5 ms·

Imagine if this level of corporate welfare went towards social care, the environment or education. What a racket.

mc32 5y ago
I think they are like supercars. They cost a lot but that’s because two things: low volume and custom parts or components and special requirements.
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
Imagine how easy life would be if we didn’t pay over the odds for either.
dillondoyle 5y ago
Oh god let's please not add any for-profit subsidies to a broken pharma and healthcare system. It's a plague. I hope the drug price negotiation becomes law and actually saves as much as CBO score projects. I am less hopeful we'll ever be able to get a better healthcare system in the US I'm 100% for clean energy though. But probably not going to happen; Manchin said specifically he doesn't want to subsidize 'what the companies are already doing.' Yet he's good with a bunch of coal and coal employee subsidies... In a lot of circumstances I'd probably agree with his position but this is a crisis. It's like saying we shouldn't have invested in helping develop Covid vaccines because PHARMA is already doing it on their own. There is a greater survival and health risk to think of. If money can help we should spend it.
FPGAhacker 5y ago
In the US, defense spending is ~700 billion, whereas the level of social care spending is about ~3000 billion. Given the relative effectiveness of US healthcare and education, vs the US military, I’d sooner call US social spending a racket.
- xxpor 5y ago
  That includes Social Security, which is wildly successful.
  - Alupis 5y ago
    > That includes Social Security, which is wildly successful. Wildly successful at giving away other people's money, but not wildly successful at sustaining itself without congress intervention every few years, to the point where the fund would collapse and cease to exist without intervention (ie. capital injection, ie. printing money). I don't count that as "wildly successful" by any means.
    - peter422 5y ago
      Do you think it would be better if our senior citizens, past working age, were just living on the street in poverty?
      - Alupis 5y ago
        That's quite an unfair argument... it's not binary, either living on the streets or getting social security. Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in your financial life at all, especially retirement. IRA's should be available to anyone, and maybe even required. The difference is you are in charge of your retirement, not politicians and their political objectives at the moment you just so happen to retire. Why would you want to trust the government with your financial future? But, that's not to say some system run by the government can't work... it just says social security as was implemented doesn't work. We know it doesn't work because it requires printing money or raising the burden on today's youth unfairly. It doesn't work because the amount of money you put into the system doesn't equal what you will get out, and it doesn't grow with the markets or inflation. Few people can actually retire on social security because it pays so very little. Any way you slice it... it's really, really tough to objectively call social security "wildly successful", which was the original contested assertion.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        > you are in charge of your retirement, not politicians and their political objectives at the moment you just so happen to retire How has the latter happened for Social Security? It's pretty much delivered as advertised. Would you trust everyone's fate to Wall Street? > IRA's Not everyone is equipped to handle investment, especially elderly people who are easily confused. And it creates reinforcing problems: If the economy is bad and Wall Street has a bad year, people need the money more but have less of it. > it requires printing money or raising the burden on today's youth unfairly How has Social Security required that? Why should today's youth have less burden their their predecessors, who paid for a many long-term investments that other generations benefited from?
- 1cvmask 5y ago
  The true national security budget is around 1.25 trillion. For example nuclear weapons are not in the defense budget but in the Department of Energy budget. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/05/making-sense-of-the-1-25-trillion-national-security-state-budget/ https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/05/making-sense-of-the-1-...
grecy 5y ago
It does in other countries!

mc32 5y ago

I think they are like supercars. They cost a lot but that’s because two things: low volume and custom parts or components and special requirements.

whywhywhywhy 5y ago

Imagine how easy life would be if we didn’t pay over the odds for either.

dillondoyle 5y ago

Oh god let's please not add any for-profit subsidies to a broken pharma and healthcare system. It's a plague. I hope the drug price negotiation becomes law and actually saves as much as CBO score projects. I am less hopeful we'll ever be able to get a better healthcare system in the US I'm 100% for clean energy though. But probably not going to happen; Manchin said specifically he doesn't want to subsidize 'what the companies are already doing.' Yet he's good with a bunch of coal and coal employee subsidies... In a lot of circumstances I'd probably agree with his position but this is a crisis. It's like saying we shouldn't have invested in helping develop Covid vaccines because PHARMA is already doing it on their own. There is a greater survival and health risk to think of. If money can help we should spend it.

FPGAhacker 5y ago

In the US, defense spending is ~700 billion, whereas the level of social care spending is about ~3000 billion. Given the relative effectiveness of US healthcare and education, vs the US military, I’d sooner call US social spending a racket.

xxpor 5y ago
That includes Social Security, which is wildly successful.
- Alupis 5y ago
  > That includes Social Security, which is wildly successful. Wildly successful at giving away other people's money, but not wildly successful at sustaining itself without congress intervention every few years, to the point where the fund would collapse and cease to exist without intervention (ie. capital injection, ie. printing money). I don't count that as "wildly successful" by any means.
  - peter422 5y ago
    Do you think it would be better if our senior citizens, past working age, were just living on the street in poverty?
    - Alupis 5y ago
      That's quite an unfair argument... it's not binary, either living on the streets or getting social security. Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in your financial life at all, especially retirement. IRA's should be available to anyone, and maybe even required. The difference is you are in charge of your retirement, not politicians and their political objectives at the moment you just so happen to retire. Why would you want to trust the government with your financial future? But, that's not to say some system run by the government can't work... it just says social security as was implemented doesn't work. We know it doesn't work because it requires printing money or raising the burden on today's youth unfairly. It doesn't work because the amount of money you put into the system doesn't equal what you will get out, and it doesn't grow with the markets or inflation. Few people can actually retire on social security because it pays so very little. Any way you slice it... it's really, really tough to objectively call social security "wildly successful", which was the original contested assertion.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        > you are in charge of your retirement, not politicians and their political objectives at the moment you just so happen to retire How has the latter happened for Social Security? It's pretty much delivered as advertised. Would you trust everyone's fate to Wall Street? > IRA's Not everyone is equipped to handle investment, especially elderly people who are easily confused. And it creates reinforcing problems: If the economy is bad and Wall Street has a bad year, people need the money more but have less of it. > it requires printing money or raising the burden on today's youth unfairly How has Social Security required that? Why should today's youth have less burden their their predecessors, who paid for a many long-term investments that other generations benefited from?
1cvmask 5y ago
The true national security budget is around 1.25 trillion. For example nuclear weapons are not in the defense budget but in the Department of Energy budget. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/05/making-sense-of-the-1-25-trillion-national-security-state-budget/ https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/05/making-sense-of-the-1-...

grecy 5y ago

It does in other countries!