Military spending vs societal benefits

[BH]

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.

 

[bilby]

Much US military spending is already a concealed subsidy for poor rural and rust-belt families.

If you live in a place with no (or few) jobs, joining the military is one of your very limited options to obtain an income.

Painting rocks white on a base somewhere in flyover country isn't productive; But you can nevertheless get paid for it. Joining up gets you educational opportunities and access to healthcare, that in Western Europe you would just get by being a citizen.

And many of the people who join up will send money home to their families, adding a small but vital cash injection to small towns that are on the limits of economic viability.

Military procurement contracts also create civilian jobs, in factories assembling weapons, vehicles, and other military supplies; Often these factories are located specifically in areas with low employment, as part of the local congressman's reelection strategy.

Most US military spending stays in the US (as do most US military personnel). It would certainly be more efficient to just hand it out directly as payments for education, healthcare, and poverty relief; But it would be politically very difficult. The folks who are proud to pay for a "big stick" to dominate global power politics, are the first to complain at any suggestion that their tax dollars might go to helping their impoverished neighbours.

Having a massive military can allow the government to do (albeit ineffectively and inefficiently) the social spending that would otherwise be politically suicidal.

Of course, there's always the risk that if you join the military, you might end up in some shithole country with some asshole trying to put a bullet in you, or drop bombs or shells on your head. But given the size of the US military machine, it's much more likely that you will never hear a shot fired in anger.

 

[Gospel]

Yeah! Cigarette consumers pay high taxes that go towards education. Heck lottery revenue does the same. why not those who purchase weapons pay a cigarette like tax and the manufacture have revenue taxed? Seems like a lot of money to be invested domestically.

 

[Tigers!]

As always the most estimable "Yes, Prime Minister" says it best Cancelling Trident

 

[Derec]

As always the most estimable "Yes, Prime Minister" says it best Cancelling Trident

Humphrey was right. 2020 did come sooner than one thinks.

 

[Derec]

We spend trillions of dollars on all things military.

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.

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.

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

Also, why "university education for all"? Not everybody is university material. And colleges have been dumbed down too much already, esp. since the Pandemic. We do not need even more marginal students taking remedial classes.
In countries with free (for students) university education like Germany, access is controlled and only a minority of high school graduates may matriculate.

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.

As I said, strong military benefits society as well, since we live in a dangerous world. And bilby is right. That money does not just go poof. It pays those directly employed by the federal government, both soldiers and civilian employees. It pays employees of defense contractors and their suppliers. And yes, the defense contractor companies make profits. But a lot of regular people own stock in those companies.

 

[Patooka]

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.

Disney's annual revenue is more than the GDP of 76 of 129 of the world's countries and America's top five military related companies could still buy Disney many times over.

Simply put, it's cheaper to own key Senators and Members of Congress than it is to roll out what you suggest. And the only thing rich cunts want is to be richer cunts. Alcoholics have a saying; one's too many and a hundred is not enough. I think you can see the comparison.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

 

[Derec]

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.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Needs for a military aside, government spending on services does have a much higher spending multiplier than on goods: 2.71 to .36 after two years. So if all the Covid spendapalooza money had instead been handed over to the DoD for contracting, we wouldn't have had so much as a blip of inflation to concern ourselves with, would be one twisted way of looking at it.

Know also that the US has over $200 billion in annual federal and direct commercial foreign sales so collapsing the US military industry has a global effect.

But yeah, as long as everyone can play nice, it sounds great.

 

[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.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/2022_US_Federal_Budget_Infographic.png

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.

Yes, this graphic comes from Wikipedia. What a joke that has become! By now the Wiki Editors smart enough to even understand the preceding paragraph have mostly left Wiki in disgust.

.... But a lot of regular people own stock in those companies.

This is a propaganda idea very popular with the Ilk, to make Americans think they're participants in capitalist success. Most retirees who have a 401K or SEP-IRA earn much more from their SocSec than from their investments. They support tax cuts on investment income, unaware that they're already in the zero bracket!

 

[Gospel]

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

Ok, I've changed my mind. Seems we do spend substantially more on social than on military benefits. I also concede that the military spending has social benefits.

 

[BH]

Fair enough. I've seen enough evidence to refute my idea, at least for the time being

 

[barbos]

So Military spending is Social Security for young rednecks.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So Military spending is Social Security for young rednecks.

Maybe a little. But there are many countries in Eastern Europe and Asia that would be conquered today if not for military spending. I believed in Clinton's "peace dividend" and decreasing military spending in the 1990s. But today there are too many imperialists that need to be stopped.

 

[Elixir]

So Military spending is Social Security for young rednecks.

Right. This ensures that they won’t be dragged out of bed, conscripted and sent to die in the cold of a foreign country that our Dear Leader decided to purge of imaginary Nazis.

 

[RVonse]

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Disney's annual revenue is more than the GDP of 76 of 129 of the world's countries and America's top five military related companies could still buy Disney many times over.

Simply put, it's cheaper to own key Senators and Members of Congress than it is to roll out what you suggest. And the only thing rich cunts want is to be richer cunts. Alcoholics have a saying; one's too many and a hundred is not enough. I think you can see the comparison.

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.

 

[RVonse]

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.

 

[Patooka]

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.

You really need to talk to this guy and tell him that.