this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024

313 points (99.1% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2001 readers

1302 users here now

Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

313

Sanders Rips Lawmakers Saying 'We Don't Have the Money' While Backing $900 Billion for Military (www.commondreams.org)

submitted 12 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"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."

top 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago

Billions for Ukraine? No debate, full send. Billions for Israel? No debate, full send. Billions for healthcare? Whoa whoa whoa, gotta balance that budget!

[–] JiveTurkey 44 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] whostosay 11 points 9 hours ago

People are not even willing to learn how much they're being fucked. They wouldn't do much with the resources.

[–] count_dongulus 21 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 hours ago

Doubtless they’re worried about the rest of us getting ideas above our station.

[+] [email protected] -21 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

With all respect for Senator Senators...

While the US Defense budget is the largest its ever been in absolute dollars it's also near its historical low in terms of percent of GDP.

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.

[–] bennel 17 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

$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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] Alexstarfire 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

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.

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/news-alert/cms-releases-latest-enrollment-figures-medicare-medicaid-and-childrens-health-insurance-program-chip

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] Bacano 0 points 3 hours ago

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.

[+] brucethemoose -7 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] Soup 40 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[+] brucethemoose -15 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Soup 10 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] brucethemoose -4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Soup 3 points 10 hours ago

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.

[–] JiveTurkey 1 points 8 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 hours ago

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

[–] RedditWanderer 1 points 11 hours ago

Why not both, there's no reason to keep feeding both big pharma and the military industrial complex.

[–] YarHarSuperstar 1 points 12 hours ago

Yeah that's not gonna happen with this government, especially with this incoming administration. You're totally right though.

[–] UsernameHere 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] brucethemoose -4 points 12 hours ago

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.