Where your tax dollar goes pie chart

Hmm....

The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (above).






Always hiding the costs of war....

The chart above does not have the breakdown, or the detail, and is therefore deceptive.  While one may argue that SS is a trust fund, we all know that to be a lie.  There is no lock box with trillions of dollars in it

No Defence, you go tthat chart from WarResisters.com.  If you're going to use a chart, please use one from an objectie source.

Past military is treating interest of the debt as if it primarily came from military spending, it did not.  It also takes out Medicaid, Medicare, and Social security.

If you want to participate in meaningful debates, don't get your numbers or stats from Democratic Underground like sites. And don't assume that others posting aren't informed enough to know the propaganda.

For others wanting to know where Deference got his chart:

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

Feel free and look at the page and decide for yourself whether it's an objective source. (incidentally, "off budget" items do end up in the pie chart eventually, i.e. my 2000 chart took all the off budget items passed after the 1999 budget and incorporates them).

While one may argue that SS is a trust fund, we all know that to be a lie. - Dr. Guy

Social Security is a trust fund that is continually robbed from by our 'representatives' which is why it is insoluble.

The chart above does not have the breakdown, or the detail, and is therefore deceptive. While one may argue that SS is a trust fund, we all know that to be a lie. There is no lock box with trillions of dollars in it

Exactly. SS isn't a trust fund. It's pay as you go. It is paid via current taxes.  Therefore it belongs as part of the budget.  Besides, it's incredibly disengenous of anyone who is trying to argue that interest on the debt should be treated as "past military" (which is nonsense to begin with, even by their crazy numbers, only 30% of the debt is from military spending) to not count SS.  If you don't want to count social security you can't count interest on the debt and I would argue both must be counted.

Exactly. SS isn't a trust fund. It's pay as you go. It is paid via current taxes.
- Draginol

A common mistake, but actually....

Social Security and Medicare trust fund revenues come from separate, dedicated payroll taxes - not income taxes, and benefits are paid from the trust funds, not general revenues. - FCNL (Friends Comittee on National Legislation)

You are incorrect Deference.  I'm sorry but you can play semantics all day but SS has always been a pay as you go system.  You can call it whatever you want but it is not, legally, a trust.  The revenue you pay is not put into any account. It is immediately paid out. It has nothign to do with "robbing" (A % of it has been used in the budget but that has to do with the SS surplus).

It is a pay as you go system. Period. 

The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund. The OASI Trust Fund began in 1937; the DI Trust Fund in 1957. These trust funds are managed by the Department of the Treasury. - http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html

Looks like the Social Security web page is telling us it is a trust fund (or a compilation of them).

Whew, this reminds me of the time I tried to convince somebody the Federal Reserve is actually a private entity.

If you want to participate in meaningful debates, don't get your numbers or stats from Democratic Underground like sites. And don't assume that others posting aren't informed enough to know the propaganda. - Draginol

Don't claim sources from here, don't claim sources from there, whatever, I can get a source from wherever I like and I don't appreciate you attempting to smear my sources by claiming them to be DU-Like. Obviously you are the one assuming others posting aren't 'informed enough' by ringing the hazard bell.

Let people read the information for themselves, warresisters.org explains how they arrive at their numbers and how the government pie chart hides the cost of military spending.

Semantics aside, I find it intresting to note that their chart is based-at least in part- on their beliefs of what MIGHT have happened if there was no military spending - which is NOT the case.

"*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we BELIEVE if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page."

So that chart is based on a situation that does not exist.

I read that, and apply it. In reading other reports from other groups the most realistic number for military spending is somewhere between 42% and 62%. Nice to see an eye for detail.

Don't claim sources from here, don't claim sources from there, whatever, I can get a source from wherever I like and I don't appreciate you attempting to smear my sources by claiming them to be DU-Like. Obviously you are the one assuming others posting aren't 'informed enough' by ringing the hazard bell.

If you want to participate on MY blog (i.e. draginol.joeuser.com that is) then you'll source your charts.

Moreover, if you're going to use a far left site as your "source" then I'm going to call you on it.

I don't expect observers of these discussions to have to keep an eye out for someone reposting propaganda.

Moreover, if you're going to use a far left site as your "source" then I'm going to call you on it. - Draginol

I did neglect the source(s) originally on this thread, I was not able to edit that first post to reflect the sources. I did post those sources in Taxes-Do We Pay Enough? post # 31 where you visited and interacted with me.

WWW Link

I have listed the source and am still awaiting your response detailing why you see it as far left.

Because of the content of the site.  The site has a far left agenda of eliminating the US military in order to spend money on more social programs and essentially create a socialist Utopia.

So how do I know this? Because they say this:

http://www.warresisters.org/about_wrl.htm

I can't tell whether you're genuinely unable to tell why this site is a fringe left wing site or whether you're so far left that you don't see socialism as being far left.  They are also dishonest with their statistics which is something I find particularly annoying (such as assigning 80% of the interest on the debt to paying for past wares, that's just flagrant). They take all social programs as being a given and take that right out of the budgets -- not just social security but medicare and medicaid.

The reason I'm all over you about your chart is that I had already posted a pie chart based on a non-partisan source that breaks down the categories. IF someone wants to lump things together or take things out they can out of mine.  But in your chart, the warresistors.org people have already done all the pesky thinking for you.

That's one of the things about that site that aggravates me -- they tell you what to think and keep the actual data to work from to a minimum. It's a classic example of what I was talking about here. Liberals are much more likely to rely on sites that tell them what to think whereas conservatives tend to want sites that present the data to form their own opinion.

I believe you're being sincere, Draginol and I appreciate that.

However, I don't see any mention of socialism at WRL and I don't believe there is anything stated in the 'About WRL' that 'the left' can or should hold exclusive right to.
Let's look at a few passages, shall we?

We use peaceful means to create a society that is democratic, free of economic, racial, and sexual oppression. - About War Resistence League

Let me see...

Democracy? You're up for that, right Draginol?

Economic, racial, and sexual oppression?

I don't believe you feel in oppressing other people through economic means or because of their race or sex - right Draginol?

We know that even where there seems to be "peace," the suffering of homelessness, hunger, lack of medical care, and poverty is as violent to those upon whom it is imposed as any war. - War Resistence League

Certainly, Draginol, you have empathy for the homeless and the hungry. Surely you feel poverty is not befitting human dignity unless chosen. To help heal those in need, the League, with it's scarce resources, relying upon donors and volunteers works peacefully to help heal these sores of humanity.

I think these values are very universal. Christians, Jews, Muslims and even athiests can certainly appreciate the values that many laws of this land are written to assist in enforcing.

I am guessing you have not had much exposure to peace movement groups and so probably feel WRL's approach to be radical and unfamiliar leaving you with only one way to describe them - the utter fringe of the left wing, when they most certainly are not.

As you may have read, the League has been present since World War One and has not affiliated itself with, given credit to, or patronized any political party within it's 73 year existence.

Please rethink your judgement of War Resistence League.

Now, on to our charts.

I would first ask for the source of your pie chart. You have said it comes from an impartial source, but I don't know what source that is. I checked the location of the image thinking I may be able to find out what web site it was from but instead found it sitting in a temp file on Stardock servers. Where did you find the pie graph, Draginol?

They are also dishonest with their statistics which is something I find particularly annoying... - Draginol

Well, you know what Samuel Clemens says about statistics.

There are many ways to juggle numbers and manipulate them with graphs and charts, such as when you used a color coded map to depict military spending in correlation to nation's GDP making military spending seem less then what it was to the casual viewer. Surely, the representation seemed a bit deceptive, but it still held true to the numbers.

War Resistence League did exactly the same thing. Only difference between them and your pie graph is that they explained how they represented the numbers and were the source.

They take all social programs as being a given and take that right out of the budgets -- not just social security but medicare and medicaid. - Draginol

You were incorrect in the first place in guessing Social Security was not a trust fund. Now that I have provided you that information:

The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund. The OASI Trust Fund began in 1937; the DI Trust Fund in 1957. These trust funds are managed by the Department of the Treasury. - Link

I wanted to assure you that Medicaid and Medicare are also trust funds.

Each year the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds report on the current status and projected condition of the funds over the next 75 years. This message summarizes the 2006 Annual Reports...

Link

Definition of Trust Fund from Dictionary.Com

trust fund:
 
1. money, securities, property, etc., held in trust.

2. a government fund administered separately from other funds and used for a specified purpose: a highway trust fund.

Social Security is not part of the Federal Budget general fund. It is a separate account and has its own source of income. Social Security payments do not go into the general fund, they go in the Social Security trust fund, and should NOT be counted as general revenue. The trust fund is supposed to be used to pay future benefits. - http://www.federalbudget.com/

Hopefully you now have a better grasp of why WRL does not include Trust Funds in it's chart of our budget.

WRL continues to explain it's representation in military spending numbers in the big yellow box entitled 'Why do Percentages Vary from Group to Group?'.

Regardless of whether you feel WRL to be incorrect or disengenous, you will still find other groups watchdogging the budget with numbers of higher military spending then the fifteen percent your FY2000 (before Defense spending lurched into another period of accelerated growth right after climbing out of a shallow valley) anonymous pie chart gives.

You know which ones:

Center for Defense Information - 51%

Friends Committee National Legislation - 42%

Now, Draginol, I'll leave you with some of what Ike said,

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. - Ike Eisenhower, In His Farewall Address; January 17, 1961

I'm really disappointed that someone like Draginol who is on the cusp of having enough influence to actually matter in our politics, and who also is openminded enough to personally argue over politics on his blog, is faced with an opposition making statements like "Social Security is a trust fund that is continually robbed... which is why it is insoluble." (Insolvent is the word.) No wonder he thinks liberals are a little inferior. Brad, people who come to argue are a different breed than people who come to think, so judge liberals by their own comment threads, not how they look in yours. This is probably as close as you'll ever get to a real live liberal, though, so at least it's something.

The 2004 chart is at h ttp://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=federal_budget&list=8 . Not as well presented as your version but I do disagree with your interpretation that it only differs by "interest on the debt which has shrunk and military which has grown slightly." Military's share has grown by 33%, to 19.9%, meaning it's now bigger than Medicare + Medicaid and lagging only Social Security. And as far as I'm aware, that doesn't even include the $100-billion plus going to the Iraq war, which is financed with offbudget resolutions. Can't tell, because there are no sources. Deference really should have sourced that chart -- not only for documentation, but also because a chart that reveals its assumptions and methods gains a credibility advantage. (Just because these charts are the official government statistics doesn't mean they're not "propaganda" -- in fact, you'd almost expect the reverse, though not so much in America.)

"Social Security is a trust fund that is continually robbed... which is why it is insoluble." (Insolvent is the word.) No wonder he thinks liberals are a little inferior. - Noumenon

Welcome, Noumenon!

It's good to have a spelling and grammar checking professional on the premises. Though I'd once again have to say I'm having severe issues editing some posts, I'd be glad to simply roll over on that issue and insist that you become Chief Spelling and Grammar Checking Inspector at JU.

You may first want to begin (naturally) with this thread, starting at the top of the page. As you work your way down, you will eventually run in to Draginol's post #3 wherein the first sentence alone you will find he mispelled my handle, added an additional 't' to 'tthat' and dropped a 'v' from 'objectie'.

Congratulations on your new job, you should be very proud...and make sure to call everyone who slips up and can't edit their post an 'inferior liberal' whithout providing any other reason as to why. I gotta' love that baseless smear.

Deference really should have sourced that chart -- not only for documentation, but also because a chart that reveals its assumptions and methods gains a credibility advantage. - Noumenon

Yes, I too made it through Jr. High English class. Didn't stop there either. You were just a bit too eager to suck Draginol's butt you failed to read that I did actually provide my source here Link when I originally posted the charts.

It's also funny you missed my point that Draginol never provided a source for his graph, but that's okay, you seem to miss a lot of things. Maybe you shouldn't be Chief Grammar and Spelling Inspector.

Noumenon...

Sounds like a Pokemon. Get the f*ck outta' here Pikachu, and thanks for the pie chart, it was another one showing how out of date and inaccurate Draginol's was.

Despite the wording of the act that created SS, the operation was not like a REAL trust fund to fully fund some later payments to the retired. It was understood that from time to time monies paid into SS would be greater then the benefits paid out and at times the reverse would be true.

When, the system was created there was no block of money put into the trust fund to fully fund those that began drawing out in the years soon after the system was created. Their benefits were paid from current taxes. Today the system is generating about $170 Billion MORE then it pays out. That will end when the baby boomers retire in large numbers and the number of people working paying their SS taxes do not equal the people drawing retirement.

There are two issues with the federal budget. First, most of the federal spending is predicated on promises made to our citizens by our government. SS, Medicare, Retirement, Interest on the debt. When you look at those elements of the budget that could be cut without breaking the promises made and those elements like national defense, Homeland defense and other essential government services, the amount that COULD be cut is small unless you cut essential elements or fail to keep the promises made by our government.

The second issue is that we have been spending far more then we have taxes collected. That has produced an ever-increasing debt and the amount in interest we MUST pay will go to $500 Billion per year by 2010. The interest on the debt in 1979 was $60 billion.

The second issue is that we have been spending far more then we have taxes collected. That has produced an ever-increasing debt and the amount in interest we MUST pay will go to $500 Billion per year by 2010. The interest on the debt in 1979 was $60 billion.

We know, we know! And according to you we should repeal all the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes. Right? Col, I sorry but you have become waaaaaay to predicable!

I'm sorry, Deference. It was a cheap shot, shorthand for my dissatisfaction with the discussion. I just feel that Draginol should be losing these arguments in the comments, because he's at a time disadvantage and isn't very aware of his opponents' point of view. But it's not happening here. He ends up arguing with people that can be refuted with a link to a mortgage calculator, as in that KFC thread.

If you Google "War Resisters League" "Republican Convention" it looks like they are pretty into partisan politics. The appeal to universal values is standard. Listen to Bush talk about democracy and freedom some time, doesn't mean he's a liberal.

(How do you make links on this forum? I thought it was [ link ] like the GalCiv forum but it's not working for me.

Draginol is just wrong ont his one.

Social Security is a trust fund that has been pilfered illegally. Our defense budget isn't "Slightly" higher, it is almost double, and about as high as every other country in the world combined. What in gods name do we need to spend money on defense like that for? My guess, to line the pockets of the Bush family coffers, they have been war profiteers since the 40's helping the germans arm for war. If anything, this administration and majority congress have taught us that the conservative agenda just doesn't work for this country, and they have us going down the wrong path, the path of doom and destruction and budgetary disaster. Anyone that believes bush is a true conservative is a moron.

Bush desperately needs to be impeached for disregarding his oath of office, violating our constitution, and trashing the bill of rights. Just the mere issue of his "Signing Statements" on the bottom of bills he signs is an impeachable offense. Where is the outrage for those unconstitutional and illegal line item vetos? I fully believe once this administration is judged in history, it will be deemed to have been a criminal empire.

www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060807/OPINION02/608070301/1009/OPINION04

"Deference really should have sourced that chart -- not only for documentation, but also because a chart that reveals its assumptions and methods gains a credibility advantage."

I do not agree that this is always the case. While generally true that a source that states its methods and the locations of its information can be trusted more tahn a site that does not this credibility depends on the locations and methods sited. Also, credibility is subjective - I do not believe that a site that bases its chart on ficticious situations has any level of creditability

"Deference really should have sourced that chart -- not only for documentation, but also because a chart that reveals its assumptions and methods gains a credibility advantage."

I do not agree that this is always the case. While generally true that a source that states its methods and the locations of its information can be trusted more tahn a site that does not this credibility depends on the locations and methods sited. Also, credibility is subjective - I do not believe that a site that bases its chart on ficticious situations has any level of creditability

Just the mere issue of his "Signing Statements" on the bottom of bills he signs is an impeachable offense.

Better re-read the constitution, as you seem to have forgotten what it SAYS and does NOT Say.

And just a suggestion.  The comments are for statements of opinion and fact.  Facts should be linked to back them up.  Opinions dont have to be.  Why link to someone else's opinion, just state your own.

As for social security being a trust fund -
www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/em940.cfm
www.uschamber.com/issues/index/retirementpension/socialsecurity/trustfundmyth.htm
Even the President of the United States says there is no trust fund
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7393649/
My point is not to debate the solvency of social security only to point out that the SS Trust Fund is completely different from any other trust fund available and is, thus, a trust fund in name only

(sorry for all the posting - I recievd an 'error while posintg' and now there are 2 posts)