I am not defending the size of the budget. I am just reminding people that the budget does include shit ton of social programs already.
I too think it should be lower. Either that or our NATO allies should be PAYING US. They basically are able to spend less on defense because they know the US has their back. Sort of like spending money on shit you don’t need instead of moving out of your parents basement because free rent is cool.
IIRC the NATO agreement was that each nation spend 2% of the GNP on defense, and he US spends twice that, with only 3 other nations meeting their pledge (OMG, Canada, stop slacking off!). So yes, I think we should reduce the size and scope. We can be #1 still at a reduced size, and our allies can tighten their belt and beef up their defense.
Put college loans back in the private banking system, and take away the government guarantees in case of default, and watch tuition (and additional debt) drop like a Chuck Jones anvil.
Oh fuck, I just realized I honestly don’t know the answer. I assumed it was because the earth is tilted, which encourages jetstreams and currents to move hot and cold air. And then I realized… I don’t really know.
I think a case could probably be be made that such data tends to indicate that people with the least experience with Marxist systems are the most likely to find them a viable alternative.
tl;dr: When sunlight hits the part tilted away from the sun, there’s less light per square unit of surface than when it hits the part tilted toward the sun. It helps to imagine the Earth as two cones joined at the equator.
And we’d still be exceeding our NATO expenditures commitment. Daddy Warbuck would lose a couple drone design contracts. We can all play tiny violins for his ilk.
Our priorities are quite clear here. In reverse order, showing how little we support these concepts, are what make up the “other” category of spending:
Science;
Energy and the Environment;
International Affairs;
Housing and Community;
Education.
All of those together add up to 288.6B, or 8% of the total budget. Whoop-dee-do.
I thought the UK was going to drop below 2% as well soon, to be honest. And frankly, good. It’s a waste of money (speaking as someone who’s worked for UK and US defence companies).
Now I’m interested in what Luxembourg’s military is like…
The same could be said of Socialism as it rapidly improved education, health and life expectancy, while dragging countries like Russia from peasant-agrarian to industrial societies. Britain and America are desperate to invest in Cuba because (and I quote) of their ‘skilled and productive workforce’. This is a country that was 30-40% illiterate before the revolution, and largely subsistence farming under the semi-feudal colonial land tenure system.
Anti-socialist activists on the far side of the iron curtain benefited from goods and services provided by the socialist state as part of a planned economy, just as we benefit from those produced under a system of surplus-value-appropriation. Should they have suspended their criticism until such a time as they no longer depended upon any product or provision of the socialist system?
I will say, that SOME of the Military budget affects other things like science and medical research.
I suffer from a weird genetic condition called Neurofibro Mitosis, and the Army hospital system actually is one of the government agencies doing research. Also a lot of cool tech has its roots in the military. IIRC most of the GPS systems we use are still government military (?) satellites. I am not 100% sure, but at least some of the military budget was spend on infrastructure in other countries, as well as like rebuilding Iraq’s army.
But yes. I would be one to promote more science - and art. Though both of those have a lot of private industry support, so it isn’t like we are sliding back into the dark ages because of lack of government spending. Space X might end up out shining NASA one day.
Right again! One of the funnier incidents of that happened downstate from me - a developer bought a large farm, built McMansions all over it, sold them at a very hefty price… and then eventually the neighboring farmers manured their fields. The lawsuits started a-flyin’, so the farmers got together and told the new neighbors “Look, if you keep harassing us in court, we’ll get out of crop farming and raise pigs.”
Edit: just realised it’s not obvious from the above: the people buying the McMansions were loudmouthed right wing laissez-faire types employed by the local banking industry. Until their fancy houses were suddenly surrounded by manure!
It’s not disingenuous in the least. Lumping discretionary and mandatory spending together is like looking at your personal budget and saying “Hey, I don’t spend much on blackjack and hookers and blow at all, compared to rent and groceries.”
ETA: Plus it’s a favorite tactic of anyone trying to minimize bloated defense spending. In high school we went to see Cap Weinberger speak (while he was Defense Secretary) and in response to questions about Reagan’s massive DoD spending he kept downplaying it by putting it in terms of percentage of GNP. Now that’s disingenuous! Before I got a chance to call him on it Lesley Stahl hustled him off the stage over his protests so some lame Congressman could have equal time. We weren’t there to see a Congressman, we were there to see Weinberger! Anyway.
The lawsuits started a-flyin’, so the farmers got together and told the new neighbors “Look, if you keep harassing us in court, we’ll get out of crop farming and raise pigs.” 