<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Chart of the Day</title>
	<atom:link href="http://habitablezone.com/2012/06/01/chart-of-the-day/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://habitablezone.com/2012/06/01/chart-of-the-day/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 19:18:10 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: TB</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2012/06/01/chart-of-the-day/#comment-15540</link>
		<dc:creator>TB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://habitablezone.com/?p=15989#comment-15540</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Gee, I thought this chart would be good news.&lt;/p&gt;

Defense spending in this country as a percentage has dropped from 51.7 percent of the budget in 1962 to 22.6 percent in 2011.  Since the overall budget has gone up so drastically, a less-misleading dollar count would be $365 billion to about $700 billion over fifty years (2005 dollars).  I did a simple calculation of applying the percentage to the outlays given in that historical budget chart.

So we see defense spending has actually gone up in real amounts (always look past the basic graphs).

Now social spending, in 1962, was 19.6 percent of the budget ($139 billion) and now it&#039;s 55.6 percent ($1.74 &lt;em&gt;trillion&lt;/em&gt;).

If we apply the real amounts here, defense spending in dollars (not percentages) has not quite doubled.  Social spending has gone up by a factor of twelve.

Defense spending used to be two and a half times social spending.  Now that ratio is reversed. You should be delighted with this progress.

Unrelated side note:  Ever notice how with Democrats, defense-related jobs don&#039;t seem to count?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gee, I thought this chart would be good news.</p>
<p>Defense spending in this country as a percentage has dropped from 51.7 percent of the budget in 1962 to 22.6 percent in 2011.  Since the overall budget has gone up so drastically, a less-misleading dollar count would be $365 billion to about $700 billion over fifty years (2005 dollars).  I did a simple calculation of applying the percentage to the outlays given in that historical budget chart.</p>
<p>So we see defense spending has actually gone up in real amounts (always look past the basic graphs).</p>
<p>Now social spending, in 1962, was 19.6 percent of the budget ($139 billion) and now it&#8217;s 55.6 percent ($1.74 <em>trillion</em>).</p>
<p>If we apply the real amounts here, defense spending in dollars (not percentages) has not quite doubled.  Social spending has gone up by a factor of twelve.</p>
<p>Defense spending used to be two and a half times social spending.  Now that ratio is reversed. You should be delighted with this progress.</p>
<p>Unrelated side note:  Ever notice how with Democrats, defense-related jobs don&#8217;t seem to count?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bowser</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2012/06/01/chart-of-the-day/#comment-15539</link>
		<dc:creator>bowser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:01:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://habitablezone.com/?p=15989#comment-15539</guid>
		<description>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47655768/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/#.T8o309xYvng

With absolutely no credible threat to the US coming from that area, the US will have six aircraft carrier groups there?  For what reason?  Shouldn&#039;t anyone wanting smaller government and lower taxes be screaming to high heaven about this waste?

&quot;SINGAPORE — The United States will move the majority of its warships to the Asia-Pacific in coming years and keep six aircraft carriers in the region, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Saturday, giving the first details of a new U.S. military strategy.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47655768/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/#.T8o309xYvng" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47655768/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/#.T8o309xYvng</a></p>
<p>With absolutely no credible threat to the US coming from that area, the US will have six aircraft carrier groups there?  For what reason?  Shouldn&#8217;t anyone wanting smaller government and lower taxes be screaming to high heaven about this waste?</p>
<p>&#8220;SINGAPORE — The United States will move the majority of its warships to the Asia-Pacific in coming years and keep six aircraft carriers in the region, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Saturday, giving the first details of a new U.S. military strategy.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TB</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2012/06/01/chart-of-the-day/#comment-15538</link>
		<dc:creator>TB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jun 2012 05:16:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://habitablezone.com/?p=15989#comment-15538</guid>
		<description>The chart is pure percentages.  If actual amounts were indicated, in constant dollars adjusted for inflation, the 2011 &quot;tower&quot; would be twice as high as the 1987 one, and over 4 times as high as the 1962 one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The chart is pure percentages.  If actual amounts were indicated, in constant dollars adjusted for inflation, the 2011 &#8220;tower&#8221; would be twice as high as the 1987 one, and over 4 times as high as the 1962 one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
