• ScrollinMyDayAway@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Trillion dollar budget for the military industrial complex? Money well spent! A single dime spent to help taxpayers? Socialism!

    • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      74
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The majority of the federal budget goes to welfare and entitlements. I’m on the “no standing army” side of things, but it doesn’t help to propagate incorrect information.

      Edit: this is absurd. There’s no opinion here: the comment I replied to is factually wrong. You can’t dislike facts until they’re not true.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        you failed to engage with their actual argument, which was that military spending is absurdly high but always univocally supported by everyone in the establishment and increased with every new budget, but that it’s an uphill fight to get anything new for people who actually need help.

        • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          To be fair, I engaged with that portion by pointing out I don’t actually believe in standing armies. So defense spending should be close to zero. But, yeah, everyone wants their pork and defense spending is free money to them.

          • madcaesar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You don’t believe in standing armies? I’m sorry but you’re either 5 years old or incredibly naive.

            • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean you don’t do it overnight. There’s nothing naive about having principled goals.

              • madcaesar@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s a ridiculous goal. Armies aren’t just for waging wars against other people. Emergencies arise where it’s absolutely CRUCIAL you have well trained, organized soldiers ready to respond.

                • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  A trained, voluntary militia is the only way to have ethical defense that can’t be abused. Maybe we don’t get there, but having the goal be more militia vs standing army can be worked out.

                  The world won’t always be the same and we should plan for more liberty oriented and equitable outcomes instead of dismissing them out of hand because we don’t think they’re pragmatic today.

      • Simpsonator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you’re getting down voted for two reasons.

        1. OP’s comment didn’t state anything factual. It was rude to accuse him of attempting to “propagate incorrect information.”

        2. You’re lumping together two very different types of spending and it feels like you’re making a disingenuous argument. The vast majority of spending you’re talking about is Social Security/Medicare which has received near constant increases. Welfare programs on the other hand have been under attack since the 90s. I can say that Social Security, Medicare, and the FAA together make up almost half the budget but it doesn’t make a good argument for cutting the FAA.

        All that said, I do think you make a good point that there’s other programs to look at. Maybe we can cut the military budget while also looking at saving money on Medicare.

        • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t call it a lie because I don’t think it’s an issue of will or intent, so I didn’t mean it to be insulting. I see where you’re coming from otherwise, but this isn’t a comment made from nowhere. This is a common talking point people try to use and I genuinely think it reinforces the trope.

          I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all. Whether it’s for a single mother or a pensioner it’s certainly not being used for useless bases or bombs.

          I don’t believe we can solve problems if we don’t understand them and our lack of understanding is disastrous when it comes to voting.

      • Mini_Moonpie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you just misinterpreted the OP’s statement. Conservatives also don’t want welfare and entitlement spending and try to cut those back all the time. OP’s statement is a characterization of conservative opinions on spending. Conservatives don’t support spending on student debt relief, welfare, or entitlements. They do support military spending. That’s not factually incorrect. And, it is irrelevant how much of the budget those categories represent because conservatives didn’t choose those levels and don’t support them.

      • ZzyzxRoad@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

        By far, the biggest category of discretionary spending is spending on the Pentagon and military. In most years, this accounts for more than half of the discretionary budget. In 2020, because some discretionary spending passed through supplemental appropriations went to pandemic programs, the share of the discretionary budget that went to the military was smaller – even though the amount that went to the military was just as high as in previous years.

        Most “welfare” falls under discretionary. Medicare, medicaid, and social security (also “welfare”) fall under mandatory spending. Social security and medicare make up the largest categories. This organization explains how “welfare” spending increased in recent years due to pandemic spending on things like stimulus checks and increased unemployment.

        The bottom line thoughis that people pay into it for years so that it’s available when it’s their turn to need it. If they never do, then great. It can help someone else, god forbid.

        • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t realize that if you promised to spend money it didn’t count. I’ll be sure to keep my rent out of my financial planning.

        • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Look at the budget. Most of our federal spending goes back to citizens. Welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security. My point is what they said is a lie and it’s an easy lie to fact check.

          How should we expect to win arguments against military spending when the first line out of our mouths is a lie?

        • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          National defense is the fifth on that chart by percent. Everything above it is entitlement spending. Looks like income security is where welfare falls - it’s a little over half. The other half is other forms of payouts to peeps.

          • bdiddy@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Entitlements are not welfare. Period. Welfare is hardly a drop in the overall bucket. Entitlements are money that people are owed because they paid in. As in they are entitled to that. Welfare is paying for poor people to be able to survive.

            You are purposely mixing the 2 because you fall for the serious propaganda on the “right” that somehow social security should be ended. If they end it they owe us that money back.

            • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And are and.

              Entitlements and welfare. Say it with me this time.

              We don’t see eye to eye on it, but there’s no reason to insult people that disagree with you. I’m looking at wasting money on bombs vs spending it on american citizens

              If our SS money went in to a retirement plan that mirrors congress’ investments we’d all retire very comfortably, but somehow we’re not good enough for that.

              • bdiddy@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean people like you are actual dumbasses…

                What do you think happens if they ended entitlements??? Where do you think all of that money goes? INTO THE ECONOMY… if we end entitlements we’d see the largest depression ever in the US.

                Our economy is what it is BECAUSE of them. You think if the government just spent 0 money we’d somehow be better off? Even though literally every other major economic powerhouse hase entitlements and welfare lol.

                It’s just pure propagandized stupidity.

                When the US government stops spending the entire world will spiral into a depression and the US would take longer to come out of it. We’d be ruined economically for the remainder of your life.

                But yeah go on with your stupid fucking take.

                Sending weapons to Ukraine is also a huge economic boost with the added benefit of securing yet another eventual base and massive political power in that region while destabilizing an aggressive dictatorship shit hole.

                Fucking pittance in the grand scheme of things and amazingly smart move by our current leaders. If you think they’d actually spend it on our citizens that’s the other funny part. The republican talking points are on and on about “look what we could do with this money” while they themselves want to further take from citizens and give to billion dollar organizations.

                Oh but they are too busy trying to install a theocracy to give a fuck about helping citizens anwyay. Mostly republican states that still have not legalized weed because they rather throw people in jail than get a major boost to tax revenue that could go to actual communities in need.

                Republican states with the worst education by far and shittiest teacher pay.

                Republican states with the worst health care and highest infant mortality…

                etc…

                But yeah for sure we’d have magically taken that money and put it to good use instead of defending an ally while boosting the shit out of our economy with said defense lol.

                Stop listening to pod casts… You want to know why the government needs to spend that money follow the federal reserve and modern monetary theory. Economically we are still a leader in the entire world with not even close to the highest population. How do you think we keep that going? By cutting off entitlements, welfare, and allowing Russia to expand it’s territory and influence?

                Fucking brain dead fucking take.

                • PsychedSy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You just decide what people are saying based on your own assumptions and ideology then make Gish look like a galloping noob. I’m not bothering with that.

                  Treat people better and sort yourself out instead of spewing bile from nowhere. You can do better.

                  • bdiddy@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    nah I know the kind of people you are who call entitlements welfare. You purposely conflate the 2 and spread your misinformation for more idiots to pick up. You’re brainwashed by a party that has become completely radicalized. I say this as a person who use to vote republican.

                    Our government has to spend tons of money on all the shit it spends money on. We should consider other ways of collecting money to defeat the inflation problem. It’s really very fucking simple if you get right down to it.

                    As soon as we get rid of the theocrats we can probably solve it.

      • SneedsFeednSeed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        This place is just like r/politics in that it’s indistinguishable from r/democrats. If you aren’t openly liberal with your comments you will be down voted into oblivion.

        • Zuberi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bootlickers need their own bat-signal. I propose we post something about equal treatment.