke that is.
Real US military spending is close to $ 1.2 TRILLION PER YEAR
You are being lied to . .
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Would be an honest discussion of the real numbers.
Sadly it is so complex we are reduced to these manipulated graphs that in the end only serve as a way for both sides to point their fingers and call the other liars.
Better than nothing I guess but I suspect not very helpful in the end.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Also, why did you reply this to the OP?
Anyways: your nuclear numbers are just as "dishonest" since that includes civilian research and programs. Personally breaking it along the department lines makes a lot of sense to me
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)sorry if my tone was snippy. That was not my intent.
But I do think that $ spent on security should be properly
accounted for; and that is not the case at this time.
Per Wiki, here is an outline of "insecurity" spending that almost always
conveniently gets left out . .
"This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which are in the Atomic Energy Defense Activities section,[16] Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and intelligence-gathering spending by NSA."
Not to mention state and local "security" spending
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Then they need to take about 25% of that and move it over th VETERANs' BENEFITS....should be 5% on War 50% on Vets!!!!
nvme
(860 posts)I like to see the overall budget not just discretionary spending. I want the whole picture. I agree we spend WAY TOO MUCH on Military, but I also like to see where the rest goes too.
Warpy
(111,277 posts)like a functioning economy.
Money gets poured down that 5 sided black hole in Arlington so the rich can sleep soundly.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)would probably be ok with it. The propaganda has been pretty effective.
TomVilmer
(1,832 posts)Same numbers can be selected in so many different ways, but none of them looks good for USA - unless you like full focus on military solutions. With numbers based on NATO sources, the five biggest military spenders in 2015 were the USA, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the UK. USA used 596 billion dollars and Russia 66 billion dollars - that is nine times less, not including the rest of NATO.
For Defence expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product from the last eight years, we could be happy that it has fallen from 4.7 to 3.4. Or sad, that it is still so high compared to others like Denmark with three times lower spending. Those numbers looks worse as Defence expenditures per capita, which for United States is between 1900 to 2500 dollars - the Danish numbers again three times lower.
USA is pushing Denmark for higher military spending, and with the Danish decision to buy F-35, it will happen. My hope is that these fighter jets will rust on the ground, when their too complex systems are broken down. So much of the military spending is fixed into these mistakes, so nobody in NATO could then afford more costly wars - and we can finally have some peaceful solutions.