“I think it’s time to tell the military-industrial complex they cannot get everything they want,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders. “It’s time to pay attention to the needs of working families.”
Our military budget is beyond ridiculous and one of the biggest waste of money are our own contractors. We’ve watched them charge the govt $1500 for a $10 bearing and the list of contractors has continued to shrink with a long list of acquisitions that have killed all competition. I can’t imagine what this country could be if we spend half of that budget on education and modern infrastructure.
People are not even willing to learn how much they’re being fucked. They wouldn’t do much with the resources.
did they fuck up and send you a rhodium one by mistake or was it just billed that way
It’s just par for the course. There’s a reason low level commands prefer to buy things off the shelf if they can.
The US military budget is designed to independently fight and win another two-theater war in Europe and Asia. Has been since WWII. I think it would be justifiable to shrink the Europe portion of that; Russia’s military capabilities are awful by this point, and Ukraine has done an excellent job demonstrating you don’t need the kind of budget the US would expect to at least hold on that front.
Doubtless they’re worried about the rest of us getting ideas above our station.
Billions for Ukraine? No debate, full send. Billions for Israel? No debate, full send. Billions for healthcare? Whoa whoa whoa, gotta balance that budget!
Edit: if you prefer, forget I said healthcare and substitute in anything else that would help the working class.
Every single time someone brings up anything about cost and the government, ask them how much money the DoD loses every year. Every single time.
see the dod brings in money because of pineapples and crack
THE ISSUE IS NOT GIVING MORE MONEY TO HEALTHCARE.
Healthcare is our largest expense. The issue is the money going there, which can easily fund universal healthcare, doesn’t go towards helping people, it goes towards a select number of people.
If my taxes went up $1000 a month I would still be saving money with universal healthcare
The point is it doesn’t need to. We could easily fund it
Right. But either way it’s an invalid argument. We don’t need to raise taxes, but even if we did it’s still worth it.
Extra spending on health care is not actually required (even though america could afford it). Americans spent more per capita on health care than anyone else already. American health spending is extremely inefficient, with parasites like for-profit insurance (whose profits and much of their revenue are literally just inefficiency in the system) embedded at every layer. The problem is that allowing it to get to this state means many of these bad actors will gladly spend hundreds of millions on politicians and ads to defend the billions they make, and American voters are easily confused.
If you call profits a bad thing too many times you get called a communist or whatever even though in this case it’s objectively true. The shooting of that parasite CEO should have brought this into focus - that worthless person profited directly from making people’s health care expenditures less efficient (and also from the corresponding human suffering in case anyone cares).
I agree with all of that. Almost wish I hadn’t used healthcare as an example since there’s plenty of other programs that suffer from low funding.
Health is not “spending money”. It’s an investment that leads to less sick workers. Healthy workers work faster and better, being more productive.
(That’s the only way I see some bastards will understand the profit in public universal healthcare)
the US already allocates $1.5 trillion for direct healthcare spending
If you don’t like healthcare as an example, choose anything else that helps the working class. I don’t just mean adding new money either, but how eager they are to make cuts to existing programs.
Is ripping more or less severe than slamming someone?
More. Rips bleed, slams bruise.
Defund the police and military.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I think “Defund” is a bit drastic given the current state of the world, but it is possible that we don’t need to maintain 11 aircraft carriers, in the same way that every small town Pennsylvania Police department doesn’t need their very own armored personnel carrier. Moderation in all things.
The problem is we maintain half of them forward deployed in roughly 3 areas at any one time.
But yeah that’s why our military is so expensive. If it wasn’t constantly forward deployed it would be much cheaper.
We really should be working with our allies to get their own military in the area. Mainly in Europe. If I’m being realistic, we probably will never leave Asia.
You can’t steal shit through another countries military though.
Defund is the only slogan that has had actual sticking power though. To have nuance on this topic and have it actually matter, you would have to create a new slogan on the same level. Otherwise you’re just armchair politicking from the internet same as everyone else
Now, with that out of the way, defund is still a good slogan. The primary reason is if we defund the police then we can create something that is not called police that isn’t beholden to all of the laws and regulations and the corrupt unions that perpetuate the current systemic problems
Defund as a slogan is about cutting past the red tape of reform and starting from scratch to build something systemically better
Who cares if it has sticking power if it’s produced no results? All that talk of reforming the police has completely evaporated, and that was before Trump was elected.
“Defund” was a terrible word to use and people need to stop using it. Frankly I thought it was already retired.
Protests don’t work so we should stop protesting? That is honestly the most brain dead thing I’ve heard yet on the subject!
If you want to retire it, make something better like I already said. We can’t retire it until there’s something to replace it.
The problem is, regardless of what you actually mean by it in your heart, “Defund” SOUNDS extreme, and people don’t listen to extremests. Getting rid of 100% of all law enforcement is an objectively, and verifiably, a terrible idea. They need to be curbed, and trained, and limited, and not be made to feel like they are all a combination of Rambo and Jesus in sunglasses. An ACAB mentality leaves no possibility for improvement, so why should they even try?
and people don’t listen to extremests.
Which is why Harris beat Trump.
You’re right, though. We shouldn’t use “defund.” It’s far too milquetoast.
ABOLISH.
When did I ever say protests don’t work? What are you talking about? I am saying this specific term did not prove to be good. In fact, it was VERY useful for the right wing media machine to easily twist words and distract from the end goal.
There are other tactics and verbiage that should be used.
Then do it. Make it a bigger deal. But don’t just sit there and decry what is actually working as a rallying slogan when you have nothing to contribute. When your slogan is a better slogan with a better message behind it, then I will switch my own tune to your ideas.
It isn’t working! That’s the fucking problem lmao
“Don’t defund them, just reduce the amount of funds they can spend aircradt carriers and remove the funds for armored vehicles.”
Ya, basically. Particularly with the APCs, eliminate the military surplus purchase program that lets cops have war machines for pennies as long as they find a way to use them.
SPOILER
They ALWAYS will
I don’t like cops either, but having ZERO law enforcement is the same thing as pure anarchy.
I’m saying that reducing funds is literally defunding
“I think it’s time to tell the military-industrial complex they cannot get everything they want"
is he talking about active servicepeople because we’ve been there since forever
MIC is the private companies that supply/support the military and profit from it. Everything from fuel to uniforms to electrical wiring in the bases.
so, like also the schools that are on base too? because the janitor at the school on the base near me fell through their ancient roof a few weeks ago. like, I’m not so sure they’ve been getting everything they want
Nobody said the MIC’s product was good quality or well maintained. In fact the more they can charge for the less they can do means more profit. And if working class people die because of it then oh well.
It’s a school. That’s why.
so the school isn’t MIC because it’s a school even though it supports the military and the people there profit from it, because it’s a school, but everything else down to the wiring on the base facilities (excluding the school even though the school is a base facility). I’m just trying to figure out where the line is
I’m honestly having a hard time getting a read on you. Are you playing dumb/sarcastic in an attempt to bait people into what you perceive as some sort of inconsistency? Or are you genuinely asking? Your tone is very confusing.
My comment was a little more tongue in cheek/flippant. The joke being “it’s a school so the American government doesn’t care about it.“
I’m not looking for an inconsistency, I’m looking for a boundary. if the boundary for both “the MIC is everything that supports the military down to the air they breathe” and “the MIC gets everything they want”, it seems like that would exclude an awful lot of what we traditionally think of as the MIC, including the military.
It’s pretty straightforward, the MIC is essentially the structure behind and around the military, namely defense contractors, the Pentagon, and politicians. AFAIK it doesn’t actually include the rank and file armed services members. It’s worth mentioning the term gained popular attention due to a speech by outgoing President Dwight D. Eisenhower, himself a retired 5 star general.
I’m not gonna lie it really reads to me like you’re looking for holes and not seeking actual understanding
Of course not, active servicepeople are just another currency to the military-industrial complex.
I kind of agree, but also think it’s important to understand a few things about this:
- The US needs to keep its military-industrial complex active and technologically advanced at all times if it wants to be a military powerhouse. It can’t decide to start it up whenever it wants because war machines have gotten too advanced. During WWII, it was easy to get the complex rolling because they just needed to churn out simple prop planes, tanks, rifles, and food. Now, they need stealth planes, laser-guided munitions, and high-tech chips.
- Because of the geography of the US and the geopolitical situation, it would likely fight a two-front war. If the US goes to war with a formidable power, said power would surely ally with another. The US will not just fight China alone. Russia and North Korea would join. Therefore, the US military needs to be large enough to fight knowing that by population, the US is much smaller. China has just over 4 times the population of the US.
- Having an overwhelmingly large and technologically advanced military serves as a deterrent. It’s best to never go to war. It saves lives, economies, social institutions, etc. By having a decisively superior military, those that would consider starting a war avoid doing so.
- The Department of Defense and military-industrial complex is a huge jobs program anyway. Service members receive training and all sorts of benefits that support them and their dependents. Military production companies receive reliable government contracts that make their business ventures stable investments while employees receive relatively adequate pay. If the government did not fund those contracts, all those businesses would go out of business and everyone involved would have to find other means of sustenance.
- The US provides military defense and deterrence for more than just itself. It’s practically the department of defense for most Pacific islands including Japan and the Philippines. It’s also a necessary supporter of the EU and South Korea.
I’m not saying that I agree to the spending or that we shouldn’t spend more on social welfare, but the solution is not obviously clear as just spending less on defense in my opinion.
Or maybe, and it’s a big maybe, the US could start badgering like a good neighbor with the rest of the world and the need for most off that military would disappear. Something like stop helping dictators, warmongers, greedy corporations, … and start pushing for human rights. And this time actually doing it, not just saying it.
And the same can be said about France, Russia or any other country that does the same shit.
Meh, some of it sure. But actually a lot of what we’d need is much easier to mass produce and research than you think it is. Like your average artillery, armor, and infantry unit basics.
Also, it doesn’t need to be a two front war. We have an entire ocean protecting us on both sides.
But actually a lot of what we’d need is much easier to mass produce and research than you think it is. Like your average artillery, armor, and infantry unit basics.
That’s true, so we’d need more details to discuss specific spending and costs.
Also, it doesn’t need to be a two front war. We have an entire ocean protecting us on both sides.
The naval and island hopping campaign battles for the Americans in WWII seemed like they had to happen. I would prefer that the battles take part in the open ocean than in the homeland, though I wouldn’t want the battles to take part in islands of allied and neutral countries where the locals have to pay the toll either. Still, it seems like a war with China and Russia at the very least would take part in Europe and the Pacific. Perhaps Africa will be a theater since Russia and China have been developing a lot there. In fact, Wagner Group (the Russian mercenaries that was lead by Prigozhin) has had a presence there for years now. Regardless, that’s only China and Russia.
If North Korea joined, then we would include the Korean peninsula, of which North Korea has spend decades preparing for an invasion by digging tunnels and setting up other defenses while their population is brainwashed to fear anything that is not North Korean. If Iran jumps in, then the Middle East including the Persian Gulf which would be an important theater because of energy/oil resources. Basically, a war like that would have the capacity to involve more than two fronts.
Unpopular opinion on Lemmy… but I am against Mitch and Sanders here.
We need to cut the military, tell them to do better with what they have or else. More or less keep the social aid budget where it is while trying to reign in healthcare profiteering, and pay back some debt before the next crisis.
Oh, and tax the shit out of billionaires.
We are quickly approaching the point where a large fraction of the federal budget is interest payments, and I’m sure many here know how being trapped in an interest/debt spiral feels.
You know that more social aid is cheaper, right? Keeping people afloat benefits everyone and the numbers for it are very outdated. Plus social aid pretty much always makes its way back to the government, assuming we also heavily tax the rich, since it’s money that bolster the economy and that can actually be taken from income tax because people, ya know, have a decent income.
Social aid is a positive ROI, it would be foolish to not include that investment if you were trying to strengthen your country.
It helps the economy, but I don’t agree that it efficiently percolates back up into the federal budget.
Yes, we need a lot more, and we can afford some new programs, but we’ve waited too long for Bernie’s sweeping vision to be implemented this second. If the US budget doesn’t go net positive, like right now, interest hell is going to wipe out any gains and siphon money straight to who holds that debt: the mega rich.
Deficits aren’t inherently bad, governments are supposed to turn a profit the same way a corporation is. It’s counter-intuitive, yes, but investments will help build a strong foundation now so that the other changes will be able to get a secure footing. It’s also important to know that the money is not direct. You give someone free medication so they can keep their job and you save not having to deal with all the issues that come from their homelessness. Easing poverty is the best weapon against crime, too, which saves on police budgets(in a world where we’re into doing the right thing, of course).
In your plan you already say we should tax the rich, so if we’re going to dream why not dream all the way? Why expect taxing the rich to be so easy but creating social programs from those hundreds of billions of dollars to be so difficult it has to wait?
In your plan you already say we should tax the rich, so if we’re going to dream why not dream all the way?
Because everyone would still be screwed if we don’t pay off some debt very soon. What good is a massive social program if it has to be cut the next election cycle anyway?
Deficits aren’t inherently bad
I don’t agree with this at all, not anymore. Some debt and deficit is fine, but the US is at the point of unsustainability. Things are on fire. It is too late.
Again the social projects has a positive return on investment. Literally they would help get things back on track faster and with the ultra rich being taxed properly, as in your suggestion, the money wouldn’t be able to be horded in the wrong place. It’s like, every dollar put into the IRS gives back more than it took but are you saying that we shouldn’t fund them? This doesn’t make any sense unless-
Ok, so the U.S. isn’t 20min from utter economic collapse. The plans that the new government is looking to implement are definitely going to speed up the decline but if everything shaped up in the next few months and stayed that way social aid would be a no-brainer good idea. I get that you’re afraid but if a what you outlined happened then there would absolutely be room to lift up the poor and in need. If you simply don’t value social programs then just say it because agree or not the facts don’t support what you’re asking for.
I’m not arguing against you at all. I’m trying to understand your logic because it seems important to understand. Can you provide numbers and sources that show we are at the point of unsustainability? Is government interest about to match revenue so that we are near being unable to pay it? Or is there another reason we’re at the point?
Because interest payments are already a big fraction of the budget! I only became aware of this reading this, which pegs it at 8-10%: https://www.axios.com/2024/11/16/elon-musk-trump-department-government-efficiency
Other sources have it at 13%! https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
Which equates to about $1 trillion a year, and rapidly rising: https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-is-the-national-debt-costing-us/
This is apocalyptic to me for two reasons:
-
Not only is our interest exceeding what we pay for Medicaid… it’s exceeding the 1T deficit itself. Think about that… we’re paying more in interest than we’re borrowing every year, and we’re borrowing to pay on that interest.
-
And that is going to compound. The chart above is a pre-Covid estimate, interest of that magnitude is going to rapidly dominate the budget.
-
Maybe we deserve interest hell. People obviously aren’t willing to change this system despite how mediocre and busted it is. Let’s see if people get serious about change when the system really falls apart.
Easy: get rid of the middle men.
Government debt is a lot more like business debt than personal debt though. Japan is in like 200% debt and they’re still chugging along
We need to cut the military, tell them to do better with what they have or else.
This is a popular opinion in China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
And it kinda works in the field, right?
Look how much “low budget innovation” happened in Ukraine. Look at Iran and Russia adopting cheap drone warfare as a response.
Yeah that’s not gonna happen with this government, especially with this incoming administration. You’re totally right though.
Why not both, there’s no reason to keep feeding both big pharma and the military industrial complex.
With all respect for Senator Senators…
In terms of spending the Defense Budget is ABSOLUTELY DWARFED by Social Spending. Without hyperbole it’s not even fucking close.
In 2023 the Defense Budget was 805 Billion USD, meanwhile Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Security, and “Other” represented 3.8 TRILLION, nearly five times as much.
The US already spends more than the entire GDP of many countries on Healthcare and citizen assistance. The problem here isn’t the DoD budget, it’s how were spending our money on the Social Services side.
$1.05 trillion is spent on Medicare and Medicaid and yet drug prices are soaring and healthcare costs for Americans are at an all time high.
Meanwhile in Canada, in 2023 the federal government spent C$334 bn ($233bn USD) (source)
And in the UK, the budget for healthcare is £201.9bn ($266bn USD) (source)
Both Canada and the UK have free healthcare.
So for about 1/3 of the cost of what the US government pays in healthcare, other governments are able to provide free healthcare to their people.
The problem in the US isn’t that they’re spending money on social services. The US can solve its budget by regulating the out of control healthcare market. Other countries have done it, it’s clearly not impossible.
Sure. I’m not arguing against UHC or trying to claim that nothing needs to be done. I’m just pointing out that the DoD budget wouldn’t make a dent in this problem.
BTW you really shouldn’t compare this based on absolute dollars.
Canada - 233 Billion spent on a population of 40 Million people means $5,850 per capita.
The UK - 266 Billion spent on a population of 69 Million people means $3,855 per capita.
The US - 1.05 Trillion (your number) spent on a of population of 346 Million people would be just $3,034 per capita.
So for about 1/3 of the cost of what the US government pays in healthcare, other governments are able to provide free healthcare to their people.
1/3rd the cost would be roughly 333,333 Billion and drop the per capita expense to right around $1,000. There’s absolutely no possible way that math works.
Now if we were take the ENTIRE DoD budget, as in no military expenses at all, and stack it on top of the existing 1.05 Trillion (your number) that would give us 1.95 Trillion and a per capita expense of around $5,635. That’s still not enough to reach Canada’s level of spending.
The math isn’t mathing here.
Again, I’m not arguing that something doesn’t need to be done but no matter how you go at this the DoD budget isn’t the problem and even using ALL of it wouldn’t get the job done.
Not everyone uses Medicare or Medicaid. Not a fair comparison. Looks like 135 million are covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPS. So, about $7,777 per person.
Looks like 135 million are covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPS. So, about $7,777 per person.
Fair enough, so how does $7,777 per person end up at the claimed 1/3rd the cost?
Also if we extend that $7,777 per person cost to 340,000,000 people you get a total of roughly 2.65 Trillion dollars. So even 1.95 Trillion (Medicare/Medicaid/CHIPS + the entire DoD Budget) would still come up nearly a Trillion dollars short.
Again, the math doesn’t work.
I didn’t say it did. But trying to extend current costs to figure out the cost of covering everyone doesn’t work either. Costs won’t stay the same.
Unless I’m missing something, you’ve calculated the Medicare/Medicaid spending against the entire US population when most Americans have private insurance (as of 2022). https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-281.html
Unless I’m missing something, you’ve calculated the Medicare/Medicaid spending against the entire US population…
Yes, isn’t that what Universal Healthcare would do? Most Americans would no longer have private insurance if UHC were enacted and the post I replied too claimed that Medicare/Medicaid budget would fund UHC (and at 1/3rd the cost).
yeah… it’s not like people who don’t use govt health services don’t get health services - those costs are still paid by “the country” wether it’s by the government or by its citizens
It’s not an apples to apples cost comparison if the costs for UK and Canada literally covers everyone and the US calculation covers 1/3 of the population.
i think we’re agreeing about the quoted statistics
what i’m saying is that it doesn’t matter whether the government pays for medical costs or the individual pays for medical costs - those are all costs that the country puts towards medical care. if the individual didn’t have to pay them, they’d invest them into their life in other ways
many people argue this stupid notion that the government doesn’t have the money to pay for healthcare, whilst ignoring the fact that the country as a whole does have the money to pay for healthcare - they’re just spending that money privately. if you redirect that private health insurance money to government, the money is there
It doesn’t matter what percentage of a budget is what. If a government is corrupt to the point of absurdity, the spending is largely ineffective.
The tax dollars were captured and the value of what theyre being used for is siphoned by middlemen (insurance in health care, middlemen inflating prices in the military) and as a result the prices in both examples are no longer attached to reality.
The most accurate comparison is in price per capita.
I’m sure companies like Quest Diagnostics being allowed to continue operating after they defrauded the federal government are inflating those numbers. By a lot.
https://bergermontague.com/quest-diagnostics-pay-1-79-million-settle-false-claims/
How many others are pulling shit like this and conveniently don’t get caught.
nice to know they don’t just fuck up my bloodwork, they fuck everything
yeah, I wonder how much of that social spending comes in the form of direct corporate subsidies.
God damn Bernie just dust yourself away.
You’ve done enough damage to this country to court your ego.
Care to elaborate?
You’re a shit joker, get better material.
Dah fun bot lol
We don’t have the money for war
