What is Digg?28 Comments
- dbuttry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Thats the part that they have to report. There are other classified projects that there is no record of that you will never know about!
- kapoploo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wow, I didn't know more than the half of US revenue is used for military!
- mamluk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If any of you are interested in looking more into data visualization, one person to look up is Edward Tufte, a professor of statistics at Yale: https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/
- Eeqmcsq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is why a picture is worth a thousand words, or in this case, a thousand data points.
- itsme7g, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I remember reading about the Challenger shuttle disaster and how if all the data they had at NASA were put on the correct graph it would have been harder to miss the possibility for failure.
http://www.math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/missed.html - there, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4 @morrabrod
The author the chart does say "2004 Federal Discretionary Budget" so it's not fair to suggest he is intentionally misleading anyone because a few people don't read carefully what the chart is supposed to display. However I agree with you a more relevant chart would have been one that showed all spending. Obviously the author wanted to make some sort of political statement. While I sympathize with the statement (e.g. we spend way too much money on military and not enough on services) there was no need to no massage the data. Here is some interesting figures for anyone that's interested.
This figure basically shows the United States spends ridiculously more money than the next nation in terms of raw spending on military.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_dol_fig-military-expenditures-dollar-figure
The next number is per capita. This is a more reasonable comparison but still the US is near the top of the charts (mostly comparable to 2nd world nations)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_dol_fig_percap-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-capita
If we do a GDP look at the stats the picture is quite different though (US spending seems quite reasonable under this lens)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_dol_fig_pergdp-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-gdp
So I guess depending on which view someone wants to adopt they can paint a different story. From my (personal) point of view though in the end GDP and per capita figures are irrelevant in a war. What matters is raw spending. This basically means that the US is spending FIVE TIMES as much as the next nation. I personally think it's a tremendous waste of money and perpetuates a poor international image of the US. (e.g. America as a big militaristic expansionist nation bent on world domination through military force or threats of violent reprisals.... rather than say a powerful trading partner among a sea of nations) - lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I want to make one of those "Where does your tax goes for Sweden!"
- Hermitwise, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4On the Death and Taxes chart 20 billion dollars goes into "Other". Does this intrigue anyone else?
- veloscaper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Social security and Medicare are a separate tax collected to promise and provide specific services and benefits. The chart reflects taxes collected as part of the general federal tax revenue.
@dilbertland, if you don't like Social Security or Medicare then you can always move to any Latin American country of your choice. They have the social and economic model you envy already put into pratice. - veloscaper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Social security and Medicare are a separate tax collected to promise and provide specific services and benefits. The chart reflects taxes collected as part of the general federal tax revenue.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2While I admit that the “Death & Taxes” chart itself looks great, it implies things as being fact that are total *****:
"...this is misleading because Congress has no control over mandatory expenditures."
Congress has absolute authority to set the budget of the US—the ENTIRE BUDGET, that is every penny to be spent by the Country. Our politicians created this separate classification, “non-discretionary spending”, and put forth the notion that “Congress is not allowed to tinker with it” because they are gutless cowards, being too afraid to cut even a single dollar from all the dumb, fat, and happy-go-lucky hogs getting free stuff in the US.
When using the entire budget, as one must, military/security spending is about 20% of it. IMO, even with all the waste included, it is one Hell of a bargain.
Oddly enough, that same military, which ensures that all the dumb, fat, and happy-go-lucky hogs will continue to get free stuff from the taxpayers, is often a target of ridicule of the group that gets the free stuff. - dilbertland, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5It's not, the entire US budget is about 2.5 trillion....this chart only shows 800million of that 2.5 trillion. Just another excellent example of how to make statistics tell the story you want to tell. His justification of not including everything by him saying that congress doesn't have control over non-discretionary spending is just laughable...
- swizzlestick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The Awesome Power of Propaganda
This is obviously an attempt to mislead people into thinking that defense expenditures make up a majority of government spending, with the intent that they will put pressure on their leaders to reduce it. It says right in the center of the chart: "Military Spending: 399 Billion | Non-Military Spending 383 Billion", which is really all the artist wants you to take away from this chart. He knows that most people (especially young "activists") will have no idea that discretionary spending is significantly less than half of total spending, or that "liberal" social programs already constitute the bulk of US spending.
Here are a few snippets from his deviantart journal:
"....Fool me twice, shame on me.: http://mibi.deviantart.com/journal/3742329/
well, Americans, you asked for it....
another 4 years of
record job loss
record deficeits
and living witth fear
________ (fill in the blank)
congrats"
"Bye Bye Texas: http://mibi.deviantart.com/journal/5659527/
thats right!... im outta here bitches! .... so long College Station!
so long George Bush Museum!
so long cowboy boots!
so long jesus freaks!
so long country music!
so long Dixie Chicken!
so long mindless conservative sheep!
so long idiot business owners!
so long 90 degree nights!
so long jacked up pickup trucks!
so long shaven chests!
so long ***** beer!
so long racists!
so long Texas!
hello New England
hello lover
hello paradise
catch you all in 2000 miles..."
Here's one from just before the 2004 election: http://mibi.deviantart.com/journal/3728209/
"Here are some things to remember about voting. Read carefully. Your vote could decide this election. ...historically, younger voters have a miserable turnout record..."
That's what this is all about, fooling a few more young people into being angry enough to actually show up at the polls, and delivering a victory for the Democrats. Don't be fooled by this misleading political propaganda.
BTW, I once got into an argument with a housemate who refused to believe that defense spending was less than 50% of government spending. This myth is widespread among the left. - morrabrod, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5It's not. The chart intentionally leaves out so-called "non-discretionary spending" such as Social Security and Medicare, so as to paint a picture of military spending being more than 50% of the budget. It claims that including those expenditures is "misleading because Congress has no control over mandatory expenditures." Whatever. It's all still coming out of my paycheck. The chart is a nice piece of work, but it would be even better without the blatant cherry-picking of data to include. The author could have made his point about our relative spending priorities just as well if he included all the spending. It's too bad he felt he had to over-dramatize his case. It detracts from his credibility, in my opinion.
- veloscaper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@morrabrod
The chart shows what happens to funds collected under the federal tax. There is a separate tax for social security and medicare (aka FICA) and is supposed to go to those specific services.
Do you really want to confuse the chart by showing how much money is taken from social security and medicare and put into military spending or tax cuts for the rich? - rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1edit: nvm, very cool.
- ilitirit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Social security and medicare spending figures and/or information:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/hhs.html ($67.2 billion)
http://www.federalbudget.com/ - kwoff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2there,
you say that "US spending seems quite reasonable" when viewed in terms of GDP,
but what does that mean? Why would having more GDP necessarily imply spending
5 times more than anyone else on military, instead of say putting that extra
$220,000,000,000 toward something more useful for increasing productivity even more,
or say developing alternatives to importing foreign oil which would make us not need
so much military might. - aroedl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sign up for notification for the 2007 version!
deathandtaxes@gmail.com
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/9410862/ - chandrasonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you like that sort of things, you surely will also like this : http://digg.com/general_sciences/Amazing_Presentation_Brings_Statistical_Data_to_Life
Really meaningful and fascinating. - psients, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2More money goes into Social Security alone than the entire Defense Department.
Most people don't know this, but Social Security is (drumroll) the largest of the largest recipients of government expenditures. Numero Uno. The top.
Medicare? Right behind Defense. Social Security and Medicare together Dwarf spending on Defense. Dwarf with a capital "D."
I think someone will be making a replacement chart soon. - there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ kwoff
Reread my comments because I think you've misinterpreted them (as I'm in total agreement with you).
All I was saying was if US military spending is viewed as in proportion to GDP then the spending does appear reasonable (since US is pretty far down thel list from that viewpoint) Of course this doesn't paint a complete picture (and why I make light of other statistics) but we shouldn't fear looking at evidence from different perspectives to make our arguments. - Twango, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I know. When I wanna get high, I VISUALIZE DATA! AWESOME!
- dilbertland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Thanks for the link....the 67.2 billion is just their discretionary figure...their total budget is 584 billion according for that site (and expected to grow to 642 billion this year)... I think that's a good example of how focusing on the discretionary spending doesn't give a good picture of what's going on. It's like ignoring somebody's home, car, and utility bills because they are "non-discretionary" and have to be payed every month....and then just looking at what they spend on clothing and dining out.
- CamoChris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The chart which it shows should be titled "How much money does it take to run a superpower?", it's no wonder the Russians ran out.
- siskomartel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Remember this is discretionary spending. It leaves out two of the biggest non-military expenses of our gov't - entitlements, which are Soc. Sec. and Medicare. the point of the poster is to show that after these fixed costs, this is how our elected officials decide to spend the rest. I don't know the size of the entitlements program, but I know that it is very large.
- cjus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Do it yourself data visualization... Checkout FreeMind
http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page - dilbertland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0oops, that should read 800 billion out of 2.5 trillion (instead of million)
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is