• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pie chart - WHERE YOUR INCOME TAX MONEY REALLY GOES

Status
Not open for further replies.
MTAtech said:
Sorry, if you are going to be a strict constitutionalists, you can't pick and choose what you are strict and then lax on those things you lick. You can't be strict on other things that didn't exist at the time -- such as some argue that Congress can't regulate the airwaves but then give a pass when it comes to the Air force. The Constitution specifically mentions the Navy and an army in Article 1, Section 8. It doesn't mention anything else. To a consistent strict constitutionalists, that would mean that we would need a constitutional amendment to include the Air Force. Anything else is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

call it the army air corps as it once was. No problem. and why do I get the feeling you really don't have much use for the constitution as it was written?
 
jaeger19 said:
Please point to where the constitution provides for a standing army... please point to where money can be appropriated for a term of more than two years.

Please point to where it provides for supporting nuclear power

Please point to where it provides for a space program and satellite technology

Please point to where it provides for hydroelectric power.
Click to expand...

why are you asking me this?
 
lizzie said:
Historically, I have not found that site to be consistent or accurate at all.
Click to expand...
Yep, looks pretty erroneous, especially lumping Homeland security into the military.

I get this when graphing the 2013 numbers from the OMB site. Table 3.2:

omb table 3-2 2013.JPG


22.41% Social security
17.45% National Defense
14.78% Income Security
13.71% Medicare
9.87% Health
6.08% Net Interest
3.83% Veterans Benefits and Services
2.53% Transportation
2.01% Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
1.45% Administration of Justice
1.28% International Affairs
1.05% Natural Resources and Environment
0.89% Community and Regional Development
0.81% Agriculture
0.80% General Science, Space, and Technology
0.76% General Government
0.30% Energy
 
Bob N said:
Here. I'll make this look different, OK?

spending_-_discretionary_pie_2014.gif
LINK
Click to expand...

I wonder how many here know the difference between discretionary spending and mandatory spending?
 
Heck even in running a business the difference between these two expense types affects how the business plans ahead and handles monthly spending. While one type of expense is flexible in terms of decreasing costs, the other is fixed to ensure the business operates as expected.
 
vesper said:
Heck even in running a business the difference between these two expense types affects how the business plans ahead and handles monthly spending. While one type of expense is flexible in terms of decreasing costs, the other is fixed to ensure the business operates as expected.
Click to expand...
Yep.

I wonder if these people think you can choose to treat your lease like discretionary spending and pay less on your lease for the next budget year?

Maybe they do that with their rent, or house payment...
 
Lord of Planar said:
I wonder how many here know the difference between discretionary spending and mandatory spending?
Click to expand...
I wonder how much of the discretionary spending becomes mandatory--especially when it comes to the military? ;)
 
katsung47 said:
Pie chart - WHERE YOUR INCOME TAX MONEY REALLY GOES

Non-MILITARY: 55% and $1,580 BILLION
Total Outlays


https://www.warresisters.org/sites/default/files/2015 pie chart - high res.pdf
Click to expand...

So you want to make Defense spending the boogieman. hmmmm. can we talk Mandatory Spending for just a moment?

In Obama's proposed budget, mandatory spending is estimated to be $2.458 trillion. That's an all time new record. This is 63% of total Federal spending, and three times greater than the military budget. What's mandatory spending? Here's a breakdown

•Social Security - $896 billion
•Medicare - $526 billion
•Medicaid - $336 billion
•Federal Employee Retirement - $139 billion
•Veterans Pensions - $79 billion
•SNAP (Food Stamps) - $78 billion
•Earned Income Tax Credit - $58 billion
•Supplemental Income to disabled children and adults - $56 billion
•National Highways - $43 billion
•Child Tax Credit - $22 billion
• State Child Nutrition - $21 billion
•TANF (welfare) - $17 billion
•Veterans Education - $14 billion
•Mass Transit - $12 billion
•CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) - $11 billion
•Farm Subsidies - $11 billion
•Crime Victims Fund - $8 billion
•Foster Care - $7 billion
• TARP (home loan modification program) - $6 billion
•All other mandatory programs - $76 billion. (Source: OMB, FY 2015 Budget, Table S-5; Table 25-12)

When one realizes that currently it takes the payroll taxes of 3.3 persons to pay the Social Security check of one retiree with the burden becoming even greater on our youth as all the 78 million baby boomers start receiving their checks, it's not working

If people really cared about "the children" they wouldn't be so willing to agree to this feckless spending which results in massive debt. When you see the numbers for Medicare/Medicaid alone, those innovative ideas such as vouchers for the elderly to purchase their own health coverage in the private sector looks really good about now. Giving states block grants to deal with Medicaid would save billions in fraud and waste alone. Not to mention the savings in repealing Obamacare. By shrinking the size of the federal government would mean less federal employees' pensions to be funded. And by paying down the debt would save billions in interest payments. Although not officially a part of the Mandatory budget, the interest on the national debt is also mandatory. For 2015, it's projected to be $251 billion.

And here you thought it was all the fault of Discretionary Defense spending, one of the few things in the entire budget that is constitutionally sound.
 
Bob N said:
I wonder how much of the discretionary spending becomes mandatory--especially when it comes to the military? ;)
Click to expand...

The Bipartisan Budget Act allows $522.272 billion for defense spending. In Obama's budget the figures for Defense are $495.6 billion for the base budget. But the Prez also requested $85.4 billion to wind down the War in Afghanistan. It's funded by Overseas Contingency Operations the new political correct term for War on Terror and is outside the Budget Act.
 
TurtleDude said:
call it the army air corps as it once was. No problem. and why do I get the feeling you really don't have much use for the constitution as it was written?
Click to expand...
The Constitution, as it was written, sanctioned slavery and didn't call for women to vote. So, in that sense, I don't have much use for that language. Yet, the writers knew that they couldn't foresee the future, so they wrote the document vaguely, to allow future generations to interpret it in their times.

But let's call conservatism what it is, hypocrisy. While now that a black Democrat is in office, conservatives became strict on personal rights. That wasn't the case just a few years ago when they gave a pass to the Bush government tapping phones without court order; putting Americans in jail on claim charges of "enemy combatant" -- without charges or legal defense; rendition and torture.

Moreover, when conservatives are out of power they take on the traditional conservative ideology; limited government, state's rights, balanced budgets, etc. When they control the federal government, as they did ten years ago, they no longer care about protecting the sovereign rights of the states; they don't care about budget deficits or individual freedoms. Conservatives say they respect state sovereignty but when they controlled Congress, conservatives have no compunction about using their federal muscle to overrule the Supreme Court of the sovereignty State of Florida because they didn't like the court's ruling on the Terry Sciavo case. In that case, the court ruled that Sciavo's husband had the right to decide her medical life-support. Conservatives in Congress didn't like that decision and in an utter display of hypocrisy, passed a special bill to yank jurisdiction from Florida. Pres. Bush flew in special just to sign it. Fortunately, the federal courts declared their actions unconstitutional.

So don't preach to us as if conservatives have the high-ground when it comes to respecting the constitution.
 
MTAtech said:
The Constitution, as it was written, sanctioned slavery and didn't call for women to vote. So, in that sense, I don't have much use for that language. Yet, the writers knew that they couldn't foresee the future, so they wrote the document vaguely, to allow future generations to interpret it in their times.

But let's call conservatism what it is, hypocrisy. While now that a black Democrat is in office, conservatives became strict on personal rights. That wasn't the case just a few years ago when they gave a pass to the Bush government tapping phones without court order; putting Americans in jail on claim charges of "enemy combatant" -- without charges or legal defense; rendition and torture.

Moreover, when conservatives are out of power they take on the traditional conservative ideology; limited government, state's rights, balanced budgets, etc. When they control the federal government, as they did ten years ago, they no longer care about protecting the sovereign rights of the states; they don't care about budget deficits or individual freedoms. Conservatives say they respect state sovereignty but when they controlled Congress, conservatives have no compunction about using their federal muscle to overrule the Supreme Court of the sovereignty State of Florida because they didn't like the court's ruling on the Terry Sciavo case. In that case, the court ruled that Sciavo's husband had the right to decide her medical life-support. Conservatives in Congress didn't like that decision and in an utter display of hypocrisy, passed a special bill to yank jurisdiction from Florida. Pres. Bush flew in special just to sign it. Fortunately, the federal courts declared their actions unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Liberalism is the ultimate hypocrisy

rich elites who do very little to earn wealth other than hold office-pander to people like you by telling you those pimps will give you the wealth of others so you vote them into office where they get rich and you stay where you are

rich elites tell you they care for the "common man" yet they do everything possible to keep people addicted to government and DEPENDENT. rich elites that tell you that they support choice but they don't really mean that when it comes to your own property or self defense rights.

The religious wing of the conservative movement is fascist. but the leftwing is built on a complete lie-that its leaders actually CARE about the poor
 
TurtleDude said:
Liberalism is the ultimate hypocrisy

rich elites who do very little to earn wealth other than hold office-pander to people like you by telling you those pimps will give you the wealth of others so you vote them into office where they get rich and you stay where you are

rich elites tell you they care for the "common man" yet they do everything possible to keep people addicted to government and DEPENDENT. rich elites that tell you that they support choice but they don't really mean that when it comes to your own property or self defense rights.

The religious wing of the conservative movement is fascist. but the leftwing is built on a complete lie-that its leaders actually CARE about the poor
Click to expand...
As Bill Maher remarked, "the difference between rich Republicans and real Democrats is that the latter votes against their economic interest for the benefit of the country."

On this "dependency" meme, throughout human history the poor were left to starve and die in the streets and it didn't provide them the incentive to lift themselves out of poverty. Yet, conservatives contend the poor are worse off with government help.

This meme is thrust upon Americans to swallow which happens to serve the interests of the wealthy conservatives that benefit from those policies. Modern conservatism uses the smoke-screen of self-reliance, individualism and character to mask policies which are self-serving, bigoted and cruel. The cadre of conservative billionaires don't want to pay higher taxes that will be used to help "those people." Thus, they invent a myth that the best way to help the poor is to NOT provide them any help at all. This way, according to them, their misery will give the poor the incentive to become educated and industrious. As I said earlier, this has never worked in all of human history.

Their objective is to keep taxes on the rich low and keep government out of their hair. But these people's numbers are small, so they need to fund propaganda groups like the Heritage Foundation to create false data and spread the message to middle-class conservatives, who are generally stupid enough to swallow their lies. Thus the pro-life conservative-leaning worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically.
 
MTAtech said:
As Bill Maher remarked, "the difference between rich Republicans and real Democrats is that the latter votes against their economic interest for the benefit of the country."

On this "dependency" meme, throughout human history the poor were left to starve and die in the streets and it didn't provide them the incentive to lift themselves out of poverty. Yet, conservatives contend the poor are worse off with government help.

This meme is thrust upon Americans to swallow which happens to serve the interests of the wealthy conservatives that benefit from those policies. Modern conservatism uses the smoke-screen of self-reliance, individualism and character to mask policies which are self-serving, bigoted and cruel. The cadre of conservative billionaires don't want to pay higher taxes that will be used to help "those people." Thus, they invent a myth that the best way to help the poor is to NOT provide them any help at all. This way, according to them, their misery will give the poor the incentive to become educated and industrious. As I said earlier, this has never worked in all of human history.

Their objective is to keep taxes on the rich low and keep government out of their hair. But these people's numbers are small, so they need to fund propaganda groups like the Heritage Foundation to create false data and spread the message to middle-class conservatives, who are generally stupid enough to swallow their lies. Thus the pro-life conservative-leaning worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically.
Click to expand...

depending on a hypocritical asshole like Maher is hilarious. and when that scumbag was asked why he doesn't give the IRS MORE MONEY after he complained about Bush cutting tax rates he hemmed and Hawed. Rich liberals are rich because of government. The morons who idolize rich liberals for example worship Warren Buffett for saying death taxes ought to be higher. But they are too stupid to understand that one of Buffett's most lucrative business interests are the sales of life insurance people like me buy to offset the death taxes. GEt rid of DEATH taxes and BUFFETT loses millions upon millions.

its time for people like you to stop whining that your lot in life is due to the "rich"
 
TurtleDude said:
depending on a hypocritical asshole like Maher is hilarious. and when that scumbag was asked why he doesn't give the IRS MORE MONEY after he complained about Bush cutting tax rates he hemmed and Hawed. Rich liberals are rich because of government. The morons who idolize rich liberals for example worship Warren Buffett for saying death taxes ought to be higher. But they are too stupid to understand that one of Buffett's most lucrative business interests are the sales of life insurance people like me buy to offset the death taxes. GEt rid of DEATH taxes and BUFFETT loses millions upon millions.

its time for people like you to stop whining that your lot in life is due to the "rich"
Click to expand...

Your argument seems to be that liberals who favor public policies that tax wealth higher are hypocrites if they fail to donate money to the government when rates aren't higher. That's just a canard. I can donate all of my income to the government and it won't make a dent in overall government revenue. That's why it's necessary to establish it as law, so that those rates apply to all.
 
MTAtech said:
Your argument seems to be that liberals who favor public policies that tax wealth higher are hypocrites if they fail to donate money to the government when rates aren't higher. That's just a canard. I can donate all of my income to the government and it won't make a dent in overall government revenue. That's why it's necessary to establish it as law, so that those rates apply to all.
Click to expand...


wrong-I laugh at deluded sheep who buy the BS of rich liberals because those sheep think those rich liberals actually care about the flock
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong-I laugh at deluded sheep who buy the BS of rich liberals because those sheep think those rich liberals actually care about the flock
Click to expand...

Yes, I know what you think. You put your faith in rich plutocrats, who care about all of us. That's why they are utmost interested in eliminating estate taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes and paying for it by eliminating social programs.
 
Bob N said:
Here. I'll make this look different, OK?
Click to expand...

It isn't different. It is just misleading.

This is a picture of discretionary spending which is a small amount of spending. FOR EXAMPLE, where is the interest cost which is $400+ billion? Where is the cost of the state department in this? The cost of embassies and the like. My guess is that it is in the military.

If you exclude most of the spending the government does, and misclassify much of the rest, what is the point of your chart again?
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
It isn't different. It is just misleading.

This is a picture of discretionary spending which is a small amount of spending. FOR EXAMPLE, where is the interest cost which is $400+ billion? Where is the cost of the state department in this? The cost of embassies and the like. My guess is that it is in the military.

If you exclude most of the spending the government does, and misclassify much of the rest, what is the point of your chart again?
Click to expand...
That's people that makes charts for you. Mix and match. ;)
 
KLATTU said:
The biggest believers in a massive Federal Government ( which is most assuredly what we have) are politicians who benefit by providing it.
Click to expand...

It's very easy to lose a million dollars in a big pile of money. If states took control it would be harder to lose a million dollars here, a million dollars there. Whoops where did that go?

Yes. There are very many people that benefit from federal spending on the unofficial side of things that could not be replicated at state, county or city level of government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i would challenge you on the army, i remember reading Madison on the subject, and he states the u.s. can have a army, BUT it was confined to a certain number...i do not remember what that number was off hand.
Click to expand...

Madison's writings are not legally binding documents. The same goes for Jefferson, Adams and Washington. The constitution is the legal binding document where all laws must derive. Laws not based on the constitution are illegitimate. Laws based on Madison's writings are equally illegitimate even if he did sign the constitution.

Turtledude will be giving us a pie chart shortly seperating constitutional spending and non-constitutional spending. When he does that we will all know the difference.
 
ernst barkmann said:
no, but to make it legal ...an amendment needs to be created and passed, ..do you think any state is going to shoot it down?

simple amendment:

"to create and provide for an "Air force"
Click to expand...

Wouldn't such an amendment imply that the government has operated illegitimately since 1947? This sounds like a recipe for all kinds of chaos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom