How our tax dollars are spent?

[HEROHAMO]

Ok a simple breakdown of where most of our tax dollars go. Our federal income tax dollars.


1.) 42.2 cents of every federal income tax dollar you pay is currently going towards the millitary fund. 28.7 cents of that is going directly to the war.
I support our troops. However I feel it is time for these guys and gals to come home. I honestly feel our country needs to be fixed first before we can go out and try and take care of some other countries problem.

2.) 22.1 cents of every federal income tax dollar paid goes towards health care.
My personal feelings,
We already have a huge amount of money towards health care. Yet we have millions without health coverage.
What you have to ask is how are your tax dollars being spent? Where do your funds go? Just think about it just about 1/4 of every tax dollar paid. Already goes to health care? So why are we even talking about a health care bill? Why? Wasteful spending that continues to happen. You can thank corruption, special interests and just plain ignorance for wasteful spending.

3.) 10.2 cents of every federal income tax dollar paid goes towards interest on non military debt. Just the interest not the actual principle. We are talking about just the interest on non military debt. Obviously bad very bad. Our great grandchildren will be paying this debt. Just think about it.
Billions of dollars are just going towards debt. Not to help anything just debt!

4.) 8.7 cents of every federal income tax dollar paid goes towards anti-poverty programs. They include food assistance, supplemental income for those with low incomes and assistance for foster care and adoption programs.

5.) 4.4 cents of every federal income tax dollar paid goes towards education.

6.) 3.9 cents of every federal income tax dollar paid goes towards government and law enforcement.

7.)3.3 cents of every federal income tax dollar paid goes towards housing and community development.

8.) 2.6 cents of every federal income tax dollar paid goes towards environment, energy and science. Spending in this area goes to environmental programs, energy exploration and any programs that deal with general science, technology and space.

9) 1.5 cents of every federal income tax dollar paid goes towards the following. Agriculture, Commerce & Transportation.

10) 1 cent of every federal income tax dollar paid goes towards International affairs.

[Countertrey]

I honestly feel our country needs to be fixed first before we can go out and try and take care of some other countries problem.

What happens if we leave Afghanistan in the condition it currently is?
(Hint 1: minimal thought is required)
(Hint 2: see Afghanistan, circa Sept 2001)
Taking care of this isn't because we are being nice to the Afghans.

Sometimes, you just have to do what you have to do.

[HEROHAMO]

I honestly feel our country needs to be fixed first before we can go out and try and take care of some other countries problem.

What happens if we leave Afghanistan in the condition it currently is?
(Hint 1: minimal thought is required)
(Hint 2: see Afghanistan, circa Sept 2001)
Taking care of this isn't because we are being nice to the Afghans.

Sometimes, you just have to do what you have to do.

I understand we just cant up and leave now. I believe the Afghan government or leadership is saying they will be ready in 3 years to take over and defend themselves. So I think we can at least expect three years more at the least.

I just want our soldiers home as soon as possible. I know the reality is our government may have to stay for a couple years. This is a tough issue. I just want to keep it simple. War sucks we all know that.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I understand we just cant up and leave now. I believe the Afghan government or leadership is saying they will be ready in 3 years to take over and defend themselves. So I think we can at least expect three years more at the least.

Democrats have the hearts and minds of the stupid in this country. As long as they are screaming for cheap gas while blocking domestic exploration and production our military will be used to secure oil supplies. Oil supplies are unfortunately disproportionately in areas dominated by bad governments, which makes enemies of the bad guys who oppose them. I'm with Trey we are there and as long as we're practicing the idiotic policy we are we need to fight them, but I wish we would go back and reevaluate why we are doing it in the first place.

But as long as simpletons like Obama keep preaching to the morons who unfortunately vote that electing Democrats is a painless solution to all our problems no matter how many times that is proven wrong with empirical data, we will be in these wars. But I guess it's working for them, they are in total dominating power right now. God help us all.

[VetSkinsFan]

In theory, I agree with HeroHamo. We have a lot of domestic issues that need to be addressed as opposed to being the world police. Don't want to pay these lunatics for oil, develop and implement new technologies to ensure we're not dependent on these fossil fuels.

We could also stop selling our oil b/c and buying other oil. I understand that it's more lucrative this way, but cut outgoing monies and be more domesticantly reliant.

I realize this comment will spawn some in depth and sometimes long winded pointy finger response. I don't give a damn if it's democrats or republicans, it's an AMERICAN issue. It needs an AMERICAN fix and pointing fingers and throwing insults/labels just pisses in the wind moreso than enlightens anyone.

[KazooSkinsFan]

We could also stop selling our oil b/c and buying other oil.

Why? This is an economic point not a political one. I assume you're referring to like when we ship Alaskan oil to Japan. It's an economic calculation. I'll explain why do that and why it makes sense.

Oil is a commodity, there is a price it is bought and sold at on the market. Sure, there's a transaction cost but percentage wise it's tiny. The cost of transportation dwarfs the transaction cost. Keep in mind the majority of the oil we use is on the Atlantic, not the Pacific.

So, when we produce oil on the pacific and transport it to destinations on the Pacific (e.g., Japan) and buy oil on the Atlantic and send it to the US on the Atlantic the shipping costs are far less then the shipping costs of sending it from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico. That's why we do that, so save cost.

At the same time, because we are producing oil from Alaska the cost of selling that oil offsets the cost of buying the oil in the market and it does help keep global oil prices lower because it's creating more supply.

[Cappster]

We could also stop selling our oil b/c and buying other oil.

Why? This is an economic point not a political one. I assume you're referring to like when we ship Alaskan oil to Japan. It's an economic calculation. I'll explain why do that and why it makes sense.

Oil is a commodity, there is a price it is bought and sold at on the market. Sure, there's a transaction cost but percentage wise it's tiny. The cost of transportation dwarfs the transaction cost. Keep in mind the majority of the oil we use is on the Atlantic, not the Pacific.

So, when we produce oil on the pacific and transport it to destinations on the Pacific (e.g., Japan) and buy oil on the Atlantic and send it to the US on the Atlantic the shipping costs are far less then the shipping costs of sending it from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico. That's why we do that, so save cost.

At the same time, because we are producing oil from Alaska the cost of selling that oil offsets the cost of buying the oil in the market and it does help keep global oil prices lower because it's creating more supply.

That assessment makes sense Kazoo. Economics can be a complex yet simple topic of discussion and policy.

[VetSkinsFan]

We could also stop selling our oil b/c and buying other oil.

Why? This is an economic point not a political one. I assume you're referring to like when we ship Alaskan oil to Japan. It's an economic calculation. I'll explain why do that and why it makes sense.

Oil is a commodity, there is a price it is bought and sold at on the market. Sure, there's a transaction cost but percentage wise it's tiny. The cost of transportation dwarfs the transaction cost. Keep in mind the majority of the oil we use is on the Atlantic, not the Pacific.

So, when we produce oil on the pacific and transport it to destinations on the Pacific (e.g., Japan) and buy oil on the Atlantic and send it to the US on the Atlantic the shipping costs are far less then the shipping costs of sending it from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico. That's why we do that, so save cost.

At the same time, because we are producing oil from Alaska the cost of selling that oil offsets the cost of buying the oil in the market and it does help keep global oil prices lower because it's creating more supply.

I understand why it's like it is. My point (maybe a bad example) was to be more dependent on somestic product as opposed to foreign.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I understand why it's like it is. My point (maybe a bad example) was to be more dependent on somestic product as opposed to foreign.

The best way to do that would be for government to stay out of energy. No worrying about the price, no blocking domestic exploration, no support for bringing in foreign oil. Let oil companies work it out themselves unsupported but unencumbered by government. That won't happen because politician's product is fear. Democrats for economics like this. Oh my God, greedy oil companies! Oh my God, you have to PAY for medical care! Republicans over what someone may be doing in their bedroom or with their bodies. It just can't be allowed. Terry Schievo is AWARE! Someone stop that man from smoking POT! It goes on and on.

[Irn-Bru]

War really is the worst offender of all inefficient, harmful, destructive, and immoral government enterprises. And there's a lot of competition for that title.

[HEROHAMO]

I understand we just cant up and leave now. I believe the Afghan government or leadership is saying they will be ready in 3 years to take over and defend themselves. So I think we can at least expect three years more at the least.

Democrats have the hearts and minds of the stupid in this country. As long as they are screaming for cheap gas while blocking domestic exploration and production our military will be used to secure oil supplies. Oil supplies are unfortunately disproportionately in areas dominated by bad governments, which makes enemies of the bad guys who oppose them. I'm with Trey we are there and as long as we're practicing the idiotic policy we are we need to fight them, but I wish we would go back and reevaluate why we are doing it in the first place.

But as long as simpletons like Obama keep preaching to the morons who unfortunately vote that electing Democrats is a painless solution to all our problems no matter how many times that is proven wrong with empirical data, we will be in these wars. But I guess it's working for them, they are in total dominating power right now. God help us all.

In actuality the War was pretty much a unanimous decision save maybe a few members of government voted against it. Bush's staff recommended we go to war. It was voted on and the country went to war. I ask any true conservative this. What would Reagen have done? Do you think Reagen would have handled it the same way Bush did? I guess we will never know.
So it was both Republicans and Democrats who both agreed on the war. I think it is safe to say the majority of the country agreed on the war at the time.

We have to become less dependent on foreign oil.
The Oil and money we may get from this war. Will not even come close to how much the War actually costs us taxpayers.
Most importantly we are losing American lives out there. That you can never put a price on.

Just get it over with and get them home as soon as humanly possible. Do what they have to do and get back.

[Irn-Bru]

In actuality the War was pretty much a unanimous decision save maybe a few members of government voted against it.

We never declared war.

So it was both Republicans and Democrats who both agreed on the war. I think it is safe to say the majority of the country agreed on the war at the time.

Not if public polls were any indication of public opinion.

[Countertrey]

In actuality the War was pretty much a unanimous decision save maybe a few members of government voted against it.

We never declared war.

So it was both Republicans and Democrats who both agreed on the war. I think it is safe to say the majority of the country agreed on the war at the time.

Not if public polls were any indication of public opinion.

I don't know where you were in October of 2001, but my memory says that there was very broad, public support for the overthrow of the Taliban and the hunting down of al Qaeda scum. GWB then promptly squandered that support.

[Irn-Bru]

So it was both Republicans and Democrats who both agreed on the war. I think it is safe to say the majority of the country agreed on the war at the time.

Not if public polls were any indication of public opinion.

I don't know where you were in October of 2001, but my memory says that there was very broad, public support for the overthrow of the Taliban and the hunting down of al Qaeda scum. GWB then promptly squandered that support.

Right, but I'm referring to the all-out war, government-toppling, nation-rebuilding aspect of Afghanistan. The scope quickly escalated beyond what any original public opinion may have supported. But my larger point is really Iraq, for which there was considerably less public support.

(Not that I think public support should really matter, but that's another story, I suppose.)

[KazooSkinsFan]

In actuality the War was pretty much a unanimous decision save maybe a few members of government voted against it. Bush's staff recommended we go to war. It was voted on and the country went to war. I ask any true conservative this. What would Reagen have done? Do you think Reagen would have handled it the same way Bush did? I guess we will never know.
So it was both Republicans and Democrats who both agreed on the war. I think it is safe to say the majority of the country agreed on the war at the time.

I agree, this actually doesn't counter my point. What I specifically blame the Democrats for is screaming for cheap gas and blocking domestic exploration and production and selling to the public we can have no pain cheap gas by electing them. I didn't blame them for the war over the Republicans, for that I blame both. What I am blaming the Democrats for is continuing to block an end to the situation by setting up that no pain option which is only believed because people are too stupid to see it for the obvious lie it is. If we must have cheap gas and we cannot look for it domestically, there is one option left. Deal with bad governments who control most of the oil. That is going to lead to making enemies we didn't need to have.

Just get it over with and get them home as soon as humanly possible. Do what they have to do and get back.

And therein lies the quandary. If we go libertarian and remove our military from the region and our government from oil markets then the problem is solved. We won't make enemies we didn't need to have and free markets will solve our energy problems. Neither party wants either. Republicans talk about the military but the Democrats do it as well, Obama has done nothing to end either war and he is expanding one. Republicans talk about small government then manipulate it in favor of big oil companies. We need government out of markets, not just betting on a different horse.

So here's the problem I have. If we follow the Republican policy we continue to drive the "war on terror" to new locales attracting more enemies. If we follow the Democrats option we leave our military there and don't defend them allowing our enemies to flourish and attack them with little repercussion and plan 9/11 type attacks on the homeland. Which death do you want to die?

[KazooSkinsFan]

I don't know where you were in October of 2001, but my memory says that there was very broad, public support for the overthrow of the Taliban and the hunting down of al Qaeda scum. GWB then promptly squandered that support.

As for me, I was in the NY suburbs. But I agree on Bush. Ignoring my view the solution is not to decide whether to fight which war but to actually change our policy to prevent getting into them, strategically Bush lost the war because he was fighting terrorists and the Democrats were fighting him.

The Democrats won the war for power because he let them engage in ever escalating lies over how it was Bush not them and over the situation leaving each lie unchallenged and therefore an opportunity for the Democrats to build an even bigger lie on it until Bush was holding the whole bag and nothing that happened that was good was recognized. If the Democrats hadn't run a gag candidate they'd have one in 2004 and Bush wouldn't have continued to allow them four more years of foamingly rabid lies and hysterical hypocritical escallation resulting in electing the simpleton liberal puppet Obama.

[HEROHAMO]

In actuality the War was pretty much a unanimous decision save maybe a few members of government voted against it. Bush's staff recommended we go to war. It was voted on and the country went to war. I ask any true conservative this. What would Reagen have done? Do you think Reagen would have handled it the same way Bush did? I guess we will never know.
So it was both Republicans and Democrats who both agreed on the war. I think it is safe to say the majority of the country agreed on the war at the time.

I agree, this actually doesn't counter my point. What I specifically blame the Democrats for is screaming for cheap gas and blocking domestic exploration and production and selling to the public we can have no pain cheap gas by electing them. I didn't blame them for the war over the Republicans, for that I blame both. What I am blaming the Democrats for is continuing to block an end to the situation by setting up that no pain option which is only believed because people are too stupid to see it for the obvious lie it is. If we must have cheap gas and we cannot look for it domestically, there is one option left. Deal with bad governments who control most of the oil. That is going to lead to making enemies we didn't need to have.

Just get it over with and get them home as soon as humanly possible. Do what they have to do and get back.

And therein lies the quandary. If we go libertarian and remove our military from the region and our government from oil markets then the problem is solved. We won't make enemies we didn't need to have and free markets will solve our energy problems. Neither party wants either. Republicans talk about the military but the Democrats do it as well, Obama has done nothing to end either war and he is expanding one. Republicans talk about small government then manipulate it in favor of big oil companies. We need government out of markets, not just betting on a different horse.

So here's the problem I have. If we follow the Republican policy we continue to drive the "war on terror" to new locales attracting more enemies. If we follow the Democrats option we leave our military there and don't defend them allowing our enemies to flourish and attack them with little repercussion and plan 9/11 type attacks on the homeland. Which death do you want to die?

All very good points.