US Government spending

[Empedocles]

I just came across this as I was browsing through a collection of pictures my brother gave me, and it perked my interest as to what some Americans think of how their government spends their taxes.

Here is the picture, a little outdated (2007) but I think it's still a good representation. It's quite large so you may want to save it for a little while so you can zoom in on the little writing.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...eUSTaxesGo.jpg


So, what do you think? Are you happy with how your goverment spends? Are you totally out of your depth here? Not care?

Disclaimer: This is not a thread about how the president is elected or how good/bad the government is or who deserves to run the country. I am aware that the budget is different with each year, and with each president's priorities, but the picture is only three years old.. even if it's massively different now as to make the information totally irrelevant today, it's still recent (imo) to be worthy of discussion.

[Murphie]

Re: US Government spending

How about you start by telling us how YOU feel about it?

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: US Government spending

Disclaimer: This is not a thread about how the president is elected or how good/bad the government is or who deserves to run the country. I am aware that the budget is different with each year, and with each president's priorities, but the picture is only three years old.. even if it's massively different now as to make the information totally irrelevant today, it's still recent (imo) to be worthy of discussion.

So with all options cut off to us, there's not really much left to discuss?

But I'd say at least for the last six years, which accounts for both parties in terms of presidents, congress and the senate.

The solution? We need to get serious about term limits and prevent "career politicians" Democrats or Republican - there should be no such thing as a career politician. We need elected officials that have worked in the real world and not been living with a silver spoon in their lives all their lives.

President gets eight years at best, four at worst - that's a model I can get behind. But senators and house members can go on forever it seems and we get too cozy with familiar faces. Less time they have in office, the less time special interests have to influence them.

Its a dream I have, one where they can't get so powerful they're still accountable to the people, but fat chance it'll ever happen. For now, let's just clean the House and Senate up a little.

[Empedocles]

Re: US Government spending

So with all options cut off to us, there's not really much left to discuss?

Erm, do you actually understand what I am asking? I'm curious as to how US residents that look at the off topics section of these boards feel about the priorities their government puts on the money they receive in the form of federal taxes... there's plenty to discuss on that picture alone without the need for pointing fingers at the people behind it.

Such as: Do you really think there should be that much (percentage wise) allocated to the Department of Defense?
The Department of Education got 56 billion, yet the 'Global War on Terror' got 145 billion - that's almost three times as much! There's a point of discussion right there, without the need for going to sematics over who's scratching who's back.

How about you start by telling us how YOU feel about it?

Well considering I don't live in America so I don't know the condition of your roads, telecommunications, police forces, education et cetera, about the only thing I can comment on is that you spend a lot on your military. Which explains why it's scary. It also explains why I'm asking you how you feel, what you think.

[Malacite]

Re: US Government spending

The solution? We need to get serious about term limits and prevent "career politicians" Democrats or Republican - there should be no such thing as a career politician. We need elected officials that have worked in the real world and not been living with a silver spoon in their lives all their lives.

President gets eight years at best, four at worst - that's a model I can get behind. But senators and house members can go on forever it seems and we get too cozy with familiar faces. Less time they have in office, the less time special interests have to influence them.

Its a dream I have, one where they can't get so powerful they're still accountable to the people, but fat chance it'll ever happen. For now, let's just clean the House and Senate up a little.

Wow for once BBQ says something that doesn't outright piss me off, and I agree with him too!


Yes, the fact that Senators can keep running for re-election is bullshit. They should have a limit of two terms just like virtually every other elected official (I'm unsure of Representatives in the House of Congress however). 2 for year terms, just like the President, would probably be best for two reasons;

1) You get everything out of the way in the same freaking year, none of this off-year election crap.

2) President gets into power and has to deal with only one Congress for better or worse.


Finally, to make any of that even matter worth a damn, there needs to be campaign finance reform like the Brits have. 100% public funding for campaigns, with a strict spending limit. I guarantee you there'd be a lot less attack adds and more substantive discussions if they weren't always in election mode.

"Gentlemen, we've got to protect our Phony-Baloney jobs! HARUMPH!"


Before I get to the next point, just look at what Mc Cain and Obama spent - Nearly 2 Billion Dollars running against each other. Obama was just over 800M and Mc Cain 700 (I forget the exact figures). What a waste of money. By comparison, Britain's last election took 6 weeks (there was some kind of confusion that made it drag out about the exact vote tally IIRC?) and a cap (at least for the Liberal Democrats, idk about the Tories or the other parties) of $50,000.


$50,000 vs Obama's $800+M. And it's only going to get worse after that ridiculous Supreme Court ruling.


So how do I feel about the spending? I think it's atrocious. I'm not against Govt. spending, hell all the people whining about taxes need to shut the fuck up, especially the wealthy. The tax rate used to be 90% for the top income rates and people were still doing very well back then. Just look at what's happened since it's dropped; CEO's Athletes & Celebrities making positively obscene amounts of money. The top 1% hold over 90% of the nation's wealth. You wanna bitch about high taxes, try living in Canada or Europe, then you can complain.

Anyway, the biggest waste is by the far the military. It consumes roughly 1/3 of all government spending (or was it 1/6? I know it's positively massive) all in the name of a false sense of security. You do not need to police the entire world. The U.S. spends more than the next 8 countries combined on it's armed forces.

This is one of the few points where I find Ron Paul to be absolutely right. Bring the troops home, close down some of those bases and worry about your own problems at home first. Lord knows you people have more than enough. How about taking people out of Iraq & Afghanistan (both lost causes anyway) and putting them to work helping in the Gulf of Mexico? Or do like Rand Paul says and get electronic fences & helicopters for the U.S. Mexico border. You know, something with a real, visible impact on your daily lives.

Social Security is the other biggie, and I'm trying to remember which president it was, I think it may have been Nixon but the greatest scam of all time on the American people was perpetrated by your own President. That switch of taking retirement funds from investing in company assets to the stock market was bull crap. It used to be that a guy could work for a company like GM, and their money would be invested in the company and in return that person could retire with a very generous pension since he was investing real assets.

But now everyone's taxed instead and put into a giant pool that's essentially money on paper. That whole market crash and people losing their 401k's etc should never have happened because people's retirement money shouldn't be gambled, which is what the stock market is, a giant casino.


Got other things to do, done ranting for now.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: US Government spending

Well considering I don't live in America so I don't know the condition of your roads, telecommunications, police forces, education et cetera, about the only thing I can comment on is that you spend a lot on your military. Which explains why it's scary. It also explains why I'm asking you how you feel, what you think.

Ok first let me start by saying I am not trying to be an ass. I am just curious as to why you even care to post that and ask that question when you don't live in our country and aren't personally aware of the state of things here? I have to honestly say that Ive never looked at government spending charts of other countries and then asked people of that country potentially explosive questions.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: US Government spending

To be fair, TGM, the European nations are going though similar tough times to America. Hell, just look at what Greece went through weeks ago - it was a nightmare and much of it was due to the much-vaunted social policies we're now adopting in America that are not sustainable in the long term. There is a debate in Europe right now and the two sides of it are eerily familar to Americans - you have those on the far left and career politicans on the right spending and spending and then you have the rest standing up and saying "its time to be adults and make some cuts."

There was a state (I forget which one) where they recently instated a performance standard for public school teachers - they realized that for too long they had been letting mediocre or just plain bad teachers become a institution in their schools. Now those teachers are will be evaluated and cut from the system if they do not perform. This how that state will do cuts to education and you know what - I totally support that. Both sides overwhelmingly supported it, the democrat governor signed it into law. Everyone should shake his hand.

It was a big "fuck you" to teachers unions and a well-deserved one. Those unions want to consider it an assault on education, but I can't tell you how many teachers I had growing up I would have loved to see thrown into a system like that. So many students would have benefited and we would have had better teachers to replace them.

That system, in the short term, might make things tougher and classrooms a bit more crowded, but then again, it might mean more students getting a better education as well.

I really need to look into that state and see how they've attacked other aspects of their state budget. All I know about my state is functioning well enough, but things could certainly be better. Road fixes of late have been of a drive-by variety and done in phases rather than a concentrated effort.

The street just outside my house got potholeds filled with some kind of sand or gravel, then patched over just slightly weeks later and then followed by a semi re-pave weeks after that. This compared to just repaving that whole section of the road. Maybe they're getting around to that next week.

[Cometgreen]

Re: US Government spending

Well considering I don't live in America so I don't know the condition of your roads, telecommunications, police forces, education et cetera, about the only thing I can comment on is that you spend a lot on your military. Which explains why it's scary. It also explains why I'm asking you how you feel, what you think.

Please understand that the federal government is not responsible for much of the roads, telecommunications, police or education in the US. Federal interference in education is (or if I'm overstating it, ought to be) quite controversial, because even if you want public education, schools have traditionally been the responsibility of local governments. That the federal government spends more on the military than it does on education does not mean public education is woefully underfunded. Despite the massive spending devoted to our extreme foreign policy, I believe more is spent on education overall (considering both public and private expenditures).

I'm sure you can tell already that I'm not too happy about federal spending. I don't think a society needs to spend 45% of its yearly productive output to maintain order, internal commerce and national defense.

Its a dream I have, one where they can't get so powerful they're still accountable to the people, but fat chance it'll ever happen.

This still assumes that much (or all) of what federal legislators claim to want can be achieved through federal legislation. So you have 535 people absolutely devoted to bettering the lives of 300,000,000 others - that doesn't mean they will succeed, as it may simply not be possible, no matter your institutional tweaks. Not that term limits can't have a marginally positive effect, but like legislation itself, be prepared for unforeseen effects of your finely crafted model.

Democratic government is naturally inclined to redistribute wealth and enlarge its scope of power. Even if you can remove some of the grift going on behind the scenes, you have what I think is an unsustainable system.

Finally, to make any of that even matter worth a damn, there needs to be campaign finance reform like the Brits have. 100% public funding for campaigns, with a strict spending limit.

I've never quite understood the logic here. We're supposed to worship democracy and support term limits as effective checks against the state. So why, then, do you want to entrust the electoral process to the state? How are you to believe you're 'in charge' of the legislative class, when the legislative class has the power to greatly determine who will be elected to the legislative class? They also have the power to determine what the legislative class shall be paid, what their power shall be, etc.

It's like the old argument that democracy needs an educated public to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical, so we should put the government in charge of educating the public. It's a conflict of interest that wholly undermines the purported goal.

I guarantee you there'd be a lot less attack adds and more substantive discussions if they weren't always in election mode.

"Gentlemen, we've got to protect our Phony-Baloney jobs! HARUMPH!"

Yeah, that's not going to just stop because they're using public funds. Is substantive discussion even possible in politics? It certainly seems irrational for a politician to engage in honest, substantive debate.

And you know an effective way to get people (mostly) out of election mode? Life terms. They don't need to worry about being reelected any more - just don't piss off the people so much that they 'shorten' your term. Even better would be to guarantee their offspring a position in the government. And no, this is not meant as sarcasm.

I'm not against Govt. spending, hell all the people whining about taxes need to shut the fuck up, especially the wealthy.

Yeah! If you think there is an injustice being done against you, like your property being stolen from you, just shut the fuck up! Be glad the state isn't taking even more of your money.

That whole market crash and people losing their 401k's etc should never have happened because people's retirement money shouldn't be gambled, which is what the stock market is, a giant casino.

I'd like to know why it is a gamble to spend money on stocks, but not a gamble to spend money on... well, anything else. Every exchange is a gamble. That stocks more often and more violently change in price than, say, candy bars does not mean that investing in a stock is a gamble whereas investing in a candy bar is a sure thing.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: US Government spending

Democratic government is naturally inclined to redistribute wealth and enlarge its scope of power. Even if you can remove some of the grift going on behind the scenes, you have what I think is an unsustainable system.

Replace "Democratic" with "Socialist" and you've got it right, because that's what were starting to have. Socialist governments always start out with "spreading the wealth" but all they ever do is transfer the wealth of the people to a protected government class and create their own political dynasties.

Democratic government is naturally inclined toward personal liberty, but our government is losing it way and merely trying to redefine "socialism" so it doesn't seem like such a dirty word.

A capitalist democratic government might seem similar in some respects, but as more socialist policies start seeping in, you do have an unsustainable system. Our social security system, for example, will not be there for me, ever, but I can be weened off such a system since I'm not close to being old enough to consider retirement. But the system is unsustainable now and they just want to add more of these social programs like Health Care Reform right on top of all their other broken systems.

My generation does not need that system, we can still find another way and it would be a harder way, but there are no easy answers for those reaching or past retirement age now. The system has failed them completely

----------------------

Just as an aside, Robert Byrd just died, he was a democrat and US senator from West Virginia. He was 92 and has been serving as a senator since 1959.

Yep, nearly 51 years. Unreal.

[MrMageo]

Re: US Government spending

To be fair, TGM, the European nations are going though similar tough times to America. Hell, just look at what Greece went through weeks ago - it was a nightmare and much of it was due to the much-vaunted social policies we're now adopting in America that are not sustainable in the long term.

You mean like Canada who has come through the recession mostly unscathed "won" the recent g8/g20 (as in every motion our PM made was adopted by the member countries). The strongest banking system, the lowest debt to GDP ratio, the lowest deficit of an industrialized nation (not including China for some odd reason). While supporting universal health care, welfare, old age security, pensions, etc etc etc that fall under the term social policies. The same ones that have been around since the 1930's (the Health care sine the 70's) so 80 years of old age securities, welfare, and pensions, is not a long term?

Oh wait but then again Canada doesn't spend more on its military than any other part of its budget....

Just because the USA has a 3:1 spending on its miltary over social programs is not a knock against social programs, the programs adopted by britain, canada, france, germany, japan, italy, australia have been around a long time, and some of those countries are on hard times not because of a fiscal imbalance, bu because of the US banking collapse and the fact that the US is now indebt to worldwide investors in the trillions of dollars. To this reason, is the reason your france and germanys, britains and japans are in such a rocky boat.

TLDR

Aint working for the USA cuz yer doin'itwrong.

[Empedocles]

Re: US Government spending

Ok first let me start by saying I am not trying to be an ass. I am just curious as to why you even care to post that and ask that question when you don't live in our country and aren't personally aware of the state of things here? I have to honestly say that I've never looked at government spending charts of other countries and then asked people of that country potentially explosive questions.

It's cool. No panties twisted on my account.

The reasons I became interested (and made thread) was because of (a) That picture of my brother's and (b) I see a lot of argument over the people in US government, but not much in terms of the money in US government.

When a country is capable of say, putting a strike team anywhere in the world to eliminate anyone who's not been hiding for decades within (random number, correct me if I'm inaccurate) say, 24 hours if they REALLY wanted to, it kinda makes other people look at them a bit more closely, even if it means ignoring what their own government is doing. New Zealand is pretty tiny in terms of world power, so we aren't exactly capable of playing globe trotters.

Secondly, I like reading actual opinions (not critics or reporters, I like the view of the 'common person' so to speak) and quite often, I absorb more information when the subject material is written in the form of post/discussion than in encyclopedia format.

Thirdly: I'm a cat that's been killed MANY times by curiousity. I just like to collect (often random) information.

Edit: Also, the USA has a BUTTLOAD of money. Where it goes I think is interesting.

Please understand that the federal government is not responsible for much of the roads, telecommunications, police or education in the US. Federal interference in education is (or if I'm overstating it, ought to be) quite controversial, because even if you want public education, schools have traditionally been the responsibility of local governments. That the federal government spends more on the military than it does on education does not mean public education is woefully underfunded. Despite the massive spending devoted to our extreme foreign policy, I believe more is spent on education overall (considering both public and private expenditures).

Hmmm interesting. I had previously thought that the individual states maintained the details/technicalities/micro-management side of their respected land areas, and the Federal spending was for overall/inter-state/macro-management side of things, such as highways, inter-state railways for goods/cargo/frieght and electronic cabling, so if those are all top-notch it would encourage the state ruling bodies to keep their associated sections also in high order so they don't make the ruling body look bad. This of course, needs a lot of money.

For education, I thought the feds laid down the 'ground rules' so to speak and the states fleshed them out, and federal spending went towards keeping the states in check with how they wanted education facilities to be managed, also researching better methods of teaching children and young adults.

Am I mistaken on these counts? Could you correct me if I am, please?

TLDR

Aint working for the USA cuz yer doin'itwrong.

Judging by the posts of those that have contributed to this thread, TL;DR does not seem to be required. Attention spans are suitably long here.

[Malacite]

Re: US Government spending

I've never quite understood the logic here. We're supposed to worship democracy and support term limits as effective checks against the state. So why, then, do you want to entrust the electoral process to the state? How are you to believe you're 'in charge' of the legislative class, when the legislative class has the power to greatly determine who will be elected to the legislative class? They also have the power to determine what the legislative class shall be paid, what their power shall be, etc.

Where in the hell are getting that from? How does limiting the amount of money candidates can spend.... oh screw it, I'm not wasting my time if you're that stupid.

---------- Post added at 10:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 AM ----------

Replace "Democratic" with "Communist" and you've got it right, because that's what were starting to have. Socialist governments always start out with "spreading the wealth" but all they ever do is transfer the wealth of the people to a protected government class and create their own political dynasties.

FTYF. For the love of Christ, will you fucking people stop confusing the two. Communism is the extreme of Socialism, much like Facism is the extreme of Capitalism. When was the last time you saw property taken away from someone by the Canadian or any European Nation's government?


And comet, you really need to stop listening to Glen Beck/Fox News in general. You're coming off just as ignorant as the people on that network. Limiting the money and time politicians have available, along with a greater public interest is the way to fix things. Reminds me of when Glen Beck was railing against Socialism while touting the fact that he educated himself via the public library because it was free. Freaking dumb ass... /facepalm

See, the problem in the U.S., contrary to what a lot of my fellow Canadians and others across the globe (even your fellow Americans) believe is it's not that the people are stupid - far from it. You guys are just terribly misinformed by your joke of a media. Politicians on both sides (though for whatever reason the Republicans do it almost twice as much which is a big reason why I don't give them much credit) routinely lie on camera.

That, or spew half-truths. It's why I love The Daily Show so much, and a handful of reporters on various networks. He always calls people out on their BS, usually by showing them making some ludicrous statement followed by another clip of a retraction/contradiction in another clip, usually from the following day of the previous clip.

Hell during the 2008 campaign Tim Russert (may he RIP) called out Mc Cain on the spot when he was blatantly lying in an interview.


Anyhoo, while it's true the U.S. does spend a lot on Education, the fact remains that tuition fees are way, way too high and a lot of the money that's supposed to go to schools never even gets to them. By comparison, a university tuition fee (last I checked) is about a tenth of what it costs in the states in China. Couple that with their higher, stricter standards in Asia and it's no wonder they're graduating so many engineers etc.


And again, you want to see high taxes? Come over here for a while. We're actually about to have a new HST tax implemented which is complete crap as it adds another 6~8% tax on a lot different items, all under some false pretense that the savings of corporations will be passed on to us citizens in the long run. Yeah fucking right. On my parents last trip down south I think they paid something like 3% on a restaurant bill? Versus the 13% (used to be 15%) here.

Oh yeah, by the way, we get taxed on both our income and almost everything we buy (GST) something that was being proposed down there but quickly got shot down. Reminds me of that add about the new tax on Soda Pop & Snacks and this lady getting all riled up about a few extra cents on her bill.

Aside from that being a pretty small minority, if you're that poor you've probably got much bigger problems.

[MrMageo]

Re: US Government spending

For education, I thought the feds laid down the 'ground rules' so to speak and the states fleshed them out, and federal spending went towards keeping the states in check with how they wanted education facilities to be managed, also researching better methods of teaching children and young adults.

They do to an extent, but each region makes alterations on the standard to certain extemes. In Canada (which runs on a similar public school system) The provinces handle the individual requirments for grading and such, however they all run from the federal handbook on what needs to be taught. For example, in Ontario I need 3 math credits to graduate from highschool, In Alberta I need 4. Now in ontario I have the option to take the 4th still but I do not need it. However the stuff I learn in the first 3 years is very very similar (except maybe the order in which it is taught which is even more micro managed on the individual teacher level) and should I take the 4th year it would be the same.

Essentially the federal government says you must teach them algebra and geometry, the provincial govt says ok you have X years to teach them this stuff, the individual school boards say we want it taught so they learn algebra first to better help with geometry, the teacher than says ok well I will teach the basic (Bedmas) rules first then branch into pythagreon theory, so when it comes to geometry It will be an easy step into learning how to find the angles of trinagles and such.

As for payment, BBQ is kind of right, in the sense that the federal Govt doesn't allocate resources etc. But they do lay out in the budget education money that gets divided amongst the states, where they add to the kitty and divided it amongst the specific districts who add more to the kitty and divided it amongst the schools in the district. Where BBQ is wrong is the fact that it is the federal governments overall responsibility to ensure that there are funds in place, the US public school system is woefully underfunded, because the Federal Govt spends a retarded amount of money on a military it doesn't really need, on other national money sinks (read war on drugs, war on poverty, war on illegal immigration) They pour billions into continually failing programs instead of directing that money to the state level to allow them to actually afford to upkeep their infrastructure, education, and investments to make the state appear as a good place for growth.

Just look at these and tell me the system aint broke

Kansas City schools closed for lack of funds
» Want to Understand Lack of Public School Teacher ‘Accountability?’ Look to How Their Union’s Union Operates - Big Government

Several provisions of NCLB, such as a push for quality teachers and more professional development, place additional demands on local districts and state education agencies. Some critics claim that extra expenses are not fully reimbursed by increased levels of federal NCLB funding. Others note that funding for the law increased massively following passage[56] and that billions in funds previously allocated to particular uses could be reallocated to new uses. Even before the law's passage, Secretary of Education Rod Paige noted ensuring that children are educated remained a state responsibility regardless of federal support:

Washington is willing to help [with the additional costs of federal requirements], as we've helped before, even before we [proposed NCLB]. But this is a part of the teaching responsibility that each state has. ... Washington has offered some assistance now. In the legislation, we have ... some support to pay for the development of tests. But even if that should be looked at as a gift, it is the state responsibility to do this.
—[57]

Various early Democratic supporters of NCLB criticize its implementation, claiming it is not adequately funded by either the federal government or the states. Ted Kennedy, the legislation's initial sponsor, once stated: "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not."[58] Susan B. Neuman, U.S. Department of Education's former Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, commented about her worries of NCLB in a meeting of the International Reading Association:

In [the most disadvantaged schools] in America, even the most earnest teacher has often given up because they lack every available resource that could possibly make a difference. . . . When we say all children can achieve and then not give them the additional resources … we are creating a fantasy.
—[59]

Organizations have particularly criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to "fully fund" the act. Noting that appropriations bills always originate in the House of Representatives, it is true that during the Bush Administration, neither the Senate nor the White House has even requested federal funding up to the authorized levels for several of the act’s main provisions. For example, President Bush requested only $13.3 of a possible $22.75 billion in 2006.[60] Advocacy groups note that President Bush's 2008 budget proposal allotted $61 billion for the Education Department, cutting funding by $1.3 billion from the year before. 44 out of 50 states would have received reductions in federal funding if the budget passed as it was.[61] Specifically, funding for the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT) has continued to drop while the demand for technology in schools has increased (Technology and Learning, 2006). However, these claims focused on reallocated funds, as each of President Bush's proposed budgets increased funding for major NCLB formula programs such as Title I, including his final 2009 budget proposal. [62]

Members of Congress have viewed these authorized levels as spending caps, not spending promises. Some opponents argue that these funding shortfalls mean that schools faced with the system of escalating penalties for failing to meet testing targets are denied the resources necessary to remedy problems detected by testing. However, federal NCLB formula funding increased by billions during this period[63] and state and local funding increased by over $100 billion from school year 2001-02 through 2006-07.[64]

No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and last but not least

Reading Rank =
33 United States .. (no index)
3 Canada 527 (index = high)

Maths Rank =
27 United States 474 (index = med)
5 Canada 527 (index = high)

Sciences
22 United States 489 .. 474
2 Canada 534 527 527

(source)2006
Educational Score Performance - Country Rankings

Budget deficits (% of GDP)

Canada 2.48 2009 est.
United States 11.92 2009 est.

Debt
Canada $833,800,000,000 30 June 2009 est.
United States $13,450,000,000,000 30 June 2009 est. (highest in the world)

Life Expectancy
Canada 81.23 2009 est.
United States 78.11 2009 est.

Military Expeditures (% of GDP)

Canada 1.10 2005 est.
United States 4.06 2005 est.

GDP (per Capita)
Canada $38,400 2009 est.
United States $46,400 2009 est.

Source
Country Rankings 2010 - Economy, Geography, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Flags, Maps, Political System

So ya make more money spend 4 times as much on military than canada and rank behind us everywhere else. Social programs really don't work though ><.

---------- Post added at 02:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 PM ----------

ftr im not trying to make this a Canada vs USA thing, I simply chose Canada as the example because I know

1. We spend considerably less on military than the USA
2. We have a considerably smaller GDP than the USA
3. Have more successful social programs than the USA
4. Have a lower debt/deficit while supporting those social programs than the USA

[Neverslip]

Re: US Government spending

They needs to buy me more cookies... and more pie too... that's straight from the gut!!

[MrMageo]

Re: US Government spending

And again, you want to see high taxes? Come over here for a while. We're actually about to have a new HST tax implemented which is complete crap as it adds another 6~8% tax on a lot different items, all under some false pretense that the savings of corporations will be passed on to us citizens in the long run. Yeah fucking right. On my parents last trip down south I think they paid something like 3% on a restaurant bill? Versus the 13% (used to be 15%) here.

The HST is not a huge deal give it up already. 89% of items you buy will remain unchanged. The tax is a combined federal and provincial. (totaling 13%) most items will not see any difference. The only thing that is changing is having to pay taxes on some new things we never had to pay on before like haircuts (once every 2 months maybe) Tims Coffee (if you are like me its an extra dime a day) are a few examples.

Is it irritating, ya but the 12 extra dollars I spend a year on haircuts and the 36 extra dollars on a double double is offset by the 1000$ I am getting in rebates. So that means it will take 20 years for me to repay that tax on those 2 new items (and trust me I don't buy much that isn't currently hit by the (GST+PST)).

People are losing their heads over something trivial. Now if they go super jew on us and still charge 5% GST on top of the HST, like they most likely will (rolled into the cost of items like it was before the GST was made public) then I will join and bitch. Or ill just move to alberta and pay 5% tax on everything. (again)