898
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The majority of the federal budget goes to welfare and entitlements. I'm on the "no standing army" side of things, but it doesn't help to propagate incorrect information.

Edit: this is absurd. There's no opinion here: the comment I replied to is factually wrong. You can't dislike facts until they're not true.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago

you failed to engage with their actual argument, which was that military spending is absurdly high but always univocally supported by everyone in the establishment and increased with every new budget, but that it's an uphill fight to get anything new for people who actually need help.

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

To be fair, I engaged with that portion by pointing out I don't actually believe in standing armies. So defense spending should be close to zero. But, yeah, everyone wants their pork and defense spending is free money to them.

[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

You don't believe in standing armies? I'm sorry but you're either 5 years old or incredibly naive.

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I mean you don't do it overnight. There's nothing naive about having principled goals.

[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It's a ridiculous goal. Armies aren't just for waging wars against other people. Emergencies arise where it's absolutely CRUCIAL you have well trained, organized soldiers ready to respond.

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

A trained, voluntary militia is the only way to have ethical defense that can't be abused. Maybe we don't get there, but having the goal be more militia vs standing army can be worked out.

The world won't always be the same and we should plan for more liberty oriented and equitable outcomes instead of dismissing them out of hand because we don't think they're pragmatic today.

[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Absolute rubbish. When shit hits the fan, I want trained marines, not volunteer weekend warriors.

[-] Simpsonator@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

I think you're getting down voted for two reasons.

  1. OP's comment didn't state anything factual. It was rude to accuse him of attempting to "propagate incorrect information."

  2. You're lumping together two very different types of spending and it feels like you're making a disingenuous argument. The vast majority of spending you're talking about is Social Security/Medicare which has received near constant increases. Welfare programs on the other hand have been under attack since the 90s. I can say that Social Security, Medicare, and the FAA together make up almost half the budget but it doesn't make a good argument for cutting the FAA.

All that said, I do think you make a good point that there's other programs to look at. Maybe we can cut the military budget while also looking at saving money on Medicare.

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I didn't call it a lie because I don't think it's an issue of will or intent, so I didn't mean it to be insulting. I see where you're coming from otherwise, but this isn't a comment made from nowhere. This is a common talking point people try to use and I genuinely think it reinforces the trope.

I don't think it's disingenuous at all. Whether it's for a single mother or a pensioner it's certainly not being used for useless bases or bombs.

I don't believe we can solve problems if we don't understand them and our lack of understanding is disastrous when it comes to voting.

[-] Mini_Moonpie@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

I think you just misinterpreted the OP's statement. Conservatives also don't want welfare and entitlement spending and try to cut those back all the time. OP's statement is a characterization of conservative opinions on spending. Conservatives don't support spending on student debt relief, welfare, or entitlements. They do support military spending. That's not factually incorrect. And, it is irrelevant how much of the budget those categories represent because conservatives didn't choose those levels and don't support them.

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I mean it's entirely possible it's just me drawing in context for no good reason.

[-] ZzyzxRoad@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

By far, the biggest category of discretionary spending is spending on the Pentagon and military. In most years, this accounts for more than half of the discretionary budget. In 2020, because some discretionary spending passed through supplemental appropriations went to pandemic programs, the share of the discretionary budget that went to the military was smaller – even though the amount that went to the military was just as high as in previous years.

Most "welfare" falls under discretionary. Medicare, medicaid, and social security (also "welfare") fall under mandatory spending. Social security and medicare make up the largest categories. This organization explains how "welfare" spending increased in recent years due to pandemic spending on things like stimulus checks and increased unemployment.

The bottom line thoughis that people pay into it for years so that it's available when it's their turn to need it. If they never do, then great. It can help someone else, god forbid.

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I didn't realize that if you promised to spend money it didn't count. I'll be sure to keep my rent out of my financial planning.

[-] Zuberi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Welfare to soldiers and their families. What's your point?

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Look at the budget. Most of our federal spending goes back to citizens. Welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security. My point is what they said is a lie and it's an easy lie to fact check.

How should we expect to win arguments against military spending when the first line out of our mouths is a lie?

[-] Zuberi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is demonstrably not true

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Demonstrate away my friend.

[-] bdiddy@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago
[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

National defense is the fifth on that chart by percent. Everything above it is entitlement spending. Looks like income security is where welfare falls - it's a little over half. The other half is other forms of payouts to peeps.

[-] bdiddy@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Entitlements are not welfare. Period. Welfare is hardly a drop in the overall bucket. Entitlements are money that people are owed because they paid in. As in they are entitled to that. Welfare is paying for poor people to be able to survive.

You are purposely mixing the 2 because you fall for the serious propaganda on the "right" that somehow social security should be ended. If they end it they owe us that money back.

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

And are and.

Entitlements and welfare. Say it with me this time.

We don't see eye to eye on it, but there's no reason to insult people that disagree with you. I'm looking at wasting money on bombs vs spending it on american citizens

If our SS money went in to a retirement plan that mirrors congress' investments we'd all retire very comfortably, but somehow we're not good enough for that.

[-] bdiddy@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

I mean people like you are actual dumbasses..

What do you think happens if they ended entitlements??? Where do you think all of that money goes? INTO THE ECONOMY.. if we end entitlements we'd see the largest depression ever in the US.

Our economy is what it is BECAUSE of them. You think if the government just spent 0 money we'd somehow be better off? Even though literally every other major economic powerhouse hase entitlements and welfare lol.

It's just pure propagandized stupidity.

When the US government stops spending the entire world will spiral into a depression and the US would take longer to come out of it. We'd be ruined economically for the remainder of your life.

But yeah go on with your stupid fucking take.

Sending weapons to Ukraine is also a huge economic boost with the added benefit of securing yet another eventual base and massive political power in that region while destabilizing an aggressive dictatorship shit hole.

Fucking pittance in the grand scheme of things and amazingly smart move by our current leaders. If you think they'd actually spend it on our citizens that's the other funny part. The republican talking points are on and on about "look what we could do with this money" while they themselves want to further take from citizens and give to billion dollar organizations.

Oh but they are too busy trying to install a theocracy to give a fuck about helping citizens anwyay. Mostly republican states that still have not legalized weed because they rather throw people in jail than get a major boost to tax revenue that could go to actual communities in need.

Republican states with the worst education by far and shittiest teacher pay.

Republican states with the worst health care and highest infant mortality..

etc....

But yeah for sure we'd have magically taken that money and put it to good use instead of defending an ally while boosting the shit out of our economy with said defense lol.

Stop listening to pod casts.. You want to know why the government needs to spend that money follow the federal reserve and modern monetary theory. Economically we are still a leader in the entire world with not even close to the highest population. How do you think we keep that going? By cutting off entitlements, welfare, and allowing Russia to expand it's territory and influence?

Fucking brain dead fucking take.

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You just decide what people are saying based on your own assumptions and ideology then make Gish look like a galloping noob. I'm not bothering with that.

Treat people better and sort yourself out instead of spewing bile from nowhere. You can do better.

[-] bdiddy@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

nah I know the kind of people you are who call entitlements welfare. You purposely conflate the 2 and spread your misinformation for more idiots to pick up. You're brainwashed by a party that has become completely radicalized. I say this as a person who use to vote republican.

Our government has to spend tons of money on all the shit it spends money on. We should consider other ways of collecting money to defeat the inflation problem. It's really very fucking simple if you get right down to it.

As soon as we get rid of the theocrats we can probably solve it.

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Our government has to spend tons of money on all the shit it spends money on.

With no room for criticism of policies that leave working class people barely eating while congress laughs all the way to their stock broker. Even with small 401ks my father lives with my brother and my mom lives with me.

As soon as we get rid of the theocrats we can probably solve it.

The irony here is pretty thick. I tend to not argue with people about their positions held by faith so I'm gonna just leave this here.

this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
898 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2150 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS