But when we ask for help as citizens, “how are you gonna pay for it, huh?”
This sum represents about 1.5% of the US budget in 2022.
And yet that’s too much when it’s for anything other than war.
You’re very welcome to look at the federal budget any time, where you’ll find that there’s quite a lot of non-war spending.
Have you looked at the defense budget by any chance? Have you seen the $880 billion with a big fat “B”? That’s almost a trillion a year. A billion is one thousand million. A trillion is one thousand billion. The defense budget is almost one thousand billion. Do you know how imaginary this number is? And it only costs $79Billion a year(1% of the defense budget lol) to provide free education for our people so we can have a more educated society.
I mean, sure. I’d support that, and I think most Democrats in Congress probably would, at least on some level. There are some assumptions in that model that are a little oversimplified (it’s extrapolating based on in-state public school tuition and doesn’t account for the huge explosion in demand that would come with it being free), but yeah, I don’t think you’d find that much resistance amongst Congressional Democrats.
Good luck getting it by Republicans who are convinced that universities are just woke brainwashing factories though.
I’m not really sure what the relevance of this is though. My assertion was that non-military spending is a thing that exists. 87% of all spending, actually.
Where is that 87% being spent? I’m genuinely curious? The country is literally turning into a 3rd world shithole. People struggle left and right. 70%+ of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Healthcare system is a joke. School system is a worse joke. Infrastructure is shit. Homelessness is rampant. Where is the spending? I’m confused. Not trying to argue here, just genuinely looking for answers.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
This site from the Treasury has great info, but some highlights:
22%: Social Security
14%: Medicaid and other Department of Health and Human Services spending (health research, the FDA, FEMA, the CDC, temporary welfare for needy families, foster care, other stuff
14%: MedicareAt this point, we’ve already hit half of the federal just on social security and health spending.
13%: National defense
13%: General welfare. This is things like SNAP, WIC, SSI, the earned income tax credit, some housing assistance programs, and other welfare programs.
11%: Interest payments on debt.
5%: Veterans BenefitsThe remainder is divided a million different ways, but those are the largest categories. Social security and healthcare are by far the biggest expenses, and those costs are also expected to grow faster than the revenue that funds them, which is eventually going to cause a big problem that neither party has any interest in addressing. It should absolutely be noted that that healthcare spending is disgustingly inefficient due to the disaster that is our healthcare system, and it could be much much more efficient. But basically, a huge chunk of the money goes towards retirees. It’s probably a total coincidence that those are the ones that vote the most too.
I’ve been slightly loose with the categorizations there in order to not get bogged down in some irrelevant classification details between spending functions and government departments, but the general picture is accurate.
No shit, but a lot of that spending one team or the other is opposed to - but war? Bipartisan.
Whether you like it or not, the fact of the matter is that most Americans support defending those allies. This is not slimy Washington elites pillaging the common man’s money to fund war; this is you being a significant outlier compared to standard American opinion.
Which is fine, but don’t go pretending anything else is happening.
How about you acknowledge that Americans want healthcare and aren’t getting it because we’re told it’s too expensive?
No they don’t… You do and the media is engaged in a terrifying amount of manufactured consent, but the raw data from those same polls does not agree with that claim.
Ignoring the sampling methods used, lack of transparency on filters and other methodology, clearly biased questions, etc. The latest CBS news poll on the topic lists:
-
52% believe less weapons and supplies should be sent to Israel.
-
76% believe more humanitarian aid should be sent to Israel.
-
57% believe more humanitarian aid should be sent to Gaza.
-
56% disapprove of how the situation with Russia and Ukraine is being handled. (Though there isn’t much of a breakdown on the “how is it being mishandled…”)
A few things that should be explicitly pointed out as this is a bad poll, but it would appear the inherit bias is trying to agree with you, so the margin of error means the “true feelings of Americans” is even further in contradiction to your statement.
-
Note how Isreal is kept consistent without a single reference to Netanyahu/Israeli government compared to the constant switching back and forth between “Hamas” and “Palestinian people”
-
poll is 63% white, 62% of that group has “no degree”, 33% aged between 45-64 (amongst 4 categories).
So even when polling predominantly uneducated* white baby boomers who are the exact demographic that agrees the most with you, and doing the typical statistical magic the numbers still cannot be finagled in such a way as to make your statement true.
- it should be said that “uneducated” doesn’t necessarily mean ‘uninformed, stupid, etc.’ However, in this context it means they are deliberately polling non-experts who’s primary source of information is CBS/Paramount itself (or other closely related corporations) in order to manufacture consent.
-
Since it’s insignificant, would you please send me $314 to cover my share?
No healthcare though.
or living wage, or affordable housing
or infrastructure or child care or
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed in 2021 allocates $550 billion over the next five years. That’s in addition to another $650 billion that was already allocated.
I know you and I have a habit of disagreeing on essentially all things, so feel free to not respond to this, but I did want to put an actual fact out for anyone else reading and thinking that we literally don’t spend money on infrastructure while we throw tons of money at war, because that’s simply not true, even if you think the proportions are off.
The infrastructure and jobs act was far less than what we need, because half the government wants to starve the poor and kill them with preventable diseases and enslave them in lifelong debt. Remember that.
Wow, I can just feel the rush of the goalposts flying by!
Eat my ass. It’s a fact that the bill was whittled down by compromises because half the government thinks any form of government spending is too expensive. Yet that same half loves spending money on war. Where’s the lie?
Sorry, I’d rather not. I’m afraid I’m not a furry.
The US government only disagrees on matters which support the average citizen. Other than that, both sides are in lockstep when it comes to voting on bills…
They already spend a ton of public dollars on health. The problem is that it goes to insurance companies, administrative staff, and the downstream health costs of inadequate early access to care.
You’re kinda contradicting yourself.
They don’t spend public dollars on health. They give it to insurance companies and administrative staff and pharmaceutical companies and other private moneyed interests, and then there’s none left for us.
They actually do spend a lot of public dollars on health, it’s just spent into a system that isn’t efficient. Universal access to care drives down costs significantly across the board - instead they have piecemeal coverage and a system with overall costs inflated by administrative staff hired solely to manage insurance billing and delayed treatments.
It’s an interesting area of policy where expanding coverage means lower costs overall.
A lot of the money they spend on “health” isn’t actually spent on the labor or materials or research needed to provide healthcare, it’s stolen as profit by private companies.
It’s important to remember that this money isn’t being spent on our healthcare. It’s being handed to moneyed interests.
This is true for any health system (labour and technology costs are huge components to health care, even in systems with universal coverage). However, there are also huge and significant costs inherent to any system that doesn’t provide universal coverage (e.g., people delaying care leading to more severe illness costlier to respond to). Private insurance systems also introduce significant cost pressures even for non-profit and publicly funded providers by driving up staffing costs and requiring more support staff to operate.
All this to say, the US doesn’t have a budget problem when it comes to health care - the primary obstacle is the policy challenge of switching to a system that does a better job at delivering care for everyone based on need rather than ability/willingness to pay. Massive cost savings follow when people are kept healthier.
My point is the money isn’t actually being spent on labor or technology - it’s just going into shareholders pockets.
I assume that any military spending would be equally inefficient.
how do you think it has the biggest army in the world
This shit is going to pass with full bipartisan support and libs are still going to be confused the next time someone tells them both
sidesparties are the same.This shit is going to pass with full bipartisan support
Hell yeah
You’re basically outright admitting that “muh both sides” is a right wing talking point.
But the fact that there are things both sides agree on does not mean both sides are the same.
It’s like saying that because Hitler and Lincoln both agree that eating shit is a terrible idea, that both republicans and Nazis are the same.
This is like extremely basic logic.
the point is that the democrats are a right wing party, as evidenced by their ongoing funding of war at the expense of their own citizens’ well being.
this is like extremely basic logic
You know two things can be “right wing” and still not the same, right? Both Nazis and Republicans are right wing…but you’re smart enough to realize they aren’t the same, correct?
Both Nazis and Republicans are right wing…but you’re smart enough to realize they aren’t the same, correct?
This comparison really isn’t helping your point lmao
Lol yeah I kind of second guessed it based on how stupid people can be and that there would be some people dumb enough to think republicans are equivalent to the Nazis.
Sure they’re not literally identical, but both are fascist parties that have more ideological similarities then they do differences. And the Nazi ideology is on record taking inspiration from Jim Crow laws in the US.
Most humans have more ideological similarities than they do differences, so of course that is going to be true, especially when you’re pulling from a group of people who come from extremely similar cultures.
But that doesn’t change the fact that there are obvious differences between the two parties on issues that are impactful and important.
Torpedos own point by failing to contrast fascist against fascist
“No ur dumb actually”
Though the gap narrows by the day
Every square is a rectangle, not all rectangles are square.
Go tell your math teacher that all rectangles are equal to each other because they’re all squares. Lol
Yes yes I’m sure there’s an incredible diversity of thought among Nazis. You are very smart for seeing the nuance among monsters.
If you want to make a good argument as to why they are all the same, while there are clear and important distinctions between the two major us parties, I’d love to hear it.
But if you are going to make stupid arguments like “they are all the same because they agree on this one thing!” Or “they are all the same like rectangles are all the same!” Then you are going to get called out for it, and pouring on the sarcasm in place of an argument doesn’t make your initial point any less stupid.
The specific combination of factors in the historical formation of U.S. society—dominant “biblical” religious ideology and absence of a workers’ party—has resulted in government by a de facto single party, the party of capital. The two segments that make up this single party share the same fundamental liberalism. Both focus their attention solely on the minority who “participate” in the truncated and powerless democratic life on offer. Each has its supporters in the middle classes, since the working classes seldom vote, and has adapted its language to them. Each encapsulates a conglomerate of segmentary capitalist interests (the “lobbies”) and supporters from various “communities.”
American democracy is today the advanced model of what I call “low-intensity democracy.” It operates on the basis of a complete separation between the management of political life, grounded on the practice of electoral democracy, and the management of economic life, governed by the laws of capital accumulation. Moreover, this separation is not questioned in any substantial way, but is, rather, part of what is called the general consensus. Yet that separation eliminates all the creative potential found in political democracy. It emasculates the representative institutions (parliaments and others), which are made powerless in the face of the “market” whose dictates must be accepted.
If the claim was that they were the same in the support of capitalism, the economic system primarily responsible for making us the juggernaut that we are, then I would have not said anything. But when it comes to social, environmental, and how to use (if at all) that generated wealth to support the less fortunate among us, they differ drastically.
You are literally doing the second paragraph I quoted in your reply here. You cannot seperate capitalism and the laws of accumulating capital from social and environmental issues. They are intrinsically linked. Just as the second paragraph said, you did not even question this so “seperation”, you just accepted it as the general consensus.
Slavery and imperialism have been very profitable for the masters of the imperial core, yes
My mistake, I meant “both parties,” as in Democrats and Republicans.
I knew what you meant and your edit doesn’t change the my point at all.
In that case *taps sign*
Insta-debunk because when it comes to environmental issues, they are very different and this only lists abortion as a difference.
Of course, it comes as no surprise that “muh both sides”-ers base their arguments on dishonest cherry picking.
This administration has opened up a shitload of new oil drilling, weird lanyard nerds coping
Not to mention the environmental impact of all these new wars
Not to mention the environmental impact of all these new wars
Lol thanks for proving my point that it’s a right wing talking pointing by implicitly blaming the wars on democrats.
Earth is still on track to be completely uninhabitable by the end of the century but hey, Dems pay lip service to climate change so kudos to them!
dishonest cherry picking
What part of this image is dishonest? Be specific. You clearly didn’t even bother to look very closely at it, since you failed to notice how your “yeah well what about environmental issues
” rebuttal had already been directly addressed by the very diagram you were responding to.Lol at the smuglord image after posting a sophomoric oversimplified venn diagram while tapping it. You win biggest projection of the day.
But no it doesn’t actually address it, it mentions climate change, which is one aspect, and still not correct.
But that being said, just last year the Dems passed the inflation reduction act which was the most significant bill in us history to address climate change.
But whatever I’m sure is the republicans would have done the same thing.
I believe that democrats should at the very least oppose genocide (rather than encourage it) if they want to be considered different from the republicans.
Opposing genocide is apparently labelled anti-Semitic nowadays.
Remember when Hitler and Lincoln both signed the “Don’t eat shit” Bill before one lost a war and ate shit while the other won a war and ate shit? Good thing they did, because otherwise your example would be shit.
if agreeing on legislation doesnt make them the same, what does?
If they agreed on all legislation, then they would be the same. You are correct and I agree.
But the poster is using agreement on one piece of legislation as evidence they are the same. Surely you are intelligent enough to see the fault in this logic.
Your wording had it like qualifying as being the same has nothing to do with agreeing on legislation. This is one piece of legislation, but so is every piece of legislation we discuss one at a time. Its still a piece of supporting evidence.
Your wording had it like qualifying as being the same has nothing to do with agreeing on legislation.
Not my intent, but happy to clear it up.
Its still a piece of supporting evidence.
I stand corrected. It’s just terrible evidence that doesn’t even remotely come close to proving the point.
What makes it bad evidence??
Because it’s so easily shown to be drastically incomplete.
It’s like we have two polygons. You say “We have good evidence that they are the same shape because they are both polygons!” Well, sure, that’s one tiny piece of the question. But we have to ask how many sides they have, what the angles are between the sides, how long the sides are in length, etc… It’s terrible to claim you have good evidence they are the same because they are both polygons.
Healthcare, debt relief, child povery mitigation.
unlimited genocide on US designated subhumansfamously poorly armed state of Israel
Desperate empire practices policy of War Startups, sends funding to whomever
Silica ValleySaigon Valley
startup
taiwan
israel
Hmmm
Please attach some basic conditions like… don’t do war crimes.
Isn’t this request too late? Biden already said they will be with Israel no matters what. They just pretend to care about war crimes, they don’t even want to know what happened with the hospital parking where many people were sleeping waiting to be attended or waiting their injured friends/family members.
deleted by creator
~4 NASAs (FY2023)
Truly demonstrates how wildly preposterous it is at its core. Space exploration makes countries focus together on a bigger picture, which everyone’s also interested in, and even makes us realize what our taxes are capable of financing. Regardless, its worth it alone just for showing youngsters how fascinating and worthwhile science is as a career choice…
Straight up linking to a .pdf like a madman
The burger regime rn:
One of these is not like the others.
Nonetheless, each is a proxy war interest of the US, which alone shows how it’s atrocious. The first two actively are, all three have been, and the third is the most anxiety ridden one on my end. It’d could go from third times a charm to nuke real fast
Two of these are not being pulverized by a nuclear power at the moment.
