Is our country financing and spending money on things we should not?

COL Lee Flemming — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 04:53:43 -0400

What are your thoughts in how we can reduce the budget or provide increased services through fiscal prioritization...?

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Sep 14 at 2016 4:58 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 04:58:45 -0400

Our Military Budges is still a bit excessive isn't it.

Response by PO1 Michael Fullmer made Sep 14 at 2016 7:02 AM

PO1 Michael Fullmer — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:02:49 -0400

Of course we are...who cares about the drinking habits of lesbians, or how fast catsup runs down hill, or the mating habits of the woolly fruit bat...I mean really, come on. SO much $$ is wasted on DUMB crap, that could be put to better use else where.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Sep 14 at 2016 7:43 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:43:49 -0400

Interesting that the lead graphic is Discretionary Spending and you have to select a different view to get to Total Spending. Sure military takes up a big % of discretionary spending but in reality its only 16% of our total budget, which seems reasonable. Question asks if we are spending on things we should not be, but everything on the graphic seems relevant to me. Could percentages change? For sure, especially in the interest on debt side, but that's largely a fixed cost based on past actions. This is the area where we should be looking to reduce the budget.
Know I'm going to get whacked for this, but also think there could be savings from ripping veteran medical care out from Veteran's Benefits and rolling it into Medicare & Health. Let the VA concentrate on all benefits other than health and the medical community concentrate on medical benefits for everyone. Yes, this means tearing down a huge entrenched bureaucracy but the savings and quality of service would increase IMO.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Sep 14 at 2016 8:09 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:09:18 -0400

Interesting all the different ways we can slice the pie. This one includes both discretionary and entitlement programs. I prefer seeing the whole picture because it puts things in perspective and keeps entitlement programs "on the table".

Response by SGT David T. made Sep 14 at 2016 8:11 AM

SGT David T. — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:11:44 -0400

Honestly, I would have to go line by line to actually answer this in a responsible way. My gut instinct is that there are areas we need to cut and others need to be beefed up. Where that exactly is, I can't say since I lack the time to go through the President's budget line by line.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 14 at 2016 8:12 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:12:27 -0400

For a little perspective from the national priorities dot org. Also if we totally eliminated the defense budget in 2016, we would approximately have a balanced budget, since the deficit is about the same amount. Let's look at this instead.

In fact, tax breaks function as a type of government spending, and they are officially called "tax expenditures" within the federal government. When the government issues a tax break, it chooses to give up tax revenue for a specific purpose - so both spending and tax breaks mean less money in the U.S. Treasury, and both reflect spending priorities laid out by Congress in various pieces of legislation. Tax breaks are expected to cost the federal government $1.22 trillion in 2015 - more than all discretionary spending in the same year.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2016 8:30 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:30:49 -0400

So, since they are changing up military pensions how about taking a look at changing the retirement system for other federal workers? What if they move from a defined benefit program into a 401k style program like the rest of the private sector?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 14 at 2016 8:32 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:32:57 -0400

Which areas MAKE us money? Which areas LOSE us money? By this I mean, some areas are long term investments.

As an example education is a "theoretical" investment which should make us money. Does it in fact do that for us?

Some areas however are "maintenance" and not doing them will result in long term losses like Infrastructure & International Affairs (Global Stability saves us money). Other areas, should be shifted over to the Private world, but will require a boost in Oversight (temporarily) like Environment & Energy.

But the main problem we have is that our LEGISLATORS are NOT Economists. They don't understand the "Philosophy of Money."

The biggest thing they really need to understand is that if we (the People) have the capability to Produce X, write the check. If we do not have the capability to produce X, do not write the check. Don't borrow production from other countries. Let other countries borrow production from us.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Sep 14 at 2016 8:44 AM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:44:11 -0400

Am I the only one disturbed that they tried to soften the blow by 1 trillion dollars as 1000 billion. Or that Medicare/Health, Unemployment, Social Security, and Labor make up 60% of our budget. How in the world are we spending that much when 1.) We're all forced to buy our own health coverage. 2.) We all get money taken out for medicare from our paychecks. 3.) We all pay into social security.

So how in the world are those the biggest thing our government is spending money on??? And why is it that whenever we hear talks about cutting government spending, it's regarding the military when the military makes up a total of 16% of the equation. It's like ordering a fatty burger and a diet coke.

How is 600 billion too much money but 2.5 trillion isn't enough???

I'm sorry, I know I didn't exactly answer your question, but I am incredibly bothered by those graphs. Here's what I do know. I would be making cuts across the board in all areas. I think I'd also want itemized bills on specifically what each dollar is being spent on. For instance, I was absolutely infuriated to learn our tax dollars were spent to "discover" whether or not being stung on the penis would hurt more than any other part of the body. Or how about whether birds slur their singing when they're drunk... Or how about spending almost 4 million dollars to study goldfish mating...

DOES ANYONE HERE CARE ABOUT GOLDFISH MATING???

Sorry... government waste is a big hot button topic of mine... it honestly kills me that this ridiculousness is allowed to get out of control.

Response by SFC George Smith made Sep 14 at 2016 9:22 AM

SFC George Smith — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:22:44 -0400

over paying for things we do need and buying boat loads of crap we don't Need... Thanks to Career Politicians...

Response by CSM David Heidke made Sep 14 at 2016 9:32 AM

CSM David Heidke — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:32:04 -0400

It's also the non discretionary stuff that needs to be fixed. We are absolutely spending money on wasteful things.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Sep 14 at 2016 9:52 AM

MSgt James Mullis — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:52:21 -0400

Is our country financing and spending money on things we should not? Absolutely. However, there is no way to tell by looking at the different slices and percentages of the total budget. It's basically a matter of not seeing the trees through the forest. When you look at the overall categories, rather than individual programs, its easy to miss the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse that is hidden within each category.

Response by MSG Anthony Makar made Sep 14 at 2016 10:04 AM

MSG Anthony Makar — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:04:29 -0400

Please correct me if I am wrong here. But the chart provided by COL Flemming is just the discretionary spending which represents only 1/3 of our budget. My question is if we are to discuss budget reduction on only 1/3rd of the budget would be sort of senseless since the other 2/3rds is untouched. what I see is in this chart Military is approximately 20% of the national budget. I do not see touching the military budget would be a prudent move. As you see now Military programs are not taking the big cuts its the the personnel side that takes the hit.

But for the sake of this question why not start with Education, Government and International affairs.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Sep 14 at 2016 10:28 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:28:04 -0400

This all depends on where the list is being pulled from. Bottom of the line is that we as a nation spend lots of money.

Response by SMSgt Roy Dowdy made Sep 14 at 2016 11:25 AM

SMSgt Roy Dowdy — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:25:32 -0400

Beyond question....colossal expenditures on the F-35, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), war in Afghanistan and Iraq where the ends doesn't justify the costs, foreign aid to undeserving nations, and whole host of other bloated programs that consistently waste money. We have real infrastructure problems, homelessness, not to mention environmental issues (i.e. toxic water sites) that require attention. It's never been a revenue issue. ...it's a SPENDING problem!

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Sep 14 at 2016 12:52 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:52:13 -0400

Actually the answer is yes, Our Country spends money on crap and we the taxpayer foots the Bill.
The entire Education Dept. the E.P.A being out of control, all those useless Departments that worry about the price of tea, The I.R.S.......The list goes on.
The Govt. Could save a few bucks just by getting rid of the alphabet soup of law enforcement agency's.
Never mind the FACT that National Defense is one of the few things the Government is mandated to do

Response by SSgt Boyd Welch made Sep 14 at 2016 1:02 PM

SSgt Boyd Welch — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:02:38 -0400

One area I believe is undeniably the wrong thing to spend on, are foreign relations. They seem to always become a "black hole" that ultimately do not yield a measurable return (UN). Dollars spent nation building are a waste. Ransom paid to prevent nuclear proliferation is a case in point: North Korea had promised to not build weapons if we pay. When the money paid is no longer sufficient to maintain the bribe, then they are back with their hand out. Old saying states "Don't ever throw a dead chicken to the wolves. They just come looking for more chickens and they won't wait for them to die.." I believe that we can be charitable without being a "maintainer of a foreign country". Our veterans deserve better. Let's spend the money on them.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2016 2:18 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:18:19 -0400

There is and will likely always be a certain degree of waste, much of it being driven by scratch my back and I'll scratch yours deal making in congress... however for the most part I don't believe our government is spending too much money. A much greater problem is that much of what government should be supporting is not receiving adequate financial support, examples include the Veterans Administration and Education. Our safety net is considerably outdated and not designed to help someone get back up on their feet with skills the job market demands. Our infrastructure is crumbling around us, even while major competitors like China are rapidly improving and expanding their infrastructure. The problem isn't that the Federal government is spending too much money, the problem is that the Federal government isn't spending enough to properly care for veterans or ensure American economic dominance.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2016 3:54 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:54:27 -0400

what i dont see in this nice little pie chart is welfare, infra structure

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2016 4:13 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:13:23 -0400

defense spending, quit contracting out, mp/sp's for security, emts/firefighters, chow hall us millitary cooks and units provide the extra like old days, we have sea bee's, army corps of engineers, let them do the work, finale answer quit contracting out, we have the specialties use them

Response by 1SG Al Brown made Sep 14 at 2016 4:44 PM

1SG Al Brown — Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:44:29 -0400

I believe that our country is spending money in the correct areas. However, our tax collection isn't quite $4.1 trillion, which explains why a budget hasn't been passed lately. We should estimate the annual tax collections as usual, then fund all the same areas on a equal percentage of the total receipts. That would result in an approximate 95% funding of each individual area. This would cause the "Chiefs" to find the missing 5% internally via eliminating fraud/waste or adjusting internal expenditures. It's a balanced budget that everyone will completely despise, but it's better than the future austerity of losing a AAA rating.

Response by CPT Tom Monahan made Sep 15 at 2016 3:32 AM

CPT Tom Monahan — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 03:32:27 -0400

Yes! Anything spent by the Feds that is not related to an enumerated power is a waste! Taxing citizens of the several States to give money back to the several States is stupid. Also, and this may not be popular, we should not be paying for forces in foreign countries such as Great Britain, Japan, Korea, Germany, etc. Lastly, we should end the War on Drugs and let the States regulate their sales thus eliminating the crime caused by the black markets.

Response by COL Dan Fuhr made Sep 15 at 2016 10:16 PM

COL Dan Fuhr — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 22:16:23 -0400

Here's a purely theoretical (and unhelpful) way to analyze this question: What of these expenditures are tied to enumerated federal powers of the Constitution? I can point to defense / veterans, transportation (interstate commerce), international affairs, interest on debt. What have I missed?

Response by COL William Oseles made Sep 30 at 2016 2:00 PM

COL William Oseles — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:00:52 -0400

Saw the cover of a financial magazine asking the question "How much is too much military?"
The question really should be "How much is too little military?"
Several nations in the past century came up on the Too Little side and paid for it in lives until the military could be built back up again.

Response by COL William Oseles made Sep 30 at 2016 2:09 PM

COL William Oseles — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:09:55 -0400

It looks like Military spending is growing a little, but other spending is growing a LOT.
I also have always found it interesting that Defense spending, which is a Mandated Duty of the Federal Government is in the Discretionary Spending category, while Social security, Unemployment, Labor benefits, Medicare and Health spending which are NOT Mandated duties of the federal Government are in the Mandatory Spending category.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Jun 9 at 2017 11:39 AM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 11:39:47 -0400

The President has moved the major entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare, off the table, so I won't address them. No headway there in this budget cycle, but they have to be dealt with soon.

Looking at two things is key to reducing spending: the constitutionality of the program or expenditure and the efficiency of the program or expenditure. Many of the areas into which the Federal Government has projected itself in the last 40 years are not covered in the Constitution. Many of these areas are best left to the States and people as called for in the 10th Amendment. Education, Agriculture, Labor, and Energy are some of the departments that may be operating outside of the letter and intent of the Constitution. Their budgets need to be closely scrutinized to make sure they are not intruding on States' and the peoples' rights. Same is true for Federal Agencies, the EPA being a primary example. Duplication and inefficiency of Federal programs is legendary and needs to be fixed. Multiple programs in multiple departments addressing the same need is a major problem. Hopefully, the White House will reduce the number and scope of programs and gain savings. Finally, Federal programs need to be evaluated against the Congressional or Executive Branch objective set out for that program. If they are soaking up money and not showing real progress toward the goal for which they sere established, then they should be abolished--more savings.