Military spending vs societal benefits

[Harry Bosch]

We spend trillions of dollars on all things military. People who own all kinds of businesses make lots of money making military hardware, ect.

Why couldn't a lot of that money be turned around and spent on universal healthcare, university education for all, maternity leave for mothers, ect?

It seems the people who own and benefit most from military spending could retool their businesses or invest in such ways they could still make their money but it benefit society over all.

Or we could spend money on preserving humanity with space exploration instead of killing people on the battlefields for stupid reasons. The US should have no worry of any bad guys because we have 2 big oceans to the east and west and benevolent neighbors to the north and south. Space exploration in particular could provide the same amount of work programs for poor people as defense contractors do with a lot less killing going on.

But neither healthcare or space exploration will ever happen because of insane neocons such as Hillary Clinton and Lindsey Graham. If the best idea's are to ever get done it's up to private visionaries like Musk and Besos.

Do you see any value in trying to peacefully stop lager countries from conquering smaller countries?

 

[ZiprHead]

Or we could spend money on preserving humanity with space exploration instead of killing people on the battlefields for stupid reasons. The US should have no worry of any bad guys because we have 2 big oceans to the east and west and benevolent neighbors to the north and south. Space exploration in particular could provide the same amount of work programs for poor people as defense contractors do with a lot less killing going on.

What the hell is space exploration going to do for us here? Did you fall for those pie in the sky science fiction movies about people by the thousands moving to a new habitable planet? It's never going to happen. We need to fix the one we've got.

But neither healthcare or space exploration will ever happen because of insane neocons such as Hillary Clinton and Lindsey Graham. If the best idea's are to ever get done it's up to private visionaries like Musk and Besos.

Why is Hillary Clinton always chosen to be some sort of war monger. I don't know what she ever did to deserve that title. Could you explain?

 

[Patooka]

So there's this new weight loss drug that has a curious effect of broadly reducing addiction-based behaviors.

It doesn't work on anyone but actually reduces everything from eating to drug use to skin picking when it does work.

I wonder if it would be effective against GREED and hoarding.

You talking about Ozempic?

Could New Weight-Loss Drugs like Ozempic Treat Addiction?

Ozempic and similar medications may target brain circuitry involved in addiction as well as appetite control

www.scientificamerican.com

Looking at it there's a big maybe that is underlined and with an asterisk next to such findings. The findings aren't definitive much less peer reviewed so whilst it could* work for addictions like alcohol or opiods I don't see how it would work for someone with a gambling or greed compulsion as there is no ingestive element of that addiction.

There's also the sticky part that the person needs to be willing to change and I wouldn't even know where to begin telling someone with 5 houses, 2 islands and 6 jets, "You need to sort your life out mate".

 

[bilby]

I wouldn't even know where to begin telling someone with 5 houses, 2 islands and 6 jets, "You need to sort your life out mate".

You should probably begin with his PR manager's personal assistant's secretary's receptionist.

 

[Derec]

When the Ilk want to privatize SocSec,

Who is "the Ilk" exactly?

that program is "MY money for MY pension. The gummint should cease its useless middleman role, with its expensive red-tape, and just return the money to ME."
But when they want to blame the country's ills on communists taxing Job Creators™ to fund Welfare Mama™, SocSec morphs into just another "social program;"

Do you have some trouble using normal words or what? "Gummint"? Are you ok?
I do not think SocSec should be a private program, so I do not see what your point is here.
It is undeniably a government program though.

misusing money that could better be spent building walls and killing Muslims.

Why should Muslims be exempt from military action when they do things like attack merchant shipping?
As to the wall, it is a good idea - one of the few good ideas Trump has. Not just a wall though - it needs to be monitored with border patrol at the ready because it can't stoop crossings, just slow them down. And it must be combined with policies like the end of "catch and release" and reform of the asylum law that millions of illegals are shamelessly abusing. Here as well as in Europe.
But we are getting off topic.
Do you disagree that we need a strong defense? Or that US already spends a lot on social programs?

Add this tip to the course in "How to Lie with Statistics": When making a bar graph, do NOT use ordinary straight bars, or even pie cuts. Instead use concentric circles and put the items you consider too big on the outermost circles. Most people won't notice that this misrepresents the relative graph areas.

I did not make the graph, and I do think the intention was to deceive, but to represent different ways the pie (no pun intended) can be cut on the same graph. Let's not compare lengths of the arcs though - there are dollar amounts on the graphs, as well as percentages. And $747G is not much less than $751G, and that is just one social program US government has compared with the entire DoD budget.

Yes, this graphic comes from Wikipedia. What a joke that has become!

The image is hosted by wikipedia, yes, but the graph comes from the Congressional Budget Office. One thing wikipedia does is cite its sources. The CBO website version of the graph is an interactive one, so I posted the static image from wikipedia.

This is a propaganda idea very popular with the Ilk,

Do you disagree that companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are public and that anyone can own their stock, and that many Americans do, whether individually or in different funds they own?

to make Americans think they're participants in capitalist success.

Again, who is "the ilk"? You don't even write "your ilk" but "the Ilk" with a definite article and capitalized. Who is that exactly?
Also reminds me of a quote by the late great Douglas Adams.

The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.

Most retirees who have a 401K or SEP-IRA earn much more from their SocSec than from their investments.

[citation needed] on that claim.

they support tax cuts on investment income, unaware that they're already in the zero bracket!

[citation needed] on that one too.

 

[Derec]

No it isn't really government spending because social security is funded from FICA receipts and NOT US federal income tax.

What do you think FICA is? It's a government program.
Now of course it is different than regular budgetary spending. I never said otherwise. However, W was rightly ridiculed when he said this.

Reading some of your opinions here, it seems you must think W was some kind of genius after all.

Social security is labor delayed spending on itself with the government serving only as the pass through administrator.

Not really. It is a type of insurance on long life. If you die before or shortly after you start collecting SocSec, you pay way more than you receive. And some people will live into their 90s and receive way more than they put in.
That is different than private money in IRAs and 401ks that are your money that you can pass to your heirs if you die before you spend it.

What you have done is the equivalence of showing Disney income being used to pay for Exxon Oil's expenses even though income from a Disney movie had nothing at all to do with the construction of an Exxon oil well.

How so? Both of these expense streams are part of the federal government. I did not conflate two different countries, so why are you saying it's like using two different companies? If you'd used different divisions of Disney, that'd be more to the point. However, they are all Disney. You can't say some spending by Disney is not spending by Disney just because it comes from a different account than this other spending by Disney. Same for the federal government. Or "gummint" as Swammerdami spells it.

If you want to argue that FICA tax receipts don't really go to social security I might listen to that. Otherwise show some honest accounting.

No, my point that they are federal government programs. FICA is taken from your paycheck just like federal income tax and any state income taxes without your choice in the matter, unlike say 401k contributions that you sign up for. SocSec/Medicare work differently than regular programs but they are still federal programs, instituted to ensure people have a basic level of income and medical care in old age. How is that not social spending then? I am not even saying it is bad or anything.

 

[RVonse]

Why is Hillary Clinton always chosen to be some sort of war monger. I don't know what she ever did to deserve that title. Could you explain?

She is the most insane war monger of the lot. Even John McCain had the moral decency not to at least giggle and laugh at the death of other human beings.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why is Hillary Clinton always chosen to be some sort of war monger. I don't know what she ever did to deserve that title. Could you explain?

She is the most insane war monger of the lot. Even John McCain had the moral decency not to at least giggle and laugh at the death of other human beings.

Wow, one little twelve second clip of her laughing about the death of Qaddafi proves your point? No, that doesn't prove she's a war monger.

From the Cambridge Dictionary:
"warmonger
noun [ C ]
a politician or other leader who is often encouraging a country to go to war"

 

[RVonse]

Why is Hillary Clinton always chosen to be some sort of war monger. I don't know what she ever did to deserve that title. Could you explain?

She is the most insane war monger of the lot. Even John McCain had the moral decency not to at least giggle and laugh at the death of other human beings.

Wow, one little twelve second clip of her laughing about the death of Qaddafi proves your point? No, that doesn't prove she's a war monger.

From the Cambridge Dictionary:
"warmonger
noun [ C ]
a politician or other leader who is often encouraging a country to go to war"

How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk (Published 2016)

Throughout her career she has displayed instincts on foreign policy that are more aggressive than those of President Obama — and most Democrats.

www.nytimes.com

And there are countless other similar supporting articles using google search.

 

[Politesse]

Well, we live in a dangerous world. Russia, Iran, China are strategic adversaries. Russia is waging war against Ukraine, and if successful may extend it elsewhere. Iran is, through its vassals, de-facto occupying Lebanon, Yemen and Gaza, and is working on obtaining nuclear weapons. China has eyes on Taiwan (although I think Outer Manchuria would be a better target for them). A strong military is a necessity.

Considering our "strong military" roundly loses every war it starts, or at best brings them to a lengthy and expensive stalemate from which we must eventually withdraw with our tail between our legs once again, isn't that throwing good money after bad? At this point we're just donating very expensive weaponry to our enemies, either by direct sale or battlefield capture, funding genocidal campaigns that will come back to bite us diplomatically, and tossing our few remaining allies in the critical zones in front of bullets. Clearly, our four decade long strategy of overfunding the military is not leading us to military success, at least not on its own.

 

[Politesse]

Why is Hillary Clinton always chosen to be some sort of war monger. I don't know what she ever did to deserve that title. Could you explain?

She is the most insane war monger of the lot. Even John McCain had the moral decency not to at least giggle and laugh at the death of other human beings.

Aye, she ran as a "war president", and that's what we would have gotten with her.

 

[Elixir]

Not just a wall though - it needs to be monitored with border patrol at the ready because it can't stoop crossings, just slow them down.

I think you are neglecting the purpose.
Trump doesn’t give two of his smelliest shits about stopping illegal immigration; illegal immigrants are the lifeblood of his political existence just as his criminal indictments are the heart of his current campaign. The halfwit narcissist only wants a huge physical edifice with his name on it.

Walls are probably the stupidest possible way to attempt to mitigate illegal entry. They are an ecological disaster and they don’t work, except in cities.
Electronic surveillance backed up by a massive human enforcement presence would be more effective, less expensive and far less destructive approach in most areas. But that would deprive a narcissist like trump of a chance to pump up his already overinflated ego by erecting a BIGLY monument to his stupidity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lumping Medicare and Social Security in with the "budget" is dishonest.

It's government spending, ain't it?
I know there are differences between these programs and the regular budget. At the same time, I wanted to point out that defense spending is not that big a slice of the pie compared with social spending US is already doing.

No it isn't really government spending because social security is funded from FICA receipts and NOT US federal income tax. Social security is labor delayed spending on itself with the government serving only as the pass through administrator. Social Security and medicare should not even be part of the federal budget. The honest way to show a balance sheet is not to mix unrelated income streams with expenses! What you have done is the equivalence of showing Disney income being used to pay for Exxon Oil's expenses even though income from a Disney movie had nothing at all to do with the construction of an Exxon oil well.

If you want to argue that FICA tax receipts don't really go to social security I might listen to that. Otherwise show some honest accounting.

If the budgets were truly separate I would agree with you. However, for ages Congress looted the surplus that SS/Medicare was supposed to be building up for the boomers. Now the demographics are shifting and they need to pay back that looting and they're squealing like a stuck pig about it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why is Hillary Clinton always chosen to be some sort of war monger. I don't know what she ever did to deserve that title. Could you explain?

She is the most insane war monger of the lot. Even John McCain had the moral decency not to at least giggle and laugh at the death of other human beings.

Wow, one little twelve second clip of her laughing about the death of Qaddafi proves your point? No, that doesn't prove she's a war monger.

From the Cambridge Dictionary:
"warmonger
noun [ C ]
a politician or other leader who is often encouraging a country to go to war"

How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk (Published 2016)

Throughout her career she has displayed instincts on foreign policy that are more aggressive than those of President Obama — and most Democrats.

www.nytimes.com

And there are countless other similar supporting articles using google search.

Paywalled. Can't access.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why couldn't a lot of that money be turned around and spent on universal healthcare, university education for all, maternity leave for mothers, ect?

US already spends much more on social programs than on military.

When the Ilk want to privatize SocSec, that program is "MY money for MY pension. The gummint should cease its useless middleman role, with its expensive red-tape, and just return the money to ME."

But when they want to blame the country's ills on communists taxing Job Creators™ to fund Welfare Mama™, SocSec morphs into just another "social program;" misusing money that could better be spent building walls and killing Muslims.

"ilk" is an ad hominem argument.

You said X.
Joe Blow said NOT X.
I find you distasteful.
I find Joe Blow distasteful too.
I regard distasteful people as interchangeable parts.
----------------------------------------------------------
Therefore you contradicted yourself so I'm entitled to dismiss your claims without refuting them.
​

is a fallacious way to reason.

 

[Bomb#20]

Medicare alone is almost as costly as the entire defense budget. And you want to cut it more to fund even more social programs?

Lumping Medicare and Social Security in with the "budget" is dishonest.

Show your work.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Even John McCain had the moral decency not to at least giggle and laugh at the death of other human beings.

Really? Better not google “John McCain sings about bombing Iran”.

 

[Swammerdami]

Why couldn't a lot of that money be turned around and spent on universal healthcare, university education for all, maternity leave for mothers, ect?

US already spends much more on social programs than on military.

When the Ilk want to privatize SocSec, that program is "MY money for MY pension. The gummint should cease its useless middleman role, with its expensive red-tape, and just return the money to ME."

But when they want to blame the country's ills on communists taxing Job Creators™ to fund Welfare Mama™, SocSec morphs into just another "social program;" misusing money that could better be spent building walls and killing Muslims.

"ilk" is an ad hominem argument.

Two points:
(1) "Ilk" is NOT an ad hominem. It isn't an insult.

type of people or things similar to those already referred to.

My ancestor was known as James Rutherford, 11th of That Ilk. Not only was "of That Ilk" NOT an insult, it was a term of respect and status that entitled James to the honorific "Esquire" when he visited England.

(2) Do I refer to Derec's "Ilk" because it seems to infuriate Derec? You betcha! I am holding up a mirror in the (vain?) hope that I can break through his self-made stupor and help him see how insulting he is.

@Bomb#20 - You complain when I write "Ilk." What do you think of Derec referring to Harris as a "heels-up" politician?
@Bomb#20 - You complain when I write "Ilk." What do you think of Derec ignoring AOC's relatively impressive resume (she had an asteroid named after her long before she got involved in politics, for heaven's sake) and disparaging her with "bar maid" more than a dozen times?

If I'm harsh on Derec, he should take that as a compliment. He seems intelligent and I think he may not be beyond salvation. I certainly wouldn't waste the keystrokes on most message board posters ... of that ilk.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why couldn't a lot of that money be turned around and spent on universal healthcare, university education for all, maternity leave for mothers, ect?

US already spends much more on social programs than on military.

When the Ilk want to privatize SocSec, that program is "MY money for MY pension. The gummint should cease its useless middleman role, with its expensive red-tape, and just return the money to ME."

But when they want to blame the country's ills on communists taxing Job Creators™ to fund Welfare Mama™, SocSec morphs into just another "social program;" misusing money that could better be spent building walls and killing Muslims.

"ilk" is an ad hominem argument.

Two points:
(1) "Ilk" is NOT an ad hominem. It isn't an insult.

type of people or things similar to those already referred to.

My ancestor was known as James Rutherford, 11th of That Ilk. Not only was "of That Ilk" NOT an insult, it was a term of respect and status that entitled James to the honorific "Esquire" when he visited England.

I take it Mr. 11th lived some time between 1498 and 1724. But you weren't using it to associate Derec with respectable high status people, were you? Who does that any more? Languages evolve. Nowadays it's pretty much only used for disparagement. You used it to associate him with deplorable people who say gummint and want to build the wall.

(2) Do I refer to Derec's "Ilk" because it seems to infuriate Derec? You betcha! I am holding up a mirror in the (vain?) hope that I can break through his self-made stupor and help him see how insulting he is.

@Bomb#20 - You complain when I write "Ilk." What do you think of Derec referring to Harris as a "heels-up" politician?
@Bomb#20 - You complain when I write "Ilk." What do you think of Derec ignoring AOC's relatively impressive resume (she had an asteroid named after her long before she got involved in politics, for heaven's sake) and disparaging her with "bar maid" more than a dozen times?

But you didn't do it in response to him being insulting; you did it in response to him making a perfectly normal policy argument. That's using guilt-by-association against the argument on account of the personal characteristics of the source's alleged associates. Of course it's the ad hominem fallacy; and he isn't even the hominem it's ad. Did Derec ever morph SocSec between "MY money for MY pension" and "just another social program"? He isn't responsible for the logical lapses of other people.

 

[Derec]

Considering our "strong military" roundly loses every war it starts, or at best brings them to a lengthy and expensive stalemate from which we must eventually withdraw with our tail between our legs once again, isn't that throwing good money after bad?

E.g. Afghanistan wasn't lost because of our military, but because of politicians. No clear objective, overly restrictive rules of engagement.