7 ms·

> Those are orthogonal to each other. Budget is the intersection. Our defense budget was increased to $700 billion. It was already significantly more than eve

> Those are orthogonal to each other. Budget is the intersection. Our defense budget was increased to $700 billion. It was already significantly more than every other country in the world, but the Trump administration decided to throw another $100 billion in for good measure. > Lack of money is not a problem the US has, we can borrow what we needed and trim fat later. We can also trim the fat right now, and reallocate spending from programs that murder foreigners to programs that help civilians. For whatever reason, that option doesn't often get brought up in the House. > Not enough of the public truly cares I don't think that's the case. The GOP and Trump's cabinet have been using their majority to stop any "socialist" legislature from being passed, while the literal majority of American votes were for a Democratic party presidential candidate. How much is enough? That's the real problem here. With first past the post voting and electoral college, some Americans' votes are favored over others, and most don't have a real opportunity to vote for the candidate they truly desire.

kbenson 6y ago
> Our defense budget was increased to $700 billion. That doesn't matter. Money is not the problem. Making helping people contingent on also lowering the defense budget doesn't magically make things easier because there's money for it, as money was never the problem. It just means you have two hard things to accomplish instead of one. > We can also trim the fat right now. My point was to say money is not the limiting factor. > The GOP and Trump's cabinet have been using their majority to stop any "socialist" legislature from being passed Let's not pretend the Democrats have been some bastion of good behavior. They've squandered any high ground they might have had through gamesmanship just as much as the Republicans, but to worse effect because they still try to present themselves as taking the high ground. > some Americans' votes are favored over others, and most don't have a real opportunity to vote for the candidate they truly desire. How is this different than it's ever been? The system was designed to be this way. States are supposed to be elevated and have power, only to be offset by the number of constituents they have. States are supposed to be far more important than just some county, they are individual polities with their own laws and are supposed to be used to experiment with different laws specifics of government, and traditionally they were. It's only with the ascendancy of the Federal government and Presidential powers over the last century or so that states have lost of lot of the power they used to hold. In a system where states are supposed to be able to implement their own systems and try new things, it makes sense to allow states themselves a bit more pull than the sum of their people, so they don't get steamrolled.

kbenson 6y ago

> Our defense budget was increased to $700 billion. That doesn't matter. Money is not the problem. Making helping people contingent on also lowering the defense budget doesn't magically make things easier because there's money for it, as money was never the problem. It just means you have two hard things to accomplish instead of one. > We can also trim the fat right now. My point was to say money is not the limiting factor. > The GOP and Trump's cabinet have been using their majority to stop any "socialist" legislature from being passed Let's not pretend the Democrats have been some bastion of good behavior. They've squandered any high ground they might have had through gamesmanship just as much as the Republicans, but to worse effect because they still try to present themselves as taking the high ground. > some Americans' votes are favored over others, and most don't have a real opportunity to vote for the candidate they truly desire. How is this different than it's ever been? The system was designed to be this way. States are supposed to be elevated and have power, only to be offset by the number of constituents they have. States are supposed to be far more important than just some county, they are individual polities with their own laws and are supposed to be used to experiment with different laws specifics of government, and traditionally they were. It's only with the ascendancy of the Federal government and Presidential powers over the last century or so that states have lost of lot of the power they used to hold. In a system where states are supposed to be able to implement their own systems and try new things, it makes sense to allow states themselves a bit more pull than the sum of their people, so they don't get steamrolled.