this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
723 points (92.2% liked)

Political Memes

9200 readers
2386 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 36 points 2 years ago (4 children)

How about we tax billionaires and also not give giant gifts to defense companies every year?

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 21 points 2 years ago (8 children)

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.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 26 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yeah but it also gave us the Saddam Hussein outline meme.

Trillions well spent.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

NCD user spotted

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

that's not how technology works, stuff will get outdated if we use it or not

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] bilboswaggings@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Understandable

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Good news, they could reduce it by 400 billion a year and still spend more than the the other 3 biggest spenders combined

[–] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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?

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social -5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

if it was but those other things are happening. I think your saying its not enough but when is it enough?

[–] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

Oh I get you. I often wonder at what point enough will be enough as we roll downhill.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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?

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

, 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.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social -2 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

not give giant gifts to defense companies

There is N-word that will burn some asses on lemmy.world: nationalize.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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?

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm really amazed that people on Lemmy are actually cheering for massive, bloated military budgets.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

defense companies

You mean mercenaries and arms dealers. The only thing they're defending is their profits.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I can't believe how many people on Lemmy of all places are defending massive defense budgets.

[–] ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz -2 points 2 years ago

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

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.