Federal taxes are federal income, and their only income. Social security is a trust fund paid out to the participants. Social security is a legal requirement, it is not "budgeted" is must be paid. It's is something the participant a legally entitled to because the paid into it, and it's solvent for at least 20 years.
It was started as the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI).
Calling it a tax is a misnomer.
But incorrectly including the SS trust fund only decreases the percentage to about 30% of our Federal tax revenues to wars: more than the next ten nations combined.
No nation has ever spent so much on war and survived.
Since the debt was going down till Reagan raised it for wars, 100% of the debt is because of war.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03/05/on_war_costs_bush_is_master_of_disguise/ yes our war costs are delberatly hidden.
You want to think the war department is doing defense, look around, we have bases all over the world, no one has bases in our country.
On the other hand, war has brought about significant advancements in technology, such as the jet age, GPS and drones, which we can use to find more oil. Seriously, EVs are here to stay and it's only a matter of time before the technology is refined enough to 'wean' us off of fossil fuels. It just takes time.
Figures are from the WH office of management and budget.
Note chart labeled "Percent composition of tax reciepts by source".
Income taxes are just short of 60% for that year (2007).
Yes, I missed your use of "taxes" rather than "budget" in your first post. My mistake. Your equating federal taxes and federal income taxes is a mistake. Own it.
Put the rest of the taxes back in and my 18% is roughly equivalent to the 27% in your income taxes pie chart. No mystery hidden military cost.
"You didn't read the link in detail, do you do that as an engineer? "-This is a classic red herring deflection. Bring up something irrelevent to the discussion ("squirrel!") and then fail to address the concerns the other party has brought up. The equating of defense spending as "war" spending is still inaccurate and the adding in veterans/military pensions and 80% of the debt cost to pad out the numbers and then rounding that fictitious 45% up to 50% does not fly.
Anyway, you are inaccurate and willing to employ ad hominem attacks to deflect the discussion from points you quite apparrently do not have answers for-I am done with this discussion.
For the record-I think we spend way to much on defense.
Your haphazard approach and poor attitude do not advance the causes you espouse but rather do them damage and alienate potential allies.
Federal taxes are not the federal budget. economics 101 sorry.
Search "federal taxes", everyone else seems sure that means federal income taxes, even the IRS.
Reagan and the others went into debt to finance the military, we spent trillions on wars, it's pretty reasonable.
You didn't read the link in detail, do you do that as an engineer?
I suggest folks go read the link themselves, the USA spends more on wars than the rest of the world combined or at least the next 10 countries, and you think we can afford to do that, or that it does not take a large part of our budget? War costs have been buried all over our budget, this should be common knowledge.
Um Trenth, you say "federal taxes" the chart you referance says "income taxes".
Pretty big difference. When we talk federal taxes we are talking the federal budget (plus what they print, borrow, steal etc. yes that is a approx. a quarter of the budget).
I didn't look in depth at the chart but I did note that the "past military" section includes "80% of the interest on the debt". So they select part of the federal taxation (income) and assign all of military spending to it and fatten that up with 80% of the debt interest and pensions to the military.
And we are still short of 50% (45%). Only 27% without the extras. Ya, I guess they can play with the numbers that way and get a "statistic" that sounds scarier. Yay for them. As a percentage of the fed budget military is far smaller than in the past (I think it's too big myself, OK?). I don't think the "war folks" are the only one putting out misleading stats.
And as noted, not all defense spending is "war spending", and the "past military" category is pretty weak as an incluion under "war" also. Broadly equating dissimilar terms like that is not going to work either.
I observe that methane gas produced in landfills is a real hazard, and it appears in a quite short time, often less than a year. So my conclusion is that it should be much simpler to produce a new type of "fossile fuel" without that incredibly much effort. Since some farmers use manure in a fermentor to produce enough methane to be a worthwhile energy source, I am further convinced that the time frames so frequently recited are not as accurate as many believe. Besides all of that, there is still a whole lot of various hydrocarbon material in the ground, just waiting for an effective extration method to be developed. Remember that all of the oil was supposed to be used up back around 1954, I think it was. Predictions based on wishful thinking are often found to have been incorrect.
I don't see how fossils fuels would be seen as any kind of miracle today. All the easy oil is long gone, the days of 300 to one EROI are gone, we are at about 1.2. Without gov breaks, solar, wind backed with waste to fuels and hydro are far cheaper now.
Fossils WERE miraculous at the time and allowed our great progress, but that time is gone.
Well said, William K. If petroleum-based fuels were introduced today, they'd be considered one of the world's great discoveries. We dwell so much on their environmental shortcomings that they're now considered by many to be a plague, which couldn't be further from the truth.
A slew of announcements about new materials and design concepts for transportation have come out of several trade shows focusing on plastics, aircraft interiors, heavy trucks, and automotive engineering. A few more announcements have come independent of any trade shows, maybe just because it's spring.
Samsung's Galaxy line of smartphones used to fare quite well in the repairability department, but last year's flagship S5 model took a tumble, scoring a meh-inducing 5/10. Will the newly redesigned S6 lead us back into star-studded territory, or will we sink further into the depths of a repairability black hole?
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.