[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 59 KB, 500x329, us-taxes-2009.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2775164 No.2775164 [Reply] [Original]

Why? Sigh, /sci/

>> No.2775169

obama is bush-lite?
who would have guessed?

>> No.2775179

There is still a president?

Why?

>> No.2775193

Stop samefagging.

A lot of the money (Read: most) that goes into US military spending is used on technology such as computers and space travel. The reason why the US files it under "Military Spending" is because people are more willing to accept that over "Mars Colony materials research". The high-ranking US military official who said this has a name that escapes me.

>> No.2775195

the US political system is a illogically designed clunker. its impossible to get anything done.

this fact has been common knowledge for the past 100 years, but previously, our position in the world was good enough to increase standard of living, even with a completely inadequate failure of a political system, but this will no longer be possible, now that our position in the world is much lower.

>> No.2775196
File: 3 KB, 480x400, compass.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2775196

>>2775169

I really hoped that he wouldn't be. Clearly his aim is to serve two terms rather than his base. The two-party system has always been about big business, and peoples' movements are always co-opted by either one.

I think it'd be grand if our politicians, doctors, lawyers, generals etc were required to wear insignia of their donors / kickback providers that were proportional in size to how many favors they owe them. What would happen........

>> No.2775202

Military industrial complex

>> No.2775205

>>2775164
That's just the federal spending. State and municipal governments spend less on military.

>> No.2775217
File: 13 KB, 363x364, 53.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2775217

>>2775205
>just federal spending
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

>> No.2775251

>>2775193
Sounds like bullshit to me.

"Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation" makes for only 11% of the total budget. And most of this has to do with weapons, a small part will go to robotics and some crumbs to true civil matters afaik.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

A source would help clarifying what you're talking about.

>> No.2775270

>>2775251
>>A source would help clarifying what you're talking about.
Yeah, it certainly would. But necessity doesn't make my memory any more clear. The quote was cited on this board less than three months ago.

>> No.2775283

Wait, I saw the federal budget and 60% of our taxes goes towards military spending....

>> No.2775288

Biased chart that clumps "military" spending into one huge chunk and splits the social programs into several smaller chunks. At least with military spending it's a lot easier to follow where the money is going.

Broken chart is broken

>> No.2775302

This is only federal.
This looks like it is only discretionary.
Around 5% of GDP is spent on defense, which represents around 1/6 or possibly 1/5 of total Federal spending, and around 1/10 (roughly) of total government spending in the US.

>> No.2775311

>>2775283
That's not even close to true. Federal spending is north of $3.5 trillion. Defense spending is less than $700 even if you count shit like WWII vet pensions. And that doesn't count state or local spending, which is something like another $1.5 trillion on top of that, with around zero going to defense.

>> No.2775333

>>2775311

less than 700. lol. source?