Us Government Spending Broken Down...

[Leilin]

Why does everyone have a unique perspective on history. It is so annoying. The internet did not begin with private industry, it was a military invention paid for by government spending. That was DARPA by the way. The SRI played a significant role in making the internet what we know as today. They are private, but they receive many grants from the government for their research. If you want to talk about computers, who paid for the development of Eckert and Mauchly computer while they were working at the University of Pennsylvania.

The answer to why is simple: People make two assumptions in succession:

1: You are entitled to your opinion, therefore all opinions are equally valid.

2: Therefore, you are also entitled to your own facts.

The post previous to yours is a great example of that second one. The level of departure from reality that it takes to spin that vigorously is almost depressing.

[mikejackson999]

What I meant is the government still does good things. I am just saying it is not all bad, but people like to categorize. Yes, congress is terrible, but federal grants for research is not. Unfortunately, when you guys mention cutting things beside defense, medicare/medicaid, and Social Security, the cuts show up in areas such as these grants for research. Everyone has a different view of what wasteful government spending is.

As far as what the Democrats campaign slogan should be, it is "we are better than the other guys." lol.

Depends on what the federal grants are for though

Recently I looked into some of these grants and what I found shocked me:

1. in 2010, a university in California was awarded $250K in federal grant money to study whether gay men's penis sizes had anything to do with what side they preferred. How exactly is this a needed study?

2. in 2009, A university in Indiana was awarded $500K to study the sex habits of a particular snail. Again, why was this needed?

3. n 2010, a university in California was awarded $1,5 million to study the differences in strategies between American and Japanese players of World of Warcraft. I am still trying to figure out why this was needed

4. n 2008, a university in Iowa was given $3.2 million to study whether snakes would cross roads at snake crossing points(they didn't). like that money couldn't be used better

5. in 2011, $1.2 million went to a university in Illinois to study whether Chicago Cubs fans suffer a higher degree of depression than Chicago White Sox fans. yep I am sure the world is eagerly awaiting the results of this study

6. in 2010, $1 million went to Ohio to create a program for "voicemails for the homeless" I am sure the person living out of their car is happy they have free voicemail on their phones

7. in 2011, $238K went to a town in Montana for a minor league baseball stadium. Only problem? The stadium was already paid for with private money, so this money was not needed, yet it got sent anyways. the public wants the money returned, but the feds say no

8. 2010 $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa. Whats the use?

9. 2010 $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York. why?

Yes I am sure that the Govt is spending grant money wisely. I mean those 9 grants above were worth the taxpayers money right? The Govt spends over $25 billion a year on grants, its time for them to start reigning in those grants when they serve absolutely no purpose to the world at all

[Leilin]

Not that I doubt many of those, Mike, but do you have evidence for all of that?

Edit: Oh, wait. I see. You shouldn't copypaste from things touted by right wing blogs. They're often missing major facts, when they're based in facts at all. Many of the points that you make in that list do not accurately represent reality. I'll be glad to debunk them later today, after work, but you can do that yourself with a quick google of the key terms of each one. Some of them are even on Snopes.

Early sample:

The study on Gay men's penis size vs. preference.... isn't. http://www.springerlink.com/content/p33v713p3x761n7u/

The study on American and Japanese WOW players was $100K, and on American and CHINESE WOW players and a behavioral science study, using WOW as a basis. Are you saying that all behavioral science study is invalid? http://gamepolitics.com/2008/09/17/prof-gets-100000-grant-study-world-warcraft. That particular university (UC Irvine) has a whole department working on this sort of thing and their entire department has secured around 3 million in grants, total.

The "voicemails for the homeless" program was state funded, not federally funded, and those programs have actually had success in other states (some of them privately funded) with helping the homeless to get jobs. It may seem nonsensical, but only if you aren't examining the whole picture.

On pig odor: They're doing that to combat the complainers who have raised hell about agrarian towns smelling funny when they drive by. If you want to blame someone for that, blame the NIMBY nuts.

And finally, Grapes, in the form of Wine, raisins, and other Grape products, are a major American economic driver. Thus, research on them in a concentrated fashion has the potential to vastly improve that output.

Whether you agree with the bases for these studies, it is best to use actual facts here and many of these studies do have valid reasoning for existing, even if you happen to disagree with that reasoning. Furthermore, All of those itemsCOMBINED cost less than a single fighter jet for the military which already has both the first and second most powerful air forces in the world. COMBINED. Shouldn't we go for the BIG fat that we can trim first?

[DiaperPony]

Democrats: cut defense, but don't touch entitlement/social programs (in fact make those larger)

Republicans: cut social programs, but don't touch defense (make that larger)

Libertarians: cut both, don't make anything larger

Both Republicans and Democrats are a joke to me when it comes to cuts. The fact is we can't afford to keep the social programs (exponential growth) and can't afford to be the world's police. I really hope those "horrible" across the board cuts will happen later this year, but I know they won't. Sadly, even if they did, it'd still be a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be cut. I don't really expect the severity of cuts we need to actually happen. Too many people are employed by government (directly or indirectly), or surviving on social programs. They're never going to vote for the type of people that would actually solve the problem. I've seen articles mocking tea party members for voting against their best interests (talk about short-sighted journalism), and the desired tea party cuts are mild. So nope.. we'll end up like Greece with forced cuts. It won't happen overnight, but we'll get there eventually. Grandma will still get pushed under the bus and our country defenseless, and all that rhetoric. Sure our country will be in ruins, but hey at least they'll be able to say "we had no choice". Except... we do have a choice. Make the needed cuts now when we might still have a chance to save our nation from that economic fate. People survived without all this crap before. They can again.

[Diapered Jason]

Depends on what the federal grants are for though

Recently I looked into some of these grants and what I found shocked me:

1. in 2010, a university in California was awarded $250K in federal grant money to study whether gay men's penis sizes had anything to do with what side they preferred. How exactly is this a needed study?

2. in 2009, A university in Indiana was awarded $500K to study the sex habits of a particular snail. Again, why was this needed?

3. n 2010, a university in California was awarded $1,5 million to study the differences in strategies between American and Japanese players of World of Warcraft. I am still trying to figure out why this was needed

4. n 2008, a university in Iowa was given $3.2 million to study whether snakes would cross roads at snake crossing points(they didn't). like that money couldn't be used better

5. in 2011, $1.2 million went to a university in Illinois to study whether Chicago Cubs fans suffer a higher degree of depression than Chicago White Sox fans. yep I am sure the world is eagerly awaiting the results of this study

6. in 2010, $1 million went to Ohio to create a program for "voicemails for the homeless" I am sure the person living out of their car is happy they have free voicemail on their phones

7. in 2011, $238K went to a town in Montana for a minor league baseball stadium. Only problem? The stadium was already paid for with private money, so this money was not needed, yet it got sent anyways. the public wants the money returned, but the feds say no

8. 2010 $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa. Whats the use?

9. 2010 $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York. why?

Yes I am sure that the Govt is spending grant money wisely. I mean those 9 grants above were worth the taxpayers money right? The Govt spends over $25 billion a year on grants, its time for them to start reigning in those grants when they serve absolutely no purpose to the world at all

Lol, I would not presume to know what those research projects are for without reading their abstract. I want to hit you over the head though, because you do not have the right to determine the validity of that research and neither do I. Since you provided examples, let me tell you about some of the major research topics I know that is mainly funded by federal grants that private industry won't touch on their own.

-My old research, which was heavily related to electrochemistry, was greatly funded by the DoE

-New drug delivery systems that can carrier DNA drugs to the nucleus of a cell or pass the blood brain barrier

-New photovoltaic cells based on optoelectronic polymers that are extremely cheap

-The next generation of the microprocessor that is based off of quantum dots

-New materials that have a very high electrical conductivity, but have a very low thermal conductivity thus allowing efficient Peltier devices

-Semiconducting organic materials to replace LEDs and carbon-based FETs for the next generation of displays

-New methods for corrosion protection to replace chromate coatings, because chromate coatings are not good for the environment

-New electro-optic materials for fiber optic communications that have faster switching speeds thereby increasing the bandwidth

-Self-assembly of molecules to create tailored nanostructures

This is your future. When they cut federal research grants, these things go away.

[Diaper Mike 05]

Oh, and the government cannot create jobs. Also BS. Just because you have lost all faith in the government doesn't mean you should take it away from everyone else. You would not have been able to type your message here without the big bad government spending. Yes, that is right, through government funding the internet was created. I will agree that some of government spending is a waste but who are you to say it is all a waste. Do not fall for the one-sided approach politicians create to garner attention for themselves.

No, they can't. The government cannot create needed PRIVATE sector jobs. We don't need more government jobs, which is all they can create. The only thing that the government can do is create an environment in which job creation has probability to occur, and with Obamacare, and regulatory uncertainty, those who create jobs aren't and are holding onto money to keep the company viable and keep the share prices up if applicable (and those who have a 401k want share prices to be good or else your 401k goes bad).

[Diapered Jason]

No, they can't. The government cannot create needed PRIVATE sector jobs. We don't need more government jobs, which is all they can create. The only thing that the government can do is create an environment in which job creation has probability to occur, and with Obamacare, and regulatory uncertainty, those who create jobs aren't and are holding onto money to keep the company viable and keep the share prices up if applicable (and those who have a 401k want share prices to be good or else your 401k goes bad).

Um, they can, just not in the way you are mentioning. I am referring to programs like NASA which created so many government jobs and also have a high multiplicity factor in that there were also many jobs created in the private sector. Hey, I do not like Obama either, but you are taking the extreme position. There is some regulation and government spending that can and should be removed, but it should not all be removed. In fact, I would advocate an increase in spending in the places that make a difference for our future (infrastructure, research, etc.), but as I have explained, when you people talk about cutting government spending outside of defense, medicare/medicaid, and social security, the future is the first thing to go.

[DiaperPony]

So all those private sector inventions and research before government grants were what.. just a fluke? Nope, private sector inventions happen all the time. Private sector research is also continuous (companies have R&D budgets). You mention NASA.. right now there are private companies working on aerospace programs (yes there's that token govt prize money, but it's symbolic compared to the cost of what they are undertaking). Computer chips? Like Intel or AMD aren't researching, or even IBM, which I think came out with a smaller chip process not too long ago? Speaking of IBM, they file tons of patents every year, I think I read that they were a patent leader. Those are inventions, they took research, etc. Sure academics come up with some stuff. But when we're talking about bringing things to market (you know, all that dirty profit and such, I know I know, liberals hate those evil companies and their profits) private industry kills academia. There is absolutely no need for government to steal money from me and give it to some researcher. No need to quote some list of all the wonderful inventions that you think wouldn't have happened without government stealing from me, because I think almost anything government can do, the private sector can do more efficiently. And the nice thing there is I can choose to give my money to a company, where government forces it from me. Government bureaucracy and waste holds us back, it does not help our future.

[Diapered Jason]

I guess I am doing a horrible job of explaining things. I am not saying the private sector is bad and does not do their fair share of improving this nation. That is an extreme position too. Intel and AMD do research, but it is mainly focused on creating larger wafer sizes with smaller features using the equipment they already have (i.e. their next product). They also commit quite a few grants to academic research as well, but you should know academia research is focused on technology that is more than a few years off, whereas private industry is focused on the here and now. In fact, private industry often takes technology developed in the lab at some university and incorporates that into their next product. That is the goal of academic research. Saying there is absolutely no need for the government to fund research is ignorance at best. First and foremost, there are national security concerns. I hope Sandia National Laboratories rings some bells, but they get plenty of funding from the DoD no matter what.

If people still do not know what my position is after all these posts, I'll give up.

[Ryan23A]

Yeesh there are so many little things that make the problem of over spending in government. I just hope that the politicians can come to an agreement without partisanship on cutting spending. If not then we Americans will have to march to Washington D.C. to make them work together. That is all this country is people working together then this would be a bit better to take care of.

[Leilin]

So all those private sector inventions and research before government grants were what.. just a fluke?

Nobody said that. The fact that government funded research does good (Yes. This is a fact. People who attempt to disprove it have yet to succeed in doing so without overlooking major facts or using logical fallacies) does not affect the fact that privately funded research also does good. They are not exclusive statements in the least.

No, they can't. The government cannot create needed PRIVATE sector jobs. We don't need more government jobs, which is all they can create. The only thing that the government can do is create an environment in which job creation has probability to occur, and with Obamacare, and regulatory uncertainty, those who create jobs aren't and are holding onto money to keep the company viable and keep the share prices up if applicable (and those who have a 401k want share prices to be good or else your 401k goes bad).

Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

Evidence:

Boeing

Lockheed

Blackwater

Cisco Systems

Any company contracted for the maintenance, repair, building, cleaning, IT, etc. for any public facility (This is thought of as being at least partially in the public sector, as well as other task-outsourcing).

... and that's totally ignoring the private sector jobs that government funding indirectly creates.

The funny thing is that Republicans have been touting the same line which you gave us, while simultaneously complaining that cuts in defense spending would result in job losses. You truly cannot have it both ways. Either government spending creates jobs, or it does not (Note: The Democrats aren't much better about inconsistency such as this, but this particular issue is a consistent Republican party line in both regards and therefore something which they deserve to be criticized for).

[ldatsea]

while Gov spending does create a few jobs the whole society cant all work for the gov... so you cannot rely on the Gov to create jobs to level we need. so you have to make the climate for companies to create job growth and you cant force them, you have to give incentives .... when costs go up companys dont "eat it" they pass it along so raising taxes does not really in the long run effect companies but everyone that buys or uses what the company uses or creates... so that thinking is flawed raising the taxes on the rich always eventually raises the taxes on everyone else down the food chain.... but if we put more people to work more people pay taxes and revenue increases, I am all for cutting many loopholes and such but that "revenue" generated will not in the long run effect the millionaires and billionaires.

[Leilin]

while Gov spending does create a few jobs the whole society cant all work for the gov... so you cannot rely on the Gov to create jobs to level we need. so you have to make the climate for companies to create job growth and you cant force them, you have to give incentives .... when costs go up companys dont "eat it" they pass it along so raising taxes does not really in the long run effect companies but everyone that buys or uses what the company uses or creates... so that thinking is flawed raising the taxes on the rich always eventually raises the taxes on everyone else down the food chain.... but if we put more people to work more people pay taxes and revenue increases, I am all for cutting many loopholes and such but that "revenue" generated will not in the long run effect the millionaires and billionaires.

This is pretty much true, but you need to remember that when costs go down, companies also rarely pass those savings along to the public, ESPECIALLY when those companies have regional monopolies. Companies that cater to consumers will only raise costs inasmuch as it will protect their ability to sell their wares. Right now, 100 percent of the loopholes and subsidies going to the oil companies are profit. They do not need those subsidies, which are meant to encourage companies to do business here, and I'd be willing to wager that a lack of those subsidies with some much needed readdition of regulation would not result in much more of a change in the pocket than the companies have given us without government intervention.

All of the loopholes need to be closed. ALL of them. The BS theory that a company should have the same rights as a person needs to be written out of law unless they intend to start giving the companies the liability of a person too. The ability of a company (especially a foreign company) to anonymously fund a campaign needs to end. Now. Several of these concepts are bipartisan and ALL of them are bad for America.

Lastly, Trickle-down Economics, both in raises and in lowerings of taxes has been proven to be complete and utter bullcrap.

Currently, the rich are taxed at their lowest. rate. Ever.

How much of that money has trickled down to other income classes?

Many of them pay a lower effective income tax rate than the middle class, severe lack of fair taxation on their methods of income. There needs to be taxation of capital gains beyond a threshold. The current tax tiers are not progressive. They are not fair. They are regressive.

[DiaperPony]

We disagree on a lot.. but I definitely agree with you that there should not be government subsidies of companies. Neither should there be government bailouts, no matter how "big" the company was.

[Diapered Jason]

I agree too. What I would of liked to have seen rather than a bailout is a nationalization of the banks that were about to fail kind of like how we dealt with GM in the end, because the bailouts did not have the effect intended or did they.

[ldatsea]

This is pretty much true, but you need to remember that when costs go down, companies also rarely pass those savings along to the public, ESPECIALLY when those companies have regional monopolies. Companies that cater to consumers will only raise costs inasmuch as it will protect their ability to sell their wares. Right now, 100 percent of the loopholes and subsidies going to the oil companies are profit. They do not need those subsidies, which are meant to encourage companies to do business here, and I'd be willing to wager that a lack of those subsidies with some much needed readdition of regulation would not result in much more of a change in the pocket than the companies have given us without government intervention.

All of the loopholes need to be closed. ALL of them. The BS theory that a company should have the same rights as a person needs to be written out of law unless they intend to start giving the companies the liability of a person too. The ability of a company (especially a foreign company) to anonymously fund a campaign needs to end. Now. Several of these concepts are bipartisan and ALL of them are bad for America.

Lastly, Trickle-down Economics, both in raises and in lowerings of taxes has been proven to be complete and utter bullcrap.

Currently, the rich are taxed at their lowest. rate. Ever.

How much of that money has trickled down to other income classes?

Many of them pay a lower effective income tax rate than the middle class, severe lack of fair taxation on their methods of income. There needs to be taxation of capital gains beyond a threshold. The current tax tiers are not progressive. They are not fair. They are regressive.

If the highest rate of 35% were raised by a factor of 20% to 42%, then the additional tax revenue would be $43.5 Billion, not much of a dent in $1,665.0 Billion. So, let's raise the rate by a factor of 50% to 52.5%; the additional revenue would be $108.9 Billion. Still nowhere near enough, so let's just tax it at a rate of 100%, bringing in an additional $404.8 Billion. Unfortunately the country is still $1,260.0 Billion in the hole for the year.

[Diapered Jason]

If the highest rate of 35% were raised by a factor of 20% to 42%, then the additional tax revenue would be $43.5 Billion, not much of a dent in $1,665.0 Billion. So, let's raise the rate by a factor of 50% to 52.5%; the additional revenue would be $108.9 Billion. Still nowhere near enough, so let's just tax it at a rate of 100%, bringing in an additional $404.8 Billion. Unfortunately the country is still $1,260.0 Billion in the hole for the year.

I think if you want to balance the budget through taxes, you have to raise taxes on everyone by at least about 10%, but it is only fair the rich pay more taxes, relatively speaking of course.

[ldatsea]

you cant balance the budget on taxes its that simple

[Diapered Jason]

You can, but it is not very ideal though. I think letting the bush tax cuts expire would go a long ways, but we will definitely need to cut spending too. Certainly, raising taxes alone or cutting spending alone will not fix the problem.

[ldatsea]

maybe but the democrats wont cut their pet projects and the republican wont raise taxes so we will be in the same place when they get back from vacation...

[dogpiss]

Not one of my favourite topics, but here goes.

Government spending when it comes to military actually produces a product. The biggest problem with defense spending is the bureaucracy. Defence spending helps the private sector in terms of spin-offs. Composite airframes (as found in the Boeing 787), GPS navigation and even digital photography were born with combat boots on. It stimulates the economy in that it enables stability in a dangerous world, outside of arms exports, that's pretty much the real extent of the stimulation. The US spends so much on defence due to the fact that a lot of the US has interests world wide, and a lot of countries ride the defence set forth by the US (with much defence spending being essentially discretionary for them). But to cut a rant short, defence spending only indirectly stimulates the economy save exports.

Generic government spending doesn't help a damn thing! Do the US need no less than half a dozen bureaucrats to decide how large the lettering needs to be on a box of frozen veg (sadly, I'm not making up this case)? Does spending more for bureaucrats in the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management "stimulate" anything? Regulators added to various government departments often create complex conflicting and burdensome regulations. Sometimes good, but most of the time bad and over-reaching. I've been the victim in my line of work with two MASSIVE US laws, Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) and HIPPA. Sometimes these laws conflict and each one claims to be the most important. Legal at my company told me the only thing to do was make the best decision I could and hope the government doesn't come after me. I could be personally liable for choosing the "wrong" thing years down the road. (My specific instance is that HIPPA says I CAN'T keep a record and SOX says I MUST). That doesn't make anyone's life better. Government is often like a dinosaur in that the larger its body gets the smaller its brain gets. Government is most likely to get in the way and stimulate nothing other than bureaucrats' and lawyers' bank accounts.

[Leilin]

maybe but the democrats wont cut their pet projects and the republican wont raise taxes so we will be in the same place when they get back from vacation...

Uh. You weren't paying attention during the debt ceiling debate, then?

I'll give you a clue: One party, though they didn't want to, offered to compromise with spending cuts.

The other party did not offer to compromise, and stonewalled a bill with deep spending cuts BECAUSE it had revenue increases. Several prominent members of that party said they wouldn't support one dollar of revenue increase for every ten of spending cuts. The majority of that party signed an oath that they would not raise revenue, including closing major tax loopholes that allow many very wealthy people to pay no taxes whatsoever.

Why are those people taking that oath before the oath they made to uphold the constitution? Why are those people taking that oath before the oath they made to serve the good of the country?

Democrats are guilty of a lot of things, but they are significantly less guilty than Republicans of being unwilling to compromise.

you cant balance the budget on taxes its that simple

You can't balance a budget on taxes alone. Luckily, nobody has made that assertion.

If the highest rate of 35% were raised by a factor of 20% to 42%, then the additional tax revenue would be $43.5 Billion, not much of a dent in $1,665.0 Billion. So, let's raise the rate by a factor of 50% to 52.5%; the additional revenue would be $108.9 Billion. Still nowhere near enough, so let's just tax it at a rate of 100%, bringing in an additional $404.8 Billion. Unfortunately the country is still $1,260.0 Billion in the hole for the year.

You know that payroll taxes aren't the only taxes, right? You're also completely overlooking the factor of tax loopholes.

[DiaperPony]

I actually have to congratulate them for not giving in (yet). The 16th amendment should be repealed. People need to let go of their "Robin Hood" fantasy. Taking from one and giving to another is simply not right.

[Leilin]

I actually have to congratulate them for not giving in (yet). The 16th amendment should be repealed. People need to let go of their "Robin Hood" fantasy. Taking from one and giving to another is simply not right.

And what do you call it when the middle class are taxed at a higher effective tax rate than the rich, which they currently are? Asking the rich to take an equal relative tax burden is not taxing from one and giving to another. It is asking them to pay their fair share. Furthermore, that doesn't include the massive loopholes which the ultra-wealthy are able to take advantage of but are rarely feasible for the less wealthy.

I'm curious what you think the sixteenth amendment has to do with this at all. I don't see how apportionment of tax rate to state by population would help with this issue, other than requiring another layer of unneeded bureaucracy to the tax system.

[mikejackson999]

The easiest solution to the problem is to go to a flat tax system, tax EVERYONE's income at 10% and everyone pays the same amount(10%) just if you earn more, you pay more, which is the fairest.

The main problem with letting the Bush taxcuts expire is that it will hurt the middle class just as well as the rich. In 2001, the first round of tax cuts, I started bringing home $100 more a month on average, in 2003, with the second round, I started bringing home around $130 more a month. I looked up the tax rates in 2000 and if they were to be raised to those levels again, my wife would bring home $300 less a month, but the ones making over $150K would pay more, as would the ones who earn over $250K.

Sadly all taxes have to go up, but the main reason why most are against fed taxes going up, is because most local Govt units have probably raised taxes in the past few years. My state raised its sales tax twice in 3 years(from 5 to 7%), my county tax went up 3 times in 3 years(from 0.1% to 0.5% to 1.0%), my local gas tax went up twice from 2 cents to 10 cents per gallon, and my property taxes have gone up 1% every year for the past 5 years, even though the value of my house and property is lower than it was 5 years ago. I am sick and tired of taxes being raised when the Govt can't balance its budget and refuses to get rid of bloat in payroll by trimming fat in the budgets.