http://www.deviantart.com/view/9410862/

Quote :

"After a year in the making... researching, number crunching, layouts, stock gathering, and lots of procrastinating, i am proud to say it is finally done. the SUPERDEVIATION, or "spot" as it was known to some, comes now with the final title. Death and Taxes: A visual look at where your tax dollars go. Most people are unaware of how much of their taxes fund our military, and those aware are often misinformed. Well here it is. Laid out, easy to read and compare. With data straight from the White House. I hope this makes people think and ask questions. Why do we spend more on jets than we do on public housing? Why is the Endowment for the Arts so small? Whats with all this foreign military financing? Im sure you can come up with numerous questions of your own. Unfortunately i dont have any answers. Our leaders do. Your president, his cabinet and your congress person have these answers. Ask them for the answers or better yet, demand them."

1/23/2006 12:07:07 PM

cant say im suprised

cant say i care anymore than i did before.

1/23/2006 12:09:03 PM

Quote :

"Why do we spend more on jets than we do on public housing?"

Jets cost a bunch more than houses. Do we spend too much on defense in comparison with social programs for the homeless? Maybe so. But that's a very dumb way to ask that question.

Quote :

"Why is the Endowment for the Arts so small?"

The government's job is to protect the rights of its citizens, not entertain them.

Quote :

"Whats with all this foreign military financing?"

Now that is a damn good question.

1/23/2006 12:18:02 PM

How big is that picture?
Poster size?

1/23/2006 12:23:05 PM

Furthermore, that chart does a pisspoor job of explaining which dollar amounts from each circle represent what.

There seems to be a lot of duplication there. Adding the major total from each defense category seems to add up to 1.4 trillion dollars, but it says there's a total defense spending of 339 billion dollars.

oops, must have missed the . key on the keypad when adding it up. Nevermind, those totals are right.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 12:26 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/23/2006 12:23:57 PM

Quote :

"Why is the Endowment for the Arts so small?"

Because it should be smaller.

1/23/2006 1:06:18 PM

i wish we had more money for NASA, im still looking forward to those space colonies

1/23/2006 1:09:19 PM

I'll tell you why the defense budget is so big... because without that, you would have no public housing, you would have no endowment for any arts, you would have no welfare program, no education, no hospitals, and no police force. If the citizens aren't safe, then what's the use of anything else.

because of our defense, we can have the luxuries that differentiate us from the rest of the world. Read Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes. You'll understand then.

1/23/2006 1:10:58 PM

that doesnt mean everything under the defense budget is necessary

see: SDI

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 1:12:06 PM

Quote :

"Whats with all this foreign military financing?"

simple. using a foreign military to do clandestine work for the CIA, US Government allows the government to be in the clear and deny any responsibility for any of the actions that took place by said military/rebel group.

1/23/2006 1:13:28 PM

Quote :

"see: SDI"

You do know that that is the single reason we won the cold war, right? So you're wrong because there is a lot of historical significance to that program.

And given that Iran is being crazy and Kim Jong Il has been crazy for a while, I say we up that budget.

And America has long been gracious to our enemies. When we introduced SDI back in the 80s, Reagan offered it to the Russians as a way to eliminate the nuclear threat for all of mankind. Why get rid of this? Make it work. Then the world will, once again, be better off because of America.

Exceprt from Leviathan:

Quote :

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:19 PM. Reason : added excerpt]

1/23/2006 1:15:18 PM

Oh, I've read leviathan, but just because hobbes makes some good points doesn't mean he's right about everything.

particularly this

Quote :

"nd consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"

is wholly untrue. He may have thought it was true at the time, but it isn't. We've found art dating back to neandertal man, from even before our species existed. no society is absolutely laughable, since society is what we're bred to create. Tribal societies have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. danger of violent death still exists, and the life of man was not solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short until civilization came about. In fact, it was often fruitful and happy. It may have been shorter than it is now, but considering our exploding population, perhaps that's naturally necessary to keep balance

1/23/2006 1:35:21 PM

^^haha, that's BS. It's basically saying that people need gov. because gov. is what makes us do what we do. This is certainly true to an extent, but not true to the extent that them amount we are spending on military is solely what's holding is together.

The military budget is ridiculously huge as it is now. It doesn't need to be upped, it could even be cut, and we would still be safer.

There are plenty other happy, safe, comfortable places you can live in the world, that don't spend such absurd amount of money learning how to kill people.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:36 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2006 1:35:57 PM

I think he's right on about that actually. Look what neanderthal man did. He painted with rocks. If we had remained in that state, we would be a lot like tribal societies today. A drum circle, a fire, and hunting zebra with spears.

Look what we have now. Western culture is unprecendented because we have security. We're able to not worry about outside dangers. We can live our lives in relative comfort and free from the fear of dying. Without that fear, we can concentrate on other things.

^ becasue cutting defense spending under clinton totally made us safer! YAY FOR CIA CUTS! It's total bullshit, you're right. Hobbes has been laughed at for centuries for his WILD and CRAZY political philosophies. Maybe you should start writing.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:41 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 1:37:21 PM

what happened to republicans wanting less government?

Quote :

"If we had remained in that state, we would be a lot like tribal societies today. A drum circle, a fire, and hunting zebra with spears."

what's the bad part again?

Quote :

"Look what we have now. Western culture is unprecendented because we have security. We're able to not worry about outside dangers. We can live our lives in relative comfort and free from the fear of dying. Without that fear, we can concentrate on other things."

really? Is that why there are terrorists lurking in sleeper cells, waiting for the cue to blow people up again?

I mean, without fear? Most americans are scared to death of their own shadows

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:40 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 1:37:36 PM

I'm right here, DG. I do want less government. The ONLY thing I want government to do is regulate the economy and defend me. Ironically, those are the only two express powers given to the federal goverment in the constitution.

The whole right side of that poster can go away without many tears shed by me.

Quote :

"what's the bad part again?"

What's stopping you from joining that "not bad" part about tribal society. Stop posting on this message board in your heated house and ante up if it ain't all that bad.

Quote :

"really? Is that why there are terrorists lurking in sleeper cells, waiting for the cue to blow people up again? I mean, without fear? Most americans are scared to death of their own shadows"

I don't agree with that at all. Americans aren't scared of their own shadows or we would have certainly fell on Sept. 12. We didn't. Because we weren't scared. We've had a history of not being scared. Against the mighty redcoats, against the nazis and japanese, and certainly not against terrorists. Why aren't we scared? Because we are safe because of that military and because of the ideas that we hold that make us a country.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 1:39:00 PM

Quote :

"Budget of the Roman Empire 150 AD in millions of sesterces Military Pay for 33 Legions & Auxiliaries, Praetorian Guard, and Navy 600 Military discharge (retirement) costs 43 Civilian employees 75 Cash handouts 44 Building 20 Emperor’s household, Emperor’s gifts, and external subsidies 50 Total Imperial Budget 832 Table 1. Roman Budget 150 AD (1: Duncan-Jones, p.45) "

http://www.freebuck.com/articles/elliott/030209bankruptcies1.htm

Few things change throughout history....if you wanna stay on top, its gonna cost you on the military side.

Quote :

"Most americans are scared to death of their own shadows "

I would argue that it was a lack of Americans being fearful that lead to 9/11. We've traditionally been cows grazing on our consumer plantation waiting for the rustlers to ride into town.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 1:46:14 PM

First you say...

Quote :

"Look what we have now. Western culture is unprecendented because we have security. We're able to not worry about outside dangers. We can live our lives in relative comfort and free from the fear of dying. Without that fear, we can concentrate on other things."

Then you say...

Quote :

"^ becasue cutting defense spending under clinton totally made us safer! YAY FOR CIA CUTS! It's total bullshit, you're right. Hobbes has been laughed at for centuries for his WILD and CRAZY political philosophies. Maybe you should start writing."

1/23/2006 1:55:08 PM

I'm not sure if you caught the sarcasm there, but these two statements make perfect sense.

We have what we have because we're safe.

Look at what we have when we're not safe (9/11).

Make sense to me.

1/23/2006 1:58:05 PM

People's natural state in a society is safe.

We were safe before 9/11, and we're safe now. The series of events that caused 9/11 are due in large part to the military spending we are so fond of.

1/23/2006 2:10:36 PM

Ok, fine you can take that point of view. Blame america first. Typical.

That's where we differ. At this point, I say tomato you say blame america. We can't go any further.

1/23/2006 2:13:11 PM

I'm not blaming America.

I'm blaming people like you, who think than safety can only be attained by screwing over other people.

1/23/2006 2:14:24 PM

bingo. we were attacked because our huge military budget gives us the means (and, we think, the right) to push our policies on the world and kill people who get in our way. and I'm not blaming america first, I'm blaming the militarization of all of western civilization first.

also, falkland, did you REALLY just try to make this sort of spending look GOOD by comparing it with that of the fallen, failed roman empire? seriously? the irony makes my head spin

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 2:14:32 PM

Yes, people like me. We sure have screwed a lot of people. We give so much goddam foreign aid it isn't even funny. We've made a lot of people's lives happier in this world.

Fuck you dude.

1/23/2006 2:15:32 PM

primarily our allies or when it's politically expedient. should have made that clear

oh, and 2/3 of the food aid we give is actually SOLD, not donated, and dumped into the markets of those countries to be sold, which means the poor still don't get it. then, on top of that, the dumping causes prices in those countries to drop significantly, putting local farmers out of work. I've taken several classes on this now. us food aid is primarily in existence to provide an outlet and market for us surpluses.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 2:19 PM. Reason : primarily our allies or when it's politically expedient. should have made that clear]

1/23/2006 2:17:08 PM

So what if they're our allies? Give shit to your enemy? Please don't run for president.


And are you seriously saying we should stop food aid???

1/23/2006 2:18:30 PM

^ Would it be okay if I came to your house, kicked you in your balls, then gave you $100?

Probably not.

Doing certain good things doesn't erase the bad things you do.

1/23/2006 2:19:15 PM

Ohh I can extrapolate and sensationalize too! Woo WOO! IT'S FUN!

1/23/2006 2:20:04 PM

not stop food aid, but when giving food aid, donate the food OR buy it from other farmers in the same geographical or national area and then give it to those in need. check out the "food first" organization's points

http://www.foodfirst.org

at the very least, stop dumping, and start giving aid to countries who need it the most rather than to those countries where giving food to their governments will be politically expedeint

1/23/2006 2:21:54 PM

Well what about these American surpluses? Throw them away? Yeah, if we give it away, we drive farmers out of business.

Sounds like a damned if you do or damned if you don't deal to me.

1/23/2006 2:22:59 PM

So you're claiming that the primary reason that the US helps other countries is for the generosity and the warm fuzzy feeling?

1/23/2006 2:24:14 PM

Quote :

"also, falkland, did you REALLY just try to make this sort of spending look GOOD by comparing it with that of the fallen, failed roman empire? seriously? the irony makes my head spin"

Did you look at the fact that the Romans reduced spending in the years of decline? I'm sorry that made your head spin. Simple math then, spending on military=secure way of life, no spending=barbarian hords making your country look like a bad pee at an interstate rest stop.


[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 2:34 PM. Reason : i'll spare ya, the point was made]

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 2:39 PM. Reason : don't hate, how often do you get to slip russian hobo's and the roman empire into a conversation????]

1/23/2006 2:25:28 PM

well first of all, the reason there's huge surplusses is because of the huge handouts the government gives to big agribusinesses while snubbing small farmers. first, change that

then, if there is a surplus, start by giving it to the 36 million people, including 14 million children, who experience hunger.
http://www.foodfirst.org/poorgohungry_factsheet

then, if we can help people in other countries, we should give that food directly to people, through ngos and other volunteer groups, not to the governments, who are typically corrupt and will simply sell the food or use it as a weapon by forcing people to comply with orders in order to get it

1/23/2006 2:28:47 PM

that was seriously uncalled for, AND I'm at work.

to the point, however

Quote :

"Simple math then, spending on military=secure way of life, no spending=barbarian hords making your country look like a bad pee at an interstate rest stop."

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

From Wiki Gonzalez

Unlike what some Primates think does not mean in Latin: "Avail thyself not of my cheese." but rather means: "after this therefore because of this". This describes a logical fallacy where one thinks that because A happens and then later B happens that A caused B

Quote :

"homer: not a bear in sight, the bear patrol must be working like a charm lisa: thats optimistic thinking dad, thats like me saying this rock keeps away tigers homer: how does it work? lisa: it doesn't work, its just a stupid rock, but you dont see any tigers around here do you? homer: [long pause] homer: lisa, i'd like to buy your rock."

another example - murder rates increase when ice cream sales increase.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 2:41 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 2:29:22 PM

OMG CENSORSHIP!


actually, I didn't need to see that picture at all. censor away.

1/23/2006 2:31:30 PM

I actually found that pic while at work and I have a Nazi of websense filter, literally !!!
Anyways, yes I know the pink elephants in the tomato patch argument. However, while there were many contributing factors to the eventual collapse of Rome, the lack of an ability to adequatly defend themselves certainly was a primary factor. The fact remains the same, countries that are on top and don't have the means to defend themeselves, lose in the end. There are many side arguments.

1/23/2006 3:01:10 PM

Plus, that simpson's example has a logical flaw. Rocks do not keep tigers away. The bear patrol's job is to keep bears away. It is not that big of a logical leap to think that the bear patrol must be doing their job.

SImiliarly, you could logically draw a correlation between the collapse of rome due to the inability to defend itslef and military spending. You could not draw the correlation between homosexual cowboy dramas performed and the collapse of rome due to the inability to defend itself.

1/23/2006 3:07:38 PM

I think that rome got too topheavy, and the lead pipes sure did help. I can't say that less defense spending didn't topple rome, but you can't just use those figures as some sort of definitive argument

1/23/2006 3:07:53 PM

Sure, I agree with you. It's certainly not the only cause of the collapse of rome. No empire collapses on the basis of one causality. But certainly it is not illogical to say that it was a factor.

1/23/2006 3:12:53 PM

Quote :

"because of our defense, we can have the luxuries that differentiate us from the rest of the world. Read Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes. You'll understand then."

LUXURIES? PUBLIC HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, HOSPITALS, POLICE FORCES, ARTS ENDOWMENT, ETC...ARE NOT LUXURIES.

And are we really different from the rest of the world? Is our nation's poorest person really living better here than they would in, say, Australia? Sweden? Spain? Finland?

Quote :

"SImiliarly, you could logically draw a correlation between the collapse of rome due to the inability to defend itslef and military spending. You could not draw the correlation between homosexual cowboy dramas performed and the collapse of rome due to the inability to defend itself."

WAS ROME'S INABILITY TO DEFEND ITSELF A PRODUCT OF A LACK OF DEFENSE FUNDS? I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS BECAUSE THEY GOT TOO BIG FOR THEIR BRITCHES (SP?).


[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 3:16 PM. Reason : sss]

1/23/2006 3:13:34 PM

They're not luxuries? How so? An arts endowment fund is not a luxury? Public houses aren't? o rly? When your other option is a dumpster, then I'd say it's a luxury. When you're faced with the decision to live in the dumpster or public housing, then maybe you can opine.



[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 3:14:28 PM

YOU LISTED HOSPITALS AND POLICE FORCES, AS WELL.

AND ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A LUXURY. OUR APPRECIATION FOR ART AND OUR WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR IT DATES BACK HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF YEARS. YOU'D BE A FOOL TO CONSIDER IT A LUXURY, SINCE IT IS SUCH AN INHERENT PART OF CIVILIZATION AND SOCIETY.

1/23/2006 3:18:51 PM

IDEALOGUES!

1/23/2006 3:20:04 PM

So we have to publicly fund it to appreciate it? I think it's a greater act of art when you sacrifice to do what you really care for, not expect a check from Uncle Sam so you can paint a picture of the naked Mother Mary.

You must be a fucking idiot. You have to be.

1/23/2006 3:21:03 PM

^Are you still maintaining that hospitals and police forces are luxuries?

1/23/2006 3:46:43 PM

No probably not luxuries, but they're nothing the market wouldn't create if the government didn't.

What about the appreciating art thing? Do we have to fund it to appreciate it? And you see republicans cheapen things with money. I think it's cheap art when the government has to subsidize it.

1/23/2006 3:50:33 PM

Yes, in a society where money is everything, the best way to show you appreciate something is by paying for it.

1/23/2006 3:51:47 PM

voluntarily paying for it. Not forcing people to pay for it. Nice try. Still cheapens art.

1/23/2006 3:55:41 PM

Many ways to skin a cat, people.

As far as spending goes, I'd cut the military last. As far as things go, it at least produces something. Pretty much everything on the right side of the graph produces nothing but dependence and market failure (with exceptions, of course, the regulatory agencies do some good but constitute such a small portion of the right-side of the graph as to almost be meaningless).

But I am thoroughly offended that the Federal Government is paying for ART. If the art is worth anything, I'll buy it. Don't make me buy shit that no one else wants to buy.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 4:01 PM. Reason : ,.,]

1/23/2006 3:59:08 PM

someone should compare this proportionally to another advanced country, im just curious to see what it would look like

1/23/2006 4:02:25 PM