This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go?

Tyler Durden's picture


Presented with little comment, but in around three minutes, this clip provides a modicum of clarity on just where all that money goes...

It seems 47% is the new number to really care about - perhaps 53% should also be of note...


(h/t Al Jazeera)


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:11 | 2840388 krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

War is a Racket... S. Butler

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:25 | 2840403 Precious
Precious's picture

-> Doctor competency UK example

-> Doctor (in)compentency in US example 1 and US example 2

Part of your tax dollars pay for this unnecessary and incompetent US medical care.  Everything the US doctors did costs more, with worse results.

The UK doctor performed the same thing using 20 tongue depressors at 2 cents each.



Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:14 | 2840663 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Propaganda, 18.8% 2011 Table 4-2.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:52 | 2840782 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Do you hereby affirm that government OMB statistics are accurate and not propaganda?

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 00:28 | 2841078 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Not really but they are US government employees.   I remember these mother fuckers from 1979.

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 08:58 | 2841331 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture




Scared us so bad.....we're gonna give them $450 million.


Do you suppose they'll go away now?

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 10:45 | 2841447 Thomas
Thomas's picture

Kudos to the guys who made the video--very clever.

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 13:25 | 2841684 SoCalBusted
SoCalBusted's picture

Well, it was going to be $900 million, but we cut it in half to teach them a lession, this time.


Sat, 09/29/2012 - 12:25 | 2841606 crazyjsmith
crazyjsmith's picture

You have pointed out the foundation of the house. What about the flooring, the granite counter tops, the window coverings, the appliances, the frame, etc?
Yep, 18.8% is sure a good place to start.

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 00:32 | 2841086 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

I thought Air America was bankrupt, is this Air Soros?  I do agree we spend to much on killing people around the world, but something has to back the dollar's reserve currency status.

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 09:05 | 2841340 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture



Dude....Air America is the CIA. Those cats never go BK.


Sat, 09/29/2012 - 12:57 | 2841644 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You should watch the video.  It's only a few minutes. 

There's no claim that the DoD budget is 53% of Federal outlays.

The thing is, the DoD is only a small part of total "military" spending.

Sun, 09/30/2012 - 02:47 | 2842749 Breaker
Breaker's picture

I suppose if you count Medicare and Medicaid as military spending, you would come close to 53%.

Sun, 09/30/2012 - 15:37 | 2843359 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

They used the other approach, actually: they didn't count FICA as "taxes."  It's all about context.  The final number may be misleading, but it's technically far closer to correct than this joker's reply of "18.8%."

The guy GIVES YOU THE NUMBERS.  You can decide what *percentage* you want to claim at the end of the day, but for damn sure, pretending the DoD is the only budget entry for "military spending" is either a lie or a grossly ignorant speaker.

The cost of the first 6 years in Iraq wasn't in the DoD budget.  According to econ-boy up there, that'd mean it wasn't military spending.

Derp derp.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:54 | 2840790 Heyoka Bianco
Heyoka Bianco's picture

Frankly, at this point, a big ol' buttload of pharmaceuticals wouldn't be something I'd turn down.


Does insurance cover idiotectomies? I need about 35,000 of those totally necessary procedures to get all the idiots out of my life.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 23:37 | 2840992 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

There is no known medical cure for chronic cranius-rectumitis.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:22 | 2840693 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Yes, war is simply organized crime on a grander scale, and there is no way to prevent that. Militarism is the supreme ideology, because it does not allow anyone else to refuse to participate: either get with that program, and become militaristic too, or be conquered and assimilated instead. We are living inside of the systems established by the long history of war. Our money system is backed by murder. It does NOT matter if you do not like that, or wish that it was not true, or indulge in impossible ideals about how it might not be the case, IT IS!

That is particularly bad now that warfare has developed weapons that are trillions of times more powerful. War is now an utterly insane racket, run by organized criminals that are demented mad men ... War was ALWAYS a racket, for thousands of years, but it did not become an utterly insane racket until very recently, within the life time of those still now alive! BUT, we still can not do anything else, and still do not have any way out of that runaway insanity!!!  The old-fashioned imperative of slavery, "do what I say, or I will kill you" has become the postmodern runaway slavery system, "do what I say, or I will kill almost everyone." War was always an obligatory racket. However, every day, more and more, the whole world is becoming an increasingly insane place, where the most criminally insane people are controlling what is happening, through bigger lies, backed by more violence!

I like to try to tack as close to the wind as possible in my approarch to this, and day dream about how it might be theoretically possilbe to do systematic death contols BETTER, which requires radically rethinking militarism, to adapt it to weapons of mass destruction. That would make it theoretically possible to do different death controls, in a radically revolutionized militarism, or murder system, to operate better debt controls, in a radically different money system. After all, warfare is the oldest and best developed of social sciences, and it needs more profound paradigm shifts than any other science ever did!

BUT, that seems just goofy Fringe Cubed Fantasies, in the real world of runaway triumphant banksters, who have become a group of trillionaire mass murders, attempting to consolidate their global power through another world war, regardless of the risks of weapons of mass destruction use going OUT OF CONTROL.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:33 | 2840721 Sam Clemons
Sam Clemons's picture

The powers that be have become too good at ripping people off in order to fund being way too good at killing people off.

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 00:03 | 2841044 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Good one sentence summary!

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 09:11 | 2841344 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture


+1 for pithy.


Sat, 09/29/2012 - 12:44 | 2841627 crazyjsmith
crazyjsmith's picture

Power vs. Force
The truth is Power and needs no justification - the war machine is constantly justifying the use of force - and necessity is the tool of tyrants.

If China were to attack our shores, no justification would be needed to fight.
No silly cartoonish drawings would be needed to "justify".

If constant justification is the tool, then the first casualty is the truth as they say.

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 13:03 | 2841628 crazyjsmith
crazyjsmith's picture

Duplicate post -

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:51 | 2840783 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

Even if I disagreed with you, I would have to say that your writing is impeccable.

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 00:48 | 2841047 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Thanks! ... I belatedly noticed some spelling errors. My automatic spell checker does not seem to work inside of Zero Hedge posting windows. There also appears to be an automatic function that allows editing, until after someone posts a comment, or some time passes, then no more editing is possible.

I just WISH that there WAS something better we could actually to, but watch and wait while it gets WORSE. Since The Powers That Be deliberately ignore anything they do not like, therefore, rational arguments based on evidence and logic end up being almost totally useless. The impossible paradox is that there is NO WAY to sanely use any old-fashioned physical violence to "fight" against atomic weapons, but the people with atomic weapons continue threatening to be even more violent, to back up their lies!  We are all stuck inside of that insanity! Attempts at any saner arguments based on evidence and logic just get IGNORED, while responding with more violence to the established systems could only make things get WORSE FASTER!

I can not think of anything practical or realistic to do.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:03 | 2840390 macholatte
macholatte's picture

Thank you Al Jezerra.  Everybody's got an agenda.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:27 | 2840561 Ray1968
Ray1968's picture

Agenda? Yes. Truth... probably.


Sat, 09/29/2012 - 09:13 | 2841334 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture



We come in peas.....and if you don't like that....we'll kill you.


Came to ZH for a barfight.....and found one. Thanks Tyler!


Sat, 09/29/2012 - 09:48 | 2841384 max2205
max2205's picture

UN taxes. Give me a fucking break

EXCLUSIVE: As the UN opens its General Assembly session, it is already thinking up new global taxes | Fox News

UPDATED: See editor's note at bottom

A 1 percent tax on billionaires around the world.  A tax on all currency trading in the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen and the British pound sterling.   Another  “tiny”  tax on all financial transactions, including stock and bond trading, and trading in financial derivatives.  New taxes on carbon emissions and on airline tickets.  A royalty on all undersea mineral resources extracted more than 100 miles offshore of any nation’s territory.

The United Nations is at it again:  finding new and “innovative” ways to create global taxes that would transfer hundreds of billions, and even trillions, of dollars from the rich nations of the world — especially the U.S. — to poorer ones, in line with U.N.-directed economic, social and environmental development.

These latest global tax proposals have received various forms of endorsement at U.N. meetings over the spring and summer, and will be entered into the record during the 67th  U.N. General Assembly session, which began this week. The agenda for the entire session, lasting through December, is scheduled to be finalized on Friday.

How to convince developed countries wracked by economic recession and spiraling levels of government debt – especially the U.S. — is another issue, which the world organization may well end up trying to finesse. 

As the U.N. itself notes, in a major report on the taxation topic titled, “In Search of New Development Finance” -- the main topic at a high-level international meeting of the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) this summer -- “These proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.”

The world organization, and its constellation of funds, agencies and programs, has been pushing “innovative financing” for nearly a decade.

The U.N. clearly hopes it can find a way to move ahead. “ Politically, tapping revenue from global resources and raising taxes internationally to address global problems are much more difficult than taxing for purely domestic purposes,” admits an ECOSOC document produced last April. But, it summarizes,  “the time has come to confront the challenge.”

Shortly thereafter, the tax proposals — known in U.N.-speak as “innovative methods of financing”-- got a limited endorsement from a group of government ministers and other heads of national delegations who attended a major ECOSOC meeting in New York City in July.

The global taxation idea was echoed this week by Jeffrey Sachs, head of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and also a U.N. Assistant Secretary General. Sachs was recently named by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to head a new intellectual lobbying group of experts called the Sustainable Development Solutions Network.  It “will work closely with United Nations agencies, multilateral financing institutions and other international organizations,” according to the Earth Institute website.

On Monday, the controversial economist, a vociferous supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement, called on President Obama to implement a carbon tax that in turn could be used to finance bonds, paying for investments to combat “climate change” -- one of the major focuses of the new solutions network.

Sachs was quoted by Bloomberg News as declaring that, “I’m happy to have the future pay for a lot of this. It doesn’t have to be current financed.”

In the midst of a heated U.S. national election campaign, any official endorsement of those views is unlikely.

Nonetheless, the U.N. is taking a longer view. The world organization, and its constellation of funds, agencies and programs, has been pushing “innovative financing” for nearly a decade, since the topic was discussed in depth at an international conference in 2002.  The topic was endorsed again at the failed Rio + 20 conference last summer, without much detail attached.

But the need for new revenue is becoming more urgent as the world’s rich countries, gripped in recession, no longer hand out foreign aid with the same generosity as before — though the total reached $133 billion annually last year--while the demands for huge additional amounts of money for social and climate issues continues to grow.

Earlier this year, for example, the overseers of a new, U.N.-sponsored  Green Climate Fund held their first meeting in Bonn to contemplate the spending of some $30 billion annually — rising to $100 billion by 2020 — to meet climate change needs in developing countries.  Where all that money will come from is still not clear.

The U.N.’s latest roster of tax possibilities certainly has what the New Development Finance Report calls “large fundraising potential.” Or, at least some of them do. An around-the-world tax of $25 per ton on carbon dioxide emissions in rich countries, the report says, could raise some $250 billion a year. That new billionaire’s tax would raise anywhere from $40 billion to $50 billion per year, the report estimates, though it adds that the idea “is not yet in any international agenda.”


The U.N. places the same estimated value on the proposed currency tax ($40 billion), and roughly the same thing on its proposed financial tax ($15 billion to $75 billion).

Even more innovative is a notion to, in effect, borrow the lines of credit allocated to rich countries themselves at the International Monetary Fund, and  “leverage” them to create new investment funds for the world’s poor. How to do this while preserving those credit lines as a reserve asset that rich countries could draw on when required, the report admits, remains to be seen.

Another “innovative” idea that may have trouble staying afloat is the notion of charging royalties on undersea minerals more than 100 miles offshore, within what are called “exclusive economic zones” — in effect, inside some country’s sovereign economic territory.

The sensitive issue here is that the world’s current “exclusive economic zones” extend 200 miles offshore — meaning that the U.N. is suggesting that it collect royalties on mineral wealth on half the “exclusive” territory, which it refers to in the report as part of the “global commons.” 

For most nations, excluding the U.S., those 200 mile zones were established by the U.N.-sponsored Law of the Sea Treaty, known as LOST, which came into force in 1994 after it was signed and ratified by 162 countries. (The U.S. signed but has not ratified LOST; its 200-mile “exclusive economic zone” was established by presidential decree.)

The new, 100-mile royalty proposal in the U.N.’s financing report would require a new agreement to hand over proceeds from half of that territory to the U.N.-sponsored International Seabed Authority.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Approximately 24 hours after this story was published, a spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations sent the following unsolicited statement to Fox News:  “The United States opposes global taxes because we believe that any source of revenue should remain under the control of national authorities. This is an idea that has been kicked around for years. Fortunately, it hasn’t gone anywhere, nor will it.”

The U.S. is currently one of the 54 nations elected for three year terms to ECOSOC, which, as the story notes, has incubated many of the “innovative” tax ideas. The U.S. term expires at the end of this year, though it may be re-elected.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News and can be found on Twitter @GeorgeRussell

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:45 | 2840565 hannah
hannah's picture

isnt it funny that al jezerra can do a hit piece about america and we can all watch it but if someone in the usa did the same video and tried to show it in certain middle east countries they would be put in prison and probably beheaded...?


the video might be old but it is probably correct...but the real shizzle is that we have the freedom to still debate it....(at least til obama gets in for the second term, then he will declare himself the supreme monkey).

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:57 | 2840801 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

America is not so free.  We have the highest prison population by percentage of population of any other nation on earth by a mile.  People get pepper sprayed and arrested for being modern day hippies and protesting bankers.  People get arrested for protesting in the wrong area.  People get arrested for choosing to take substances that the government deems illegal (but they can take anything made by Pzifer until their liver explodes).  Etc.  And that all pre-existed O.   

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 22:40 | 2840902 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Indeed LetThemEatRand!  Petty drug offenders are filling prisons across the land of the free. Tens of thousands of highly paid cops do nothing but scour the streets looking for kids with a joint or a black guy selling single doses of crack to the locals. As America seeks to privatize prisons, these prisons need customers, paying customers. So why not round up petty drug users who might take an oxy or smoke a joint. They can be turned into profit centers.

As to war, I am glad the above video finally makes clear what the Total yearly costs are. The so called defense budget is a joke, it is a fraction of what the war machine and wars cost the USA. And never, ever forget. Grandpa and grandma getting those so called free government benefits like medicare and Social Security have paid special payroll taxes their whole lives into those systems, the money was one sperate from the general budget, but in order to steal it for war, the government added that tax stream to the general budget and promptly spent much of the surplus on war. And these programs have been in surplus since they day they were created. As government stole the old people pension money for war, they now point the finger at these taxpaying aged folks and call them parasites! This is Orwellian as the old folks paid and paid and paid and paid and paid and paid into these programs. The war mongers stole their fucking money and those same elites now dare to call old workers parasites. I know who the real parasites are!

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 07:59 | 2841300 ZackAttack
ZackAttack's picture

Marijuana alone is right around 28% of the state and local prison population (much smaller at the federal level, though), and represents about 800,000 court cases in the US every year.

If someone made a move to decriminalize it, you can bet the private prison industry and police themselves would do their best to slap it down.

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 13:02 | 2841651 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You can watch it, sure, but if you attract the Preznit's attention, he can put you in prison forever or have you killed.

We've got LAWS in this country, pardner, doncha know.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:10 | 2840400 eatthebanksters
eatthebanksters's picture

I stopped 10 seconds in because this is bullshit (and out of date). I just went through this exercise last night on a FB thread full of people who want to believe bullshit propaganda (and I don't support the military, just the facts). The 2012 US budget is $3.8 trillion of which 24% is for defense spending.  $1.1 trilliion of the 2012 budget is borrowed.  Hope this clears it up...defense spending is not 53 cents of every dollar in our budget.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:24 | 2840426 akak
akak's picture

Just to be clear, it is "MILITARY spending" or "WAR spending", not "defense spending".

The US armed forces actually spend a miniscule portions of their budgets on "defense", as opposed to the vast majority which is in truth spent on offense.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:20 | 2840545 crusty curmudgeon
crusty curmudgeon's picture

"It is well that war is so terrible...we should grow too fond of it."  -Robert E. Lee

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 01:54 | 2841150 Ying-Yang
Ying-Yang's picture

Drone attacks are like Halloween... "Trick or Treat motherfucker, BOOM"

Coming to a free society near you. Predictive pre-emption sucks.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 22:32 | 2840893 DaveA
DaveA's picture

Do you realize that the Department of Defense has never won a war? In 1945 we had a War Department and a Navy Department. None of this "defense" bullshit -- we proudly fought to win and go home victorious. This may relate to something Sir John Glubb wrote in The Fate of Empires:

"In the time of Roman greatness, the legions used to dig a ditch round their camps at night to avoid surprise. But the ditches were mere earthworks, and between them wide spaces were left through which the Romans could counter-attack. But as Rome grew older, the earthworks became high walls, through which access was given only by narrow gates. Counterattacks were no longer possible. The legions were now passive defenders."

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:22 | 2840431 Red Heeler
Red Heeler's picture

"defense spending is not 53 cents of every dollar in our budget."

It's 54 cents according to this site:

Regardless, you can afford it no matter how much the government takes from you, can't you?

Me? I'd like to pay a little less; but double-tapping women and children with drones does get pricey, I suppose.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 23:40 | 2840998 CynicLaureate
CynicLaureate's picture

Well, that's 54% of the Income Tax... the FICA/Medicare and other "transfer programs" are not counted in this chart.

The government spent over 4T dollars, so that would make Defense only 36% of Federal outlays.

You can always make a fraction seem larger or smaller by changing what you count in the denominator.


Sat, 09/29/2012 - 13:55 | 2841747 Red Heeler
Red Heeler's picture

"You can always make a fraction seem larger or smaller by changing what you count in the denominator."

Regardles of the fraction, the government still takes more of one's money than one can afford to give.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:41 | 2840435 ACP
ACP's picture

Absolutely correct. Military spending is just as overbloated as everything else in the government, but it doesn't help to throw out bogus numbers.

Edit: I think the best way to maintain military superiority is to keep the US military just a few years ahead of the rest of the world regarding technology on a larger scale, but continue to develop new technology and shelf it with plans to deploy if needed. Keep it completely out of reach of anyone who might steal it, but keep it ready. That way, there isn't a giant expenditure every time there's a leap in technology. The R&D can continue on a small scale and the "bloat" the military can be rolled back, as well as everything else the govt spends its money on.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:51 | 2840499 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

up arrow.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:15 | 2840539 ACP
ACP's picture

Disclaimer: I am not an Obama fan...but one of the few things he did right was expand Special Ops to go after our enemies.

Everyone knows that the private sector of the military-industrial complex wants to build and out test new "killing machines." Why does a war need to be started to do this? This can all be done on a small scale to eliminate extremists who are known to have attacked US/Allied interests & people. Plus, there's the added benefit of "plausible deniability," and much less "collateral damage."

The problem is, people are so focused on simple solutions to complex problems that something like this will probably never be inititated. That is, unless a Central Banking "Geneva Convention" is enacted to disallow manipulation of currencies to allow creation of fake wealth on demand. That way, people would actually be forced to think of plausible solutions to complex problems, instead of bullshit solutions.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:35 | 2840580 hannah
hannah's picture

' eliminate extremists who are known to have attacked US/Allied interests & people.'


so when we have armed corporations killing the locals so we can steal their natural resources, we need to have a secret special ops groups go out and slaughter the locals for fighting back. i have a solution...dont kill and enslave the locals and we wont have hate directed towards us.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:04 | 2840611 ACP
ACP's picture

No, obviously not. Osama bin Laden was a wealthy terrorist who didn't give a flying fuck about the people he sent out to kill people he didn't like. He (Edit: and people like him) would be a target.

Your comment is exactly what I was talking about. Instead of asking "would you have armed corporations killing the locals..." you automatically assumed that was the plan. And that is disturbing. There is no black and white answer. John Adams, one of the first Presidents of the United States, defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston massacre because the situation wasn't as clear cut as it seemed. He was also primary figure in the Revolutionary War. Why would he defend "murderers" and then take part in the Revolutionary War?

Maybe it's because the situation required a lot more analysis than simply accusing people of wanting to slaughter "locals."

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:13 | 2840661 hannah
hannah's picture

ACP - our corporations are in foreign countries stealing resources, the locals resent it and fight back so we kill them. they get pissed and then fly an airplane into a building in the usa and kill americans.


are you telling me that if i went to your house and stole your shit raped your wife and killed your kids all so i could make a profit for my shareholders, that you wouldnt want to kill me...? then when you try i have a special ops force kill you and the rest of your family and call you an extremist...?



Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:59 | 2840746 ACP
ACP's picture

Airplanes were sent into the Twin Towers because a wealthy terrorist didn't like the fact that American soldiers were on Saudi soil.

When did corporations send people into houses to rape a kill people to make a profit? If you're talking about what happened AFTER September 11, 2001, THAT could be have completely avoided if the US government had opted for covert actions, instead of a ridiculous war. A full-scale war was the wrong decision and the penalty, unfortunately, was blood on both sides.

Before September 11, 2001, did the US send soldiers into Saudi Arabia and tell the people  "If you don't sell us oil, we will kill you and rape your wives." No, the local government was more than happy to allow US petroleum companies to drill for oil, in exchange for billions of dollars in easy money. Saudi Arabia was more than happy to let the US stage an action that removed Iraqi forces from Kuwait during the first gulf war. What does that have to do with raping and killing people for profit?

How would you feel if your son or daughter was murdered in California or Texas or North Dakota for working for an oil company because a nutcase from Maine felt that he didn't want oil companies drilling for oil there? For doing something that was totally legal? Would you high five the murderer because he was only defending "US soil" from evil corporations?

Edit: By the same token, who is to blame for corporations outsourcing US jobs to China? It sounds like you would be all for committing terrorist attacks against Chinese assets in the US and elsewhere, instead of laying the blame squarely where it belongs - on the policies of the US govt.


Fri, 09/28/2012 - 22:31 | 2840890 hannah
hannah's picture

ACP - you really are very very stupid. really..! have you ever cracked a book about the history of the middle east? maybe try reading about the history of the aea over the last 400 years....


if you are serious and not just a troll, you have a fantastic lack of reading comprehension and jesus the logic of a hamster. ....maybe a touch of ADD also.


do you really feel that the 9/11 event was simply because osama didnt like the us on saudi soil...? you have a lot to learn and the way things are going, you arent going to have time to learn before TSHTF and you get to experience some of your 'covert action' but it is going to be pointed towards your ilk.


good luck brother...LOL


* you are just too damn stupid to be real...gotta be a troll. 'When did corporations send people into houses to rape a kill people to make a profit?' one is that stupid.

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 10:36 | 2841390 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture



 maybe try reading about the history of the aea over the last 400 years....


I did and found out Thomas Jefferson smoked those raghead muzzies into the ground......not sure why I didn't learn that in school.

They made a song about it. The Marines liked it so much they still use it to this day.



Sat, 09/29/2012 - 00:59 | 2841114 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Dear ACP, your view of history has almost nothing that overlaps mine! It is much more probable that American Zionists, etc., staged 9/11 as a false flag attack, to blame on Muslims, so that that could prepare the way to start more wars and impose martial law in the USA.

The bigger picture is pretty simple really! The whole world is run by organized systems of lies and violence, doing fraud and robbery. Just look at how big any organization is, and you automatically can tell how dishonest and violent they had to be, in order to grow that big, and survive inside of that real context. There are NO "good guys," only different kinds of bad guys, and they ALL are now stark raving mad, due the reality of MAD!

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 07:14 | 2841276 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 When did corporations send people into houses to rape a kill people to make a profit? 

It's called an analogy, dipshit. 

As for 'Saudi Arabia' being happy to allow US corporations to drill oil... it's not 'Saudi Arabia', but the Saudi (and OPEC) police-state elites that are kept in power by the US' military might in return for demanding USD. 9/11 - if you believe it was carried out solely by Al Qaeda, which many people don't - was blowback for decades of meddling in the region, not to mention endless, unconditional support for Israel's various war crimes and acts of ethnic cleansing against Muslims.

You think expanding the US death squad scheme will reduce threats from abroad? No, you'll only enrage the locals further, as well as set precedents for casual extra-judicial killing that will come home to the US.

Of course, enraging Muslims is probably a goal in itself - I mean, now the the USSR bogey is gone, why would we need an enormous military?

Our MIC needs all the enemies it can get.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 23:31 | 2840982 PD Quig
PD Quig's picture

It's also pretty cool that He has decided that He gets to decide if an American citizen gets assassinated. Now THAT'S a power that everybody on the left would have loved to see GW Bush exercise, don't you think? Or, the 50,000 warrantless wiretaps that have gone down in the past two years (according to the ACLU). Or going to war in Libya and then going on vacation for nine days...not even a head fake towards congressional approval. Or ongoing renditions.

But it's all good. We can forget about all those little 'indiscretions' because things are going so well here on the homefront.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:25 | 2840437 lineskis
lineskis's picture

Note that in the clip, they count the interest paid on debt as military expense, because they consider this as "paying for prior wars". Right or not, that's how they get their number.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:37 | 2840466 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Under what logic would that be wrong?   If I borrow money to buy a house, isn't it obviously true that the interest I owe each year is house-related? 

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:35 | 2840579 you enjoy myself
you enjoy myself's picture

because at least a national defense is provided for in the constitution.  is defense bloated?  sure.  but its pretty dishonest to attribute all $400B in interest payments to defense and none to transfer payments, which eat up far more of the budget than defense.  in 2010, 70% of the budget went to transfer payments - SS, medicare/medicaid mostly.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:19 | 2840681 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

What is your source for the 70% figure?

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:35 | 2840731 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Putting aside the political agenda of the Heritage Foundation, they offer no specifics at all.  I could make a pretty chart too and say without support that 90% of government spending supports hand washing of the Queen of England (her hand washer died recently, by the way).  Do you have a source that provides a breakdown that could be analyzed?

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:58 | 2840807 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

LTER, I don't like you.

And as you know, I rarely if ever agree with you.

But I do like reading what you write.

Peace be with you.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 22:26 | 2840880 you enjoy myself
you enjoy myself's picture

you could go here i guess:

which comes in maybe 5% less.  but that 5% could easily be made up if you (IMO, properly) count housing, energy, and farm subsidies (among others) as transfer payments.



Fri, 09/28/2012 - 23:37 | 2840994 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So the government propaganda (your chart is directly from the government) is gospel to you when it suits your purposes?  Do you hereby state and affirm that the government figures are accurate?

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 00:26 | 2841071 you enjoy myself
you enjoy myself's picture

dude, you asked me for a source and i gave you two.  and every source's numbers (going to Heritage first was just random) are roughly the same.  if your argument is that everything is a massive lie, and defense spending is really 80% of the budget (which means you think they're also massively overstating medicare/SS numbers for some reason?) then fine.  but my original response was just that its completely dishonest to allocate the entirety of our interest expense to defense, and i used a widely known and available stat to make the point. 

if the defense budget was literally cut to $0 we would still have a deficit because of all those transfer payments, and we would still have ever-growing interest payments because we'd never reduce our principle.  in that case, would defense spending actually be $400B according to you?

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 02:25 | 2841168 oldman
oldman's picture


You have to let go of 'SS' as a 'transfer payment' that interest has to be paid on---it was my cash that we are talking about and 'you' know what?

I have never received even a penny in interest, and I also know that my money for 'old age' benefit was never funded because the money was used to fund wars instead. I did not agree to that nor most of the wars----so who received the the 'interest' that the war machine supposedly paid? Is there, somewhere, a giant slush fund of trillions of dollars that were claimed as 'interest paid'? If so, all of our problems are over because the interest over the last fifty years on war debt must be thirty trillion dollars or so, at least.

  If you find it, btw---you can have my 'transfer payment'; I have nearly received what I paid in and am pleased to have lived so long in perfect health.

And, this word 'constitution' what does that mean---don't you remember that it was cast aside so that we could live securely under the Homeland Security Group? Come on, remember? We gladly gave up freedom for security

I feel so much better----thanks 'you'            om

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 08:57 | 2841330 KickIce
KickIce's picture

But SS is in a separate fund earning interest, don't you read the budget reports.

/heavy sarc

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 23:35 | 2840987 PD Quig
PD Quig's picture

Under the logic that the interest is on the entire $16T dollars in debt accrued over at least 60 years, you stupid fucking cow.

Sun, 09/30/2012 - 08:02 | 2842856 oldman
oldman's picture

Dat's me! MOOOOOO!!!


Fri, 09/28/2012 - 23:47 | 2841011 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

If you bought a house, a boat, a mobile domicile, some hookers, and some blow, all with debt, it would be dishonest to say the 100% of your interest was bacause of your house.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:26 | 2840438 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

I think the difference is between the % of the Federal budget versus the % of tax revenues spent on the military, two different things.


Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:31 | 2840454 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

You couldn't tell me because you stopped watching after 10 seconds, but which numbers specifically are wrong?  

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:42 | 2840475 eatthebanksters
eatthebanksters's picture

Go look at the US Budget for 2012 and you'll get all your answers...

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:45 | 2840481 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So you have no idea then.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:59 | 2840813 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

I sorter thot there WASN'T a budget for 2012...

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:55 | 2840514 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

This story specifically seeks to debunk that official government pie, and it offers specifics.  For example, the govenment pie does not include interest on debt incurred for military expenditure.  It does not include VA benefits.  It does not include black ops.  What do you contend is incorrect in the story?

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:50 | 2840497 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

I'm amazed people still fall for the "we spend too much on de-fence"

when way more of the pie izz fo' obama fonz an' 40s.

(we could spend less on defense if we were not policing every Fucking Thing).

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:58 | 2840518 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Unlike W, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, etc?

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:40 | 2840588 toady
toady's picture

Dammit LC55!

Every time I see a post from you there is one of my favorite sayings in it.

I say 'we wouldn't spend so much on defense if we weren't policing everything' all the time .

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:46 | 2840599 Kiwi Pete
Kiwi Pete's picture

Next time watch the whole video before you write it off. He explains pretty clearly how he gets from the official war spending to the actual number. The fact that alot of it is borrowed is irrelevant. You could still choose to spend it on something more productive.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:12 | 2840658 bilejones
bilejones's picture

"defense spending is not 53 cents of every dollar in our budget."


No-one claimed that it was, you fucking moron.


Hence the title


"Where do your tax dollars go"


It is by the way understated, there's all the nuclear weapons related crap in the "Energy" department.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 22:01 | 2840821 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

"you fucking moron" is truly uncalled for.

Bad form

Down arrow.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:38 | 2840736 Sam Clemons
Sam Clemons's picture

The percent spent on defense is worth looking at, but what really matters is how much money is lent into existence in order to provide defense (offense) for the country and defense (welfare and municipal bailouts) for the politicians.  Are we creating 50 cents of every dollar we spend yet?

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:11 | 2840404 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Military Industrial Complex - Eisenhower knew what he was talking about.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:14 | 2840662 bilejones
bilejones's picture

Second only to the fed in terms of concentrating the wealth of the middle class into ever fewer hands.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:40 | 2840740 Sam Clemons
Sam Clemons's picture

The saddest part is that even companies that exist to make death more efficient have brought more value to society than bankers via accidental societally useful inventions.

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 03:35 | 2841203 r3phl0x
r3phl0x's picture

The military-industrial complex gave us the Internet; Wall St gave us the Facebook IPO.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:42 | 2840471 Sockeye
Sockeye's picture

That's seriously messed up.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:04 | 2840633 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

yes, it is, but not in the way the story is being "sold" -

A history of mental illness, the loss of a dear uncle, and a growing fear of Obama winning a second term in the White House took its toll on the mind of Mr Peterson, a wealthy defense contractor, the friend said.

'He just did not want his kids inheriting this mess,' Maggie L


But as time went on, Mr Peterson's paranoia and the demons from his past prevented him from enjoying life, his friends and his family.

'He's had difficulty his whole life,' Maggie said. 'He had a rough time with paranoia.'

At a young age, Maggie said, both his father and his uncle committed suicide.


Mr Peterson, also mentioned pressures at work that troubled Maggie.

Explaining his increasingly erratic behavior, she said: 'He said he wanted to expose something at work. He also got the impression at work, that if they didn't vote for Obama and get him elected, they would lose their jobs,'

sounds like a history of mental illness ran in his family, and I'm sure the industry where he made his "wealth" didn't help his state of mind much. . .

there will be more of these stories as we go, as folks continue to lose touch with what they identify as reality.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 22:07 | 2840834 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

That was not the house of a "wealthy defense contractor..."

At least, not based on the premise of the thread we're all jawboning about right now.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:15 | 2840411 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Uhm.... 3 trillion dollar budget? When? There hasn't been a budget in years, and if there was it's closer to 4 trillion.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:46 | 2840489 nmewn
nmewn's picture

They don't have to pass a budget anymore, so the taxpayer can actually see whats in must have heard.

The precedent has now been set, they are the smartest bastards on the face of planet, they can do no wrong...I mean really, the deficit/debt incurred by them speaks for itself doesn't it? ;-)

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:32 | 2840572 rufusbird
rufusbird's picture

We don't need no stinking budgets....

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:15 | 2840413 Comay Mierda
Comay Mierda's picture





Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:18 | 2840418 Rainman
Rainman's picture

Even a quarter of every dollar on defense would make Ike twitch in his grave. Guns or Butter. bitchez..??...can't do both forever, proven by the Romans ( fail ).

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:18 | 2840419 sansnobel
sansnobel's picture

Anybody who is dumb enough to believe that the other part of the Guns + Butter equation has contributed nothing to the stagering National Debt is sorely mistaken.  The Butter has consisted of Social Welfare spending programs AND Corporate Welfare to the Banks and other Fascist industries.  This whole video is retarded anyway because it matters not where it is spent anymore.  Benny Shalom will print or it will implode and when the debt is no longer serviceable, well we can just guess  about what will happen next.

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 13:34 | 2841709 SoCalBusted
SoCalBusted's picture

I was almost bought in on this video until the end, when it basically suggested that the government spend the money elsewhere.  As such, it reeks of liberal bias. 

Here's a clue, just stop spending!

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:23 | 2840433 q99x2
q99x2's picture

I am a conscientious objector and refuse to pay taxes to sociopaths that dare try to use my money to kill people. I used to work on trident missle systems a long time ago and I'm still worried that one of the fuckers I worked on will come back to bite me in the ass.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:28 | 2840445 Timmay
Timmay's picture

Shouldn't it be, "Where do Chinese Investments go??"

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:29 | 2840446 Zap Powerz
Zap Powerz's picture

Relaaaax.  Obama's got this.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:29 | 2840449 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

It goes from my right pocket to my left pocket

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:31 | 2840455 orangegeek
orangegeek's picture

US Dollar is making its way back up.

If the US Dollar continues to climb (Euro needs to fall to make this occur), markets are likely to head downward.

So let's hope Europe recovers and transform into an economic prosperity machine over the next few months. * smile*

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:39 | 2840465 akak
akak's picture


The US dollar is NOT "making its way back up".

The US dollar, or ANY fiat currency, NEVER "goes up", and never gains in value.

You are just focused on the artificial and outdated US Dollar Index.  But the DXY is NOT the same thing as the US dollar.

Really, please stop with this kind of gross misinterpretation.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:33 | 2840577 Seer
Seer's picture

I think that it was a bit tongue-in-cheek: catch the last sentence.  Besides, I think that "back up" has more to do with "not sinking as fast as the others."

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:45 | 2840485 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture


Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:28 | 2840563 Esso
Esso's picture

I want a iEuro5!

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:33 | 2840457 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The problem as we all know is poor people.  In the context of this article, we need to spend a lot of money bombing poor people, so it is the fault of the poor.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:57 | 2840517 nmewn
nmewn's picture

You don't seem to get it...the poor and middle class will always be fed into the wood chipper of any state (for war or welfare) unless the state is constrained.

Its really as simple as that, believe it or not.

We (more properly I) don't denigrate the poor because they are poor...I denigrate them because they allow themselves to led around by the nose, by the very people who will gladly feed them into the woodchipper, to save the senators son from being fed into it.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:11 | 2840656 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Did you see that the Queen of England's official hand washer died recently?  Apparently, it is a job that will now go to one of his relatives.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:39 | 2840738 bilejones
bilejones's picture

And the Royalls  still manage on less than one twenty fifth of what the Obamas cost.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:45 | 2840760 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

And you believe that?  What is the net worth of the royal family.  Any idea?   Whatever the number is, do you think they earned it with free market capitalism, or do you think their ancestors took it by force?   

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:33 | 2840458 Againstthelie
Againstthelie's picture

Good to have a peace nobel price winner as president.

And that the sheeple still do love "Democracy" and don't recognize the Plutocracy. They even believe they were free, while they are making debts. HAHAHA! Stupid goyim!

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 23:46 | 2841009 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

It does seem ironic, doesn't it?  A president winning the Peace Prize while carrying on a war.  Not to burst anyone's bubble, but the case for war was made in his acceptance speech.   The unfulfilled part would be this part which would tangentially mean Iran:  "If we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something.  Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable."   There is more.   Read the speech.

Here's a link to the entire speech and a video of the speech:

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 00:20 | 2841051 akak
akak's picture

By "lasting peace", Soetero meant the "peace" of everlasting domination and statist oppression of the peoples of the world in a one-world "coordinated" globalist regime, right?

And by "the international community", he meant the ruling elites of the world, right?

And the "ruling elites" would be the central bankster-led financial oligopoly, right?

Hey, I think I am getting the hang of this!

Sun, 09/30/2012 - 00:56 | 2842695 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I see no problem with your analysis.  A Peace Prize don't mean shit is another take-away.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:42 | 2840473 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Most of that money is funding the biggest terrorist organization in existence today, the American government and the federal reserve.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:32 | 2840576 Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture



Bingo! The taxes on wages in particular are specifically in place to mitigates one's own capital formation.  

Gotta keep them in that rat race, afterall.  Can't let J6PK save enough to have options whiles he's still young enough to toil, now can they?

Comparing the proportional amounts of tax "revenues" to any .gov "spending" is a distraction.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:42 | 2840474 Theos
Theos's picture

"If only we didnt have war we could pay for a utopia!!!"

How about you fuck off, cut 75% of everything and then we'll talk.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:45 | 2840480 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture







Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:48 | 2840493 icanhasbailout
icanhasbailout's picture

Take the Democrats' new logo, rotate 90 degrees clockwise, and it should be a familiar representation of where your tax dollars go.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:55 | 2840515 Platinum_Investor
Platinum_Investor's picture

It's all lies, it's not real... who's playing this Sunday night in the football game?   

I'm going back to my porn site adult rental 

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 19:58 | 2840519 Blazed
Blazed's picture

Where? Out the window!

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:10 | 2840532 Yardfarmer
Yardfarmer's picture

the IRS, the Federal Reserve and the Great War were all coeval. the creatures on Jekyll Island needed an enforcement arm for their pillage of the US Treasury. what do you think all those Remington semi-auto shotguns are for?

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:19 | 2840544 Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture



$3trillion killing allocated and all Bibi has to show for it is his little Cartoon of Mass Destruction.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:20 | 2840547 Count de Money
Count de Money's picture

I think what demolishes the video's credibility is the claim "The homeland security budget is largely military".

No, the homeland security budget is largely the TSA. Maybe he thinks that harrassing travelers at the airport is "military" because they wear uniforms.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:43 | 2840590 psychobilly
psychobilly's picture

"...the homeland security budget is largely the TSA."

Nope.  TSA is ~18% of the Fatherland Security budget. 

Regardless, it's all part of the police state apparatus, crotch grabbers and all.  If Fatherland Security is so benign, why do they need 1.6 billion hollow-point bullets?

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:46 | 2840598 Seer
Seer's picture

And it all pretty much falls under the "Defense" budget: (yes, this is a bit dated)

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:08 | 2840647 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Well, at least they're unionized public employees, clearly the very best of the best, with the highest governmental training standards (to be expected in a unionized work force, of course) with the select, chosen few going Forward for their impeccable integrity and love for da Fadderland, which always garners the publics utmost trust & cooperation ;-)

February 16, 2011 -- Davon Webb and Persad Coumar

Webb 30, and Coumar, 44, were both TSA agents at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. According to Reuters, Coumar would alert Webb when he found cash in a bag he was screening. Webb would place tape on the bag, and they would allegedly recover the cash in a luggage area later. Cops reportedly found $40,000 stashed in the men's homes, although they allegedly admitted to stealing as much as an additional $160,000.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:23 | 2840555 hannah
hannah's picture

it was an ok piece of commie propaganda til about 3 minutes in their idea is to take the military spending and use it for social programs...?! fuck that....

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:33 | 2840724 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

ZH has been trending commie-faggot for a while now.  Not sure what happened.

I suspect someone came out of the closet.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:26 | 2840559 pashley1411
pashley1411's picture

Defemse expenses, entitlement expenses; tweedledum, tweedledee.      Each puts the political class in the middle, one set of clients and funds for Party A, the other set of clients and funds for Party B.     Both Party A and Party B do their deals in Washington, both siphon money from the rest of the country for their clients.

You can root for Party A, a you can root for Party B, that's what they want.   But the trampled playing field are the hopes and dreams of the private sector middle class.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:30 | 2840569 wagthetails
wagthetails's picture

GDP about $15T

Federal expenditures about $3.9T

State and local expenditures less cash from feds, about $2.2T (based on 2007 census)

So about 40% of GDP is gov't spending.  Taxes aren't going to fix the problem (not that they don't need to be reformed), but spending is the problem.  Another fact, the budget deficit is about $1.4T..the top 5% AGI amounts to $1.6%.  so you'd pretty much have to take the top5% at 100% to close the gap.  top 5% is AGI is over $155k.  

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:34 | 2840575 outofhere
outofhere's picture

Simple, don't even have to watch.  All tax dollars go directly to the IMF and then get distributed everywhere but here.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:55 | 2840578 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

4,7% of GDP goes to military spending:

23,4% of GDP goes to social programs:


This video is a clear example of liberal propaganda. Still, we do need spending cuts across the board, that includes military spending.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:56 | 2840612 Kiwi Pete
Kiwi Pete's picture

Except for this:  

Clock ticking to disastrous defense cuts

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:06 | 2840626 psychobilly
psychobilly's picture

"In fact military spending makes up the lowest % of the total gov spending in history."

I didn't watch the video, but this is abject nonsense. You do realize that not all military spending falls under DoD base budget, right?


Here is one Republican wonk's estimate of the real defense budget, broken out by line item:


The Real US Military Budget: $1 Trillion

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:29 | 2840674 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

Nonsense? Take a look:


It's not the lowest % in history so I apologize for that error (removed this from the post but you quoted it right after). However it's much lower than the period of 1940 - 1990.


I'm not trying to defend war-mongering republicans. Ron Paul is right. But this video has a liberal agenda and only mentions half of the spending problem.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 23:14 | 2840960 psychobilly
psychobilly's picture

 The figures in your link are close: $900 billion for FY2013 compared to $994 billion in the link I put up.  They break out interest separately, which makes sense.

Given that government spending takes an ever-larger percentage of GDP over the years, using percent of GDP as a yardstick is rather spurios.

You could cut "defense" spending by 75% and that would still be almost double what China spends and almost quadruple what Russia spends.  A lot of welfare parasites would scream bloody murder, but they should go find honest work.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:36 | 2840581 SmittyinLA
SmittyinLA's picture


Our government is a criminal enterprise, murdering people around the globe is just the cost of Socialism and mass immigration.  


Those Obamnestied young "Hispanics" need gasoline, America is issuing 1 million fresh new drivers licenses. 


Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:39 | 2840583 Floodmaster
Floodmaster's picture

Ephemeralization is an utopia, human needs goals, even silly one, they are not smart enough to have no goal.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:51 | 2840602 Seer
Seer's picture

No, humans DO have "goals," well... ONE GOAL - GROWTH!  And I'd say that this "goal" is FAR worse than having NO goal... keeps TPTB on the thrones though (which would pretty much put THE GOAL firmly in Their hands- they continue to rule, hardly stupid).

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 20:51 | 2840603 Go Tribe
Go Tribe's picture

Nasty fucking muslims. Why post this shit?

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 01:46 | 2841144 nathan1234
nathan1234's picture

The problem is that the US is interfering in all these "Muslim" countries.

When it stops doing so and dismantles its military bases in over 130 countries, no one there will be nasty.

It's time to keep the US fingers in it's own pie.


Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:15 | 2840666 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Lies, damned lies, and more lies.  There really is no excuse for this.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:30 | 2840718 inkarri9
inkarri9's picture

The video does say 53% of the dollars that we pay in taxes.  Considering tax revenues are only about $2.2T, the claim is not that far-fetched.  The $1.6T number might be high but even if the number is closer to $1T, that is A LOT of money.  The point is that we have the biggest, most expensive war machine ever.

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:34 | 2840729 Nimby
Nimby's picture

The problem isn't that 53% of our budget goes to "war".  The problem is that 100% (or damn close to it) doesn't go to war.  
The job of the federal government is to maintain an Army big enough and bad enough to deter aggression, and where deterrence fails, to win on the battlefield.  The job of the federal government isn't to make sure that every public school is a "green" building with a sufficiently diverse teaching corps.  And the purpose of the federal government sure as shit isn't to pay a bunch of camel-fucking Muhammadians to behave themselves until after the next election.  It never works anyways. 

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 21:56 | 2840800 inkarri9
inkarri9's picture

No, the job of the Federal government is not to dedicate 100% of tax revenues towards the military. 

Fri, 09/28/2012 - 22:48 | 2840916 Bobportlandor
Bobportlandor's picture


Thank you for saving me a heart attack.

And add this. Just today Oregon govenor anounced fereral funding of $197 million government loan guarantee to build and produce

..........................>Oh God help us, SOLAR CELLS


Sat, 09/29/2012 - 06:00 | 2841243 css1971
css1971's picture

Eh.... Nope.

America didn't have a standing army till World War II. Which is the whole point of the well trained militia and right to bear arms thing.

Definitely heading towards a totalitarian state.

Sat, 09/29/2012 - 07:52 | 2841295 falak pema
falak pema's picture

what do you object to more : the camel fucking or the Allah worshipping?

What has the federal government's budget got to do with either of those two themes? 

Neither the camels nor the Mohametans intend to invade the USa; except as cigarettes and oil producers. 

The military shoe is on the other foot, its the US MIC which is hell bent on invading camel country, recurrently!

So the real question is why does the federal government hate the camels so much? 

Maybe its 'cos the camels don't shit oil, 'cos if they did they would be declared as strategic world assets and worshipped along with the greenback in the pantheon of the FED. 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!