Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
No. I am saying that anyone who runs on a platform of cutting spending without talking about cutting social security, medicare or the military is not serious about cutting spending.
Again, all those programs he lists in that site are less than a tenth of a percent of the budget.
Earmarks are less than 2% of the budget.
This is like a candidate running on a platform of being tough on crime by promising he will end jaywalking. Or saying that he will promote education by promising to give a pencil to each kid.
So until a Republican runs on cutting medicare, social security or the military, this is just a marketing campaign. Republicans might end up spending more on promoting this youcut site than what some of the programs listed there might cost.
|
Exactly. I think people in general don't have a good sense of how money is actually spent by the federal government. Here's a few great graphs to clear things up:
Total spending:
A breakdown of other spending:
Within that last graph, maybe 4-5% or so is earmarks. Both parties go after earmarks, and that's mostly cool because a lot of them are wasteful, but let's be honest: it's more a stalling tactic or a campaign line than any sort of meaningful government reform.