http://wheredidmytaxdollarsgo.com/tax_payers[/quote] Well it is less than the ND, but not by much. BTW the link calculated my effective tax rate incorrectly, that or I am getting away with paying less tax than I should. Edit: Just kidding NSA agent reading this, I pay "my fair share". So basically Income security is the same as Social Security for the poor, dang, add both parts of the pie chart and we are talking real money.
Maybe we should copy the Swiss, and I don't mean their gun policies: http://www.slate.com/blogs/business..._giveaway_2_800_a_month_for_all_citizens.html In a way it makes sense. You don't like the way we spend your money? Here, have it, no more SNAP or SS or Medicare or whatever.
Perhaps we need to look at what it is, that our soldiers & officers actually do: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/military/military-careers.htm And how many there are in each rank: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/promotions/l/blofficerprom.htm Does the army need 3,500 colonels? Does the navy need more admirals than ships?
1. We don't have "more admirals than ships" AFAIK. Something like 220 to 280... 2. I'd be very surprised if we didn't need something close to as many Admirals as ships in active service-- there are always "little Admirals" serving under "bigger Admirals," many Admirals in charge of stations, yards, installations, academic Admiral, diplomatic Admirals, intelligence Admirals, Admirals who are finishing up paperwork immediately prior to retirement, plus supernumerary Admirals so that if someone has a heart attack or is killed in the line of duty there's someone to replace him, etc etc. 3. We'd almost surely be better off getting rid of Lieutenants rather than Colonels, and better off getting rid of Privates rather than Lieutenants...
Getting closer, then. http://news.antiwar.com/2013/05/03/more-admirals-than-ships-americas-bloated-navy-leadership/ There are far too many of both LTs & COLs. http://www.army.mil/info/organization/unitsandcommands/oud/ http://www.army.mil/info/organization/unitsandcommands/commandstructure/ A lot of "desk admirals" in the army! http://www.army.mil/info/organization/unitsandcommands/corps/ http://www.army.mil/info/organization/unitsandcommands/divisions/ 3 corps + 15 divisons = 3 Lt. Generals, 15 Major Generals & 15 Brigadier Generals 33 generals, out of 300. http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130626/NEWS05/306260012/ There will be 32 BCTs & "95 ... combat battalions across the BCTs ... each BCT will have about 4,500 soldiers" That's 32 colonels & about 200 LTCs. The BCTs could each get a new commander every month for 8 years, and then the promoted LTCs would replace them. Ticket-punching is a favorite pastime among the officer corps, building those resumes for the Pentagon. Nothing like a company command for a captain & a battalion for a Lt. Colonel.
http://www.navy.mil/CommandDirectory.asp Some may ask why there are 3,200 O-6 Captains, with less than 300 navy vessels, and why some of them can't command some of those installations. Reserves are good, but how many? 4,000 platoons could each use a Lieutenant, 25% of the total 15,000 First & Second LTs. Company, battalion & brigade HQ sections can also use LTs as aides. Of course, they're full of majors, too. 32 BCTs need 32 Colonels, 1% of the 3,500. All chiefs and no Indians, eh?
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/12/7_absurd_ways_the_military_wastes_taxpayer_dollars/ "As of 2010 ... there are 963 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces. This number has ballooned by about 100 officers since 9/11 ... a retired U.S. army colonel and now a military analyst ... says the military needs only a third of that number. ... a large number of these generals are essentially lobbyists for the Pentagon ... brass creep" "According to a Washington Post investigation, each top commander has his own C-40 jet, ... chefs ... drivers, security guards, secretaries and people to shine their shoes and iron their uniforms. ... A New York Times analysis showed that simply the staff provided to top generals and admirals can top $1 million" each.
No it does not. Spending in the military is huge (700 billion dollars), is in a big part wasteful and could be reduced drastically without really affecting the economy or the world order in significant ways: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melvin-goodman/nine-ways-to-reduce-defen_b_2808002.html On the other hand, SNAP is a fairly cheap program (80 billion dollars) and is a good investment in our own future and wellness: http://www.salon.com/2013/12/04/gop_debunked_on_food_stamps_everything_they_say_about_snap_is_wrong/ Social Security is not only a successful program that keeps seniors out of poverty, it is self funded and requires minimum tax adjustments to keep being self sufficient for the foreseeable future: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...-tax-cap-is-the-best-fix-for-Social-Security# Medicare is also a good investment and its costs are actually going down: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/08/medicare-costs-down-down-down
How much did Social Security cost when it got started? how much does it cost now? (in terms of Contributions by the taxpayer/employer) Do the same fore Medicare, and then see how small the adjustments have been.
And something funny happened when I looked at similar charts for defense expenditures: Soooo... In practical terms the GDP is around 16 trillion dollars and government expenditures are around 3 trillion dollars or 19% of GDP. We collect around 18% of it in Federal Taxes, much of it dedicated to SS (6% of GDP) and Medicare (3% ). Then we assign 5% to defense and then we have to do for the rest of the programs with 4% which won't do so we pay the extra 1% with debt. This changes my perspective on military spending a little bit and changes the conversation more to the revenue side of it.
BTW our spending was 3.5 Trillion. or 23% of GDP. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_estimate_vs_actual_2012_XXbs1n
Another BTW Our projected numbers for 2013 (using 16T for economy) Spending 3,454 = 21.5% Revenues 2,774 = 17.3% Not sure where you 19% number came from (probably some chart). http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_estimate_vs_actual
As usual, you tried to spin something that I didn't even say. My original point, and the reason I started this thread, was to state that we can reduce our military spending without having any effect on our actual military, if we could eliminate the waste. Never once did I get into the other programs.
You would think with the sequester, the military would go after the waste before they cut any specific military program, same with all other departments, the sequester would be a great opportunity to trim the fat.
In these situations like all similar ones, there is never an agreement as to what is the waste and the fat.
If you read the article I attached to the first post, our military has no idea where it's money goes. It hasn't been audited in almost 10 years.
I'm sure this doesn't make the military unique among govt agencies. As far as I know there is no legal requirement at the federal level for agencies to be regularly audited.
Do you know the act? If so its rarely recent. I'm sure congress or a member can have GAO do some auditing on an ad-hoc basis but since congress doesn't want to appropriate for what the fed govt already does I'm sure they don't want to appropriate for audits. State, local govts & others that receive fed funds must be audited but I don't remember if a similar requirement exists for the feds.
I've worked for the Air Force, NASA, and the Bureau of Reclamation. I don't recall USAF, but I know that NASA and BOR was audited regularly by an outside independent auditor - Price Waterhouse being one of the more prominent ones. I don't know if that is just agency internal regs or if it's actually written into law.