A while back I read a post by Don Boudreaux criticizing those who claim trust funds are not real debt. I realized that while he is responding to a real person who reality believes this, I half scoffed to myself “who on earth believes this nonsense besides this one guy”. Today however, while googling the breakdown of government spending I came across this website posting the following image:
I smelt a rat. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and a whole host of government programs seemed to be noticeably missing. Not over 50% of government spending is on military. I decided to look through their explanation.
The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes.
When can the government spend money and not spend money? Apparently when it gives payouts for social security. This dishonest approach seems to be in favor with those who worship the state. This dishonest approach was used on another famous spending chart as well:
Even neglecting the absences of the real bulk of government spending, the military spending rates were extremely high. The site had this to say:
Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.
How naive and extremely stupid. These site owners do not understand that if the government has money, it will find some way to spend it. Reducing debt is not as glamorous as building a bridge to nowhere or expanding aid to the disenfranchised group de jure.
Instead of cutting out real military ongoing benifits from their “military interest payments”, they dishonestly lumped them together. Do not get me wrong, the American military is the most overpaid workers in America, but that does not justify dishonest methods of making that point.