3 ms·

It is the same system. It is the system. It is the entire point of the system. Our government prints money as if it is nothing. The stupendous sums beings sent

It is the same system. It is the system. It is the entire point of the system. Our government prints money as if it is nothing. The stupendous sums beings sent overseas but if it gets to domestic expenditure they ("our representatives") get all contentious and start counting pennies. Another manifestation of the system. The system requires an underclass. It is that simple.

gumby 3y ago
> The stupendous sums beings sent overseas but if it gets to domestic expenditure they ("our representatives") get all contentious Most of the money "sent overseas" is actually spent locally (US "foreign aid" spent in US; Japanese "foreign aid" spent in Japan, etc). For example, Ukraine is getting shells pulled from inventory (like giving the older, almost expired cans from your pantry to the food kitchen). The "Ukraine" money the WH and Senate want to spend will be spent on replentishment and building up capacity because the US has lost its capacity to rapidly build up production, and is worried about needing to fight another war. A lot of food aid is actually sending surplus overseas to keep agricultural output high. Farm subsidies are a huge welfare plan to wealthy farmers (not poor ones) but the federal government doesn't want to risk a food shortage, so they support overproduction and send some of it overseas because there isn't enough local demand or much less foreign demand from rich trading partners.
- temporarely 3y ago
  So you are confirming that it is the system. Yes, MIC is getting the war funds and "spending it in US" means MIC gets the money and then they do with it whatever it is they do with their massive pile of monies. I hear they get parked 'overseas'.
- riehwvfbk 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - gumby 3y ago
    I was responding to the GP comment about it being "sums beings sent overseas". I agree with you it's mostly unproductive (TBF you actually want military spending to be "unproductive" -- just enough to keep people from attacking you, plus a bit more in case they actually do, but preferably never used). As well, I strongly agree with what I think you're saying that military spending has gone well beyond that point, and money would be better spent on more common threats that people face like lack of access to health care. But that's only one (huge) problem with the budget; it's not all that singular case, as in the case of agricultural that I mentioned. It's also a job stabilization program, though those are less effective than they were 75 years ago (you can't retool an IBM card punch factory to make machine guns). And using the military as a jobs stabilization program is inefficient.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      Yeah, a governments is just an insurance plan with an army. And the army is just a different kind of insurance!
  - 91bananas 3y ago
    Some of it is literally putting money in to people's pockets in the form of jobs.
    - riehwvfbk 3y ago
      But the same could have been done by investing into infrastructure (or hiring more teachers, etc). In fact, this has been done in the past. We still drive on a lot of highways built during the New Deal era (and some of which are now crumbling).

gumby 3y ago

> The stupendous sums beings sent overseas but if it gets to domestic expenditure they ("our representatives") get all contentious Most of the money "sent overseas" is actually spent locally (US "foreign aid" spent in US; Japanese "foreign aid" spent in Japan, etc). For example, Ukraine is getting shells pulled from inventory (like giving the older, almost expired cans from your pantry to the food kitchen). The "Ukraine" money the WH and Senate want to spend will be spent on replentishment and building up capacity because the US has lost its capacity to rapidly build up production, and is worried about needing to fight another war. A lot of food aid is actually sending surplus overseas to keep agricultural output high. Farm subsidies are a huge welfare plan to wealthy farmers (not poor ones) but the federal government doesn't want to risk a food shortage, so they support overproduction and send some of it overseas because there isn't enough local demand or much less foreign demand from rich trading partners.

temporarely 3y ago
So you are confirming that it is the system. Yes, MIC is getting the war funds and "spending it in US" means MIC gets the money and then they do with it whatever it is they do with their massive pile of monies. I hear they get parked 'overseas'.
riehwvfbk 3y ago
[flagged]
- gumby 3y ago
  I was responding to the GP comment about it being "sums beings sent overseas". I agree with you it's mostly unproductive (TBF you actually want military spending to be "unproductive" -- just enough to keep people from attacking you, plus a bit more in case they actually do, but preferably never used). As well, I strongly agree with what I think you're saying that military spending has gone well beyond that point, and money would be better spent on more common threats that people face like lack of access to health care. But that's only one (huge) problem with the budget; it's not all that singular case, as in the case of agricultural that I mentioned. It's also a job stabilization program, though those are less effective than they were 75 years ago (you can't retool an IBM card punch factory to make machine guns). And using the military as a jobs stabilization program is inefficient.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    Yeah, a governments is just an insurance plan with an army. And the army is just a different kind of insurance!
- 91bananas 3y ago
  Some of it is literally putting money in to people's pockets in the form of jobs.
  - riehwvfbk 3y ago
    But the same could have been done by investing into infrastructure (or hiring more teachers, etc). In fact, this has been done in the past. We still drive on a lot of highways built during the New Deal era (and some of which are now crumbling).