this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
513 points (98.7% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2003 readers
1336 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"I think it's time to tell the military-industrial complex they cannot get everything they want," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It's time to pay attention to the needs of working families."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

Is ripping more or less severe than slamming someone?

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 12 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

“I think it’s time to tell the military-industrial complex they cannot get everything they want"

is he talking about active servicepeople because we've been there since forever

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

MIC is the private companies that supply/support the military and profit from it. Everything from fuel to uniforms to electrical wiring in the bases.

[–] ysjet@lemmy.world 13 points 8 hours ago

Of course not, active servicepeople are just another currency to the military-industrial complex.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 17 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Defund the police and military.

[–] stoicmaverick@lemmy.world -1 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I think "Defund" is a bit drastic given the current state of the world, but it is possible that we don't need to maintain 11 aircraft carriers, in the same way that every small town Pennsylvania Police department doesn't need their very own armored personnel carrier. Moderation in all things.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 44 minutes ago* (last edited 44 minutes ago)

"Don't defund them, just reduce the amount of funds they can spend aircradt carriers and remove the funds for armored vehicles."

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The problem is we maintain half of them forward deployed in roughly 3 areas at any one time.

But yeah that's why our military is so expensive. If it wasn't constantly forward deployed it would be much cheaper.

[–] joyjoy@lemm.ee 1 points 4 hours ago

We really should be working with our allies to get their own military in the area. Mainly in Europe. If I'm being realistic, we probably will never leave Asia.

[–] ghen@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Defund is the only slogan that has had actual sticking power though. To have nuance on this topic and have it actually matter, you would have to create a new slogan on the same level. Otherwise you're just armchair politicking from the internet same as everyone else

Now, with that out of the way, defund is still a good slogan. The primary reason is if we defund the police then we can create something that is not called police that isn't beholden to all of the laws and regulations and the corrupt unions that perpetuate the current systemic problems

Defund as a slogan is about cutting past the red tape of reform and starting from scratch to build something systemically better

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Who cares if it has sticking power if it’s produced no results? All that talk of reforming the police has completely evaporated, and that was before Trump was elected.

“Defund” was a terrible word to use and people need to stop using it. Frankly I thought it was already retired.

[–] ghen@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Protests don't work so we should stop protesting? That is honestly the most brain dead thing I've heard yet on the subject!

If you want to retire it, make something better like I already said. We can't retire it until there's something to replace it.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

When did I ever say protests don’t work? What are you talking about? I am saying this specific term did not prove to be good. In fact, it was VERY useful for the right wing media machine to easily twist words and distract from the end goal.

There are other tactics and verbiage that should be used.

[–] ghen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 minutes ago

Then do it. Make it a bigger deal. But don't just sit there and decry what is actually working as a rallying slogan when you have nothing to contribute. When your slogan is a better slogan with a better message behind it, then I will switch my own tune to your ideas.

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 22 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (4 children)

Billions for Ukraine? No debate, full send. Billions for Israel? No debate, full send. Billions for healthcare? Whoa whoa whoa, gotta balance that budget!

Edit: if you prefer, forget I said healthcare and substitute in anything else that would help the working class.

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 9 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

THE ISSUE IS NOT GIVING MORE MONEY TO HEALTHCARE.

Healthcare is our largest expense. The issue is the money going there, which can easily fund universal healthcare, doesn't go towards helping people, it goes towards a select number of people.

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 5 points 8 hours ago

If my taxes went up $1000 a month I would still be saving money with universal healthcare

[–] imsufferableninja@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

the US already allocates $1.5 trillion for direct healthcare spending

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 hours 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.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 8 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

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 2 points 10 hours 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.

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 10 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

see the dod brings in money because of pineapples and crack

[–] JiveTurkey@lemmy.world 72 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

did they fuck up and send you a rhodium one by mistake or was it just billed that way

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

It's just par for the course. There's a reason low level commands prefer to buy things off the shelf if they can.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DankOfAmerica@reddthat.com 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Meh, some of it sure. But actually a lot of what we'd need is much easier to mass produce and research than you think it is. Like your average artillery, armor, and infantry unit basics.

Also, it doesn't need to be a two front war. We have an entire ocean protecting us on both sides.

[–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›