Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Republicans seem obsessed with getting in as many wars as possible. What's the point? To protect our country yes, not to protect someone's oil or resources. We are trying to be too many things to too many people already. We could give everyone free health insurance with the money we spend on foreign aid alone. We really need to pay people to be our friends? Really?
The U.S. neo-conservative leadership, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values are not actually in favor of a free market. They want socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. The privatization of profit and the socialization of losses and lost bets. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. Not saying this is right or wrong, just laying out the irrefutable facts.
Yes and yes. I think you're not the only one who has caught onto this. A lot of people have. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. If you're rich and well connected, you get to privatize your profits (aka, they go into your pocket) and socialize your losses (aka, the tax payer picks up the tab). This is the system we now live in. Understandably, a lot of people don't like it.
This is why democratic socialist Bernie Sanders is doing so well. IF the government is going to rig the game so profits are privatized and losses are socialized, everyone ought to benefit -- not just the donor class.
It's also probably why Trump is doing so well too. Even though Trump will CLEARLY accelerate non democratic socialism and use the federal government to pick winners and losers on a scale so 'uuuge, our levels of corruption will sky rocket to Latin American levels, his supporters don't see this. They see him as a man rich enough to not have to kowtow to the rich non democratic socialists (socialism for them of course) who run the country. And yes, Truimph doesn't have to, but he will choose to do so. He's not going to pass up his opportunity to punish his enemies and reward his friends with public funds.
The Republicans seem obsessed with getting in as many wars as possible. What's the point? To protect our country yes, not to protect someone's oil or resources. We are trying to be too many things to too many people already. We could give everyone free health insurance with the money we spend on foreign aid alone. We really need to pay people to be our friends? Really?
So, Republicans pretty strongly think it's an utter disgrace to one's self and one's country to go on any government welfare, including subsidized health insurance. They view it far more important for the government to provide a way for people to do their country proud by joining the military. At the same time the government is providing jobs, not free handouts. So the always much stronger support the Republicans have for the military over any government welfare.
Last edited by StillwaterTownie; 01-30-2016 at 02:18 AM..
WHAT "Bridges, highways, roads, rail (freight and passenger), modernize airports, dredge our seaports, water pipelines and infrastructure, electric grids, and the like"
I don't know if it answers anything for you, but you might like to read it.
The ASCE gives America's infrastructure a grade D+
Your numbers don't include the war spending slush fund. Total military spending has been over $700 billion more than once.
Why not just defend our country and spend $300 billion.
Your chart was created by the National Priorities Project
I think they might be a bit biased.
"NPP currently focuses on educating the public about the federal budget with their online tool, Federal Budget 101,[4] and their published book, The People's Guide to the Federal Budget.[5]Barbara Ehrenreich wrote the foreword for the book."
I understand, but I'm simply not a fan of the "cut of your nose to spite your face" notion.
Personally, I think we need to solve our pension issues as it affects every single state (conservative Texas certainly has a large pension issue) before we go on a massive infrastructure spending spree. You'll hate it, but a pension bailout by the federal government is probably going to be necessary.
Quasi-privately owned as there's quite a bit of overlap. The fed gov has been paying a chunk of money to dredge the port of houston (for example) for some time, along with other ports while the port(s) itself is a quasi public/private venture.
A lot of the projects are already funded with a chunk of federal money. I doubt anyone would mistake Texas's state budget for CA's, but a lot of the issues remain.
Because population growth isn't stationary. Urbanization only keeps increasing, but what about the roads, highways, and bridges in small towns and connect small towns? Texas is a big state, we have explosive growth in urban areas with declining populations in rural areas. Infrastructure hasn't kept up with population growth and it hasn't helped that we can't at least raise the gas tax to keep up with inflation for the past 20 years or so.
From an economical efficiency point of view, rural living and sprawl is wasteful, as it costs more money per person to provide infrastructure and services to those areas.
Texas has used toll roads as bandaid to keep up with growth from a transportation aspect. How do you feel about toll roads?
Lastly, from a global standpoint, the US investing several trillions in infrastructure over the next decade or so would do a lot to help the global economy. All the commodities and other materials needed for construction would move from a slumping China to the US. I doubt you'll like that reasoning but we live in a global economy and we haven't kept up with our infrastructure.
"but what about the roads, highways, and bridges in small towns and connect small towns? "
What about them?
My whole point is that states are RESPONSIBLE for it's OWN infrastructure.
If your state wants to do things and can't afford it, RAISE taxes to cover it and do NOT ask the rest of the country to take care YOU.
If the people of that state prefer toll roads, that is THEIR choice.
What you are saying, IMO, is that your state is broke and CANNOT afford to do the things it wants to do.
You want the benefits and DON'T want to pay for it.
I say, the U.S. is BROKE and WE CANNOT afford to bail you out.
The Republicans seem obsessed with getting in as many wars as possible. What's the point? To protect our country yes, not to protect someone's oil or resources. We are trying to be too many things to too many people already. We could give everyone free health insurance with the money we spend on foreign aid alone. We really need to pay people to be our friends? Really?
"The Republicans seem obsessed with getting in as many wars as possible.'
The usual low information B.S post.
The Bush wars were VOTED FOR by the leading DEMS in Congress.
Obama has been the President for 7 years and he is NOT a repub.
What do we then do with the money cut from the military?
Return taxes to those who paid them. Money belongs to the earners, workers who pay taxes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
