US Government is WAY too big (Poll Added)

[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.

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.

I completely agree. And I think that government research and funding for research is necessary in some cases, specifically treatment of diseases that private companies won't research.

However, Sultan's overarching point was that the reason anything gets invented is because of the government. I vehemently disagree with that and find it rather weird that someone as knowledgeable as Sultan would suggest it.

[Snorri1234]

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.

Are you seriously that dumb? Without the government you wouldn't have internet right now. Know why? Because they're the ones who developed it.



Which is precisely the point Sultan made earlier.

[bedub1]

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.

Are you seriously that dumb? Without the government you wouldn't have internet right now. Know why? Because they're the ones who developed it.



Which is precisely the point Sultan made earlier.

And some other group wouldn't have come up with it? Are you seriously this dumb? You think that without government we wouldn't have any of that stuff?

http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/history/inventednet.html

The government did NOT invent the internet. Neither did Al Gore.

The government didn't invent cars! Nor cell phones! Nor any of that other shit! holy f*ck man. i bet you think the government invented the sky and water and the stars and cow farts.

[thegreekdog]

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.

Are you seriously that dumb? Without the government you wouldn't have internet right now. Know why? Because they're the ones who developed it.



Which is precisely the point Sultan made earlier.

Whoa... how did the US goverment "develop" the internet?

EDIT - Nevermind... sigh...

[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.

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.

Sure, they might not need to, but having an educated population is good for a country financially, and so logically, it would be in a government's best interest to put some money into it. You might not see it on the bottom line of any financial statements, but education spending actually makes money for the government.

[Snorri1234]

(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?

In every catagory? The development-budget for the military is included in the "monies spent on defense".

(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.

Yes and I am not talking about them. I am talking about when there aren't any companies or when there are no companies with interest in it. Perhaps some funding is wasted and projects go nowhere, but even if we have 10 failed projects for every discovery like the internet I think it's still money well spent.

Yes companies and individuals invent stuff all the time too, but a lot of stuff wouldn't have happened if it were not for the government.

[Snorri1234]

And some other group wouldn't have come up with it? Are you seriously this dumb? You think that without government we wouldn't have any of that stuff?

http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/history/inventednet.html

The government did NOT invent the internet. Neither did Al Gore.

Aha! I see what you're saying. To you people who are working for the government aren't actually the government themselves?

[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

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

Actually the maths is faulty as also is clearly your understanding of it, concentrate hard or let your 8 year old Niece spell it out for you ;

Government spending is currently 37% of 14.2 Trillion = 5.25 Trillion.
OP wishes 62% decrease so we would have 62% of the current 37% = 23% of 14.2 Trillion = 3.26 Trillion . 3.26 Trillion as a percentage of 14.2 Trillion = 23% NOT 14% as indicated by the OP.
I trust you can follow that , with or without the help of your Niece and her building bricks

[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?

Actually the maths is faulty as also is clearly your understanding of it, concentrate hard or let your 8 year old Niece spell it out for you ;

Government spending is currently 37% of 14.2 Trillion = 5.25 Trillion.
OP wishes 62% decrease so we would have 62% of the current 37% = 23% of 14.2 Trillion = 3.26 Trillion . 3.26 Trillion as a percentage of 14.2 Trillion = 23% NOT 14% as indicated by the OP.
I trust you can follow that , with or without the help of your Niece and her building bricks

Read it again. Slowly. Then have your mother explain to you that a decrease means that you take away a number from another number.

62% decrease. You are right, 62% of 37% = 23% multiplied by the 14.2 trillion = 3.26. That's the DECREASE. Subtract that from 5.25, and you get about 2 trillion, WHICH IS WHAT HE FUCKING SAID.

[john9blue]

Actually the maths is faulty as also is clearly your understanding of it, concentrate hard or let your 8 year old Niece spell it out for you ;

Government spending is currently 37% of 14.2 Trillion = 5.25 Trillion.
OP wishes 62% decrease so we would have 62% of the current 37% = 23% of 14.2 Trillion = 3.26 Trillion . 3.26 Trillion as a percentage of 14.2 Trillion = 23% NOT 14% as indicated by the OP.
I trust you can follow that , with or without the help of your Niece and her building bricks

Both of you have correct math(s). You're talking about two different ideas.

And to whomever said I didn't do my research:
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

I may not have stated exactly what this says (so sue me), but I think it gives a general idea...

[72o]

Actually the maths is faulty as also is clearly your understanding of it, concentrate hard or let your 8 year old Niece spell it out for you ;

Government spending is currently 37% of 14.2 Trillion = 5.25 Trillion.
OP wishes 62% decrease so we would have 62% of the current 37% = 23% of 14.2 Trillion = 3.26 Trillion . 3.26 Trillion as a percentage of 14.2 Trillion = 23% NOT 14% as indicated by the OP.
I trust you can follow that , with or without the help of your Niece and her building bricks

Both of you have correct math(s). You're talking about two different ideas.

And to whomever said I didn't do my research:
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

I may not have stated exactly what this says (so sue me), but I think it gives a general idea...

Wow, a page by "The War Resisters League" says that government spending is more than half of the federal budget. Something clearly contradictory by a controversial source like the Congressional Budget Office is surely a fallacy then.

[Titanic]

And some other group wouldn't have come up with it? Are you seriously this dumb? You think that without government we wouldn't have any of that stuff?

http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/history/inventednet.html

The government did NOT invent the internet. Neither did Al Gore.

The government didn't invent cars! Nor cell phones! Nor any of that other shit! holy f*ck man. i bet you think the government invented the sky and water and the stars and cow farts.

The government did invent the internet (but not the WWW, that was Sir Tim Berners-Lee).

Other things that the government has invented - the computer (Alan Turing during WWII), the microwave, the microchip (and about 90% of the stuff that goes in computers/laptops/cameras etc..), smoke detector, solar panels, etc...

Also, the government is the largest funder of science and innovation so most the stuff that pharmaceuticals come out with which are actually beneficial to society and not some profit making drug will have government funding, everything that comes out of publically funded universities is government funded and most the stuff that private firms make for defence contracts with government funds and government funded.

Oh, and also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_budget

The graph at the top shows defence to be the second largest part of the budget, but the small print states "Chart excludes US$188 billion earmarked towards "activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the war on terrorism" which means that defense actually becomes by far the largest portion of the budget.

[Snorri1234]

And some other group wouldn't have come up with it? Are you seriously this dumb? You think that without government we wouldn't have any of that stuff?

http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/history/inventednet.html

The government did NOT invent the internet. Neither did Al Gore.

The government didn't invent cars! Nor cell phones! Nor any of that other shit! holy f*ck man. i bet you think the government invented the sky and water and the stars and cow farts.

The government did invent the internet (but not the WWW, that was Sir Tim Berners-Lee).

Who was working for CERN at the time, which is funded by the governments of several European states. The dude is brilliant, but it's the resources from the government that made it possible. (Perhaps he would've done it without working there, but that's unlikely.)

[72o]

The graph at the top shows defence to be the second largest part of the budget, but the small print states "Chart excludes US$188 billion earmarked towards "activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the war on terrorism" which means that defense actually becomes by far the largest portion of the budget.

Look at the chart that bedub posted. It's from the wikipedia article I posted earlier.

The President's budget for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

* Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)
o $695 billion (+4.9%) - Social Security
o $453 billion (+6.6%) - Medicare
o $290 billion (+12.0%) - Medicaid
o $0 billion (-100%) - Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
o $0 billion (-100%) - Financial stabilization efforts
o $11 billion (+275%) - Potential disaster costs
o $571 billion (-15.2%) - Other mandatory programs
o $164 billion (+18.0%) - Interest on National Debt

* Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)
o $663.7 billion (+12.7%) - Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
o $78.7 billion (-1.7%) - Department of Health and Human Services
o $72.5 billion (+2.8%) - Department of Transportation
o $52.5 billion (+10.3%) - Department of Veterans Affairs
o $51.7 billion (+40.9%) - Department of State and Other International Programs
o $47.5 billion (+18.5%) - Department of Housing and Urban Development
o $46.7 billion (+12.8%) - Department of Education
o $42.7 billion (+1.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
o $26.3 billion (-0.4%) - Department of Energy
o $26.0 billion (+8.8%) - Department of Agriculture
o $23.9 billion (-6.3%) - Department of Justice
o $18.7 billion (+5.1%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
o $13.8 billion (+48.4%) - Department of Commerce
o $13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of Labor
o $13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of the Treasury
o $12.0 billion (+6.2%) - Department of the Interior
o $10.5 billion (+34.6%) - Environmental Protection Agency
o $9.7 billion (+10.2%) - Social Security Administration
o $7.0 billion (+1.4%) - National Science Foundation
o $5.1 billion (-3.8%) - Corps of Engineers
o $5.0 billion (+100%) - National Infrastructure Bank
o $1.1 billion (+22.2%) - Corporation for National and Community Service
o $0.7 billion (0.0%) - Small Business Administration
o $0.6 billion (-14.3%) - General Services Administration
o $19.8 billion (+3.7%) - Other Agencies
o $105 billion - Other

Now, do you need a math lesson also?

[john9blue]

Well sorry, I'd think the first result from Googling "us government spending on military" would be accurate. I guess I wasn't feeling lucky...

ANYWAY the point still stands...

[Snorri1234]

The graph at the top shows defence to be the second largest part of the budget, but the small print states "Chart excludes US$188 billion earmarked towards "activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the war on terrorism" which means that defense actually becomes by far the largest portion of the budget.

Look at the chart that bedub posted. It's from the wikipedia article I posted earlier.

Numbers and stuff

Now, do you need a math lesson also?

Uh...those numbers say exactly what Titanic is saying.
Number one is Social Security. Second is Defense, but with that $118 billion that is not included Defense goes in first.


Are you dumb or something?

[thegreekdog]

So what makes up the bigger portion of the budget?

Defense... or entitlements?

Do we need to determine what elements of that list are defense and what elements are entitlements?

[72o]

The $118B was from the page Titanic referenced, which was the 2008 budget. The facts I just quoted are the 2010 budget, which, you will notice, says "includes overseas contingency operations". That's the war on terror stuff. In the 2010 budget, Social Security alone is bigger than the DOD spending including that stuff.

Besides, that's an invalid comparison, because we were talking about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (collectively the "social programs") in comparison to the defense spending. If you want to divide the social programs up, why don't you also divide up "defense spending" into Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard?

[Snorri1234]

Actually the maths is faulty as also is clearly your understanding of it, concentrate hard or let your 8 year old Niece spell it out for you ;

Government spending is currently 37% of 14.2 Trillion = 5.25 Trillion.
OP wishes 62% decrease so we would have 62% of the current 37% = 23% of 14.2 Trillion = 3.26 Trillion . 3.26 Trillion as a percentage of 14.2 Trillion = 23% NOT 14% as indicated by the OP.
I trust you can follow that , with or without the help of your Niece and her building bricks

Both of you have correct math(s). You're talking about two different ideas.

And to whomever said I didn't do my research:
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

I may not have stated exactly what this says (so sue me), but I think it gives a general idea...

Wow, a page by "The War Resisters League" says that government spending is more than half of the federal budget. Something clearly contradictory by a controversial source like the Congressional Budget Office is surely a fallacy then.

Taking out Social Security is actually a very good way of looking at the budget. The money raised by the social security tax is only used for spending on social security. In essence, that means it is a seperate entity because the money isn't given to the government to spend but given to the government to keep. For social security the government acts like a bank, they're not spending the money, they're giving it back to those who previously paid into the fund.

Interestingly, the Defense-number does not include spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security or veteran affairs.

[Titanic]

Now, do you need a math lesson also?

Maybe you need an economics lesson. 2010 is a horrible year to look at a budget to prove the effects of social spending. It was written in the middle of the largest recession in 70 years and as anyone with a basic economic understanding knows during recessions tax receipts go down and social spending goes up, thus making the proportion allocated to social spending higher during those years then in the norm (which is why I used the 2008 budget).

[72o]

Actually the maths is faulty as also is clearly your understanding of it, concentrate hard or let your 8 year old Niece spell it out for you ;

Government spending is currently 37% of 14.2 Trillion = 5.25 Trillion.
OP wishes 62% decrease so we would have 62% of the current 37% = 23% of 14.2 Trillion = 3.26 Trillion . 3.26 Trillion as a percentage of 14.2 Trillion = 23% NOT 14% as indicated by the OP.
I trust you can follow that , with or without the help of your Niece and her building bricks

Both of you have correct math(s). You're talking about two different ideas.

And to whomever said I didn't do my research:
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

I may not have stated exactly what this says (so sue me), but I think it gives a general idea...

Wow, a page by "The War Resisters League" says that government spending is more than half of the federal budget. Something clearly contradictory by a controversial source like the Congressional Budget Office is surely a fallacy then.

Taking out Social Security is actually a very good way of looking at the budget. The money raised by the social security tax is only used for spending on social security. In essence, that means it is a seperate entity because the money isn't given to the government to spend but given to the government to keep. For social security the government acts like a bank, they're not spending the money, they're giving it back to those who previously paid into the fund.

Interestingly, the Defense-number does not include spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security or veteran affairs.

I disagree. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. If you don't know what that is, search "Bernie Madoff". It's not being "saved" by the government for me. There's no "account" with my name on it with all of my money in it. The government is not a bank. They are taxing me, to pay for old people today. When I am old, they (theoretically, although I am sure this will not be the case) will be taxing working folks to pay for me. I will almost certainly draw less from Social Security than I pay in. That's not a fucking bank. That's a shitty annuity at best.

If you read my post above, you would see that the defense number includes the overseas contingency operations. It doesn't include homeland security, because that's not DOD activity. That's US Customs and Border Protection activity.

[Snorri1234]

So what makes up the bigger portion of the budget?

Defense... or entitlements?

Do we need to determine what elements of that list are defense and what elements are entitlements?

I think it's rather silly to include "entitlements" as part of the budget to be honest.

[72o]

Now, do you need a math lesson also?

Maybe you need an economics lesson. 2010 is a horrible year to look at a budget to prove the effects of social spending. It was written in the middle of the largest recession in 70 years and as anyone with a basic economic understanding knows during recessions tax receipts go down and social spending goes up, thus making the proportion allocated to social spending higher during those years then in the norm (which is why I used the 2008 budget).

I was comparing dollars, not proportions. You're making the claim that if the economy was better, we'd be spending less on Social Security and more on defense spending?

[72o]

So what makes up the bigger portion of the budget?

Defense... or entitlements?

Do we need to determine what elements of that list are defense and what elements are entitlements?

I think it's rather silly to include "entitlements" as part of the budget to be honest.

[Snorri1234]

I disagree. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. If you don't know what that is, search "Bernie Madoff". It's not being "saved" by the government for me. There's no "account" with my name on it with all of my money in it. The government is not a bank. They are taxing me, to pay for old people today. When I am old, they (theoretically, although I am sure this will not be the case) will be taxing working folks to pay for me. I will almost certainly draw less from Social Security than I pay in. That's not a fucking bank. That's a shitty annuity at best.

Don't try to act like I don't know all that.

f*ck, I know the comparison to a Ponzi scheme and also realise why that is only a superficial comparison. Ponzi schemes are inherently unsustainable, while social security works as long as the money going in is roughly equal to the money coming out.

Yes there are problems with a pay as you go system like Social Security, but they're not because it's a Ponzi scheme but because of the population not being stable. (The babyboomers are at fault.)

If you read my post above, you would see that the defense number includes the overseas contingency operations. It doesn't include homeland security, because that's not DOD activity. That's US Customs and Border Protection activity.

Customs and Border Protection are riddled with stuff only there because of the war on terror. That is Defense whether you like it or not.