Founded in 2006, ITIF is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational institute—a think tank—focusing on a host of critical issues at the intersection of technological innovation and public policy.
https://itif.org/about
Flag wavers for the PIPA/SOPA campaign
https://itif.org/publications/2011/12/05/pipasopa-responding-critics-and-finding-path-forward
"ITIF is led by its president and founder, Robert D. Atkinson..."
And who is this guy? Best I could come up with is 3 economics books on Amazon read by... no-one.
But I hit the jackpot on YouTube...
He's in bed with (and on the panel of) this lovely fellow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0zbv_34guk
No idea if Finland and Sweden should actually be worried... I spent less than ten minutes doing the research, sorry. Probably not, likely just a list of countries that are PIPA/SOPA campaign darlings.
But I'd keep my eyes peeled if I were you. A pat on the back from the Koch Brothers Crew could be a red flag.
PS Anyone ever notice that "Think Tank" is slowly becoming a derogatory term? Oh wait! I asked the same question just yesterday;)

Actually I don't know what your aiming at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA
That Internet should be open to all is obvious.
But using Internet as a tool to steal innovating products is wrong.
Without regulations there will be no more innovations!

Yeah, sorry about that. Was in a hurry but now I see why you took that quick post the wrong way. Unfortunately in doing so we managed to start 3 conversations and can't have all of them at once so we'll have to pick one to get started. Here they are:

1) If the ITIF list you posted has any sort of credibility.
- Personally, this was the conversation I'd like to have and the one I was trying to initiate. It involves a wolf (well, more than one actually... so wolves really) in sheep's clothing.

2) If the PIPA/SOPA bill has any credibility.
- This should be a thread of it's own, if it isn't one already (it's really old news). I doubt it would take me long to find even a single degree of separation with conversation #1 (that expression won't translate well so what I mean is it's probably pretty much the same group of psycho idiots behind the ITIF). Not really the conversation I was looking to have but since the bill was handed in by what appears to be a dangerous a*hole that would make almost everyone on the SETI boards stomach churn (at least a little bit)... well I guess we could initiate it :)

3) Using the Internet as a tool to steal innovating products is wrong.
- Please don't take this the wrong way but I'd rather not have this conversation in depth. I'm guessing everybody understands that stealing is wrong. I'm sure we could discuss what could be done about it but it's not high on my list of priorities right now.

TL;DR
It's been over 7 years since Paulson shafted Fuld flushing trillions down the drain. Who and who you say? Exactly.
My point is there's no use debating any given solution when we have a piss-poor idea of what the problem (any problem) may be.
My other point is if you're gonna be defending someone's work then it might be a good idea to take a quick look at their CV first.

Es99 wrote:

Here is a breakdown of the federal budget:

FY15 Federal Budget Spending Estimates for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2019



Now in my opinion, government's job is to provide infrastructure, healthcare, pensions (which people pay into anyway, so that's actually their own money they are getting back), education and a social safety net such as welfare. People here might not agree with that, but considering that most people who go on welfare only spend a short time on it, its does seem to be doing its job. You might need it one day, be glad its there.

Does the military spending need to be so high? Again, that's your personal thing, but I don't think there is much argument for saying that its poor people that have bought down the economy. Especially as everyone knows that it was the banks and their fraudulent practices. I really don't understand why everyone is so quick to point at poor people. Does it make you feel better for some reason?

Es99,

Hmm... It occurs to me that you do not totally understand the situation in the USA.

In the USA, we have multiple levels of Government, each level collects its own taxes and has its own spending. You are looking at ONLY the Federal level.

On that same website, let us look at a more... fair and balanced set of figures.





http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2015USbt_15bc2n#usgs302

This data is the total spending by ALL levels of Government in the USA for FY 2015 (we are in FY 2016 now).

Federal Government total spending for FY 2015 was US$ 3.9 Trillion.

ALL-LEVEL Government total spending for FY 2015 was US$ 6.4 Trillion.

For reference, the GDP was US$ 17.985 Trillion,
and the population was 321.4 Million.

You give a list of Government functions. I am NOT getting into which ones might be proper and which ones might not be proper. That is a subject for another thread at another time. But here, I am focusing on what *IS*, not what *SHOULD BE* in anyone's opinion.

You list infrastructure, health care, pensions, education, and safety-net(welfare).

Let us concentrate on the last 4, the more 'social' of the spending catagories.

At the Federal level, health-care = 27%, pensions = 25%, welfare=10%, and education=3%. That is a total of 65% of Federal spending or US$ 2.535 Trillion.

At the TOTAL level, health-care = 21%, pensions = 19%, welfare = 8%, and education = 15%. That is a total of 63% of all government spending or US$ 4.032 Trillion (a figure concidently that is GREATER than ALL Federal Spending on everything... combined).

4.032 Trillion... That is a mighty large pile of money. Lets see, per capita spending on these four items is then... about US$12,545.00.

On these 4 areas (health care, pensions, education, and welfare) Government spends US$12,545 for every man, woman, and child in the USA.

That also means that Government(s) in the USA collects (past, present, and future) US$12,545 in taxes for every man, woman and child in the USA to pay for just these 4 spending areas.

Ouch.

You want these 4 areas of Government spending? Fine and dandy! Pay up... the Taxman comes.

As to that example of Grothman's (US$35,000 for a family of 3 -- Single parent, 2 children) is certainly doable, for some people in some locations in the USA. Remember, State and Local taxes/spending can change things up greatly. In some places in the USA it is a LOT more expensive to live in than in others. Even in the same State. Where I live now, $700 / month in rent can get you a nice, big, 3 bedroom brick house. In the Dallas area it won't even get you a crappy quality 1 bedroom apartment. And some places can be a lot higher that even that. And that is just housing.

I would agree that the figure of US$28,800 in benefits is likely a good estimate of the median benefit package for a single-parent, 2 child household receiving benefits nationwide.

The article you linked is paywalled (washington post), but I did find another one about it. In it, Grothman is quoted as mentioning 4 programs:

1. Housing Vouchers. That would be the 'Section 8' program. Hard to get on. Long waiting list. Many places only open up and take a relative few applications once every five years or so. But, once you do get on it, it is a gold-mine gravy train. Statutory maximum voucher amount is US$2000 / month. Or $24000 / year.

2. Medicaid. Kinda hard for an adult to get on it, but much much easier for a child to get on it. Free health care for the poor. No premiums, no deductibles, no co-payments. Medicare (healthcare for the elderly) has premiums, deductibles, and co-payments. So does regular private insurance. Even the Obamacare Platinum plans has them.

So, how does one put a $-value on Medicaid? It ain't easy.

Total Medicaid spending is about US$500,000,000,000.00.
Total number on Medicaid is about 50,000,000.
Divide it out yields about US$10,000.00 of spending per person on Medicaid.

So, a family of 3 gets about US$30,000.00.

3. EITC. Family of 3 gets about US$5,500 / year in EITC if they all qualify.

4. Food. SNAP. That is about $550/month for a family size of 3. That is US$6,600 per year.

There are lots of other programs. This is a SHORT list.

With just these, lets see... 24000 + 30000 + 5500 + 6600.

That would be, for the 3 people in Grothman's example... US$66,100 per year in a combination of direct payments, maximum voucher amounts, and per-person share of spending on JUST these 4 programs.

Totally leaving out the Section 8 housing voucher (which is hard to get, with a pretty much unknown level, that would still be $36,100 per year for the 3 remaining programs on his list.

The single parent in the Wisconsin legislative analysis received even more than Grothman’s claim

Yep...

Es99 wrote:

Does the military spending need to be so high?

On this, I think that you and I are in agreement. Several times here I have mentioned that I think that perhaps a 50% reduction in defense spending for the USA would be in order. However, I think that we would likely disagree on what should be done with that money cut from the defense budget. But, that is a subject for another thread and another time.