How your US tax dollars are spent
 

http://files.kavefish.com/pictures/death_and_taxes.jpg

I saw this picture (and might have posted it before), but it is an interesting way to break down where the money is going. I wonder why politicians don't use this type of picture to demonstrate where they would cut government spending.

The recovery.gov website isn't up yet though. I thought that the bill passed last week, but maybe Obama hasn't signed it yet. That will add quite a bit to the budget.

Even though this is from 2004, where do you think the government could save some money? What do you think should get a bigger piece of the pie? Where you surprised at any of the numbers?

Great illustration...

Here's another good one.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/...da2f4fb12b.jpg

...stay tuned.

It might be nice if you posted actual links to the information you've found, instead of snarky pictures. There's so much quasi-libertarian FUD going around with respect to the stimulus bill it's hard to take criticism seriously (unless one is ideologically inclined to do so from the get-go) without any actual information.

If you say so.

No. You're right. Poorly photoshopped images are the best way to stay informed about proposed legislation.

Actually, I tried to find information about GE and the stimulus bill via google but didn't have any luck. I was hoping you actually had something substantive to support that hilarious picture so you could fill me in, or at least point me in the right direction.

For the record, this is in Tilted Politics, not Found on the Net, so please treat it as such.

* * * * *

Anyone else see anything wrong with spending more on military than every other thing combined? The Army gets $40 billion more than the entire Department of Education. (What is that? Something like 75% more funding?)

What's up with that? (I'm not sure if this is a rhetorical question yet.)

I think we are entering into a new era of capitalism. Where the winning companies have been decided, and they are so big that entire cities would go under if they were to fail. The government doesn't want to see major companies go under because they didn't plan for a few bad quarters (and tied everything to their stock price).

And military spending creates lots of good jobs that a targeted demographic can get (no criminals, no drug use, no immigrants, no outsourcing, pro military). It's not hard to see why Congressmen would want to bring more of these jobs and people into their cities.

Filtherton, here is a site that has ongoing updates of the original package text and the amendments that have followed. It is a lot of information to digest, but it also has a nifty google spreadsheet that summarizes the proposed stimulus spending. Note that it contains commentary against the package, but the text is (as far as I can tell) preserved so that you can read and make your own decision:

ReadTheStimulus.org

sooner or later, the national security state has to be dismantled. irrational levels of spending on useless lethal toys will be inevitable until it is taken apart.

my main concern with this legislation is that it is reactive. the situation offers little alternative to this, but even so it makes sense to break in a more thorough-going manner with the vacuum that is neo-liberalism and set policy directions, create institutions--have a plan in short.

Byrnison, thank you. When I get some free time I'll give it a look.

Wouldn't dream of it... made it myself on crappy old MS Paint and it's relevant to the discussion.

In short: GE owns all the NBC's. NBC/GE all admitted that they solidly promoted Obama. GE is failing and will be bailed out. I believe GE, GE Finance and GE Capital are (or in the process of being) re-designated as banks to qualify for TARP. GE also stands to profit significantly from many of the "green" technologies featured in the pork-stimulus package. GE's CEO was just appointed as a special economic adviser to the Obama White House.

If you don't believe me, look it up. If you don't care, then continue on in hopey-changey fantasy-land. He might as well be Bush III and GE the new Haliburton.

... IMHO, of course.

Right...Obama would not have won the election if not for Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. :thumbsup:

This has been floating around the wing nut blogs since the day after the election. I'm surprised it took you three months to find it.