4 ms·

“And the answer [to] why we aren’t going faster is simply money. We can push the accelerator down more today because the digital technology allows it.” Gong to

“And the answer [to] why we aren’t going faster is simply money. We can push the accelerator down more today because the digital technology allows it.” Gong to burn some internet points here but this should not be what we are spending money on right now as a nation. We have >250k (200k official) people dead (excess deaths) from COVID and many more overdosing on opioids or dying from preventable diseases. Handouts to the military-industrial-congressional complex are exactly what we do not need right now. We need to get Medicare for all and Universal Basic Income passed or otherwise more people will realize that this country does not care about them and only cares about giving the military new toys.

AniseAbyss 6y ago
As I understand it in the US the military is social welfare. Thousands of underprivileged Americans escape poverty through joining and get an education.
- saiya-jin 6y ago
  ... and become traumatized from killing some guys with AKs defending their home country from foreign invasion, seeing civilian death and suffering on massive scale that their efforts and presence brings. Or just end up being killed/crippled. One hell of a welfare system that is.
  - sawjet 6y ago
    There are plenty of opportunities provided by the armed forces that do not include any of those things.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
    There's about a 10 to 1 ratio between non combat and combat roles, and of combat roles less than 1 in 10 of them will actually see combat. The overwhelming majority of the military are people who just want to get a leg up on a career that can support themselves and a family. That said, I know several people personally that joined up due to lack of options, saw combat, and are now profoundly broken, so I don't mean to belittle that point. Just don't oversimplify things to thinking it's the only thing.
    - thomastjeffery 6y ago
      > There's about a 10 to 1 ratio between non combat and combat roles That means a 10% risk of being put in a combatant role, which - as you pointed out - is devastating to anyone who joined for the welfare aspect. Anyone can call 90% an "overwhelming majority", but that really diminishes the issue at hand.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
        You continue to misunderstand. The details vary by service, but generally when enlisting you get a choice between open enlistment or enlistment in a particular specialty or skill set. Again, depending on the service, in many cases you can enlist for a guaranteed job role. Even in the case that you do open enlistment, when it comes down to it, no one in the US military is going to force you to go into combat with a gun to your back commissar style, as that's obviously incredibly likely to backfire, and in the worst case, backfire in a way that gets lots of other people killed to. My friends that saw combat knew what their options were within the military and what they were signing up for. They may have had an idealized picture of what combat would be like, or the odds of a conflict happening, but they weren't forced into a combat role against their will. I'm all for criticism of the military system of the US, but that needs to be grounded in reality.
        abosley 6y ago
        I'll add that while PTSD is a very serious problem, it is not a guaranteed outcome of being involved in combat operations - even over extended time periods.
        rayhendricks 6y ago
        We have more people in the military dying from suicide than combat https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/01/us-military-suicide-epidemic-veteran https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/01/us-military-su... it’s a real problem.
  - flyinglizard 6y ago
    Most of these Americans - vast majority I’d guess - aren’t even in a combat role. On the balance of the last 70 years, if you live in a developed country you need to thank the US military for allowing you this unprecedented stability and peace for so long (I’m not an American so I’m one of those grateful).
    - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
      Stability and peace? Definitely not in the Middle East. Leaving those dictators there in place would have provided more stability than the current state of violent chaos and hundreds of thousands of displaced refugees.
      - flyinglizard 6y ago
        Most of the dictatorships are solid following turmoils of Arab spring. Iraq was the only major change, a rare mistake of the American foreign policy.
        ChuckNorris89 6y ago
        >Iraq was[...]a rare mistake of the American foreign policy Look, I like the US, a lot, but let's not lie to ourselves here.
    - f154hfds 6y ago
      I'm impressed with the downvotes on this. Anyone care to back up your tacit disagreement with pax-americana [1]? Is it because you don't think it is true? Is it because you don't like the geopolitical landscape today? Just curious. FWIW I don't think the US forcing democracy on countries was universally good for those countries. In some cases it was, some cases it was wishful thinking and in the worst cases it was pure self interest. But to deny the world peace that resulted from US military dominance is extremely naive, and also blatantly disregards a trend we've seen throughout the course of world history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
    - 6y ago
- KineticLensman 6y ago
  > the US the military is social welfare The military as 'social welfare' is true in other countries. Example: want to become a civilian vehicle mechanic with a driving license but you failed formal education and can't afford a car? Join the British Army and get into a role that involves driving and maintaining a vehicle (many military trades involve vehicle use).
kbenson 6y ago
Those are orthogonal to each other. Lack of money is not a problem the US has, we can borrow what we needed and trim fat later. Lack of political will is the problem. If the things you note were truly considered as problematic as you (rightly, in my opinion) view them by politicians and the public, then petty grievances would be put aside and progress would be made. Not enough of the public truly cares, and that in turn lets politicians ignore them or use them as pieces on a chessboard to be moved about and sacrificed as needed.
- Retric 6y ago
  Waiting only makes the situation worse. Medicare for all could be anything from a significant net savings to an insane increase depending on how it’s implemented. Kicking the can down the road just means larger debt payments in the future. Consider, getting a few stitches is usually more expensive than a dental filling even though it’s simpler, faster, etc. The difference is simply the amount of waste involved. Trimming the fat is difficult because that’s people’s income you’re cutting and they will fight you every step of the way. PS: Politics is not about petty grievances, but elections can be. Shaping the narrative is how you get people to vote against their own best interest.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > Kicking the can down the road just means larger debt payments in the future. > Consider, getting a few stitches is usually more expensive than a dental filling even though it’s simpler, faster, etc. And not getting those stitches can lead to scarring, or infection. There are things worse than debt. That said, I'm not saying we should just borrow the money to do what we want without considering if we should find a way to pay for it, I'm just saying for things that are really important, money is not an obstacle. The whole point of debt is to allow spending beyond your budget when it's deemed beneficial or necessary to do so. > PS: Politics is not about petty grievances Yes, petty grievances are a poor expression for what I was thinking, which is pet issues and turning everything into a chance to bolster your talking point to score political points.
    - 6y ago
redis_mlc 6y ago
Your post is so incredibly naive. If we cared about a corona vaccine, it should have been started in 2003 after corona-1. It would have cost almost nothing to do it then, but no funding was provided. The top 10 leaders of the CDC should get the firing squad for that alone. We don't have 200,000 deaths from corona, we have that many attributed to corona, most with co-morbidities. Not the same thing. And covid-19 has deep military implications. China has been in an undeclared war with the US for 40 years, resulting in the world's largest navy. Around 50% of experts consider corona somewhat likely to be lab-released (not wholly man-made, but crossed in a Wuhan lab.) It makes sense to me that we'd always be working on the next generation fighter, and also hypersonic missiles, which we're behind. (One reason we're behind is that the US was the only real target until recently.) Regarding universal healthcare, yeah, the US can't and won't do that without a revolution of some kind at this point. The initial Obamacare proposal was single-payer, and that was killed almost instantly.

AniseAbyss 6y ago

As I understand it in the US the military is social welfare. Thousands of underprivileged Americans escape poverty through joining and get an education.

saiya-jin 6y ago
... and become traumatized from killing some guys with AKs defending their home country from foreign invasion, seeing civilian death and suffering on massive scale that their efforts and presence brings. Or just end up being killed/crippled. One hell of a welfare system that is.
- sawjet 6y ago
  There are plenty of opportunities provided by the armed forces that do not include any of those things.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  There's about a 10 to 1 ratio between non combat and combat roles, and of combat roles less than 1 in 10 of them will actually see combat. The overwhelming majority of the military are people who just want to get a leg up on a career that can support themselves and a family. That said, I know several people personally that joined up due to lack of options, saw combat, and are now profoundly broken, so I don't mean to belittle that point. Just don't oversimplify things to thinking it's the only thing.
  - thomastjeffery 6y ago
    > There's about a 10 to 1 ratio between non combat and combat roles That means a 10% risk of being put in a combatant role, which - as you pointed out - is devastating to anyone who joined for the welfare aspect. Anyone can call 90% an "overwhelming majority", but that really diminishes the issue at hand.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
      You continue to misunderstand. The details vary by service, but generally when enlisting you get a choice between open enlistment or enlistment in a particular specialty or skill set. Again, depending on the service, in many cases you can enlist for a guaranteed job role. Even in the case that you do open enlistment, when it comes down to it, no one in the US military is going to force you to go into combat with a gun to your back commissar style, as that's obviously incredibly likely to backfire, and in the worst case, backfire in a way that gets lots of other people killed to. My friends that saw combat knew what their options were within the military and what they were signing up for. They may have had an idealized picture of what combat would be like, or the odds of a conflict happening, but they weren't forced into a combat role against their will. I'm all for criticism of the military system of the US, but that needs to be grounded in reality.
      - abosley 6y ago
        I'll add that while PTSD is a very serious problem, it is not a guaranteed outcome of being involved in combat operations - even over extended time periods.
        rayhendricks 6y ago
        We have more people in the military dying from suicide than combat https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/01/us-military-suicide-epidemic-veteran https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/01/us-military-su... it’s a real problem.
- flyinglizard 6y ago
  Most of these Americans - vast majority I’d guess - aren’t even in a combat role. On the balance of the last 70 years, if you live in a developed country you need to thank the US military for allowing you this unprecedented stability and peace for so long (I’m not an American so I’m one of those grateful).
  - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
    Stability and peace? Definitely not in the Middle East. Leaving those dictators there in place would have provided more stability than the current state of violent chaos and hundreds of thousands of displaced refugees.
    - flyinglizard 6y ago
      Most of the dictatorships are solid following turmoils of Arab spring. Iraq was the only major change, a rare mistake of the American foreign policy.
      - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
        >Iraq was[...]a rare mistake of the American foreign policy Look, I like the US, a lot, but let's not lie to ourselves here.
  - f154hfds 6y ago
    I'm impressed with the downvotes on this. Anyone care to back up your tacit disagreement with pax-americana [1]? Is it because you don't think it is true? Is it because you don't like the geopolitical landscape today? Just curious. FWIW I don't think the US forcing democracy on countries was universally good for those countries. In some cases it was, some cases it was wishful thinking and in the worst cases it was pure self interest. But to deny the world peace that resulted from US military dominance is extremely naive, and also blatantly disregards a trend we've seen throughout the course of world history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
  - 6y ago
KineticLensman 6y ago
> the US the military is social welfare The military as 'social welfare' is true in other countries. Example: want to become a civilian vehicle mechanic with a driving license but you failed formal education and can't afford a car? Join the British Army and get into a role that involves driving and maintaining a vehicle (many military trades involve vehicle use).

kbenson 6y ago

Those are orthogonal to each other. Lack of money is not a problem the US has, we can borrow what we needed and trim fat later. Lack of political will is the problem. If the things you note were truly considered as problematic as you (rightly, in my opinion) view them by politicians and the public, then petty grievances would be put aside and progress would be made. Not enough of the public truly cares, and that in turn lets politicians ignore them or use them as pieces on a chessboard to be moved about and sacrificed as needed.

Retric 6y ago
Waiting only makes the situation worse. Medicare for all could be anything from a significant net savings to an insane increase depending on how it’s implemented. Kicking the can down the road just means larger debt payments in the future. Consider, getting a few stitches is usually more expensive than a dental filling even though it’s simpler, faster, etc. The difference is simply the amount of waste involved. Trimming the fat is difficult because that’s people’s income you’re cutting and they will fight you every step of the way. PS: Politics is not about petty grievances, but elections can be. Shaping the narrative is how you get people to vote against their own best interest.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > Kicking the can down the road just means larger debt payments in the future. > Consider, getting a few stitches is usually more expensive than a dental filling even though it’s simpler, faster, etc. And not getting those stitches can lead to scarring, or infection. There are things worse than debt. That said, I'm not saying we should just borrow the money to do what we want without considering if we should find a way to pay for it, I'm just saying for things that are really important, money is not an obstacle. The whole point of debt is to allow spending beyond your budget when it's deemed beneficial or necessary to do so. > PS: Politics is not about petty grievances Yes, petty grievances are a poor expression for what I was thinking, which is pet issues and turning everything into a chance to bolster your talking point to score political points.
  - 6y ago

redis_mlc 6y ago

Your post is so incredibly naive. If we cared about a corona vaccine, it should have been started in 2003 after corona-1. It would have cost almost nothing to do it then, but no funding was provided. The top 10 leaders of the CDC should get the firing squad for that alone. We don't have 200,000 deaths from corona, we have that many attributed to corona, most with co-morbidities. Not the same thing. And covid-19 has deep military implications. China has been in an undeclared war with the US for 40 years, resulting in the world's largest navy. Around 50% of experts consider corona somewhat likely to be lab-released (not wholly man-made, but crossed in a Wuhan lab.) It makes sense to me that we'd always be working on the next generation fighter, and also hypersonic missiles, which we're behind. (One reason we're behind is that the US was the only real target until recently.) Regarding universal healthcare, yeah, the US can't and won't do that without a revolution of some kind at this point. The initial Obamacare proposal was single-payer, and that was killed almost instantly.