I know there is some fake news floating around with a chart that purports to show 57% of spending goes to the military, but it's been debunked. 28% goes to healthcare (Medicare), 25% to Social Security, 16% to Defense.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/...

I think you're correct to point out the inaccuracies of the image, however I disagree with the cavalier use of the term "fake news" to describe arbitrary instances of false or misleading information. The problem of "fake news" is actively perpetuated in part by the impulse to use the term as a catch-all pejorative for information we deem to be specious.

Fake news is when a media source that claims to report an accurate account of events deliberately peddles stories they know (or can safely assume) are false. Random images floating around the internet are not fake news.

like CNN, you don't get to define fake news. Fake news is as simple as it sounds: articles that are factually incorrect. Sadly, from random images to all major media, everyone is guilty of it.

> you don't get to define fake news. Fake news is as simple as it sounds: articles that are factually incorrect.

I'm happy to debate the nuance of the term fake news, but I think it's ironic that you presume to glibly assert your own definition of fake news right after exclaiming that one cannot do so (unless you're suggesting that CNN and myself, in particular, are forbidden from doing so).

Anyway, fake news is not simply "articles that are factually incorrect", otherwise every misreported fact or journalistic error could be classified as fake news which any intellectually honest person will admit is not what is intended to be described by the term fake news. Further, something cannot be fake news if it is not "news". Random images floating around the internet is not news. People posting memes and rumors on social media is not news. Honestly, even partisan bias and selective reporting by news organizations is not "fake news", and the terms "bias and selective reporting" accurately convey those qualities. Fake news is a loaded pejorative that carries the baggage of the 2016-2017 zeitgeist, so if you're going to use it at all, stick to the definition that common sense would have given us prior to 2016: reporting of current events that is deliberately presented as true when the authors know it is false.

and tell me again, based on your own definition, how all news isn't fake news? Fake news was pushed heavily as a term by the 'liberal media' until it was pushed back against them and they threw a fit and tried to redefine it. In reality, all modern news is fake news. Every outlet has a left or right agenda, and shapes the news in that way based on clever editing, lies, and omissions. Let's call a spade a spade, and admit that all factually incorrect articles, infographics, and stories are what they are...fake news.

edit: these comments are mostly made out of frustration with news today. Maybe I'm old, i know that i'm older than the median here now. News was different as a kid. There's always been biases, but less subtle. And 'news' used to be the gold standard in editing and investigating. Now, I see error prone articles that seem to have no editing at all, and swings toward propoganda on both sides. Maybe it's a reflection of our own ignorance and biases. But to me, it's the great fall of media, debasing the term 'news'

> In reality, all modern news is fake news.

This is the correct answer. Surely there must be a blog out there that deconstructs "news" articles from highly respected sources pointing out what people think is news is actually propaganda....anyone?

> and tell me again, based on your own definition, how all news isn't fake news?

That's a pretty disingenuous response. Obviously, "all news" is not deliberate fabrication presented as truth, and to suggest as much is worthless cynical hyperbole or willful ignorance or both.

For example, if I load up CNN.com right now, the tag-line for the front-page story reads "Another blow to Trump's travel ban". Clicking through to the article yields the headline "Appeals court upholds block on Trump's travel ban". You can read the article here:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/4th-circuit-travel-ba....

This is not fake news. The 4th Circuit court really did uphold the block on Trump's travel ban. Here is an excerpt FTA:

> Judge Paul Niemeyer, one of the three dissenters, said the majority "looks past the face" of the executive order. The approach "adopts a new rule of law that uses campaign statements to recast the plain, unambiguous, and religiously neutral text," Niemeyer, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote. "Opening the door to the use of campaign statements to inform the text of later executive orders has no rational limits."

I will reiterate: this is not fake news, Judge Paul Niemeyer really is a 4th circuit judge and those really are his words. Do you understand what I'm saying here? This is a thing that happened in the real world, it is not a fabrication created by CNN to defame Trump, this is reporting of a noteworthy current event that merits news coverage. A critic of CNN might claim "CNN always reports negative stories about Trump". Fine. Selective reporting meets the definition of bias, but bias, once again, is not fake news.

We can perform the same exercise with Fox News. The front-page tag-line reads "TWISTED TREACHERY - ISIS tricked US into bombing building where 100 innocents held captive". Clicking through to the article yields the headline "ISIS rigged explosives to home where 100 civilians died in US-led airstrike, military says". You can read the article here:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/25/isis-rigged-explosiv....

This is not fake news. The military really did report that ISIS tricked them into bombing civilians. Here is an excerpt FTA:

> An investigation into the March bombing found that the terror groups rigged a house with over 1,000 pounds of explosives, put civilians in the basement, and employed two ISIS snipers on the roof to bait the U.S.-led coalition to attack. U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Matthew Isler, the investigating officer for US Central Command, told Pentagon reporters that the bomb used by the American jet, a GBU-38 (500-lb bomb), would not have caused the type of damage associated with the destruction of the building.

I will reiterate: this is not fake news, Air Force Brig. Gen Matthew Isler really is a U.S. Air Force Brigadier General, and those really are his words. Am I making myself crystal clear? This is a thing that happened in the real world, even if civilians are not in a position to corroborate the findings of a military investigation, this is the official report from the military and not a fabrication created by Fox to excuse or justify the U.S. bombing of civilians. A critic of Fox might claim "Fox News always defends the military, even when they kill innocent civilians". Fine. Publishing stories with a tone favorable to one's predefined narrative meets the definition of bias, but bias, once again, is not fake news.

You see what I'm getting at here?

> Let's call a spade a spade, and admit that all factually incorrect articles, infographics, and stories are what they are...fake news.

Simply posting something on the internet does not make it news and you are actually contributing to the "debasing of the term news" that you complain about by refusing to acknowledge the distinction between memes posted to facebook, factual errors in reporting, institutional bias, and deliberate fabrications with no basis in reality. I mean, you're argument is literally "all news is fake". If more people would abandon your cynical defeatist attitude that encourages labeling literally everything as fake news and actually judged individual stories based on their own merit, political discourse in the USA would be a lot more productive.

If it was random, you'd be right, But that image wasn't arbitrary, it was deliberately misleading and created to generate hype/outrage, and the numbers in it now come up as fact. It would be like taking a particular 5 year snapshot of temperatures that were declining, graphing it and labeling it "Climate Change Debunked."

I'm open to it being in some other category of fake, but then we need a label for it.

> I'm open to it being in some other category of fake, but then we need a label for it.

I agree with you. I think "deliberately misleading", "factually inaccurate", even "complete bullshit" are applicable, I just disagree with the overloading of the term "fake news" to describe all manner of falsehood. The word fake followed by the word news in an english sentence is supposed to mean something very specific and when the term is blithely abused to suit the egos of warring partisans it diminishes society's ability to hold the influential news media organizations responsible for accuracy in reporting. In today's world everything is fake news to somebody and that wasn't true in 2014.

It's hardly fake news. It's actually the truth. Of discretionary federal government spending, ~57% does go to the military (if you don't include interest expense on the deficit I believe...removing that...)

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud...

It becomes false when you remove the "discretionary" from the label and just call it Federal Spending. And the the labels aren't that useful anyway. Mandatory spending isn't mandatory, it is just pre-programmed. One the main reasons we are in debt is that the only place that there has been any focus on cuts is the discretionary side. And if you make across the board cuts in discretionary spending as happened with the Obama budget deal, that pie chart doesn't change because there is no visualization of it shrinking versus the other 50%+ of spending. Defense spending had been shrinking for the last 5 years as a percentage of GDP.

> Deficits are mostly attributable to military spending.

Post-WWII federal deficits are mostly attributable to declining total effective income tax rates.

Source? The first couple of graphs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_State..., suggest otherwise. We've rarely had income taxes as a higher percentage of GDP than we do now.

If you just look at federal income tax (not payroll tax which is stacked on top of it, and not state and local taxes on top of that), the long term trend is downward since the end of WWII.

It makes complete sense to not ignore them though.

State and local taxes have nothing to do with the federal deficit, so excluding them is obviously correct when talking about the federal deficit.

Social Security is the bulk of payroll taxes, and most of the increase in payroll taxes, and remains self-funded (though that would cease to be the case if the trust fund was to be exhausted and full benefits maintained.) So it makes sense to exclude that.

But payroll tax also includes Medicare taxes (the payroll tax portion, not the additional income tax portion on certain income not subject to payroll a tax imposed under the ACA) as amuch smaller component, and while Medicare Part A is self-funded, Parts B and D have significant general revenue contributions as well. But Medicare payroll tax hasn't changed significantly (and the share of GDP subject to it has dropped as returns move out of labor and into capital), so if you kept it in but split out Social Security for the reason above, it wouldn't change the declining trend shown by income taxes (except to enhance it).

So, again, the federal deficit is driven by declining federal income tax share.

To some extent. Military spending as a % of GDP isn't that high, ~4%...but may still be a bit higher than usual for relative peacetime.

No, I was making a general point about what's productive investment and what isn't.

In the US, we're doing a bad job of making our deficits count. That will be bad in the medium and long term. In the short term, any spending is mildly stimulative. (Though spending that doesn't create future growth is essentially what creates the situation China is in: you're creating future debt-servicing obligation without creating debt-servicing capacity -- so you're making yourself poorer.)

I was just making a point about economics. I'll spare you my political opinions about the utility of US deficits, or the direction we're going, but based on your tone I imagine we might agree quite a bit more than you think.

GI bill pays for a lot of education

In my opinion, in a modern society education should be free, for everybody, and not influenced by private or religious interests. If a society fails to provide this to their youth, then somebody else will influence the kids, but not necessarily provide education.

It's just my opinion. Otherwise we are back to Middle Age.

That was after WWII...it still does a bit because there aren't enough "volunteers" to work in the US army...

Remember that the volunteer army was formed after Vietnam and all the objections to the draft (mostly by better-off, educated Americans...)...

Your comment isn't very coherent. The GI bill was originally enacted after WWII, yes, but it has applied to service members ever since. They enacted an enhancement to it post 9/11 and service members have a choice between the original Montgomery GI bill and post 9/11 GI bill education benefits now. They can even transfer those benefits to their spouse or child if they don't want to use them.