Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Via NPR:

A few notes:


Everything else is everything not listed separately on the graphic. That includes education, science, NASA, energy, natural resources, justice, and agriculture, among other things.

Defense spending has shrunk significantly as a percentage of total government spending. But it remains the largest single category of federal spending. The figures in the graph include veterans' benefits as well as funding for current operations.

Medicaid, Medicare and other health services are the huge gainers here. Together, they make up a quarter of government spending. Fifty years ago Medicare and Medicaid didn't even exist, and federal spending on other health-related services made up a tiny sliver of the whole.

Safety net programs include unemployment compensation, food stamps and housing assistance. Spending on these programs surged during and after the most recent recession, as unemployment rose sharply.

Interest refers to interest the government pays on the national debt. In 1987, the interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds was around 9 percent, driving up the share of government spending that went to interest. Today, the rate on 10-year Treasuries is roughly 2 percent.

Bonus Numbers! Federal spending has grown roughly as fast as the overall economy over the past 50 years. In 1962, federal spending was $707 billion and accounted for 18 percent of U.S. GDP. In 2011, federal spending was $3.1 trillion and accounted for 24 percent of GDP. (The dollar figures are adjusted for inflation.)

Yet if you were to combine all the Welfare programs under "Welfare" like Defense is not divided up into all of its elements, research, VA, employee pay, etc.

"Welfare" would be the single largest item in the budget by a large margin. A whopping 55.6% of the budget according to your graph. More than double what is spent on Defense.

People just would not stand for that though, so it is broken down to seem like it is less.

Constitutionally, the only thing required in that budget is defense. People sure hate to hear or beleive that though too.

Combine all this with decades of "we could solve our budget problems and pay for schools if we cut defense" arguements and here we are. People are still making the same arguement, despite having slashed defense spending in half as a % of the budget in 50 years. In that same time social programs have doubled, and some things just plain invented, and failing.

Defense is only thing that is being run pretty darn well considering. We have the best trained, best equipped volunteer based fighting force in the world.

And yet they are still having trouble pacifiying a bunch of goat-herders in the mountains. Looks like all that training and gear are set up to fight a different sort of war; one that's not likely to actually occur anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I beleive in a strong military. There's just a BUTTLOAD of waste going on there, even with the 50% trim. The procurement process is the prime example: We studied the F-22 nearly to death several times... and they just recently found out the O2 system doesn't work properly. The frickin' O2 system. Something we've been putting on warplanes since the 1930s. They f****d it up, and MISSED it being f****d up, IN SPITE OF ALL THE FRICKIN' STUDIES! Tell me again how much good those studies we dumped all that money on did.

I imagine if you removed the amount of money spent on Social Security and Disability Insurance that was funded FROM Social Security and Disability Insurance PREMIUMS from the graphs, the 1962 portion would disappear, and the 1987 and 2011 portions would be significantly smaller. Of course, if Congress hadn't taken the overpayment from the years the Baby Boomers were working and spent it as general funds, the Social Security and Disability Insurance program wouldn't need half so much money out of general funds NOW.

Why do I keep repeating "Social Security and Disability Insurance" instead of using the shorthand "Social Security"? Because it's easy to dismiss "Social Security" as a government handout. What it really is, though, is an insurance policy set up in our name - and we had no choice on it, by the way - run by the government, with the premiums paid automatically - again, without any choice on our part - that promised to pay us back when we reached an age or medical condition when working for a living would be difficult if not impossible. Catch the important bits there? I bolded them to make them harder to ignore, although I imagine diehard conservatives will still manage.

It's an INSURANCE POLICY, and WE PAID OUR PREMIUMS. If your have car insurance, and your car got wrecked, and your car insurer refused payment YOU WOULD SUE - and no one would be accusing you of demanding a handout because of it either.

So why do conservatives think the customers of Social Security and Disability Insurance are any different?

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Yet if you were to combine all the Welfare programs under "Welfare" like Defense is not divided up into all of its elements, research, VA, employee pay, etc.

This was my initial reaction as well.

There's a lot of stuff that falls under the "Defense" umbrella.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vulcan wrote:And yet they are still having trouble pacifiying a bunch of goat-herders in the mountains.

Oh OT Forum...

As far as VA related expenses go, I feel that if you want to group them they should not be under welfare. Those are earned benefits and not "welfare". If anything I strongly feel that if it belongs anywhere VA costs should be included under "defense" spending since they truly represent the long-term cost of military actions.

Of course the House just passed a defense spending bill that includes billions more than they agreed to last year and more than the Pentagon asked for.

d-usa wrote:As far as VA related expenses go, I feel that if you want to group them they should not be under welfare. Those are earned benefits and not "welfare". If anything I strongly feel that if it belongs anywhere VA costs should be included under "defense" spending since they truly represent the long-term cost of military actions.

Perhaps you might research what the VA benefits actually are before committing too strongly to that line of reasoning.

Monster Rain wrote:

d-usa wrote:As far as VA related expenses go, I feel that if you want to group them they should not be under welfare. Those are earned benefits and not "welfare". If anything I strongly feel that if it belongs anywhere VA costs should be included under "defense" spending since they truly represent the long-term cost of military actions.

Perhaps you might research what the VA benefits actually are before committing too strongly to that line of reasoning.

They can be pretty much be divided into two categories:

1) Promises and delayed benefits given to soldiers in order to get them to sign up. (GI Bill, VA home loans, pensions, etc..)
2) Benefits given as a result of military actions. (Injuries, both physical and mental, burial, disability).

I simply don't feel that the cost of prosthetic limbs, physical and occupational therapy, helping people who spend their young adulthood only learning the skill of "kill the enemy" readjust to civilian live, etc..should qualify as "welfare". That is part of the true cost of war, and should be under defense.

I also feel that any authorization to go to war should be legally required to automatically increase VA funding. It is a shame that our politicians are bending over backwards to pay to send our soldiers to war, but as soon as they come back hurt and wounded they are now "welfare cases" without the funding and infrastructure in place to care for them. Maybe I am to sensitive on that matter, but calling VA benefits "welfare" is an insult to our veterans as far as I am concerned. They are earned benefits, not handouts.

The point isn't that VA Benefits should be called welfare, but it's disingenuous to lump "Defense Spending" all together as one item, since it makes it seem like it all goes towards bullets and baby-killing.

I also disagree with the idea that the only skill taught by military service is "kill the enemy". Unfortunately, when you say things like that it makes me question your knowledge on the subject matter. I don't mean that as an insult or anything, but it's the impression that I get.

Monster Rain wrote:The point isn't that VA Benefits should be called welfare, but it's disingenuous to lump "Defense Spending" all together as one item, since it makes it seem like it all goes towards bullets and baby-killing.

Well, then maybe a better way for me to describe the way I am feeling would be this: "Instead of having a slice of the pie called 'Defense' and another slice of the pie called 'Welfare' and including VA benefits in the welfare slice, maybe we should come up with a name for a slice that includes both the VA and Defense." The only other name I could come up with would be "Military" which is not really any less "bullet and baby killing" sounding than "Defense". But I do feel that VA spending should somehow be included in a slice together with Defense since it is a direct result of having a large and strong military.

Monster Rain wrote:I also disagree with the idea that the only skill taught by military service is "kill the enemy". Unfortunately, when you say things like that it makes me question your knowledge on the subject matter. I don't mean that as an insult or anything, but it's the impression that I get.

It is not the only skill taught, but a lot of our soldiers come back with an ingrained mentality of "trust nobody except your fellow soldiers, and meet hostility with hostility". The military is not really that effective with teaching life skills even if they have taught a usable trait to a soldier. Even if a veteran has a skill, they can come back to the US desensitized and not really fitting into 'normal' society. I admit that "kill the enemy is the only thing they know" is generalization that I probably used to lightly, but "there is you and them, and they will try to kill you so you must kill them first" is an integral part of military training no matter what your actual job is, and it is a mindset that is reinforced by deployment. I work with a lot of veterans who handle the adjustment to civilian life pretty well, and they will admit that the mentality that is reinforced in the military is a problem when you come back home. The majority of vets have no lasting problems with that once they adjust, and that adjustment is a part of coming back stateside. But based on having a lot of veterans in my family, as well as working with veterans on a daily basis and talking to them and hearing their concerns and stories, it is a real concern.

I don't mean to imply that soldiers and veterans are mindless killing machines, just that the military mindset is by necessity different than a civilian mindset and the transition after deployment can be hard.

d-usa wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:The point isn't that VA Benefits should be called welfare, but it's disingenuous to lump "Defense Spending" all together as one item, since it makes it seem like it all goes towards bullets and baby-killing.

Well, then maybe a better way for me to describe the way I am feeling would be this: "Instead of having a slice of the pie called 'Defense' and another slice of the pie called 'Welfare' and including VA benefits in the welfare slice, maybe we should come up with a name for a slice that includes both the VA and Defense." The only other name I could come up with would be "Military" which is not really any less "bullet and baby killing" sounding than "Defense". But I do feel that VA spending should somehow be included in a slice together with Defense since it is a direct result of having a large and strong military.

Monster Rain wrote:I also disagree with the idea that the only skill taught by military service is "kill the enemy". Unfortunately, when you say things like that it makes me question your knowledge on the subject matter. I don't mean that as an insult or anything, but it's the impression that I get.

It is not the only skill taught, but a lot of our soldiers come back with an ingrained mentality of "trust nobody except your fellow soldiers, and meet hostility with hostility". The military is not really that effective with teaching life skills even if they have taught a usable trait to a soldier. Even if a veteran has a skill, they can come back to the US desensitized and not really fitting into 'normal' society. I admit that "kill the enemy is the only thing they know" is generalization that I probably used to lightly, but "there is you and them, and they will try to kill you so you must kill them first" is an integral part of military training no matter what your actual job is, and it is a mindset that is reinforced by deployment. I work with a lot of veterans who handle the adjustment to civilian life pretty well, and they will admit that the mentality that is reinforced in the military is a problem when you come back home. The majority of vets have no lasting problems with that once they adjust, and that adjustment is a part of coming back stateside. But based on having a lot of veterans in my family, as well as working with veterans on a daily basis and talking to them and hearing their concerns and stories, it is a real concern.

I don't mean to imply that soldiers and veterans are mindless killing machines, just that the military mindset is by necessity different than a civilian mindset and the transition after deployment can be hard.

where are my boots, the bull-gak is strong with this one.

sirlynchmob wrote:

where are my boots, the bull-gak is strong with this one.

Well, ignoring my feeling on military training, I then propose this question:

Why should VA benefits be considered "welfare" instead of being considered "cost of having a large and strong military"?

I'd just like to point out that, to the best of my knowledge, I don't think anyone has advocated VA benefits being welfare, but breaking down "defense spending" into its separate components like the other portions of the graph are.

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

where are my boots, the bull-gak is strong with this one.

Well, ignoring my feeling on military training, I then propose this question:

Why should VA benefits be considered "welfare" instead of being considered "cost of having a large and strong military"?

Va benefits are not welfare. all your anecdotal evidence, if its even true, is a load of gak.

Are VA benefits a result of having a large military?

Edit: and thanks for the deep and thoughtful response to my post. The expert knowledge and wisdom provided by your though out "this is gak" makes my concede the field to such an expert.

It doesn't surprise me that defence spending has come down since 1962. After all it was the height of the cold war in which countries were facing the threat of nuclear annihilation. What militarily would you need to spend 50% of your budget on today given that the threats are very different? And you don't have conscription any more, which I assume means the armed forces are smaller and thus many costs that would go towards people in the forces are now going more towards civilian projects. Not sure why this is a problem but at least it will allow some sorts to beat their chests about the evils of socialism which is probably where this is headed.

d-usa wrote:Are VA benefits a result of having a large military?

just admit it, you don't know a single person in the military, let alone work with them.

d-usa wrote:Are VA benefits a result of having a large military?

Does it matter?

The main point being that not separating Defense Spending into its separate components is a rhetorical tactic appealing to the bias of the reader. Hell, if you did separate it out you could more easily point out where you think the waste and inappropriate allocation amounts specifically are.

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:Are VA benefits a result of having a large military?

just admit it, you don't know a single person in the military, let alone work with them.

I will be sure to send you my credentials and resume, but I am sure it will be more "gak evidence".

d-usa wrote:Are VA benefits a result of having a large military?

Edit: and thanks for the deep and thoughtful response to my post. The expert knowledge and wisdom provided by your though out "this is gak" makes my concede the field to such an expert.

my response was more thoughtful than your ignorant appeal to authority diatribe was.

Man, it was almost a civilized conversation in here for a minute.

Monster Rain wrote:

d-usa wrote:Are VA benefits a result of having a large military?

Does it matter?

The main point being that not separating Defense Spending into its separate components is a rhetorical tactic appealing to the bias of the reader. Hell, if you did separate it out you could more easily point out where you think the waste and inappropriate allocation amounts specifically are.

Very true, and it is something that would benefit everyone. I think the main hurdle has been the argument that so many projects are classified so they cannot be broken down.

My main concern was the "welfare programs should not be broken down, it should just be a big slice" argument. And how I feel that if you want to combine sections instead of breaking them down the VA should be bundled into military spending.

I also want to say that I am sorry if I came across as anti-military. That was not my intention and I have great respect for our soldiers and veterans.

d-usa wrote:I also want to say that I am sorry if I came across as anti-military. That was not my intention and I have great respect for our soldiers and veterans.

Nah, you're good.

War definitely damages people in many different ways. I don't think anyone reasonable would disagree with that.

Monster Rain wrote:

d-usa wrote:I also want to say that I am sorry if I came across as anti-military. That was not my intention and I have great respect for our soldiers and veterans.

Nah, you're good.

War definitely damages people in many different ways. I don't think anyone reasonable would disagree with that.

That was probably the best way to make the point I was trying to make earlier, thanks.

I agree with your sentiments about the need for increased VA funding during "wartime" but I also think lumping benefits under "defense" leaves them vulnerable to cuts during peacetime.

Also, just to clarify, soldier and veteran are not stictly interchangeable with the term "combat veteran". A "soldier" is a member of the Army, a veteran is anyone who completes their term of enlistment honorably, a combat veteran is someone who has deployed to a combat zone (obviously). I was in the AF and served in Desert Storm as flightline avionics technician...that makes me an airman and a combat veteran (which personally I feel is a title best reserved for those who shoot or get shot at) but not a soldier as I was never in the Army.

Anyway, if you were to lump all branches together you'd be surprised to find that a large number of jobs do not directly involve combat...therefore you have veterans who are plummers, electricians and cooks none of which need "re-education" in the psychological sense. My job opened the door for a 20+ year career and taught me more about honor, dedication and commitment than any civilian employer (all useful life skills).

My mother works for the VA as a social worker. My father is a clinical psychologist that has treated several combat veterans. I've got a number of friends in the military; I wouldn't call any of them balanced individuals*. The life can definitely feth you up.
I wouldn't classify the VA as welfare either, though I must say I'm unaware of that appellation ever being applied to it. I can see a case for it being included in the defense category, but also think that the defense portion of that graph needs to be broken up into sections.

*It's worth noting they were all army infantry serving in Iraqi combat zones-- so that may have had something to do with it.

VA is certainly not welfare, and should not be tied into it as such. It should be listed seperately though. I'm a big supporter of it as it helped my father tremendously in his struggles with cancer related to combat deployment. It does need some better management though in regards to spending. I have a buddy who works there, and the fiscal horror stories he tells are simply unbelievable. Stuff that would sink any normal company within a year or two of operation is business as usual there.

Maelstrom808 wrote:VA is certainly not welfare

In what sense?

Ahtman wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:VA is certainly not welfare

In what sense?

VA benefits are earned through service and/or completion of a contract wheras welfare is a social program.

coyotius wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:VA is certainly not welfare

In what sense?

VA benefits are earned through service and/or completion of a contract whereas welfare is a social program.

By your definition many welfare programs shouldn't count as welfare. Almost everything people receive they paid into, and did so by working. For example, if you have never had a job you can't claim unemployment. Even then you have to have worked so much and the amount of unemployment you get is based on how long you worked and for how much. Welfare doesn't mean free money to anyone. I'm not sure why people act as if recognizing that the VA is a form of welfare is so troubling. Welfare isn't a pejorative, after all.

Howard A Treesong wrote:It doesn't surprise me that defence spending has come down since 1962. After all it was the height of the cold war in which countries were facing the threat of nuclear annihilation. What militarily would you need to spend 50% of your budget on today given that the threats are very different? And you don't have conscription any more, which I assume means the armed forces are smaller and thus many costs that would go towards people in the forces are now going more towards civilian projects. Not sure why this is a problem but at least it will allow some sorts to beat their chests about the evils of socialism which is probably where this is headed.

I wouldn't call that the peak of the Cold War, but I see your point. 1962.... We hardly had any boots on the ground in Vietnam until 66. Prior to that, the government was spending boat loads on R&D.. Helicopters, fighter jets, bombers, tanks... nuclear power and arms... it's amazing how much junk we rolled out from the Cold War. The late 70s were the real 'Boom' though. The staples of our modern military were developed in the seventies and eighties. Maybe I'm thinking too small though. Nuclear Holocaust was well on people's minds after the CMC.