OT - Tribute to a hero

[rextorres]

It's tragic that Tilman had to be Martyred for a cause he believed in. His sacrifice highlights to me the need for a draft, with no deferments, so that we all have an immediate personal stake in where our soldiers are sent.

Anywway we all participate in "defending our way of life" because we pay taxes. Nearly 50% of our tax dollars goes to funding the military and veterans.

[ April 24, 2004, 19:51: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Hero is very subjective. Tillman sounds like a hero to me and I suspect a lot of soldier's would.

[taterbill]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Nearly 50% of our tax dollars goes to funding the military and veterans.

Actually, in 2003, which is obviously the most recent year for which concrete numbers are available, total defense and veteran affairs spending was approximately 18.15% of the federal budget.

Defense: $356.3B
Veterans Affairs: $26.4B
Total Federal Outlays: $2158.0B

Source:
Government Printing Office web site:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/browse.html

Bill

[rextorres]

Bill,

You made a mistake in your calculations. You included social security and medicare spending which is money people are merely getting back. I believe tax for this should not be used for anything else.

Social Security/Medicare Spending ~ $1.2B (Social Security Tax is collected for this)

Discretionary Spending ~ $800M - Defense Spending ~ $400M (Income Tax is collected for this)

So i'll clarify - 50% of our income tax goes to defense spending.

Anyway - my original point still stands - we all participate to "protect our way of life" which is true whether the portion of the taxes we pay to protect it is ~20% or ~50%.

[ April 24, 2004, 22:23: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Phoenix-D]

Social security is not money people are getting back. There is no "lockbox"; the system pays money out immediately from one person's paycheck to the retiree's SS check.

[rextorres]

Hmm . . . I expect that the 15% (i'm self employed) i pay every year in social security tax i will get back (in the form of social security) when I retire.

The problem is that the social security surplus is being used to hide an even bigger deficit. If it were set aside there wouldn't be a social security crisis.

[ April 24, 2004, 22:32: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Phoenix-D]

If it were set aside, A. it wouldn't work as of now, because most people would either already be retired or have nothing in their box and B. you'd be better off letting people keep it and invest it themselves..

EDIT: and very shortly social security won't have a surplus, it'll have a deficit. Should point out this proves it isn't the lockbox model, since by definition you can't have a surplus in that.

[ April 24, 2004, 22:45: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]