4 ms·
> $4 billion per launch lol The US spends almost that much on net debt interest each day (~$3 billion/day[0]). Not that adding to the debt helps at all, but th
by jameslk 6mo ago
> $4 billion per launch lol
The US spends almost that much on net debt interest each day (~$3 billion/day[0]). Not that adding to the debt helps at all, but the old proverb about being penny wise and pound foolish seems relevant
0. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61951 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61951
- ToucanLoucan 6mo agoAlso we spend that much every 4 days we're in Iran, and that's only ONE of our neo-colonialist irons in the fire, as it were. If you want to make the US financially solvent, cut defense. Defense LAPS every other budget category. Whether you want to take the conservative position on why that is (our allies freeload on our defense spending) or the Progressive one (the U.S. is an empire in decline and every major empire through history has spent vast sums to maintain itself why would the U.S. be different) doesn't change the fact that our military budgets exceed over a dozen other nations' combined, the vast majority of whom are allies.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- Jblx2 6mo ago>Defense LAPS every other budget category. I suppose it matters how you lump things, but for federal spending: - $678 B, Social Security - $478 B, Medicare - $425 B, Net Interest - $419 B, Health - $412 B, National Defense - $320 B, Income Security - $184 B, Veterans Benefits and Services - $75 B, Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services - $53 B, Transportation - $43 B, Administration of Justice - $15 B, Other https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
- fwip 6mo agoI think the common miscommunication here is that defense is the largest part of the US discretionary budget (about half overall), but that doesn't include those non-negotiable things like Social Security, Medicare, etc .
- actionfromafar 6mo agoTrump doesn't want to do Medicare etc anymore. The states can do that now.
- anon84873628 6mo ago"Please note: Values displayed are outlays, which is money that is actually paid out by the government. Other sources, such as USAspending, may display spending as obligations, which is money that is promised to be paid, but may not yet be delivered." The Biden administration's FY2025 defense budget request was $850 billion for the DoD, with the total national security budget reaching over $895 billion. The FY2026 proposal submitted by the Trump admin is 1.5 trillion for DoD.
- JKCalhoun 6mo agoNot all of those are discretionary spending? Maybe not equivalent to include, for example, Social Security.
- shimman 6mo agoIt is relevant if you want to attack one of the greatest achievements of the new deal and hate working Americans.
- MichaelDickens 6mo agoPeople can have motivations for wanting to cut back Social Security other than "they hate working Americans". I would prefer commenters make more of an effort to understand their opponents' perspective rather than painting them in the worst light possible.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6mo agoNote there would be no veterans benefits and services without a military, so effectively the total for defense is 412 PLUS 184 = $596B, more than anything except SS. Also note that most people consider social security to be an entirely different kind of government spending than anything else in that list.
- pembrook 6mo agoNo, if the US had no military the majority of veterans benefits and services money would still need to be spent (its mostly healthcare) it would just be bucketed under SS and Medicare/Medicaid then. Also, without a military the US would not be even 1/3rd as wealthy as it is today, given its military created the global order that secured the last 80 years of the global economic system, shipping lanes and USD dominance. You can argue over specific wars/missions being dumb, but to pretend the overall ROI on that dominance enabling 80 years of relatively peaceful global trade hasn’t been positive is to be intellectually dishonest. The world is currently teetering on a global economic crisis over just ONE shipping lane not being fully open for a few weeks. Read more history and you’ll see this used to be the norm.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6mo agoI avoided commenting on the ROI associated with defense spending, deliberately. Veterans get SS too, so no, costs associated with veterans wouldn't shift to SS. It is fair to suggest that the health care costs of uninjured, untraumatized veterans would just show up under Medicaid/Medicare. I don't know what percentage of veterans health care costs (not health care visits) fit in that category, versus "stuff that wouldn't be an issue if they hadn't been in the military".
- typeofhuman 6mo ago> LAPS every other budget category. Except for social security, health, medicare, debt interest
- icegreentea2 6mo agoThe absolute cost isn't the problem, it's the value that we're getting from it. SLS and Artemis are both incredibly expensive and ramshackle programs, and regardless of how bad the rest of the USG might be in terms of their cost, or value, if you are a true space fan and a true American space fan, you should want this little corner of humanity to hold itself to a higher standard. Acceptance of over costing and under delivering is exactly why the US is stuck with SpaceX as its prime space launch provider. It's only through the miracle of the vanity of billionaires that there's even a realistic second choice (Blue Origin) that might develop. It's also this type of attitude that let's us be in a situation where we honestly don't know how well the heat shield will work on reentry (SLS launches are so expensive, and so slow to build and prep to launch, that we cannot fit in a uncrewed mission between 1 and 2 to test or validate fixes or models). If Artemis as a program succeeds, it will be despite the incredible graft, pork, and ass covering, not because of it. I want Artemis to succeed because the achievement will be beautiful and amazing, and I want everyone to be safe and sound. I want Artemis to fail, to force a reckoning. I still believe that America has great things to offer to the world, but it's not going to be able to do that by muddling it's way through and cobbling together random pork filled programs into a vaguely inspiring shape.
- trothamel 6mo agoThis is about to change. New NASA administrator Isaacman has redone the Artemis program. The changes were announced at the Ignition event a few weeks ago: https://www.nasa.gov/ignition/ https://www.nasa.gov/ignition/ If you read one thing, read the sides on building the moon base: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2-building-the-moon-base.pdf?emrc=69d5956c1ab7e https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2-building-t... The goals it to fly often - adding a SLS launch to 2027 and a second launch to 2028. This drops the cost-per-launch, which is mostly fixed. It redoes SLS to make it less expensive and more capable. It moves the lunar space station down to the surface of the moon. And it's budgeted at $10B/3 years, which fits into NASA's budget. Isaacman took the Artemis program and fixed it. The reckoning came, and it's looking good.
- icegreentea2 6mo ago
- monkpit 6mo ago> The US spends almost that much on net debt interest each day Spends, or accrues?
- bruckie 6mo agoSame thing (for now, at least). The U.S. has only defaulted a handful of times, none that I'm aware of since 1971.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- dogemaster2026 6mo ago[flagged]
- pavon 6mo agoWe spend more on debt interest than we spend on the military or anything really other than social security. That isn't a useful comparison anymore.