4 ms·

One-off pallets of cash stories aside, most of these "re-building programs" are contracts that go out to US corporations (e.g., Bechtel, Halliburton, etc.) -- a

One-off pallets of cash stories aside, most of these "re-building programs" are contracts that go out to US corporations (e.g., Bechtel, Halliburton, etc.) -- and are essentially corporate giveaways or corporate welfare. Of course we can afford free health care for our citizens in the US -- but our leadership favors corporate welfare over citizen welfare and that is unfortunate. Corporate welfare is also welfare, it just doesnt get evenly distributed across US citizenry. You need to drive around McLean Virginia and see the houses to see the types of places where the money ends up. On a side note -- many of the giant figures are not cash that we literally give from US coffers, but loans to these countries that come right back to companies in the US. The loans have a side "benefit" in that the loans allow us to dictate affairs overseas via loan covenants we can relax for this or that. If the loan cannot be repaid, only then it comes from US coffers (but the money never really went overseas, it just got re-distributed in the US.)

r00fus 7y ago
So basically, corruption. Related: Confessions of an economic hitman
GVIrish 7y ago
> Of course we can afford free health care for our citizens in the US -- but our leadership favors corporate welfare over citizen welfare and that is unfortunate. I think that's dramatically underselling the American voter's role in all of this. Many, many Americans balk at the prospect of raising taxes to pay for universal healthcare. But those same people shrug indifferently to the enormous costs to sustain the US military and the tremendous costs of campaigns such as Afghanistan. So yes there is a whole segment of American politicians who are working hard to carve out tax cuts for billionaires while having not a care for the millions without healthcare. But I find that a lot of people are actively opposed to the government 'taking over healthcare' or they're scared of the price tag for universal healthcare. They're part of the reason we don't have it.
- magduf 7y ago
  >I think that's dramatically underselling the American voter's role in all of this. Many, many Americans balk at the prospect of raising taxes to pay for universal healthcare. But those same people shrug indifferently to the enormous costs to sustain the US military and the tremendous costs of campaigns such as Afghanistan. I think that's dramatically understating these American voters' role in this and their reaction to anything that can be dubbed "socialism". They happily vote for candidates who push for enormous "corporate welfare" to defense contractors, and scream bloody murder if anyone suggests using any public money at all to pay for someone else's healthcare. American voters are getting exactly what they're voting for. >They're part of the reason we don't have it. They are the reason we don't have it. As I frequently like to remind people, every nation gets the government it deserves.
  - danans 7y ago
    You and the GP can both be right because, arguably, the voters have been given the "choice" of 2 platforms from the 2 dominant parties that share a common pro war-industrial-complex agenda.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    I'm not sure that's really case. I find that few people think much more deeply about policy issues than the headlines and zingers from pundits like Shawn Hannity or Rachel Maddow. We have a serious information problem, or lack thereof. If people were truly informed on some of the issues, I can't imagine soany issues would be so divisive. I think setting up some kind of reporting requirents to divorce opinion and pundits from actual journalistic news would be a start. A perfect example is the turmoil inside the fox news network right now. If you watch the actual newscasters/journalists you will believe the obvious truth that Trump was ordering funds withheld to get negative press for the Democrats and Bidens from Ukraine. (Whether that rises to impeachment level is up for debate and tangential to my point). If you watch only the fox news pundits (which are most of the primetime lineup) you will believe that it's all totally made up and even that the impeachment process itself is somehow unconstitutional and some sort of coop. Which is just completely divorced from reality. This same thing plays out everyday on countless issues on both sides and is being controlled by a small handful of powerful people that are manipulating viewers for their own gain.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- johnwallz 7y ago
  I think for a lot of conservatives, more than the cost, is the philosophical question of whether the Fed Govt should be involved in social welfare programs like healthcare. The original role of the Fed Govt was foreign policy and the economy in a republic of strong states. The country is pretty well split between conservatives and progressives and a one size solution for all 50 states is always going to piss off 50% of the country. Why not look to your state for Healthcare? When a Democrat was in the Whitehouse, Texas talked about secession and now that a Republican is in the whitehouse California was talking the same thing. The thing is why does CA evern care about the whitehouse. It's the 5th largest economy in the world. If it wants healthcare for it's people then go right ahead and leave the rest of us out of it. Massachusetts offered healthcare to it's citizens under Romney before Obamacare and people who were opposed to that in MA were free to cross the border into NH, a libertarian state.
  - GVIrish 7y ago
    I think for some conservatives it's about the philosophical question of the Fed Gov't should actually be doing. But IIRC most are supportive of Medicare/Medicaid so they're not totally against government run healthcare. I find that Libertarian leaning people definitely look at the universal healthcare as something that shouldn't be a public good. Each state could make its own laws and to that point I think some will make some movement on that front if universal healthcare efforts falter.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      Ha! States have been eroding local ability to make local efforts (our state minimum wage forbids counties/municipalities from choosing any other); feds have been eroding States rights to choose. All this under a party that pretends to support local small government. Of course they panic when that local small government tries something that they don't like, so they squash it.
  - ykevinator 7y ago
    Except for in Afghanistan, then social welfare is great.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  Trump is the second US president in a roll that won promissing he would reduce the military actions, with an opposition saying they would do the opposite. I don't know much important it was, I also don't don't if he or Obama fulfiled the promise to any degree. But it was there.
blaser-waffle 7y ago
> One-off pallets of cash stories aside, most of these "re-building programs" are contracts that go out to US corporations (e.g., Bechtel, Halliburton, etc.) -- and are essentially corporate giveaways or corporate welfare. Not just McLean. Google "wealthiest counties in the US". It's no surprise they're in VA and MD, all suburbs of Washington DC.

r00fus 7y ago

So basically, corruption. Related: Confessions of an economic hitman

GVIrish 7y ago

> Of course we can afford free health care for our citizens in the US -- but our leadership favors corporate welfare over citizen welfare and that is unfortunate. I think that's dramatically underselling the American voter's role in all of this. Many, many Americans balk at the prospect of raising taxes to pay for universal healthcare. But those same people shrug indifferently to the enormous costs to sustain the US military and the tremendous costs of campaigns such as Afghanistan. So yes there is a whole segment of American politicians who are working hard to carve out tax cuts for billionaires while having not a care for the millions without healthcare. But I find that a lot of people are actively opposed to the government 'taking over healthcare' or they're scared of the price tag for universal healthcare. They're part of the reason we don't have it.

magduf 7y ago
>I think that's dramatically underselling the American voter's role in all of this. Many, many Americans balk at the prospect of raising taxes to pay for universal healthcare. But those same people shrug indifferently to the enormous costs to sustain the US military and the tremendous costs of campaigns such as Afghanistan. I think that's dramatically understating these American voters' role in this and their reaction to anything that can be dubbed "socialism". They happily vote for candidates who push for enormous "corporate welfare" to defense contractors, and scream bloody murder if anyone suggests using any public money at all to pay for someone else's healthcare. American voters are getting exactly what they're voting for. >They're part of the reason we don't have it. They are the reason we don't have it. As I frequently like to remind people, every nation gets the government it deserves.
- danans 7y ago
  You and the GP can both be right because, arguably, the voters have been given the "choice" of 2 platforms from the 2 dominant parties that share a common pro war-industrial-complex agenda.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  I'm not sure that's really case. I find that few people think much more deeply about policy issues than the headlines and zingers from pundits like Shawn Hannity or Rachel Maddow. We have a serious information problem, or lack thereof. If people were truly informed on some of the issues, I can't imagine soany issues would be so divisive. I think setting up some kind of reporting requirents to divorce opinion and pundits from actual journalistic news would be a start. A perfect example is the turmoil inside the fox news network right now. If you watch the actual newscasters/journalists you will believe the obvious truth that Trump was ordering funds withheld to get negative press for the Democrats and Bidens from Ukraine. (Whether that rises to impeachment level is up for debate and tangential to my point). If you watch only the fox news pundits (which are most of the primetime lineup) you will believe that it's all totally made up and even that the impeachment process itself is somehow unconstitutional and some sort of coop. Which is just completely divorced from reality. This same thing plays out everyday on countless issues on both sides and is being controlled by a small handful of powerful people that are manipulating viewers for their own gain.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
johnwallz 7y ago
I think for a lot of conservatives, more than the cost, is the philosophical question of whether the Fed Govt should be involved in social welfare programs like healthcare. The original role of the Fed Govt was foreign policy and the economy in a republic of strong states. The country is pretty well split between conservatives and progressives and a one size solution for all 50 states is always going to piss off 50% of the country. Why not look to your state for Healthcare? When a Democrat was in the Whitehouse, Texas talked about secession and now that a Republican is in the whitehouse California was talking the same thing. The thing is why does CA evern care about the whitehouse. It's the 5th largest economy in the world. If it wants healthcare for it's people then go right ahead and leave the rest of us out of it. Massachusetts offered healthcare to it's citizens under Romney before Obamacare and people who were opposed to that in MA were free to cross the border into NH, a libertarian state.
- GVIrish 7y ago
  I think for some conservatives it's about the philosophical question of the Fed Gov't should actually be doing. But IIRC most are supportive of Medicare/Medicaid so they're not totally against government run healthcare. I find that Libertarian leaning people definitely look at the universal healthcare as something that shouldn't be a public good. Each state could make its own laws and to that point I think some will make some movement on that front if universal healthcare efforts falter.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Ha! States have been eroding local ability to make local efforts (our state minimum wage forbids counties/municipalities from choosing any other); feds have been eroding States rights to choose. All this under a party that pretends to support local small government. Of course they panic when that local small government tries something that they don't like, so they squash it.
- ykevinator 7y ago
  Except for in Afghanistan, then social welfare is great.
marcosdumay 7y ago
Trump is the second US president in a roll that won promissing he would reduce the military actions, with an opposition saying they would do the opposite. I don't know much important it was, I also don't don't if he or Obama fulfiled the promise to any degree. But it was there.

blaser-waffle 7y ago

> One-off pallets of cash stories aside, most of these "re-building programs" are contracts that go out to US corporations (e.g., Bechtel, Halliburton, etc.) -- and are essentially corporate giveaways or corporate welfare. Not just McLean. Google "wealthiest counties in the US". It's no surprise they're in VA and MD, all suburbs of Washington DC.