The Next President is...

[brabus]

On the Defense budget subject - spitballing, but could probably cut a couple hundred billion. Having seen deep inside the acquisitions side, all the way to sustainment (and what the warfighter gets for it), it is criminal the money the DOD wastes/misallocates/pays out as it willingly bends over and takes it from industry who enjoy near zero accountability. The DOD accepts shit like paying LM billions of dollars for “F-35 modernization” which really means “make it do the things you told us it would do in 2013.” The millions I spend referenced above should be 100s of thousands, but I don’t hate the player, I hate the game. And the DOD is OK with all of that…fuck us, we deserve to lose billions in funding when that’s how we spend tax payer dollars. 

Edited Saturday at 06:09 PM by brabus

[Prosuper]

Looking forward to when DOGE looks at the new AF1 747-800, I know its a cost plus contract and Boeing is taking the over runs or are they. General Atomics got the E-4B contract with a second hand 747-800.

[Sua Sponte]

30 minutes ago, Prosuper said:

Looking forward to when DOGE looks at the new AF1 747-800, I know its a cost plus contract and Boeing is taking the over runs or are they. General Atomics got the E-4B contract with a second hand 747-800.

SNC won the E-4B SAOC contract.

[nsplayr]

Reminds me of Nixon, "Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal."

This didn't work out well for Nixon and it won't work out well for Trump either.

[Swizzle]

9 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

SNC won the E-4B SAOC contract.

Poor them.

[Banzai]

18 hours ago, brabus said:

On the Defense budget subject - spitballing, but could probably cut a couple hundred billion. Having seen deep inside the acquisitions side, all the way to sustainment (and what the warfighter gets for it), it is criminal the money the DOD wastes/misallocates/pays out as it willingly bends over and takes it from industry who enjoy near zero accountability. The DOD accepts shit like paying LM billions of dollars for “F-35 modernization” which really means “make it do the things you told us it would do in 2013.” The millions I spend referenced above should be 100s of thousands, but I don’t hate the player, I hate the game. And the DOD is OK with all of that… us, we deserve to lose billions in funding when that’s how we spend tax payer dollars. 

What would you cut? These are nice thoughts, and I’ll admit I had the same, but then when you look at the budget there are not just a couple hundred billions of savings anywhere. And good luck just telling the defense contractors to give you everything cheaper. Sounds nice on populist pulpits or forums but is absolutely inane when tried to be applied to real life. I challenge you to identify realistic cuts that allow us to do what we want as a superpower that aren’t just “make the budget smaller:”

Here’s the Air Force ($188B):

https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FM-Resources/Budget/Air-Force-Presidents-Budget-FY25/

O&M - $75B You gonna cut our building restoration money? Doubt it, our buildings suck

You gonna cut maintenance? You fly the F-35, don’t kid me

You gonna cut flying hours? F that, we barely fly

Maybe you’ll cut SAPR or something - okay, sure, but that saves like $0.5B

Military pay - you gonna cut military pay? Doubt it

RDT&E - it’s “only” $37.7B for major upgrades to include Sentinel, LRSO, NGAD, CCA, and a ton of other things. We still have tons of gaps like recapitalizing our tanker fleet, CC5, base defense, upgrading our logistics or SOF fleet, replacing the A-10, etc that aren’t funded because you cannot that in. You gonna cut this when China is rapidly creating military capabilities that challenge us and flying sixth gen fighters?

Procurement - $29B for F-35, T-7, KC-46, F-15EX, and tons of weapons. You gonna cut this when we are at our smallest and gearing up for conflict with China?

MILCON - $4B - You gonna cut this?

 

You all know this, but we in the military need more high quality people, we need to fly more, we need to have better things to fight with, we need more weapons, and we all think we shouldn’t take a pay cut (and some think we should be paid more). To highlight some of the cognitive dissonance around money: half the dudes on this forum are trying to find ways to be 90% VA disabled while still flying for the airlines. Or people are advocating for $100k bonuses (I don’t disagree). The military has infinite money when it comes to “budget dust for me.” But simultaneously it should be able to be reduced by 20% easily. Go with game plan.

In reality, you want to be a military superpower, you have to fund at superpower levels. China on PPP is already spending about 60% of what we are spending:

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/chinas-military-rise-comparative-military-spending-china-and-us

Cuts now = capitulation. We can do that if you want, but you have to admit to second/third order effects.

Edited Sunday at 12:17 PM by Banzai

[GKinnear]

On 2/6/2025 at 9:38 PM, Stoker said:

They're literally booing our national anthem ...

 

On 2/6/2025 at 10:03 PM, AC&W said:

Canadian hockey fans booing the US national anthem is not unprecedented. Hockey to them is a cultural identity, borderline religion.

 

How's that working out for our neighbors to the north...who brings a"go for the bronze" gusto that's done them so well over the years?

 

 

[GKinnear]

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

What would you cut? These are nice thoughts, and I’ll admit I had the same, but then when you look at the budget there are not just a couple hundred billions of savings anywhere. And good luck just telling the defense contractors to give you everything cheaper. Sounds nice on populist pulpits or forums but is absolutely inane when tried to be applied to real life. I challenge you to identify realistic cuts that allow us to do what we want as a superpower that aren’t just “make the budget smaller:”

Here’s the Air Force ($188B):

https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FM-Resources/Budget/Air-Force-Presidents-Budget-FY25/

O&M - $75B You gonna cut our building restoration money? Doubt it, our buildings suck

You gonna cut maintenance? You fly the F-35, don’t kid me

You gonna cut flying hours? F that, we barely fly

Maybe you’ll cut SAPR or something - okay, sure, but that saves like $0.5B

Military pay - you gonna cut military pay? Doubt it

RDT&E - it’s “only” $37.7B for major upgrades to include Sentinel, LRSO, NGAD, CCA, and a ton of other things. We still have tons of gaps like recapitalizing our tanker fleet, CC5, base defense, upgrading our logistics or SOF fleet, replacing the A-10, etc that aren’t funded because you cannot that in. You gonna cut this when China is rapidly creating military capabilities that challenge us and flying sixth gen fighters?

Procurement - $29B for F-35, T-7, KC-46, F-15EX, and tons of weapons. You gonna cut this when we are at our smallest and gearing up for conflict with China?

MILCON - $4B - You gonna cut this?

 

You all know this, but we in the military need more high quality people, we need to fly more, we need to have better things to fight with, we need more weapons, and we all think we shouldn’t take a pay cut (and some think we should be paid more). To highlight some of the cognitive dissonance around money: half the dudes on this forum are trying to find ways to be 90% VA disabled while still flying for the airlines. Or people are advocating for $100k bonuses (I don’t disagree). The military has infinite money when it comes to “budget dust for me.” But simultaneously it should be able to be reduced by 20% easily. Go with game plan.

In reality, you want to be a military superpower, you have to fund at superpower levels. China on PPP is already spending about 60% of what we are spending:

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/chinas-military-rise-comparative-military-spending-china-and-us

Cuts now = capitulation. We can do that if you want, but you have to admit to second/third order effects.

Those are topline numbers only...there are multiple discrete program elements that can be offset and not reduce mission effectiveness in that area,

O&M has long been an easy cut to balance the portfolio...cut an FHP here, reduce an exercise by a day there...and BOOM!...a balanced budget.

Or shit, go the Kendall route and just wholesale cut programs like the U-2 to pay for other shit...Sentinel ICBM missile silos aren't going to pay for themselves when you don't account for them.

Edited Sunday at 01:43 PM by GKinnear

[TheLaughingCow]

2 hours ago, Banzai said:

What would you cut? These are nice thoughts, and I’ll admit I had the same, but then when you look at the budget there are not just a couple hundred billions of savings anywhere. And good luck just telling the defense contractors to give you everything cheaper. Sounds nice on populist pulpits or forums but is absolutely inane when tried to be applied to real life. I challenge you to identify realistic cuts that allow us to do what we want as a superpower that aren’t just “make the budget smaller:”

Here’s the Air Force ($188B):

https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FM-Resources/Budget/Air-Force-Presidents-Budget-FY25/

O&M - $75B You gonna cut our building restoration money? Doubt it, our buildings suck

You gonna cut maintenance? You fly the F-35, don’t kid me

You gonna cut flying hours? F that, we barely fly

Maybe you’ll cut SAPR or something - okay, sure, but that saves like $0.5B

Military pay - you gonna cut military pay? Doubt it

RDT&E - it’s “only” $37.7B for major upgrades to include Sentinel, LRSO, NGAD, CCA, and a ton of other things. We still have tons of gaps like recapitalizing our tanker fleet, CC5, base defense, upgrading our logistics or SOF fleet, replacing the A-10, etc that aren’t funded because you cannot that in. You gonna cut this when China is rapidly creating military capabilities that challenge us and flying sixth gen fighters?

Procurement - $29B for F-35, T-7, KC-46, F-15EX, and tons of weapons. You gonna cut this when we are at our smallest and gearing up for conflict with China?

MILCON - $4B - You gonna cut this?

 

You all know this, but we in the military need more high quality people, we need to fly more, we need to have better things to fight with, we need more weapons, and we all think we shouldn’t take a pay cut (and some think we should be paid more). To highlight some of the cognitive dissonance around money: half the dudes on this forum are trying to find ways to be 90% VA disabled while still flying for the airlines. Or people are advocating for $100k bonuses (I don’t disagree). The military has infinite money when it comes to “budget dust for me.” But simultaneously it should be able to be reduced by 20% easily. Go with game plan.

In reality, you want to be a military superpower, you have to fund at superpower levels. China on PPP is already spending about 60% of what we are spending:

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/chinas-military-rise-comparative-military-spending-china-and-us

Cuts now = capitulation. We can do that if you want, but you have to admit to second/third order effects.

I wouldn't cut money, I'd cut things that just plain don't make sense.  We've become a creaking bureaucracy that has rules for everything and needs 5 signatures to get anything done. 

When I buy a chair for my office I have to fill out forms, those forms have to be signed by 2 or 3 people, then someone (not me, a dedicated cardholder with special training) has to buy the chair from GSA Advantage, log and and track it all in spreadsheets, make sure they get reimbursed.  They can only use special chair vendors, they can only buy chairs under a certain dollar amount...god forbid they split purchases...all that for an office chair.  At $50/hr or more.

If I want a chair for my house I go to Wal-mart and buy a chair.  Job done.

 

[Banzai]

6 minutes ago, TheLaughingCow said:

I wouldn't cut money, I'd cut things that just plain don't make sense.  We've become a creaking bureaucracy that has rules for everything and needs 5 signatures to get anything done. 

When I buy a chair for my office I have to fill out forms, those forms have to be signed by 2 or 3 people, then someone (not me, a dedicated cardholder with special training) has to buy the chair from GSA Advantage, log and and track it all in spreadsheets, make sure they get reimbursed.  They can only use special chair vendors, they can only buy chairs under a certain dollar amount...god forbid they split purchases...all that for an office chair.  At $50/hr or more.

If I want a chair for my house I go to Wal-mart and buy a chair.  Job done.

 

100% agree. Let’s institute reforms for PPBE and GSA. Let’s stand up a commission to change and revise the rules.

Not just propose barely thought out cuts to top line military budgets or state we can simply cut 20% (or 50%) of the military budget.

If you just cut budget you’re left with the shitty system you have. You just have less money to play inside it.

Edited Sunday at 03:15 PM by Banzai

[BashiChuni]

9 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Reminds me of Nixon, "Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal."

This didn't work out well for Nixon and it won't work out well for Trump either.

wait till you deep dive the watergate story...eye opening

[GKinnear]

More US Hockey excellence...maybe we need a hockey thread to go along with football and the field fairys thread

 

 

 

[SocialD]

47 minutes ago, Banzai said:

100% agree. Let’s institute reforms for PPBE and GSA. 

 

Yes take a look at the pots of money concept.  Also, mil construction regs need gutted....being forced to make an alert facility ADA compliant is beyond ridiculous.  Also, taking the vastly more expensive option for remodeling a building because the cheaper option is funded from a pot of money you don't have is insane.  So many anecdotes we all have seen that, by themselves aren't big $$$, but would probably equal big money if applied across the entire DOD and Federal government.  

[HeloDude]

With regards to progressives complaining about the cuts, this is nothing new.  In 2013 Pelosi said there wasn’t room to cut anything…and now we’re paying for DEI stuff overseas, promoting trans nonsense in other countries, paying hotels for illegals here in the US, on and on.  It’s almost hard to fathom how the left is defending this crap, but that’s just who they are/how they think.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2013/09/pelosi-says-the-cupboard-is-bare-173214

[brabus]

@Banzai I’m not saying you’re wrong in general, and you have valid points. If I truly sat down, went through the data, and DOGE’d this thing, what could the savings be? I did not get that number from any research or math, just thrown out as a starting point, knowing full well the number could, and probably would be less.

- cut 1/2 the civilians and save approx $40B (based on average salary). Obviously I wouldn’t just blindly cut that right now, but i bet if you went full DOGE you’d find near half are unnecessary/not remotely earning their paycheck. Go work on the staff - that number is about 90-95%. Directly related to this problem are the processes of course, so you’d have to streamline our BS processes which in turn would nullify the need for the guy who provides the 3rd rubber stamp prior to sending the request to Bob

- Industry: I think you’re wrong on that, fuck yeah we could tell them GFY and actually sign contracts that are judicious use of tax dollars. The F-35 program has doubled in cost for 1/2 the initial buy (and likely will continue to shrink), and all we do is throw billions at LM while they laugh at us. What if we signed all contracts with cost+ limits and delays/setbacks were 100% eaten by the company? You say no company would sign that? OK cool LM, we’ll go to your competitor, or we’ll just chill for 5 years on all your potential contracts - how’s that bottom line doing now? Industry is incredibly greedy - I’m a huge fan of capitalism, but capitalism does not mean you have to completely take it up the ass with a smile on your face. Long story short: many TRILLIONS saved over a few years if we took this approach across the DOD. Walk out of the car dealership - the dealer will call you more often than not.

Theres a lot more, just two big ones off the top of my nugget.

 

 

[Weapons Away]

@blueingreen

"particularly those in the South, have the largest concentrations of people who are significantly more likely to be poor and rely on government benefits on a per-capita basis: Black and Hispanic people. This isn't to say that there aren't poor White or Asian people who rely on federal programs; In fact, Whites receive more benefits overall than anyone else in absolute terms, but their per-capita consumption rates are far lower"

Genuinely curious as to where you are seeing this data at. Everytime I've checked the census on this particular subject, I haven't seen the per capita numbers you describe. I'm seeing the following:

Among the population receiving social safety net benefits in 2022 (most recent data) 75.6% white, 13.4% black, 6.3% asian, 4.6% some other race (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiving-social-safety-net-benefits.html). When paired with most recent census data on the racial makeup of the U.S. population (2020), I'm seeing the white alone non-Hispanic population at 57.8%, hispanic population at 18.7%, and the black population at 12.1% (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/2020-united-states-population-more-racially-ethnically-diverse-than-2010.html). Unknown if the white population in the safety net numbers included white hispanics, but assuming it does for now, those population numbers seem to align with the social safety net numbers.

What am I missing?

Edited for spelling

Edited Sunday at 04:22 PM by Weapons Away

[CaptainMorgan]

[mention=82854]blueingreen[/mention]
"particularly those in the South, have the largest concentrations of people who are significantly more likely to be poor and rely on government benefits on a per-capita basis: Black and Hispanic people. This isn't to say that there aren't poor White or Asian people who rely on federal programs; In fact, Whites receive more benefits overall than anyone else in absolute terms, but their per-capita consumption rates are far lower"
Genuinely curious as to where you are seeing this data at. Everytime I've checked the census on this particular subject, I haven't seen the per capita numbers you describe. I'm seeing the following:
Among the population receiving social safety net benefits in 2022 (most recent data) 75.6% white, 13.4% black, 6.3% asian, 4.6% some other race (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiving-social-safety-net-benefits.html). When paired with most recent census data on the racial makeup of the U.S. population (2020), I'm seeing the white alone non-Hispanic population at 57.8%, hispanic population at 18.7%, and the black population at 12.1% (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/2020-united-states-population-more-racially-ethnically-diverse-than-2010.html). Unknown if the white population in the safety net numbers included white hispanics, but assuming it does for now, those population numbers seem to align with the social safety net numbers.
What am I missing?
Edited for spelling

I think your numbers are only showing the number of people, and not the amount they receive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Prosuper]

2 hours ago, Weapons Away said:

@blueingreen

"particularly those in the South, have the largest concentrations of people who are significantly more likely to be poor and rely on government benefits on a per-capita basis: Black and Hispanic people. This isn't to say that there aren't poor White or Asian people who rely on federal programs; In fact, Whites receive more benefits overall than anyone else in absolute terms, but their per-capita consumption rates are far lower"

Genuinely curious as to where you are seeing this data at. Everytime I've checked the census on this particular subject, I haven't seen the per capita numbers you describe. I'm seeing the following:

Among the population receiving social safety net benefits in 2022 (most recent data) 75.6% white, 13.4% black, 6.3% asian, 4.6% some other race (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiving-social-safety-net-benefits.html). When paired with most recent census data on the racial makeup of the U.S. population (2020), I'm seeing the white alone non-Hispanic population at 57.8%, hispanic population at 18.7%, and the black population at 12.1% (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/2020-united-states-population-more-racially-ethnically-diverse-than-2010.html). Unknown if the white population in the safety net numbers included white hispanics, but assuming it does for now, those population numbers seem to align with the social safety net numbers.

What am I missing?

Edited for spelling

Why do we need 44 Four stars. Didn't we win WW2 with 7?

[Weapons Away]

1 hour ago, CaptainMorgan said:

I think your numbers are only showing the number of people, and not the amount they receive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair point, but I have not seen any breakout of dollar amounts by race. I've gone through the census site a few times to look and filter specific data using the site's interactive data tool.

[Weapons Away]

2 minutes ago, Prosuper said:

Why do we need 44 Four stars. Didn't we win WW2 with 7?

Growth? Bloat? Combination?

Not sure how that ties to my question about social safety net data though.

[O Face]

2 hours ago, GKinnear said:

More US Hockey excellence...maybe we need a hockey thread to go along with football and the field fairys thread

 

 

 

 

hockey 

 

 

[Banzai]

3 hours ago, brabus said:

Industry: I think you’re wrong on that, yeah we could tell them GFY and actually sign contracts that are judicious use of tax dollars. The F-35 program has doubled in cost for 1/2 the initial buy (and likely will continue to shrink), and all we do is throw billions at LM while they laugh at us. What if we signed all contracts with cost+ limits and delays/setbacks were 100% eaten by the company? You say no company would sign that? OK cool LM, we’ll go to your competitor, or we’ll just chill for 5 years on all your potential contracts - how’s that bottom line doing now? Industry is incredibly greedy - I’m a huge fan of capitalism, but capitalism does not mean you have to completely take it up the ass with a smile on your face. Long story short: many TRILLIONS saved over a few years if we took this approach across the DOD. Walk out of the car dealership - the dealer will call you more often than not.

I have worked on the staff. I have worked on F-35 acquisitions. I am a fighter pilot.

Here’s the problem with your argument. Yes, Lockheed sucks. But who will you turn to?

Let’s quit Lockheed now. No more F-35. Who will you turn to?

Boeing? That will take 5-7 years to get a prototype fighter. And Boeing sucks. Northrop? Same thing. No one can just spin up a fifth gen fighter.

Maybe a new start? Anduril or something? Sure. Oh. They have no experience in anything related to fighter aircraft production? Now it’s gonna take a bigger investment and a longer lead time to essentially finance their institutional knowledge. Maybe they could make a 4th gen airplane in 5-10 years. They ain’t making fifth or sixth without nationalization of Lockheed/Boeing/Northrup or an unacceptable amount of time of money footed by the taxpayer.

The biggest problem with your argument is the belief that the free market could be used to your advantage in these negotiations. It can’t. If you made a call NOW to cancel the F-35 it would result in a 5-10 year bathtub of fighter capability because this stuff doesn’t just exist off the shelf.

With some things, like the KC-46, it’s more reasonable (we could have gone with A330s or something). But the truth is a lot of our warfighting capability is essentially held in bespoke companies that we cannot just tell to pound sand.

The solution is to accept what we have (shitty Lockheed/Boeing) while diversifying into new starts. This is not a fast process or one you can jump into in many cases. It’s going to take 10-15 years.

And - contentious opinion here - if Lockheed and Boeing essentially have monopolies on critical national defense systems, we need to seriously consider government control of those things while we fix the free market that we allowed to essentially wither away post Cold War. They can have their bespoke defense arms portions of their companies back when we have essentially trust busted these shitty organizations.

Edited Sunday at 07:34 PM by Banzai

[Lord Ratner]

11 minutes ago, Banzai said:

I have worked on the staff. I have worked on F-35 acquisitions. I am a fighter pilot.

Here’s the problem with your argument. Yes, Lockheed sucks. But who will you turn to?

Let’s quit Lockheed now. No more F-35. Who will you turn to?

Boeing? That will take 5-7 years to get a prototype fighter. And Boeing sucks. Northrop? Same thing. No one can just spin up a fifth gen fighter.

Maybe a new start? Anduril or something? Sure. Oh. They have no experience in anything related to fighter aircraft production? Now it’s gonna take a bigger investment and a longer lead time to essentially finance their institutional knowledge. Maybe they could make a 4th gen airplane in 5-10 years. They ain’t making fifth or sixth without nationalization of Lockheed/Boeing/Northrup or an unacceptable amount of time of money footed by the taxpayer.

The biggest problem with your argument is the belief that the free market could be used to your advantage in these negotiations. It can’t. If you made a call NOW to cancel the F-35 it would result in a 5-10 year bathtub of fighter capability because this stuff doesn’t just exist off the shelf.

With some things, like the KC-46, it’s more reasonable (we could have gone with A330s or something). But the truth is a lot of our warfighting capability is essentially held in bespoke companies that we cannot just tell to pound sand.

The solution is to accept what we have (shitty Lockheed/Boeing) while diversifying into new starts. This is not a fast process or one you can jump into in many cases. It’s going to take 10-15 years.

And - contentious opinion here - if Lockheed and Boeing essentially have monopolies on critical national defense systems, we need to seriously consider government control of those things while we fix the free market that we allowed to essentially wither away post Cold War. They can have their bespoke defense arms portions of their companies back when we have essentially trust busted these shitty organizations.

I'm no fan of the f-35, but I think this downplays how much the government itself is responsible for what a shit show that program is. It wasn't Lockheed who demanded a VSTOL version in the same basic chassis. And it wasn't Boeing who signed off on the ridiculous digital boom pod on the kc-46. 

 

The problem is a bunch of generals and bureaucrats who have never existed in the business world putting insane wish lists together and just assuming that it all happens somehow. 

 

And that ignores changing the requirements halfway through the program, or never mentioning that one of the primary requirements is that the plane looks cool, so you start doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to pick the airplane that you just want to win. 

 

And we need to start locking people in prison for the rest of their lives if they abuse these programs for personal gain. No more getting a job at the contractor whose product you selected, and that includes your family.

 

Basically, let's continue the "fix the government" crusade first, then we can worry about which airplanes we buy. 

[Banzai]

Just now, Lord Ratner said:

I'm no fan of the f-35, but I think this downplays how much the government itself is responsible for what a shit show that program is. It wasn't Lockheed who demanded a VSTOL version in the same basic chassis. And it wasn't Boeing who signed off on the ridiculous digital boom pod on the kc-46. 

 

The problem is a bunch of generals and bureaucrats who have never existed in the business world putting insane wish lists together and just assuming that it all happens somehow. 

 

And that ignores changing the requirements halfway through the program, or never mentioning that one of the primary requirements is that the plane looks cool, so you start doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to pick the airplane that you just want to win. 

 

And we need to start locking people in prison for the rest of their lives if they abuse these programs for personal gain. No more getting a job at the contractor whose product you selected, and that includes your family.

 

Basically, let's continue the "fix the government" crusade first, then we can worry about which airplanes we buy. 

I don’t disagree with anything you say here. The government is partially responsible. I don’t think your points counter anything I said, though.

You have to fix both. Easier said than done.

[ViperMan]

4 hours ago, Weapons Away said:

Genuinely curious as to where you are seeing this data at. Everytime I've checked the census on this particular subject, I haven't seen the per capita numbers you describe. I'm seeing the following:

Among the population receiving social safety net benefits in 2022 (most recent data) 75.6% white, 13.4% black, 6.3% asian, 4.6% some other race (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiving-social-safety-net-benefits.html). When paired with most recent census data on the racial makeup of the U.S. population (2020), I'm seeing the white alone non-Hispanic population at 57.8%, hispanic population at 18.7%, and the black population at 12.1% (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/2020-united-states-population-more-racially-ethnically-diverse-than-2010.html). Unknown if the white population in the safety net numbers included white hispanics, but assuming it does for now, those population numbers seem to align with the social safety net numbers.

What am I missing?

You're quoting a summary statistic that conveys information about groups who use any program and collecting it all underneath one metric. This incorporates social security. Which basically includes anyone who worked and paid taxes at some point in their lives. It's a bit of a stretch to consider SS under the same banner as food stamps, SNAP, WIC, or Section 8 benefits. Anyway, the more subsets you include in any statistic, the more it will display convergence towards the underlying population. So that's the literal, mathematical reason you're seeing that effect.

The same exact site you provide allows you to answer your own question. If you select "Filter by Characteristics - Race" you'll be able to dig into the stats. For instance, you can see what @blueingreen is talking about if you look at WIC/SNAP by race:

Section 8 benefits show a similar pattern. Effectively, you're missing examining the underlying populations, or stated differently, not restricting the data by subset.

Edited Sunday at 08:25 PM by ViperMan