Just tax billionaires and we can have all of the above and a surplus budget.
How about we tax billionaires and also not give giant gifts to defense companies every year?
unless conflicts end worldwide I want my country to maintain the highest level of military technology and local capacity to ramp up if needed. That being said I don’t want my country involved with every conflict in the world.
If the USA wouldn’t be randomly invading countries every few years, they could keep the same level of military technology while spending much less.
The Iraq war did nothing to increase the US military’s capabilities but just wasted enourmous amounts of money while killing civilians on a daily basis.
Yeah but it also gave us the Saddam Hussein outline meme.
Trillions well spent.
NCD user spotted
that’s not how technology works, stuff will get outdated if we use it or not
for sure. To boot that was done while backgrounding afganistan which was the main 9/11 thing and caused it to go on forever since it was neglected.
What’s up with Americans never mentioning Afghanistan anymore like it wasn’t the first place that got invaded after 9/11???
it is much mentioned a bunch by our right on how bad the left president did finally extricating ourselves from the thing they started (and of course lets not forget what president actually eliminated osama)
Good news, they could reduce it by 400 billion a year and still spend more than the the other 3 biggest spenders combined
As a Finn I don’t want the US to stop fully… but they have a huge amount of excess, it’s insane how much money they waste
Understandable
If it’s at the expense of everything else that could help the state of the country and quality of life, what’s the point?
if it was but those other things are happening. I think your saying its not enough but when is it enough?
Sorry I was admittedly kinda vague. No point in having the world’s best military when it’s protecting a country that has destroyed the middle class, expanded the poverty class, secured inadequate funding for social security, failed to give its children a quality education in primary school, and priced secondary education into the stratosphere despite decades of telling kids college is the only thing that will get them a better job than flipping burgers.
Are all those things literally true? No, but some of them are, and they are all headed that way. Would be great if somehow a good military wasn’t the only thing anyone was willing to fund.
Oh I get you. I often wonder at what point enough will be enough as we roll downhill.
I’m pretty sure the U.S. can do that without an $816.7 billion defense budget, much of which goes to giant corporations, and without being larger than the next 20 militaries combined.
How about we do a $400 billion defense budget and only be larger than the next 10?
, much of which goes to giant corporations, and without being larger than the next 20 militaries combined.
The biggest expenses, by far, are personnel costs and maintenance. The idea that the defense budget is a giant gift to contractors is just not backed up by evidence.
oh yeah but that is still money to defense companies. What you said here is pretty much what I meant. Just enough to maintain top tech levels and ability to ramp up and thats it.
Watching Ukraine absolutely stonewall Russia using cold era tech has been incredible. Imagine what modern equipment could do. I can’t wait to see what happens when they get f-16s, which were developed in the mid 70s by the way.
I want my country to maintain the highest level of military technology and local capacity to ramp up if needed
There is N-word that will burn some asses: nationalize.
The last time US was involved in a war that even remotely had something to do with US was WWII. Before that it was probably civil war.
not give giant gifts to defense companies
There is N-word that will burn some asses on lemmy.world: nationalize.
Yeah, because that for sure will stop other world powers from arming themselves and attacking others.
And to answer upcoming question: why we should care not others instead of ourselves. No one attacks us militarily (we are attacked via hubris warfare with disinformation such as this though) because we are armed.
Why would being ten times larger than the next ten militaries in the world combined instead of the next twenty make us likely to be attacked?
Because then you would say why 10 and not 5 and so on. The social spending currently is still much much bigger than the money spent for social services anyway (4.1 trillion + 910 billion in non defense spending which covers mentioned education housing etc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget
Cutting military spending won’t increase social spending. The GOP is for cutting spending no matter what do they can cut taxes from corporations which what they did with latest tax bill.
Look at corporate income taxes, that should be increased.
I’m really amazed that people on Lemmy are actually cheering for massive, bloated military budgets.
Oh so after showing how ridiculous your post is and defense budget is a drop in what already is being spent on social programs now you are changing goal posts?
This post has always been about bloated defense budgets and all I have been talking about is bloated defense budgets. I didn’t move any goal posts. That is a lie.
defense companies
You mean mercenaries and arms dealers. The only thing they’re defending is their profits.
I can’t believe how many people on Lemmy of all places are defending massive defense budgets.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
I’m not saying there’s no waste, but being against wasteful spending is a completely different thing, to me, than being against wasteful spending.
I’m completely okay with spending inordinate gobs of the tax base on defense because at this point, the US defense budget is, in effect, the premium we pay yearly for “Global Nuclear War Insurance”.
It’s as much as investment in psychological warfare as practical. That is: we lead the race by such a huge lead that nobody else even bothers to attempt to rival us. This prevents open/total war between superpowers, and also has a suppressive effect even on larger non-superpower nations.
And if you think our defense budget is inflated now, heaven help you if a near peer conflict actually would break out.
Basically we pay a lot, year in and year out so that we don’t have to deal with war time spending…and of course all the death and destruction as well.
You’re free to not like that, of course, but like I said, I’m 100% good with it.
the US defense budget is, in effect, the premium we pay yearly for “Global Nuclear War Insurance”.
That’s as true as the one about billionaires being “job creators” 🙄
This prevents open/total war between superpowers, and also has a suppressive effect even on larger non-superpower nations.
More ridiculous propaganda. The US military prevents war in the same way as tornados prevent strong winds.
And if you think our defense budget is inflated now, heaven help you if a near peer conflict actually would break out
So what you’re saying is that spending as much as the 20 next countries wouldn’t be enough to fight ONE of those? Sounds awfully wasteful.
Basically we pay a lot, year in and year out so that we don’t have to deal with war time spending
Something like a single decade total HASN’T been war time for the 250 years the country has existed.
and of course all the death and destruction as well.
Except for those millions of pesky foreigners that of course have it coming 🙄
You’re free to not like that, of course, but like I said, I’m 100% good with it.
Because you’ve swallowed their lies hook, line and sinker.
Not just billionaires; corporations.
If we consider corporations people (and the Supreme Courts says we have to) then we should tax their income. That means total income, not profits because I don’t pay taxes on what’s left over after my bills, so why should corps get to?
Wouldn’t the billionaires just create private LLC to hold their funds? And they are not income based taxes, this would have to be based on shares or assets, net worth.
Taxing billionaires can help, but we also need to see that they contribute to what laws and rules get made, using lobbyists and support from politicians they fund.
Please inform and educate me, for those that have thought more on this!
I think when people say “tax the billionaires” it’s implied that there would need to be new tax policy drafted that closes certain loopholes and exploitable tax shelters.
I can’t speak on the billionaires but wealthy people are already utilizing private LLCs to do exactly what you are talking about.
Yes, I agree.
Some have proposed closing loopholes, “extremists” on the republicans and democrat side.
I was asking for information on how and what exactly can be done, with any videos or articles talking on the subject, if y’all have seen or watched any.
I didn’t see a question in your original comment but I can answer a bit.
A lot has been said about the proposal to tax unrealized gains. One of the issues is that this is how the super wealthy are able to keep their taxes low. A not insignificant amount of their wealth is tied up in the stock market. This sits as an unrealized gain(or loss) but, because of the large amount of their holdings, they can take out loans using it as collateral at near 0% interest. This loan is tax free, and reduces their tax burden at the same time. Closing this loophole for them is a big one. Why do you think the majority of the compensation C Suite executives are given is in stocks? It’s for this very reason.
Now the backlash on the proposal to tax unrealized gains is fair when you look at what is considered unrealized gains. With inflation, house values are generally always going up. That increase IS an unrealized gain. And don’t be mistaken, the fact that we accept 2% as a general year-over-year inflation number means that inflation is an accepted financial policy of the United States.
That’s why the proposal to tax unrealized gains starts at an already high number. I think it was in the $400,000 range, but I am not certain.
Piggy backing off of this, a lot of the super wealthy bury their money into real estate. The idea of increasing real estate taxes on purchases based on the amount of home(s) you have has been circling around. I like the idea.
Closing the loopholes surrounding Private Foundations that they start up is another. Here’s an article that best articulates what’s wrong with these. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-private-nonprofits-ultrawealthy-tax-deductions-museums-foundation-art
Finally, we need an IRS that is funded and staffed appropriately, and to actually ENFORCE the tax code.
Please inform and educate me, for those that have thought more on this!
That was my fault, should have made it more obvious what I was looking for when talking to people.
Your response is a great one and what I was looking for, when talking about these kinds of things, thank you!
Just finished listening to August Nimtz on Upstream podcast. He explains why voting for the lesser evil will always push you further right.
So this sounds interesting, but depressing. Is it all just doom or does he propose realistic actionable solutions?
Yeah. Join or form an actual workers’ party that facilitates working class interest. There is no “easy” button.
August H. Nimtz, Ph.D., is a professor of political science …He specializes in Marxism
What a surprise that the guy who thinks violence is the only way to make political change thinks voting is useless
He talks about that in the podcast.
Podcast is 1:28:02 long.
Do you have timestamps of questions or talking points?
I listened while walking my dog. Sorry. I don’t know how to do timestamps. It’s worth a listen. He goes back in history to other social movements and why they failed. Without a legitimate working class party to prevent capitalism from resorting to fascism, the bourgeoisie will always pull the economy further right. He talks of what Lenin and Trotsky got right, and what Stalin got wrong. It’s a well balanced take you don’t hear too much.
All good.
Thanks!
Ok, so when are you going to start shooting?
Thanks for the info!
Yes, voting for the status quo will not change anything.
We learned this from Justice Dems. and Bernie Sanders in 2016/2020, you can’t change the system from within, the system will change you.
I watch Richard Wolff, so will watch his interview with August Nimtz.
What Marxism Teaches Us About the Trump Moment & Capitalism in Crisis - August H. Nimtz Jr. [4:59 | Aug 2, 2021 | Democracy At Work]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIo4QSVifbY
Economic Update: Best Years of U.S. Lie in its Past [29:35 | Aug 2, 2021 |Democracy At Work]
We would have money for both if we taxed the rich.
This is the thing that really drives me nuts.
It’s not either/or. That’s the billionaires’ argument.
The USA spends twice as much on public healthcare than it does on defense.
(Medicare and Medicaid = 1.4 trillion per year, vs. defense = 700 billion per year)
The problem isn’t that tax money is being used for defense.
The problem is that healthcare prices are insane in the US, and that the government isn’t allowed to negotiate lower prices (even though they have the weight to do so).
The real problem is that US insurance/healthcare was specifically designed to tie you to an employer.
Absolutely true. In the late 40s, when other countries were setting up public healthcare, we didn’t do it because we didn’t need to since employers offered healthcare plans. So it didn’t happen for us. Now there is no political will, because employers LOVE the leverage it gives them.
DoD spending was $1.8 trillion in 2023, of which $700B was “discretionary” spending. Medicare and medicaid spending was $1.6 trillion, of which $0 was discretionary.
and that the government isn’t allowed to negotiate lower prices
I’m not even sure how it works. This sounds like any company can sell any bullshit to medicare and they have no choice, but to buy it.
I don’t live in US, that’s why I’m asking.
Kind of funny that it’s an F-16 used here. The 22 or 35 would have been even more apt as an example.
Yeah, the F16 is one of the best examples of a fighter that can do nearly every role competently while being reasonably affordable. There is a reason so many countries bought it.
Plus it’s been going for 50 years.
Hey now, at least the 22 looked cool. All my homies hate the F35.
edit2:
F22 is way more expensive than F35nope, seems F35 is more expensive when you add A+B+C budget of F35, added linksTrue, looking at the F35 (A+B+C) and F22 buget and plans over the years.
Talk about bloated military budgets.
James Web Telescope budget is made by the same companies, so we know that projects are bloated by design or just by how they operate.
NASA vs. military, I am pretty sure some people would prefer to switch the budgets, hahahaha
One of the biggest budget issues with the F35 program is that maintenance and repairs must go through private industry. Corporations just continuing to milk profit at every level. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/09/22/gao-blasts-contractor-led-f-35-maintenance-as-costly-slow/
There was the semi-recent report following the plane disappearance in the Carolinas that pointed to the battle readiness of the F35 program being lower than is acceptable (don’t remember the percentage thrown out there), and a lot of that is due to the corporate side of the deal. Parts are not readily available when needed, repairs are going slower than we are used to, and this is on top of using newer technologies in an effort to PREDICT future conflicts.
I hope we have learned our lessons from the F22 and F35 programs. New tank designs for the successor to the M1A2 Abrams are popping up. We cannot allow future programs to continue to favor corporate profits to these levels.
Thank you for the link and info!
Also, a big contributor to the expense of the F-22, both as a program and on a per unit basis, is that the US didn’t make the aircraft available for purchase by foreign allies. So there’s only, iirc, 200-some-odd F-22s in existence.
That means far fewer produced, and by extension, more of the one-time costs are baked into each fighter, and upgrades, maintenance, and “future proofing” expenses are spent in support of a smaller overall fleet, which lowers the ceiling on profitability and limits the benefits of scaling.
All that, and it’s still the best air-to-air platform in existence, and the US is the only country that has em.
Thanks for the explaination!
We’d be mining asteroids and have a robot fleet sifting tritium from the moon surface
Edit: Helium-3, not tritium
That would be awesome!
It’s not really that funny. The point is made despite it not being the most futuristic American dick extension on the market.
An F-35 would have been better for this picture, but still a good meme.
Edit. Shit someone else said this
Dumb Russian propaganda.especially that the equipment we are sending we would have to pay to dispose.
Besides one doesn’t exclude the other and GOP wants to cut it no matter what.
Also stuff like Medicare for all would actually save money. Social security is another pool of money separate from other taxes and working people pay for it. Aren’t student loan cuts actually a good thing? What is job opportunity cuts? What are legal services cuts? At least in my school school lunches expanded and include all children regardless of income.
Edit: for those downvoting, here’s why it is dumb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget just for Medicare alone we already spending the same amount as for the defense.
Doesn’t look like Putin’s propaganda. His propaganda machine is too dumb to make something like this because of nepotism, kleptocracy and corruption.
But here’s picture from Soviet magazine after Stalin’s death about Union budget:
And here is translated version*.
*it translated libraries as sciences
No, you can have all those but it would result in a rounding error for the rich
Medicare isn’t old enough to have paid for the F-16.
Wow I guess the whole point is moot.
Make another one except for corporate fat cats and the rich getting tax cuts.
I live in a first world country, so can anyone tell me what a food stamp is? I’ve heard a lot about them from TV, but I don’t understand wth it is. Is it discounts that the government pay for food, who makes them, where do people get them?
It just means that the goverment will give you money to buy food if you’re poor.
They used to be stamped paper cards, hence “Food Stamps”, but are now distributed via debit cards. The name stuck, even though current programs have different names
Sorry you’re getting down votes for just asking a question
The other comment reply got you your answer, but I’ll just add that these days, I believe “food stamps” are under the government acronyms of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and are dispersed via EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer).
Depending on which country(USSR or USA) is first for you, in the other it means food for free or ability to buy some amount of food accordingly.
Yes those are the only two options. You have clearly traveled the world.
First, second and third world are Cold War terms mean USSR, USA and the rest
Sadly truthful
Removed by mod
