US Government is WAY too big (Poll Added)

[Qwert]

by thegreekdog on Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:40 am

Here are some gov'ment salaries:

Rank and file member of the House and Senate - $174,000
House and Senate leadership - $193,400
Speaker of the House - $223,500
President - $400,000 (also $50,000 of annual expenses, $100,000 non-taxable travel account, $19,000 for entertainment).

Let's see...

98 senators X $174,000 = $17,052,000
2 senators X $193,400 = $386,800
432 representatives X $174,000 = $75,168,000
2 House leaders X $193,400 = $386,800
1 speaker = $223,500
1 president = $400,000

Total = $93,617,100 in salaries

Total expenditures for 2009 = $3,100,000,000,000

Percentage of salaries to government expenditures = 0.003%

EDIT - My math might be bad... but you get the drift.

You forget people who sit in administration .
I think that in every country Administration its money eater,just seat and dont do nothing, but probably in US its diferent,because you have only 2 political party,and in mine country you have 15-20 party in parlament, and when you create power,then every party need to fulfill hes apetite,and in this way they employ for one place in administration 4-5 people. That why we have 25 Ministry departments,instead 10-12.

[bedub1]

You can't say that increased spending is the sole reason for improved infrastructure. To do so is to ignore natural improvements through science, engineering, etc.

where do you think these scientific breakthroughs come from? fairies from mars?

Yes, good point Sultan...
The internet was invented by the government, of course (Al Gore, I believe).
Then we have motor vehicles... invented by some senator from Wisconsin or something.
Let's see what else... the telephone, computers, cellular phones, various pharmaceuticals including Viagra... I mean the list goes on and on...

Exactly! WTF does government have to do with ANY of that? Besides the social welfare programs....which are already being provided by volunteers! We don't need government for ANY of those items listed.

[Frigidus]

You can't say that increased spending is the sole reason for improved infrastructure. To do so is to ignore natural improvements through science, engineering, etc.

where do you think these scientific breakthroughs come from? fairies from mars?

Yes, good point Sultan...
The internet was invented by the government, of course (Al Gore, I believe).
Then we have motor vehicles... invented by some senator from Wisconsin or something.
Let's see what else... the telephone, computers, cellular phones, various pharmaceuticals including Viagra... I mean the list goes on and on...

Exactly! WTF does government have to do with ANY of that? Besides the social welfare programs....which are already being provided by volunteers! We don't need government for ANY of those items listed.

That's because those items were all invented decades ago.

[comic boy]

Bedub
You appear to have missed my earlier question so I will ask again as it pertains to your original post. How exactly do you propose to get the percentage of GDP down to the figure that you said was desirable, 10% I believe you said, Ithink it would be impossible without crippling the infrastructure of the USA so Im extremely interested in hearing your proposed plan.

[bedub1]

Bedub
You appear to have missed my earlier question so I will ask again as it pertains to your original post. How exactly do you propose to get the percentage of GDP down to the figure that you said was desirable, 10% I believe you said, Ithink it would be impossible without crippling the infrastructure of the USA so Im extremely interested in hearing your proposed plan.

I would eliminate:

Social Security (I can save my own money thank you)
Medicare (I can buy my own insurance)
Medicade (I can buy my own)
Unemployment/Welfare (get a job)
Interest on Nation Debt (We have to get rid of our debt. This is currently 8.5% of the budget, wait till it's 100%)


That eliminates: 21.05, 13.34, 7.32, 11.77, 8.5, for a sum of 61.98%. That would be a great place to start.

I would also greatly reduce the 16.85% that is Department of Defense. I think we need to protect ourselves, and stop fighting 15 wars for 15 different countries in 15 different parts of the war.

[Neoteny]

At least you see the DoD slice is too big. And look how much is allocated just for the "war on terror."

I always feel like "war on terror" should be written in blood red font with a dripping effect.

[thegreekdog]

You can't say that increased spending is the sole reason for improved infrastructure. To do so is to ignore natural improvements through science, engineering, etc.

where do you think these scientific breakthroughs come from? fairies from mars?

Yes, good point Sultan...
The internet was invented by the government, of course (Al Gore, I believe).
Then we have motor vehicles... invented by some senator from Wisconsin or something.
Let's see what else... the telephone, computers, cellular phones, various pharmaceuticals including Viagra... I mean the list goes on and on...

Exactly! WTF does government have to do with ANY of that? Besides the social welfare programs....which are already being provided by volunteers! We don't need government for ANY of those items listed.

That's because those items were all invented decades ago.

I'm not sure why that's relevant.

[bedub1]

At least you see the DoD slice is too big. And look how much is allocated just for the "war on terror."

I always feel like "war on terror" should be written in blood red font with a dripping effect.

Why isn't the war on terror 4.75% in with the DOD? We should cut out that 4.75 percent too.

EDIT: Did you know that Social Security has a negative return on investment(ROI). IE if you put in 100k, you get out 80k. That blows. That's not an investment. Plus the government doesn't save it, they spend it. You are better off putting that 100k under your mattress, because even with inflation killing it you will still end up with more than 80k.

[Neoteny]

At least you see the DoD slice is too big. And look how much is allocated just for the "war on terror."

I always feel like "war on terror" should be written in blood red font with a dripping effect.

Why isn't the war on terror 4.whatever percent in with the DOD? We should cut out that 4 percent too.

Probably because it's big enough to stand alone on the budget graph. Look at all those other things that could be funded with that money (half of interest on the debt; all those little things crammed at the top of the graph).

[Aradhus]

You can't say that increased spending is the sole reason for improved infrastructure. To do so is to ignore natural improvements through science, engineering, etc.

where do you think these scientific breakthroughs come from? fairies from mars?

Yes, good point Sultan...
The internet was invented by the government, of course (Al Gore, I believe).
Then we have motor vehicles... invented by some senator from Wisconsin or something.
Let's see what else... the telephone, computers, cellular phones, various pharmaceuticals including Viagra... I mean the list goes on and on...

Exactly! WTF does government have to do with ANY of that? Besides the social welfare programs....which are already being provided by volunteers! We don't need government for ANY of those items listed.

I'm not sure why that's relevant.

Where does the funding come from....

[bedub1]

Where does the funding come from....

The internet, not the government. -- comcast, verizon, cox, charter etc
The cell phones, not the government -- verizon, at&t, sprint
telephone, not government -- at&t, sprint
computers, not government --- dell, hp,
pharmaceuticals, not government --- phizer etc
motor vehicles, not government -- ford, gm, honda, toyota...

[thegreekdog]

Exactly! WTF does government have to do with ANY of that? Besides the social welfare programs....which are already being provided by volunteers! We don't need government for ANY of those items listed.

I'm not sure why that's relevant.

Where does the funding come from....

Private individuals.

Alternatively, if your answer is the government, why is the government involved with funding in the first place?

[Snorri1234]

EDIT: Did you know that Social Security has a negative return on investment(ROI). IE if you put in 100k, you get out 80k. That blows. That's not an investment.

Depends on who you are. For some people it's better than for others.

Plus the government doesn't save it, they spend it.

No they don't. They use the money to pay the receivers. It's against the law to spend it or invest it in assets other than those backed by the US government. Taxes go in, are given to retirees and such and any excess is invested in Treasury securities.

[bedub1]

EDIT: Did you know that Social Security has a negative return on investment(ROI). IE if you put in 100k, you get out 80k. That blows. That's not an investment.

Depends on who you are. For some people it's better than for others.

Plus the government doesn't save it, they spend it.

No they don't. They use the money to pay the receivers. It's against the law to spend it or invest it in assets other than those backed by the US government. Taxes go in, are given to retirees and such and any excess is invested in Treasury securities.

When they were collecting 100k a year, and paying out 50k a year, they didn't save the other 50k. They spent it. Now they are taking in 50k a year, and giving out 100k a year (exact reverse of what was happening). If they had saved the other 50k, this would be no problem. Unfortunately they took it as income and spent it, and wrote the social security department a bunch of IOU's.

[Snorri1234]

Exactly! WTF does government have to do with ANY of that? Besides the social welfare programs....which are already being provided by volunteers! We don't need government for ANY of those items listed.

I'm not sure why that's relevant.

Where does the funding come from....

Private individuals.

Alternatively, if your answer is the government, why is the government involved with funding in the first place?

Because the government is in an unique position to fund things. They have more money than any company and very long term investments pose no risk for them because they will still exist even if the profit comes after 50 years.

Furthermore, they can fund things which are benificial to all but not of interest to private companies. Infrastructure is very good for the economy but the investment is simply too big for a company compared to the possible profit they could make.

[thegreekdog]

Because the government is in an unique position to fund things. They have more money than any company and very long term investments pose no risk for them because they will still exist even if the profit comes after 50 years.

Furthermore, they can fund things which are benificial to all but not of interest to private companies. Infrastructure is very good for the economy but the investment is simply too big for a company compared to the possible profit they could make.

A couple of things:

(1) Why does the government have more money than private companies? In that pie chart that was provided, where do research, experimentation, and invention fit in?
(2) There are plenty of private companies (and individuals for that matter) who could fund research.
(3) There are plenty of private companies (and individuals) who could invent things without funding from anyone, including the government.

[comic boy]

Bedub
You appear to have missed my earlier question so I will ask again as it pertains to your original post. How exactly do you propose to get the percentage of GDP down to the figure that you said was desirable, 10% I believe you said, Ithink it would be impossible without crippling the infrastructure of the USA so Im extremely interested in hearing your proposed plan.

I would eliminate:

Social Security (I can save my own money thank you)
Medicare (I can buy my own insurance)
Medicade (I can buy my own)
Unemployment/Welfare (get a job)
Interest on Nation Debt (We have to get rid of our debt. This is currently 8.5% of the budget, wait till it's 100%)


That eliminates: 21.05, 13.34, 7.32, 11.77, 8.5, for a sum of 61.98%. That would be a great place to start.

I would also greatly reduce the 16.85% that is Department of Defense. I think we need to protect ourselves, and stop fighting 15 wars for 15 different countries in 15 different parts of the war.

You are assuming that all the money spent by the DOD is for purely altruistic reasons, commercial concerns are a huge part of the equation and Haliburton was a shining example, interference in the affairs of other nations can be a very nice little earner.
Leaving that aside , and assuming the National debt is cancelled out , and assuming huge private investment is pumped into US industry, and assuming the millions of federal employees quickly retrain and find gainful employment, you are still running at 25% of GDP, what are you going to cut next?

[bedub1]

That might be enough. But I'll continue then.

16.85% DOD turns into 8% DOD
4.75% war on terror is gone
2.3% health and human services are gone, they should be part of medicare/Medicaid
1.93% department of education is gone. I paid for my schooling, I have student loans. If you want an education, pay for it.
1.46% vet affairs I'll keep, add to the 8% dod to get 9.46%, vet's need more so we'll make it 10%.
1.26% housing & urban development is gone

The other items on the list appear to be small enough and necessary.

[spurgistan]

Because the government is in an unique position to fund things. They have more money than any company and very long term investments pose no risk for them because they will still exist even if the profit comes after 50 years.

Furthermore, they can fund things which are benificial to all but not of interest to private companies. Infrastructure is very good for the economy but the investment is simply too big for a company compared to the possible profit they could make.

A couple of things:

(1) Why does the government have more money than private companies? In that pie chart that was provided, where do research, experimentation, and invention fit in?
(2) There are plenty of private companies (and individuals for that matter) who could fund research.
(3) There are plenty of private companies (and individuals) who could invent things without funding from anyone, including the government.

That may be true, however, the government has the role of funding research that the market doesn't cover, e.g. the private pharmaceutical industry does not find it as profitable to fund research into malaria drugs as drugs that affect the wealthier parts of the world as well as being chronic as opposed to single-treatment.

[bedub1]

2008 GDP was 14.2 trillion.

Government spending 37% of 14.2 trillion is 5.254 trillion. If I cut out that 62%, then the government would be spending 38% of 5.254 trillion, which is about 2 trillion. 2 Trillion is about 14% of the GDP. That fine with me.

That may be true, however, the government has the role of funding research that the market doesn't cover, e.g. the private pharmaceutical industry does not find it as profitable to fund research into malaria drugs as drugs that affect the wealthier parts of the world as well as being chronic as opposed to single-treatment.

Why is it the job of the US citizens to provide funding for the creation of drugs to help the rest of the world? Why don't we create a world tax to tax everybody and we'll give it to the pharmaceuticals to do research into drugs to save the world?

[Timminz]

1.93% department of education is gone. I paid for my schooling, I have student loans. If you want an education, pay for it.

You don't think that a properly educated population is beneficial enough to a country to warrant ANY spending?

That's retarded.

[Snorri1234]

Where does the funding come from....

The internet, not the government. -- comcast, verizon, cox, charter etc
The cell phones, not the government -- verizon, at&t, sprint
telephone, not government -- at&t, sprint
computers, not government --- dell, hp,
pharmaceuticals, not government --- phizer etc
motor vehicles, not government -- ford, gm, honda, toyota...

Wow this is soooooo wrong. Without the government you wouldn't have internet and a whole lot of other technology. Drugs too.

[comic boy]

2008 GDP was 14.2 trillion.

Government spending 37% of 14.2 trillion is 5.254 trillion. If I cut out that 62%, then the government would be spending 38% of 5.254 trillion, which is about 2 trillion. 2 Trillion is about 14% of the GDP. That fine with me.

That may be true, however, the government has the role of funding research that the market doesn't cover, e.g. the private pharmaceutical industry does not find it as profitable to fund research into malaria drugs as drugs that affect the wealthier parts of the world as well as being chronic as opposed to single-treatment.

Why is it the job of the US citizens to provide funding for the creation of drugs to help the rest of the world? Why don't we create a world tax to tax everybody and we'll give it to the pharmaceuticals to do research into drugs to save the world?

Maths like that certainly prove that the USA needs to slash education funding

[72o]

2008 GDP was 14.2 trillion.

Government spending 37% of 14.2 trillion is 5.254 trillion. If I cut out that 62%, then the government would be spending 38% of 5.254 trillion, which is about 2 trillion. 2 Trillion is about 14% of the GDP. That fine with me.

That may be true, however, the government has the role of funding research that the market doesn't cover, e.g. the private pharmaceutical industry does not find it as profitable to fund research into malaria drugs as drugs that affect the wealthier parts of the world as well as being chronic as opposed to single-treatment.

Why is it the job of the US citizens to provide funding for the creation of drugs to help the rest of the world? Why don't we create a world tax to tax everybody and we'll give it to the pharmaceuticals to do research into drugs to save the world?

Maths like that certainly prove that the USA needs to slash education funding

Actually, the math is correct. Were you unable to follow it?

[bedub1]

Where does the funding come from....

The internet, not the government. -- comcast, verizon, cox, charter etc
The cell phones, not the government -- verizon, at&t, sprint
telephone, not government -- at&t, sprint
computers, not government --- dell, hp,
pharmaceuticals, not government --- phizer etc
motor vehicles, not government -- ford, gm, honda, toyota...

Wow this is soooooo wrong. Without the government you wouldn't have internet and a whole lot of other technology. Drugs too.

no, this is correct. The government doesn't do any of this. I've given my examples, my proof, I've named the companies that provide this. Nowhere in this list do I see the government providing me with cell phone coverage or internet access or drugs or cars. This isn't China, the government doesn't run the internet. This isn't Germany, we don't have a Peoples Car. I don't see how I can continue to converse about this subject when you don't know what the government does and doesn't do.

1.93% department of education is gone. I paid for my schooling, I have student loans. If you want an education, pay for it.

You don't think that a properly educated population is beneficial enough to a country to warrant ANY spending?

That's retarded.

Yes, a properly educated population is a good thing. But just because it's a good thing doesn't mean the government needs to do it though.

Here's an example. Everybody pays 1k for their own eduction. or. Everybody gets taxed 5k, the government takes that money, wastes the vast majority of it, and provides schooling for us. It might just be me, but I'd like to keep that other 4k.

2008 GDP was 14.2 trillion.

Government spending 37% of 14.2 trillion is 5.254 trillion. If I cut out that 62%, then the government would be spending 38% of 5.254 trillion, which is about 2 trillion. 2 Trillion is about 14% of the GDP. That fine with me.

That may be true, however, the government has the role of funding research that the market doesn't cover, e.g. the private pharmaceutical industry does not find it as profitable to fund research into malaria drugs as drugs that affect the wealthier parts of the world as well as being chronic as opposed to single-treatment.

Why is it the job of the US citizens to provide funding for the creation of drugs to help the rest of the world? Why don't we create a world tax to tax everybody and we'll give it to the pharmaceuticals to do research into drugs to save the world?

Maths like that certainly prove that the USA needs to slash education funding

Actually, the math is correct. Were you unable to follow it?

lol