Politicians argue over the federal budget every time Congress reconvenes in January. But the money that the government spends each year, which can differ from the budget, reveals how much funding departments and agencies actually receive. The outlays for research and development, shown here for 2009 (latest available), largely support the nation’s science work. The relative proportions have been fairly constant in recent years (data do not include one-time American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money).
When the dollars are plotted by agency, department and selected organizations within departments, interesting patterns emerge: defense swamps all other recipients. The country spends as much on fossil energy as it does on renewable energy and efficiency. It invests more in nuclear energy than it does in all of agriculture. Some members of the new Congress have already vowed to cut all nonmilitary R&D.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentThe statement - "It invests more in nuclear energy than it does in all of agriculture" is not correct if the editor is basing it on the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) figure of $3,654M compared to the Agriculture amount of $2,256M. NNSA's mission is not nuclear energy, but is nuclear weapons. The bulk of NNSA R&D is in the area of nuclear weapons science, design, production, testing, and dismantling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe absurdity of eliminating all nonmilitary R&D should permanently shame any member of congress who proposes it. Who are these "some members" of Congress? Name names, please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I saw this graphic in the magazine I wanted to put it on billboards on the busiest freeways in every city in America - especially in those cities where those members of congress live. We spend more on finding new ways to kill people that all other research combined.
It's nice that NIH has research funding, but there is now less venture capital available for development of that research into useful products. I was one of those elementary school students who benefited from math and science education after Sputnik. It's sad to see NASA so reduced in scope and vision compared to military.
This graphic portrays the future of a doomed society.
I agree with you that Military R&D is higher than it should be but I think that you forget how much from the military re-enters civilian lives. They are a strong foundation in many aspects of where we are today. The military has invested tons in alternate energy and conservation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo yes, a portion goes into new ways to 'kill people' but even a lot of that comes back to civilian sector to aid humanity. Things like GPS which helps search and rescue, a lot of first aid equipment carried by EMT's and wireless communications, though annoying at times, exceptionally beneficial to society as a whole.
So yes, the amount is insane but we will all be happy 20 years from now when it is being used across the planet to also help.
They want to cut I say cut from the top. It blows my mind how much we spend on defense when there's still poverty and disease in the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn all fairness medical and human services is number two. They too would be lined up for this cut you speak of. And also limit the scope when speaking of the US (which I agree there is disease and poverty) versus the world. This is the national scope we are speaking of. Everyone dismisses what the money is being spent on and how it impacts later. Now to say cut from the top I agree, lets cut the earmarked bills and fruitless spending. PS - I am not a right winger so please don't say Fox News told me to say this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe massive military industrial complex created beginning WWII and followed through to present day via the cold war and other mis-informed private-profit reaping skirmishes should lead Americans to questioning just how much military is necessary in their lives, especially in comparison to how little is spent on R&D for education and actual public use. This also begs the question, how is the US permitted to buildup such an advancement of arms with the consent of other nations anyways? And the other question, why aren't the citizens concerned for their own civil liberties and well being with such an armed force at their own doorsteps? It may be the "US Forces" but clearly the "US Forces" have operated for private profit at the expense of the public before (unocal/exxon pipeline for the war in afghanistan etc.) and the public should have the fear of this occurring to them eventually.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot to mention, this is the same Department of Defense that declared EMF and ELF frequency-based domestic weapons "non-lethal" and "humane," even though they can cause permanent brain damage, permanent organ disruption, and many other drastic side-effects. This is the same military-industrial complex that lobbied for support of the Patriot Act, which if you ever actually read it ( http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html ) clearly dismantles the federal based Bill of Rights and even allows the government, under article 817, the right to administer toxins to the public ad nauseum.
As for the comment relating to military advances bleeding into the public sector of the economy, that statement is quite similar to the "trickle down" concept so prevalent in America's ruling elected elites.
I would have to say, if R&D for education matched R&D for defense even halfway, we would be light-years ahead technologically and that could then bleed into the military sector.
The simple fact of the matter is, the US dollar will be crushed in the coming years as Russia and China and other OPEC nations realize they're bonds are worthless and no longer want to have their reserves in our shameless banks. The US knows this, and is using the "Big Stick" policy to keep what's coming at bay. The real question is, will the US fight to maintain its dominance over the world, or will it consolidate itself under another currency arrangement--permanently driving the quality of life in the US down for 90% of its citizenry.
P.S. a stupid electorate eases the abilities of democratic tyrants, so this is another likely reason for the disgusting allocation of public taxes.
You forget however that the US Forces coming after us are our citizens. As a war veteran I can tell you not one soldier would knock down doors in anywhere USA without provocation (homegrown terrorists, anti-US militia,etc). You clearly are speaking about something you don't understand at all. And its funny how without the military you wouldn't be able to type any of this - look to China if you doubt that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd as far as private profiteering and private sector, check out how much money is contracted out to civilian entities. Then look at who KBR, DynaCorp and Haliburton contract. I worked in Army contracting for a year and can tell you that your conspiracy theory is about a mile off base.
And the trickle down concept in this case is true. You could say we should pump that money into education but public education has been a failure for a long time. Throwing money at it without a plan to actually improve it is silly. However military R&D has a place in your life right now. Its obvious and next time you ride in an ambulance tell me how stupid the trickle down is.
PS- No I don't wish you to get hurt and ride in an ambulance.
Also,
@juxtapose82
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI apologize if I offended you, in no way did I mean to diminish the sacrifices our military makes. You did fail to address almost every fact I just mentioned in your reply though:
1. The word terrorist is not specifically attached to any organization/individual. Rather, "terrorists" are defined by your bosses. If you were told there was an American terrorist responsible for rousing the anxieties of the public and disrupting the political landscape, you would no doubt be knocking down their door when ordered. The problem is it is terrorist is a label, much like your attempts to discredit my facts are labels. Conspiracy? The word conspiracy implies the facts were "hidden" or "exaggerated" or simply "wrong." None of these are true. Have you read the Patriot Act? Clearly, no.
2. Check the Feb. 12, 1998 105th Congressional record. It clearly states and outlines the military objectives in the near future in relation to the Afghanistan Khyber pass, a pipeline that would allow the monopoly of Eastern oil for the next 20 years. With Asia being the major consumer within those next 20 years, and Haliburton having major investments in the Carlyle group (major investors :Cheney/Bush family among others) you cannot possibly say the connections are coincidence or conspiracy--the facts and actions are public and open.
@juxtapose
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this3. China is a potential threat, yes. But for now they need our consumers to support their manufacturing base. I am not objecting to our maintaining current military because frankly we'll need it when the ask us to cash in the debts.
I am, however, objecting to the weaponry they're developing and using. Weapons that alter the mind, induce apathy, cause permanent damage etc. Getting shot sucks, but you can live. How about being zapped to "stun" and then afterward never being able to finish a sentence again...and the apathy remaining. Being as the casualty rate so far in Afghanistan is 60% civilian....yea. Make them mentally impaired too. And these weapons are approved for domestic applications.
4.
a.
"And the trickle down concept in this case is true. You could say we should pump that money into education but public education has been a failure for a long time."
You clearly have not seen the average state public school system lately.
And you just implied that we should quit pumping money into public education. Are you even American? You just said that we should stop pumping money into a "failure like public education." Clearly, though, you must have meant that people should just send their children to private schools instead. Damn socialist public school systems
b. "However military R&D has a place in your life right now. Its obvious and next time you ride in an ambulance tell me how stupid the trickle down is."
So you're saying that other than the military the medical industry would have no need to develop ambulance tech. And that R&D medical would be less efficient than R&D military in regards to medical applications. And that the funding from defense wouldn't be useful in the medical sector when it's clear medical costs are going through the roof....and there is a shortage of nurses nationwide...nurses who start most of the time as kids attending public schools btw....
You are an ignorant shill and deserve no more of my words.
I accept your apology, I would like to begin. Now I did write my last post more in anger but allow me to counterpoint.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. I strongly disagree with you that there is no set defintion to the word terrorist, though I see what you are getting at. However, you forget that soldiers aren't mindless robots. If we don't see evidence we question everything. This is something that civilians don't understand. When we show up and intel was wrong we make reparations. I know that reparations is a loose term but it is also a loose action taken case by case. And yes, actually, I am extremely understanding of the Patriot Act. Unfortunately, I see that semantics has confused you with what actually happens and many worry about their privacy. Well, with increased security, which everyone wants, comes a loss of personal privacy. Thats the way it is. And if the Patriot Act were less stringent then people would be sad because we were at a heightened threat. The actual use of the Act is very monitored and scrutinized so that DoD doesn't make a boo boo as they have sometimes in the past and watch the wrong people.
2. You are correct. America wants the oil. Not JUST the military though. You made it out that the US military is glad to line their pockets. But Haliburton is probably the ONLY company worldwide that could have brought that pipeline back to use under the circumstances and environment. However, the company cited was held, as is capitalism, to a bid and lost in the long run. They no longer get that profit.
3. I am sorry to say that I think the entire idea of weapons to not hurt people is an oxymoron and is something the public made the military spend money on. But do you feel bad when a drunk person falls from somewhere and gets brain damage? Maybe, but both things have a constant, don't do stupid things and you have 0% risk. Do stupid things and your risk goes up. That is Darwinism at its finest. But, nothing works everytime and the fact that anyone tried it, instead of bullets which do worse than 60% brain damage, is a loud statement. If you want it to improve, keep paying.
4. Socialist, no. Person who thinks we should not put more money into a system without a serious revamp - yes. Again, you want to throw money at it. That is dumb. If you pay more and hope it goes away thanks to the added coffers, you are a simple creature.
PS - Watch who you call a non-American. Unlike one of us I have put myself in danger to guarantee both of us have the luxury to that title. You have not.
You said,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As a war veteran I can tell you not one soldier would knock down doors in anywhere USA without provocation (homegrown terrorists, anti-US militia,etc). You clearly are speaking about something you don't understand at all."
Soldiers are obviously not mindless robots because they are human beings.
But every military organization tries to make them into unquestioning killing machines who "only follow orders."
After World War II, the Nuremberg trials established this fact without intending to when almost every German soldier OF EVERY RANK up to general defended his actions by saying he was "only following orders."
And very few of the lower ranking German officers were convicted of any crimes based on the same reasoning: the victorious allies would have been forced to execute most of them. Instead, the Allies accepted the definition of a soldier as "doing what he is ordered to do" without legal responsibility for murder, except for those at the very highest levels or those convicted of the most heinous forms of torture, etc.
But the American occupation isn't a war, in the ordinary definition of the word. It is a very costly police action and invasion and occupation of a foreign country. (As it turned out, for the wrong reason: WMD.) There is no organized, recognized national army fighting against America as there was in Vietnam, Korea or World War II.
During the height of the Vietnam war at least 4,000 Americans were killed every month, mostly in combat, and three times as many wounded and half of them permanently disabled.
In the Iraq "war" the total of American soldiers killed during the entire war isn't even 5,000 and the total wounded is only about 32,000 compared to more than 150,000 wounded in the Vietnam war and almost 700,000 in World War II. The Russians and Germans lost at least ten million each and that is a very low estimate.
When American soldiers in Vietnam were ordered to go into a village and kill every man woman and child and not even leave any animals living, they did it or were shot on the spot themselves.
When the Vietnam grunts judged officers to be incompetent and unable to protect them from being killed, they usually shot them in the back, or in the face if they could get away with it.
In Iraq, war is hell for the Iraqis, and mostly a cakewalk for the Americans.
It is interesting to note that more investment goes into the military than the environment, when the environment clearly oses a much bigger and more expensive threat to the US than any other source. The planet is indeed a spaceship without a pilot...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'In Iraq, war is hell for the Iraqis, and mostly a cakewalk for the Americans.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow would you have any idea? The fact you even say that is ridiculous because you read it. How many times have you been hit with an IED, car bomb or RPG? How many times were you shot at? The reason more people are living is not because of the organized army we aren't fighting, its because of the upgraded technology that you don't want funding to go into.
Thanks for the history lessons but you are citing the past. You are right about all case studies, that is why the US has stopped using an involuntary force. Much harder to control and that is why you can no longer 'get away with it'. Its less morally offensive to anyone who is there against their will.
Don't cite WMD's. That is old. Everyone seems to have forgotten the sentiment when Hans Blix and UN weapons inspectors were banned from Iraq and Hussein was uncooperative in every aspect. We all thought they were there and we saw him use them against the Kurds earlier in the regime. The UN sanctioned the invasion, not just our Pres.
Unless more money is spent on ecology, there may well be nothing left to defend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt sure would be nice to see a comparison graphic for selected European countries or for all countries in the EU as a whole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this