Sanders Rips Lawmakers Saying 'We Don't Have the Money' While Backing $900 Billion for Military : usa

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 7 points 4 hours ago

Defund the police and military.

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 18 points 12 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!

[-] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Extra spending on health care is not actually required (even though america could afford it). Americans spent more per capita on health care than anyone else already. American health spending is extremely inefficient, with parasites like for-profit insurance (whose profits and much of their revenue are literally just inefficiency in the system) embedded at every layer. The problem is that allowing it to get to this state means many of these bad actors will gladly spend hundreds of millions on politicians and ads to defend the billions they make, and American voters are easily confused.

If you call profits a bad thing too many times you get called a communist or whatever even though in this case it's objectively true. The shooting of that parasite CEO should have brought this into focus - that worthless person profited directly from making people's health care expenditures less efficient (and also from the corresponding human suffering in case anyone cares).

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 1 points 57 minutes ago

I agree with all of that. Almost wish I hadn't used healthcare as an example since there's plenty of other programs that suffer from low funding.

[-] imsufferableninja@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

the US already allocates $1.5 trillion for direct healthcare spending

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 1 points 58 minutes ago

If you don't like healthcare as an example, choose anything else that helps the working class. I don't just mean adding new money either, but how eager they are to make cuts to existing programs.

[-] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 hours ago

Every single time someone brings up anything about cost and the government, ask them how much money the DoD loses every year. Every single time.

[-] DankOfAmerica@reddthat.com -1 points 5 hours ago

I kind of agree, but also think it's important to understand a few things about this:

The US needs to keep its military-industrial complex active and technologically advanced at all times if it wants to be a military powerhouse. It can't decide to start it up whenever it wants because war machines have gotten too advanced. During WWII, it was easy to get the complex rolling because they just needed to churn out simple prop planes, tanks, rifles, and food. Now, they need stealth planes, laser-guided munitions, and high-tech chips.
Because of the geography of the US and the geopolitical situation, it would likely fight a two-front war. If the US goes to war with a formidable power, said power would surely ally with another. The US will not just fight China alone. Russia and North Korea would join. Therefore, the US military needs to be large enough to fight knowing that by population, the US is much smaller. China has just over 4 times the population of the US.
Having an overwhelmingly large and technologically advanced military serves as a deterrent. It's best to never go to war. It saves lives, economies, social institutions, etc. By having a decisively superior military, those that would consider starting a war avoid doing so.
The Department of Defense and military-industrial complex is a huge jobs program anyway. Service members receive training and all sorts of benefits that support them and their dependents. Military production companies receive reliable government contracts that make their business ventures stable investments while employees receive relatively adequate pay. If the government did not fund those contracts, all those businesses would go out of business and everyone involved would have to find other means of sustenance.
The US provides military defense and deterrence for more than just itself. It's practically the department of defense for most Pacific islands including Japan and the Philippines. It's also a necessary supporter of the EU and South Korea.

I'm not saying that I agree to the spending or that we shouldn't spend more on social welfare, but the solution is not obviously clear as just spending less on defense in my opinion.

[-] JiveTurkey@lemmy.world 57 points 20 hours ago

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@lemmy.world 17 points 19 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@lemmy.world 26 points 21 hours ago

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.

[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 6 points 19 hours ago

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

[+] joker125@lemmy.world -31 points 12 hours ago

God damn Bernie just dust yourself away.

You've done enough damage to this country to court your ego.

[-] Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

We don't have the money for war

[-] P1nkman@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

Care to elaborate?

[+] Buelldozer@lemmy.today -25 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

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.

[-] JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I'm sure companies like Quest Diagnostics being allowed to continue operating after they defrauded the federal government are inflating those numbers. By a lot.

https://bergermontague.com/quest-diagnostics-pay-1-79-million-settle-false-claims/

How many others are pulling shit like this and conveniently don't get caught.

[-] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml -1 points 4 hours ago

yeah, I wonder how much of that social spending comes in the form of direct corporate subsidies.

[-] bennel@lemmy.world 25 points 19 hours ago

$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.

[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 6 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

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@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 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

[-] BajaTacos@lemm.ee 3 points 13 hours ago

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

[-] pupbiru@aussie.zone 0 points 12 hours ago

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

[-] BajaTacos@lemm.ee 2 points 12 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@lemmy.world -1 points 12 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@lemmy.world -9 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

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@lemmy.world 47 points 22 hours ago

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@lemmy.world -17 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

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@lemmy.world 11 points 21 hours ago

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@lemmy.world -4 points 21 hours ago

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.

[-] DankOfAmerica@reddthat.com 2 points 5 hours ago

I'm not arguing against you at all. I'm trying to understand your logic because it seems important to understand. Can you provide numbers and sources that show we are at the point of unsustainability? Is government interest about to match revenue so that we are near being unable to pay it? Or is there another reason we're at the point?

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Because interest payments are already a big fraction of the budget! I only became aware of this reading this, which pegs it at 8-10%: https://www.axios.com/2024/11/16/elon-musk-trump-department-government-efficiency

Other sources have it at 13%! https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/

Which equates to about $1 trillion a year, and rapidly rising: https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-is-the-national-debt-costing-us/

This is apocalyptic to me for two reasons:

Not only is our interest exceeding what we pay for Medicaid… it’s exceeding the 1T deficit itself. Think about that… we’re paying more in interest than we’re borrowing every year, and we’re borrowing to pay on that interest.
And that is going to compound. The chart above is a pre-Covid estimate, interest of that magnitude is going to rapidly dominate the budget.

[-] Soup@lemmy.world 3 points 19 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@lemmy.world 1 points 18 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.

[-] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 7 points 21 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

[-] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

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

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

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@lemmy.world -5 points 21 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.

[-] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

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

United States | News & Politics