What are you talking about, that is not big enough! We need to bring our military budge to larger than all the rest of the world's military budget combined. Then we can just take what we need, heck with free trade, we just want "free".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined [6] and is over eight times larger than the official military budget of China. (Note that this comparison is done in nominal value US dollars and thus is adjusted for purchasing power parity.) The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority). In 2007, US military spending was above 1/4 of combined industrial and agricultural production in the USA. Military discretionary spending accounts for more than half of the U.S. federal discretionary spending, which is all of the U.S. federal government budget that is not appropriated for mandatory spending.[7] In 2003, the United States spent about 47% of the world's total military spending of US$910.6 billion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Reagan had to do something to fix the damage made by Carter. So the answer is to tax everyone and everything even more?
Read the caption that goes with that pie chart: The pie chart (right) 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 graph. (with the large graph showing 36%)
You think social security should not be a part of the pie chart when it is in shambles and such a huge part of the problem?
It is important to remember that the pie chart shows the budget. At least early on in the war a large percentage of the money came from additional requests which weren't part of the budget. I'm not sure to what extent that goes on right now.
They are not part of the budget. They are a seperate trust fund, and aren't part of the budgetary process. They will be a problem something like 30 years down the line, but not now. Right now SS is net positive. It's about the only thing that isn't in shambles. So it is not part of this problem and it is not part of the budget. It should not be considered when discussing "problems with the budget".
Just because it is currently being funded by the social security tax does not mean it should not be shown on an informal budget to show how much the .gov is spending.
Also I am not sure where you got your info we will be fine for 30 years. Benefits will exceed incoming funds within a decade.
The source is the Social Security Administration. There have been decades of surplus. When year-to-year net income exceeds expenditures, it does not equal insolvency because they have a much larger volume of assets which were excess from previous years. [rquoter] In the annual Trustees Report, projections are made under three alternative sets of economic and demographic assumptions. Under one of these sets (labeled "Low Cost") the trust funds remain solvent for the next 75 years. Under the other two sets (the "Intermediate" and "High Cost"), the trust funds become depleted within the next 35 years. The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees' best estimate of future experience. The Trustees believe that extensive public discussion and analysis of the long-range financing problems of the Social Security program are essential in developing broad support for changes to restore the long-range balance of the program. [/rquoter]
Except it doesnt work that way anymore. Nuclear weapons are a great equalizer. You pretty much have to respect the sphere of influence of other countries according to their nuclear capability. We can spend 20x of China's budget on defense if we want. They only have to make sure they can 'reach' us with their nukes. Only the defense industry is loving all the money splashed on weapons that will never be used.
you are aware all that money is gone right? The "fund" is a bunch of bonds and their 30+ year projections are based upon interest it was supposed to be earning this whole time. Its not like they have a huge pile of cash in a bank somewhere. Once the output exceeds input which is soon, it will be more public debt to make it work.
