3 ms·

You're begging the question that the defence budget should be reduced. Yes, the U.S. spends far more than every other country, but the question is not whether

You're begging the question that the defence budget should be reduced. Yes, the U.S. spends far more than every other country, but the question is not whether it outspends others, but rather whether it spends enough on itself. From an historical perspective, current U.S. spending as a fraction of GDP is not great (this means that other nations are spending far less than they need to). You could similarly argue that by reducing Social Security & non-school-lunch welfare spending, the school-lunch programme could be increased. You're also begging the question of whether or not providing lunches to schoolchildren is a federal responsibility. Reading the list of enumerated powers of the United States[0] it really isn't, unless you squint really hard and figure that it's necessary & proper to provide school lunches in order to 'raise & support Armies,' since malnourished children won't grow up to be good soldiers. But if that's the case … then the school lunch programme is part of the defence budget! [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_Stat...

dragonwriter 9y ago
> From an historical perspective, current U.S. spending as a fraction of GDP is not great It might be lower than tat some points in the past, but that is great. Just like it's great that a smaller share of our population is engaged in agriculture than in the past: resources are free for other pursuits. > (this means that other nations are spending far less than they need to). Or, it means that civilization is advancing , and the needed level as a share of total output is declining. > You're also begging the question of whether or not providing lunches to schoolchildren is a federal responsibility. Reading the list of enumerated powers of the United States[0], unless you squint really hard and figure that it's necessary & proper to provide school lunches in order to 'raise & support Armies,' since malnourished children won't grow up to be good soldiers. Actually, there's a much better argument for federal involvement in funding and prescribing anything attached to public education including school lunches in the militia clause, if you insist on seeing it through a military lens rather than a commercial one.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> From an historical perspective, current U.S. spending as a fraction of GDP is not great It might be lower than tat some points in the past, but that is great. Just like it's great that a smaller share of our population is engaged in agriculture than in the past: resources are free for other pursuits. > (this means that other nations are spending far less than they need to). Or, it means that civilization is advancing , and the needed level as a share of total output is declining. > You're also begging the question of whether or not providing lunches to schoolchildren is a federal responsibility. Reading the list of enumerated powers of the United States[0], unless you squint really hard and figure that it's necessary & proper to provide school lunches in order to 'raise & support Armies,' since malnourished children won't grow up to be good soldiers. Actually, there's a much better argument for federal involvement in funding and prescribing anything attached to public education including school lunches in the militia clause, if you insist on seeing it through a military lens rather than a commercial one.