Executives and shareholders are americans too.
Comment on dear republicans, what's the point of alienating every single ally of the US?
Objection@lemmy.ml 2 days ago“Public funds” refers to money held by the government, tax revenue. The amount of public funds is limited and there are a lot of valid, competing priorities for how the government spends it’s money. Every dollar of public funds spent on bombs is a dollar that’s not available for things like schools and infrastructure.
Private workers receive only some of the funds spent on manufacturing bombs. A significant portion of it goes to executives and shareholders in the military-industrial complex, as well as finding their way to politicians in the form of bribes. Private funds cannot be allocated to public services unless the individual chooses to donate them, or they are taxed back into being public.
I really shouldn’t have to explain this, the difference between public and private is extremely basic.
Litebit@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Objection@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
This is such an inane point. Yes they are “Americans” but the goal of public policy shouldn’t be to just give money to whoever so long as they’re Americans. The same $100 means a lot more to a poor person than to a rich person, and they are also a lot more likely to spend the money, stimulating the economy and providing more tax revenue in a virtuous cycle.
Like the difference between public and private, this is extremely basic economics.
Litebit@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Same for every other industry with poor people and rich people working for them.
Objection@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Who cares?
zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
What I’m not sure about is what tou have an issue with. The money invested into arms replenishment is a boost to US jobs/the economy. Why the complaint that it’s left the treasury?
Not to mention, the investment has been miniscule given the situation, how much is “too much” for peace in Europe/World? There can be no prosp without security.
Objection@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Virtually every possible use of that money is “a boost to jobs/the economy.” If they spent more on education, teachers would have more money to spend which would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. If they spent the money building trains, it would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. If they spent the money paying people to dig ditches and then fill the ditches back in, it would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. This talking point is complete nonsense and either ignorant or disingenuous. The arms industry is not particularly good for creating jobs/economic stimulus compared to spending the money on other things like education, you’re trying to compare it to what, not spending it at all? That makes no sense.
That assumes that funding the conflict and building more bombs is necessary to bring about peace and security, which I personally disagree with, but my position on the matter is irrelevant, the original comment was just seeking to answer the question and describe what some people on the right believe. Regardless of whether it’s true or not that the military aid is necessary for peace, many people don’t agree with that assessment.
zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
I don’t care that “many people don’t agree with that statement”. Who? Republicucks? Right wing grifters on YouTube?
The consensus is that the defeat of Russia is paramount to the West. Especially among those whose opinions are most qualified to opine on the matter.
Objection@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Roughly 50% of all Americans. I’m not sure who determines “the consensus” if polls are devided and the side that disagrees just won an election.
zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Sorry, made edits while you were responding. Covers some issues you have with it.
Objection@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Well, I’m a leftist, so naturally I believe that using money on domestic spending to help people is preferable to spending money on bombs to kill people. That’s like, most of what it means to be a leftist. I would like to think that this is the natural, base assumption, and that the argument in favor of military spending is the thing that has to be proven.
Image
If you’d like, I could go on about the many, many domestic crises we’re facing due to insufficient public funding, everything from healthcare to education to even basic infrastructure like bridges. Seems like a bit of a tangent though.
Ultimately, whichever position is “correct” doesn’t really matter. If you don’t address domestic problems then you’re probably going to lose the election and then you don’t get any say in what happens at all, which is, you know, what happened.
It’s been like 80 years of unjustified conflicts that have consistently made the world a worse place before you can find any conflict where US bombs were actually used to improve anyone’s life, including a twenty year long quagmire that we just got out of before this. Despite making things worse for everyone, pretty much every conflict whether it was Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc were entered into with widespread popular support and they all had the exact same justification: that the other side was just like Hitler and they would keep expanding forever unless we got involved. It’s a wonder to me that there’s anyone who still believes in “benevolent interventionism.”