On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:09 PM, kirby urner <email@example.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Paul Tanner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:09 PM, kirby urner <email@example.com> wrote: >> ... > > << SNIP >> > >>> Once military expenses, broadly are interpreted, are subtracted from >>> net IRS revenue, what's left for taxpayers to take credit for? Do USA >>> citizens even pay for their own schools? Or is that China again? >>> >> >> I already did run them in a general way in my message >> >> "Re: Speachless In New York (or, another OMG moment) " >> http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7914775 >> > > This diagram from 2010 is helpful. > > It looks like the deficit would just about equal discretionary > spending, which includes defense spending. > > So we could turn it around and say taxpayers get no credit for defense > spending (that's borrowed). > > Tax revenues cover mandatory expenses and that's it. > > In this sense, all that military spending as a "return on investment" > to a global population to invests in US government spending. > > Given how military spending is very slanted towards a certain kind of > engineering (destructive vs. constructive, Army Corps of Engineers > notwithstanding), I can see why some private investors, including > other governments ("private" in the sense of "not USA government) > would be unhappy with how their funds were being committed. >
This is all not relevant since money is fungible. (For those who don't know that I mean, see
and all my other messages in that thread that address this, as well as those that I link to in that message.
>> as well as in other messages, repeatedly. It's just not that hard to >> get the total debt to start moving down as a percentage of GDP while >> not reducing social spending. It just takes smarts and guts on the >> part of non-conservative politicians (conservative ones are not >> interested in lowering the debt while preserving social spending). > > Remember that GDP can represent all kinds of wasteful and stupid > spending, like turning the USA into Incarceration Nation. >
I agree that things can be spent differently - both in the public and private sectors.