Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
In 1956, 60% of federal expenditures were for defense; 20% were for Social Security. Now the inverse is true. In 2006, 60% of the budget went to Social Security and 20% to defense.
Some perspective: In 1956, total government expenditures were $102 billion (24% of GDP). In 2006: $4.1 trillion (31% of GDP).
Ooh. Pretty graph.
Got a link to back up the conclusion drawn by the pretty graph?
I ask because I found an even prettier graph that makes yours look a little hinky.
Key bones of contention:
And yes, I know these figures are for the Federal Discretionary Budget of 2007 instead of the total expenditures of 2006. But these figures disagree so wildly that I begin to suspect...
#1 - Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:28 PM ESTSocial Security isn't discretionary spending. It's entitlement spending. It's a separate column. Those numbers are irrelevant.
#2 - Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:11 PM ESTAnd, just to make sure things are clear:
#3 - Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:26 PM ESTAnd here's the FY07 budget itself, FYI: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/budget/tables.pdf
#4 - Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:29 PM ESTHas the budget changed or is how we now have it recorded, afterall, when reading the budgets and the distribution of the cash do any of the taxpayers really understand how all the itemized deductions are redistributed to the other discretionary budgets or is the reality, why should the taxpayer know?
#6 - Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:22 PM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
