3 ms·

Defense is existential and welfare is not. Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Defense must be handled at the national welfare

Defense is existential and welfare is not. Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Defense must be handled at the national welfare and welfare need not be. My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do. It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Primes are the prime contractors: boeing, northrop, lockheed, rtx. The guys who do a lot of stuff on cost-plus. The guys who systems-integrate most of the smaller manufacturers' stuff.

Braxton1980 1y ago
By welfare I was referring to all social programs, medicare, medicad, etc because you mentioned Trump and said "The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt." Which sounds like you were generalizing. Did you specifically mean welfare run by states? If so then wouldn't that debt be localized to a state and the left is already in control of certain states so that it wouldn't be a future event? Confusing.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Braxton1980 1y ago
>Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Every federal social program is backed by a law giving the federal government that power. The Stafford act and social security act for example. >Defense must be handled at the national welfare Why can't defense be per state? If the answer is it's not efficient or coordination then the same could be said for any social program >My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do Why? I understand your view I would like to understand why you have it. >It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Why? Wouldn't it be better to look at the least nessacary line items. Counter example; I spend $1000 a month on housing, $300 on video games, and $200 on Pokemon plush toys. If I was overspending would the first change be my housing?
- landl0rd 1y ago
  The law purports to give the feds that power. I believe the Constitution has been grossly twisted to federalize that which the feds have no authority to do. Social welfare is one of those things. Defense per-state would disrupt the concept of a nation and the feds' ability to operate internationally. This is the same as borders and foreign policy. If anything localities are better able to understand the needs of their neighbor than the feds. I have this view about small fed because I do not trust government. Any government. The damage a local government can do is necessarily less and the layers of government above it that can check that damage are more. Redistribution is not the basic purpose of a state. It was not a founding principle of our state. It is discretionary spending in the literal use of the word if not in that of the budget committee. In this case the feds are spending $500 on housing and $4,000 on pokemon toys.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    >I have this view about small fed because I do not trust government. Any government. But >The damage a local government can do is necessarily less and the layers of government above it that can check that damage are more
UncleMeat 1y ago
In the US, vastly more people die in ways that are amplified by poverty than die in combat. The idea that welfare programs are not "existential" to the people whose lives depend on them is strange. The US spends vastly more on defense than any other nation on the planet. Why not spend 2x what we already spend? 10x? Surely at some point "we have a larger military spending than the 10 countries with the next highest military spending combined" is enough to mitigate the "existential threat."

Braxton1980 1y ago

By welfare I was referring to all social programs, medicare, medicad, etc because you mentioned Trump and said "The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt." Which sounds like you were generalizing. Did you specifically mean welfare run by states? If so then wouldn't that debt be localized to a state and the left is already in control of certain states so that it wouldn't be a future event? Confusing.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Braxton1980 1y ago

>Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Every federal social program is backed by a law giving the federal government that power. The Stafford act and social security act for example. >Defense must be handled at the national welfare Why can't defense be per state? If the answer is it's not efficient or coordination then the same could be said for any social program >My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do Why? I understand your view I would like to understand why you have it. >It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Why? Wouldn't it be better to look at the least nessacary line items. Counter example; I spend $1000 a month on housing, $300 on video games, and $200 on Pokemon plush toys. If I was overspending would the first change be my housing?

landl0rd 1y ago
The law purports to give the feds that power. I believe the Constitution has been grossly twisted to federalize that which the feds have no authority to do. Social welfare is one of those things. Defense per-state would disrupt the concept of a nation and the feds' ability to operate internationally. This is the same as borders and foreign policy. If anything localities are better able to understand the needs of their neighbor than the feds. I have this view about small fed because I do not trust government. Any government. The damage a local government can do is necessarily less and the layers of government above it that can check that damage are more. Redistribution is not the basic purpose of a state. It was not a founding principle of our state. It is discretionary spending in the literal use of the word if not in that of the budget committee. In this case the feds are spending $500 on housing and $4,000 on pokemon toys.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  >I have this view about small fed because I do not trust government. Any government. But >The damage a local government can do is necessarily less and the layers of government above it that can check that damage are more

UncleMeat 1y ago

In the US, vastly more people die in ways that are amplified by poverty than die in combat. The idea that welfare programs are not "existential" to the people whose lives depend on them is strange. The US spends vastly more on defense than any other nation on the planet. Why not spend 2x what we already spend? 10x? Surely at some point "we have a larger military spending than the 10 countries with the next highest military spending combined" is enough to mitigate the "existential threat."