Jump to content

Talk:Expenditures in the United States federal budget

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mandatory != entitlement

[edit]

This article needs to disentangle the concepts of mandatory versus entitlement spending. Entitlement programs are supported by mandatory funding, but many other programs are suported by mandatory funds as well. For example, it's clear from this visualization that the Departments of Labor, Agriculture, and the Treasury are also supported mainly by mandatory funding. It's thus incorrect to say that the federal executive departments are only associated with discretionary funding. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC) WHY IS SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET? SS IS SELF FUNDED BY THE PEOPLE WHO USE IT. THIS WAS CLEARLY WRITTEN BY SOME RIGHT WING NUTJOB WITH AN AXE TO GRIND. WL SHOULD BE BETTER THAN THIS. THE FEDS COULD START PAYING BACK THE 3.6 TRILLION THEY SOLE FROM SS--NOW THAT WOULD BE A BUDGET ITEM, IT'LL ALSO NEVER HAPPEN.[reply]

Table

[edit]

Would it be so very very very hard to include a table (NOT A PIE-CHART) listing spending areas? Note that I clicked here from another Federal Budget page where such a table would be appropriate but was missing.Jamesdowallen (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesdowallen 103.12.73.81 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Expenditures in the United States federal budget. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary spending section

[edit]

Not sure why the defense expenditures are not mentioned even just by a total number. Given how they represent over 50% of discretionary spending funds for the last couple of years, that's a very pertinent information, and should be at least briefly mentioned in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.40.164 (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Expenditures in the United States federal budget. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Violation of NPOV

[edit]

Specifically the section dealing with the military budget has an area discussing reforms & criticisms of the US military budget. If there are going to be criticisms & reforms added to one of the budget categories then it should be in all of them. If that is not going to be done then the previously mentioned section should be removed in order to achieve NPOV. Otherwise there structure of the article contributes to a bias against US military expenditures inadvertently.

I think it's important to reference two parts within the NPOV policy that talk about how to achieve NPOV, Article Structure along with Due & Undue Weight. GRosado 02:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRosado (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget&oldid=1200834996"