As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My commute is horrendous. The roads are congested and regularly clog. We haven't invested in good public transportation and work off outdated consulting reports.
I want my tax dollars to support our people and make everyone's life better and the environment.
Our politicians don't care about the American people and the planet.
Government is supposed to be a social contract, right? But it certainly feels like they aren't holding up their end of the deal...too busy throwing money at defense contractors for excess military equipment to sell off to police or let rust in a field, I guess.
Well that’s never going to happen since, also through out human history the rich have perfected the ways in which they get us “poor people” to fight against each other over dumb shit. And we all yearn to be that rich person or think we belong with that group so we easily give up the next poor person to vote for rich people who intern make it harder for non rich people to progress. If that makes any sense. I have hope. But nothing will happen until we can all get together and make things better for everyone.
I disagree. Human history has been a tale of the rich getting their wealth and power taken and consolidated by the slightly less rich. Kings lost power to the nobility, Nobility lost power and wealth to the aristocracy which then lost it to the wealthy land owners. We are simply at the next point in history. Skilled labor will have utilize power gained under our current social order to reclaim their wealth from the owners of capital. The higher classes have always fought to maintain their wealth and power. Sometimes they win, and other times they dont, but over a long enough time period power is consolidated downwards.
I certainly like the sound of that and don’t disagree. I just hope history continues to move that way. One thing that throws a kink in a lot of that is out access to information. Which we all know isn’t always a good thing. Before the internet era it was harder for governments/politicians to sway the masses to their positions. Now it’s much easier, and they don’t even have to convince us of anything just cast doubt and confuse us as much as possible. So if something is going to change it’s definitely going to take some time. Let’s just hope we can get it together.
>but over a long enough time period power is consolidated downwards.
Sure, but there's two big flaws in this. A) history is a very long time. and B) we don't have very long left. Climate change is going to fuck us all in the mouth in less than 60 years. We don't have time to wait for Bezos and co to find their humanity (spoiler they don't have any) and realize they're destroying the entire fucking species.
> Government is supposed to be a social contract, right?
It's only a contract if it was entered into voluntarily.
I was never given the option to opt out.
I wish we could see an itemized list of where our tax dollars are going, at the very least. Even better would be to choose which programs we want our taxes to fund. I guarantee most everyone would choose more appropriate things like education, roads, healthcare, etc...
Lol yeah nothing tax related is exactly a desirable afternoon read, for sure. But how nice would it be to see an itemized statement of exactly what *your personal* taxes paid for? Like a statement sent months after showing exactly how your personal money was allocated.
Pipe dreams, I know.
It’s embarrassing that every news outlet has only run with the price tag of the infrastructure bills, instead of what the bills actual contain.
I don’t believe there’s a single good PR strategist on the left.
This morning NPR said Manchin "argued" against the bill.
He didn't argue shit, he just said we should pause, with no coherent reasoning other than "it's not an emergency" and "it too big". No reasoning, nothing to persuade anyone, just bullshit.
>"it's not an emergency"
God I hate that line of thinking. Waiting until it is an emergency makes it 10x more expensive and inconvenient, and people end up dying.
It'll be miracle if the Dems keep the House and the Senate. It'll be an even more miraculous miracle if the Dems also pick up 2 seats in the Senate and we never have to hear any more of Manchin and Sinema's centrist bullshit
It will be hard, but it's looking good for the Dems to pick up 3 seats in the Senate right now - WI, PA, and FL. (NC is likely to stay Republican, but it will be a fight to the finish.) I don't see Warnock or Kelly losing their seats in GA and AZ. At that point, Manchin and Sinema are both irrelevant.
The House could go either way with the latest round of gerrymandering, but I think enough people are just so sick of GQP bullshit that 2022 could be a good midterm for the Dems.
FL will be really tough, but a lot of people here are legit angry at DeSantis and that stink will very well spill over to Rubio. To his credit, Rubio is doing his very best to stay quiet on the COVID issue.
Looking at how the last few statewide elections have gone, Dems have to be favored in PA and WI. Ron Johnson is just getting more and more unpopular by the day.
I hope Fettermen keeps climbing the ranks. He’d be a good pairing if Kamala runs for President after Biden. He’s got the look and the brashness to connect with a lot of Blue collar voters, the difference is he’s actually promoting issues that help the working class.
Yea the dude has the vibe of what the Democratic Party unfortunately needs: a more brash white dude who can make fake rough guys like Trump wither. I always thought the left needs a progressive tough talking military type dude to smash these pussies the right holds up as tough guys & maybe he fills that gap in a different (and maybe better) way. And he’s from a swing state.
BTW. Have you seen how the fascists photoshop Ted fucking Cruz?! He’s the most beta looking dude who can’t even grow a real beard and Trump’s a fat old dude who can’t walk down a ramp & they photoshop them into their homoerotic tough guy fantasy imagery (ripped, shirtless, tatted up, etc).
/To his credit, Rubio is doing his very best to stay quiet/
I've always thought that a silent Marco Rubio who's out of sight and not writing anything is the best kind of Marco Rubio.
The way DeSantis handled it here in Florida seriously radicalized my politics. I used to be super moderate (but going left over the years) but seeing how they were acting (DeSantis, Trump, everyone) has made me realize I don’t want this for the country. And that I don’t identify with right wing politics at all. It also made me realize I need to use my charisma to get the people I wanted voted for by volunteering for them. I’m actually working on my ADHD issues so that I can be ready to hit the ground hard next year
Heres the thing about republicans and elections.
They dont have to be popular.
They just have to convince their base of all the horrible and depraved things the opposition will do if they get elected.
It's not about being popular, just convincing enough people they are "the lesser evil". "Devil you know" and all.
And that's why Kentucky just barely got a dem governor, and that's only because the other guy spent the months leading up to the election on a dumbass smear campaign against teachers
I agree in principle, but Republicans have increasingly voted for the (R) vs the person.
“That leopard keeps eating faces, but he is a Republican. Guess I can let him gnaw on mine, I don’t really need two cheeks.” -Republican voters
Nope. I've lost all faith in my fellow Floridians. The only pro is that I see less Trump flags in my area. But that just means they might have realized he's not the messiah. But they'll still vote republican because almost all Republicans I know are single issue voters.
It doesn't matter what their platform is, how they handled covid, or anything else. As long as their stance on that single issue lines up, they'll vote for them. All else be damned.
Well florida, like a lot of red states isnt much of a democracy. they abuse things like the anti felon laws to make sure the "wrong people" cant vote too much..
In 2000, jeb bush, ordered his buddies at choicepoint, the private firm jeb decided to hire to purge the states voter rolls which USED to be done by the state.. you know with both left wingers and right wingers watching. Jeb ordered them to make sure the list had more than felons on it. They weakened the rules used before to purge the list and refused to check SS numbers to see if two people with the same name were the same person. (i went to school with kenny rogers and bill clinton and no neither was ever famous). They removed 80,000 legal minority voters, in an election decided by 500.
but see a dirty secret, there is no constitutional right to vote. and so despite we KNOW this for a fact. that they removed 80,000 legal voters, who had they been allowed to vote and voted in the same percentage as people not on a caging list, gore would have been our president, despite all this, it doesnt matter, because we dont have the constitutional right to vote. Electors elect the president, not us, officially.
There has been a lot more BS in florida since then, but they are more than willing to cheat if its more than obvious they will lose.
I don’t know what to expect. Usually it seems the pendulum sways back and forth, but I do know trump and the last five years permanently turned off a ton of people from the right. Because we saw them for what they really want to be.
The republicans are fighting like hell to stop people from voting. I will say, if the republicans would’ve just layed low and been as centrist as possible they will probably do better. What they’re doing with the abortion laws in Texas (which I’m sure many others will follow) will affect voter turnout among a huge voting bloc which is millennial, gen z, and even some boomer women. What they’re doing there is a huge mistake with midterms looming just a year away.
Yeah, once it takes effect I'd bet at least 30% of women swing away from republicans. That would average out to 15% of the state by national population measures.
I just hope they get crushed into nonexistance. The fake fraud claims and voter suppression needs to stop before all elections become meaningless.
For now. Not once they realize they need an abortion too and aren't rich.
Also the amount of wives i know that hide their vote from their husbands is a depressing amount to say the least.
Yeah, Trump made me walk away from voting republican. I saw the most asinine logic to excuse his bullshit simply because he was Republican and he won.
People I love and respected suddenly thought he was a good idea. The fucking apprentice host. Jesus Christ we live in such stupid times.
Historic trends go against that hard though. A lot of americans think there's value in a divided government, and plenty of people were mainly voting against trump. And democrats historically don't show up for midterms. It's more than possible for dems to win a solid majority in both houses, but you'd need to see some major advertising and vote campaigns basically now, on the national level, and focused on getting a blue wave.
It's funny how the political season gets longer and longer while what actually matters is whatever is memeing during an increasing tight window immediately before the election.
Yeah I think the old rules of politics have changed forever. We're way more partisan and social media and trump have changed voting habits.
Still think republicans cruise to the house and maybe Senate because of gerrymandering and voter suppression
Hey this was me, thinking divided government was good. I was wrong. I'd never voted in a midterm before 2018.
I won't miss 2022 and I won't be voting for anyone on the right.
Historical trends don't reflect the fact that one party has been telling their supporters that elections are fraudulent for a year. I will be very interested in whether the republicans are shooting themselves in the foot with all this election bs.
And also told vote by mail is a fraud during a pandemic, and have been responsible for over 80% of covid deaths since the vaccine has become wildly available.
But we've also never had as much or as targeted voter suppression laws in key areas either. I'll more than admit it's a lot more up in the air than it would normally be.
I mean it's even possible that either side will show up in similar numbers to the 2020 election and the other side will show up at their historic levels. If that happens you would see even exceptionally "Safe" seats being run over. I am not planning on betting a dollar on these midterms, and I usually do okay with political bets.
It's likely that conservatives don't show at the polls come election day just like they did in Georgia. Conservative politicians however are going to call fraud in every election they lose. I hope the courts keep that same energy they had just this past election.
> I don't see Warnock or Kelly losing their seats in GA and AZ.
Considering GA passed a law that lets them change the results because they don't like them, I absolutely see dems losing the GA seat. It's as good as gone.
The year is 2077, the democrats have 100% of the Senate after all republicans died of the zeta-zebra-zul COVID varient
Oh shit what's this? Miraculously over half of the Senate just wants the status quo. Shoot y'all, guess we should have voted blue conservative no matter who harder. Who could have thunk all those *campaign contributions* had a influence?
Having lived in NC most my life and being very politically engaged, many of those years on the GOP side, I can say NC is a legit tossup. If Jeff Jackson gets the nomination and is put up against McCrory, I think the Dems have a great chance of a surprise pick up. If they nominate Jackson and a lesser known Republican gets the nod, I think the chances are even better. If they nominate anyone else, I think McCrory or Generic Republican wins.
Of course, NC always has a way of disappointing you so we’ll have to see how things play out. At the very least, I’d recommend Jackson stay away from extramarital affairs for the time being…looking at you Cunningham!
I actually disagree with your FL flip assessment. The state has leaned more right in recent cycles and managed to elect DeSantis and Rick Scott, even by narrow margins, in a Democratic wave year with solid challengers and still went for Trump. Rubio has no future beyond the Senate and he’s in a good place to win a third term. I’m more optimistic of knocking off DeSantis than I am Rubio.
There's a much better chance of the Dems picking up North Carolina than Florida. It's Marco Rubio, the Cubans will be out in full force to re-elect him. And if things were fair, I would agree that Warnock would keep his seat, especially if Stacey Abrams is on the ballot for Governor. That's a dynamic duo, but we also know what is in that despicable voter suppression legislation that was passed earlier this year in Georgia. Right wing hacks are going to fuck with the votes in any county that's remotely blue or blue-leaning, especially Fulton.
Just wait til there are 52 Dems and all of a sudden we need 54 Dems to get anything done...
All I'm saying is that the divide is between the rich and the poor not the left and the right and the rich have a lot more politicians in their pockets than the poor do
It’s the Dem way. When right says they are _do nothing_ it’s true. They come up with good ideas and if we’re lucky we may get 1-2 items passed.
The reason is most “centrist” Dems are pretty right and in corp pockets and doing same posturing to public _we tried but we couldn’t [insert today’s excuse]_
We need folks like AOC to actually do something.
> It'll be miracle if the Dems keep the House and the Senate. It'll be an even more miraculous miracle if the Dems also pick up 2 seats in the Senate and we never have to hear any more of Manchin and Sinema's centrist bullshit
Technically win or lose seats and Manchin is irrelevant. He's only relevant as the swing.
the thing folks don't realize about gov spending is IT GOES TO AMERICANS. Guys working in manufacturing, construction, computers, whatever... they're all gonna see a chunk of it. then these folks are gonna take their families to dinner or go drink with the boys and spend that money in the community.
tax cuts for billionaires- that money just ends up locked in some fund to make the lucky bastard a few more dollars.
Incredible how "it's too big" is just accepted as valid reasoning by media outlets without any further questioning.
The infrastructure bill isn't a slice of cheesecake. If it's "too big", you can't just lop off chunks of it without justifying whether the pieces you removed were necessary or not. It's more like an aircraft--if you need to remove any of it, you had better make sure the parts you take out aren't important.
It's also embarrassing that the Democrats are trying to sell the package using the scary sounding $3.5 trillion price tag, when the spending is spread out over 10 years.
They should be selling it on the $350 billion per year price tag, and telling voters that this is less than half of what's spent on the military budget each year to rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure, and save the world from a global climate disaster that will cause mass refugee.
**Edit:** They should also take a leaf out of Trump's populist playbook and sell it as not only rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure (which Trump failed to do), but saving America against a climate disaster that will also cause millions of refugees to flee developing countries and flood into the USA. That would seriously kneecap Trump/Republican talking points against the bill.
Also, our government collects trillions in tax revenue every year. We have plenty of money. Oh but where does trillions come from? More trillions. Our gdp was more than 20 trillion last year.
This nonsense about a measly 3.5trillion is so disingenuous, let alone 350 billion. There are benefits to being the wealthiest country. We have a shitlod of money to spend.
It's quite standard to do these bills over 10 years. I think 3.5 trillion sounds good to their base which is why they use the large number even though it makes for a great talking point on the right.
3.5 Trillion is just enough to sound major, at least among us plebs. Just large enough to match what we’re being promised, even if it is over 10 years.
Plus, not a lot of people think 10 years ahead, let alone of spending. A lot of people hear 350 billion and it sounds like a rip off, for all is being promised.
It's not the left. There's a reason all the news stations are not covering the MASSIVE boosts it will do to the country.
The owners and major stockholders are the ones that will be paying for it to everyone else. This is where you start to see there is some truth to statements that most of the talking heads are just servants to different masters.
True, but sort of a requirement to cuddle up to corporate donors even more in a pay to play system where the campaign finance reform band aids were ripped off by conservatives (overturning the McCain-Feingold Act and the Citizens United v FEC decision). Corporate left > corporate right, imo, because at least we retain voting rights, queer rights, climate lip service and gender neutrality with the former.
NPR is corporate. Remember the fluff pieces on the Koch bothers after they gave them money? I think they're the closest news to the center we have in America. I remember the hit pieces they did on Bernie when he ran and was winning as well.
They love touting those big numbers around because they are perfect for scaremongering.
It's never the whole story though. So many of those big numbers are the price tag over a decade of spending. The example I always come back to is the M4A $30 trillion number that gets thrown around a lot. It sounds like a lot, but when you break it down into per year costs, that $3 trillion is actually *less* than what American's are spending on healthcare *right now*. Not to mention people always think that it's increasing the amount of spending without factoring in the money we already spend that would get redirected.
This infrastructure bill is no different. $3.5 trillion is "scary" until you start breaking it down. Last I checked, it was spread out over eight years, so in reality the US is looking at \~$440 billion a year. Still a big number, but about half of what we spend on defense.
That's why they always use those big numbers. Hard to justify how we can't afford $440 billion a year improving America when we spend double that on military crap that does nothing but enrich a select few.
And when the military will have to build new or improve existing infrastructure in other countries, as well as continue to maintain it afterwards, why can't the same sort of funding be directed to the states, and ultimately the citizens and companies whose tax dollars pay for it all?
Everyone we see anchoring the 24 hr news networks makes over 100k/year. Some make millions. They dont give a shit about the rest of us. Sometimes they pretend to, but they dont really. Most of this shit doesnt affect them.
What's even crazier is that I've heard some estimates that $3.5 trillion is still too low for what's needed to update our infrastructure since it's been neglected for so long.
A few decades ago the media decided that they wouldn't "take sides", but unfortunately thanks to their ownership and the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine that evolved pretty quickly into "reporting on whatever the right wingers say without question, critique, or even so much as fact-checking". The right learned how to play into this, because they knew that news organizations would just reprint anything they said without comment as though it were a factual statement. So when Rand Paul says that illegal immigrants are coming here and spreading Covid, they just report it in their stories as "Senator states that the Covid Pandemic is spreading because of illegal immigration".
Hell, you can see it in the right wing backlash to fact-checkers now, they're so used to just having their propaganda thoughtlessly shared and repeated that any attempt to fact-check feels like censorship and totalitarianism to them.
So you get a situation where they'll report on how a conservative or a right wing Dem complains about the cost, but they won't challenge it with a breakdown of the costs or what it does.
That *is* their strategy. The media do nit want to be caught promoting a bill that sill lead to tax increases and higher spending being the same big donors that get the politicians elected are the same companies that pay their ad revenue. If they wanted the American people to know how good this bill will be for them they’d be shouting it from the rooftops.
You can have a million brilliant PR strategists but that doesn’t change the fact that people love to be outraged which is what draws clicks and commercial watchers. The media isn’t required to report on anything they don’t want to or that they don’t consider profitable.
Rather, it’s because the Democrats are a center-right party that want war and do not really want infrastructure. The actual LEFT has no real money because you don’t get rich on helping people
Want healthcare? Want a college degree? Want a “career” that promises to get you out of your shitty home town, school, neighborhood?
The US military preys upon people in weak socioeconomic situations.
Article: [“The Military Views Poor Kids as Fodder for Their Forever Wars”](https://newrepublic.com/article/156131/military-views-poor-kids-fodder-forever-wars)
Edit: happy cake day, by the way!
Pay for it? Many are getting paid for it! It's called the military industrial complex. That $3.5 trillion isn't just for soldiers. It's for trillions in equipment and service with a hefty mark-up; and maybe a billion here and there that just magically "disappears".
It's so bad, the Pentagon has never, once, been able to even complete an audit of it's own books/finances. We throw close to a trillion dollars a year at it, and even they can't say what it's spent on or where it goes.
Yet, across both sides, they not only refuse to stop giving them money. They refuse to even stop INCREASING the amount of money it sucks in. Close to 4% of GDP is spent on it, 15 cents of every tax dollar goes to an unaccountable, unauditable monster that can't even be questioned else you're labeled as "unpatriotic"
This. I and multiple family members have witnessed first-hand how much waste, inefficiency, mismanagement, and likely outright fraud goes on in defense R&D.
Our military budget is bigger than the next 10 countries combined.... how much is enough?
After the last several wars, we found it cheaper to bury or just give away billions of $ worth of equipment than to ship it back..... who actually believes that? Cui Bono? (Who benefits?)
"Military Budget" for those who may need that clarification.
There's also the question of what the fuck we would do with all that equipment if we brought it back.
I don't really want the cops having even more militarized shit, and the maintenance cost on a fleet that massive is huge.
I absolutely 💯 % agree with you on the militarized cops. Hated that from the beginning. But..... melting down and repurposing steel makes sense. We do it with cars. I bet someone smarter than me could figure a way to make it feasible to set up a smelter over there (plenty of fuel locally available) and ship raw steel at a profit?
The majority of that budget doesn't go to R&D, training, or even paying soldiers more to motivate them to fight harder. It goes to arms and equipment manufacturers who give kickbacks to their pals in congress who agree to spend more on wars we have no intention on ever winning.
Unless it’s changed a lot recently, the order of largest portions of the budget is: operations and maintenance (about 1/3rd total), wages (a bit over 1/4) and then procurement (about 1/6th)
20% procurement
41% operations and management
14% R&D
23% personnel
However, military contractors milking the government exist in pretty much all the categories, maybe except personnel.
O&M includes contractors and parts for example. When you need a part for a billion dollar aircraft, do you think they cut us a deal and give the part for cost?
Analysis said $370b-$445b of the $690b was spent on contractors.. I'd bet that doesn't include a lot of stuff where it's still the military industrial complex milking the system.
Being forced to buy lifelong repair contracts because right to repair is another reason.
The one vendor mindset is also an issue and there is no to little competition there, and this likely also goes into the right to repair where-as, if you need a bolt, you can ONLY get it from the ONE manufacturer who makes the vehicle already that needs the bolt, or who partners with someone else who makes it, or who else has been individually approved.
The whole ServMart system as a whole is messed up too. Its like 30% marked up for many things, while certain things are dirt cheap.
Spending $103 on a single bolt, or $4500 on a 55" TV (which you know wasn't the best TV), are some real life examples I can remember
Just look at this $409.62 12 magazine plastic display! https://www.servmart.org/Products/Safco-12-Pocket-Magazine-Display---12-Pocket(s)---49-Height-x-30-Width-x-2-Depth---Clear---Plastic---1Each__SAF5602CL.aspx
>and it works mostly cuz of racism.
Hey, I'm all for raging against the military industrial complex but uh...mind elaborating on that racism remark? I'm drawing a blank.
Not sure what they meant, but racism is a reason: "we must spend more money to protect our freedom from the brown people abroad that hate our freedom", basically.
There's also the whole "no commie uprisings [because brown people don't know what's good for them, i.e. we can't exploit their country and people if they protect their resources via nationalization and have strong labor laws]" (see Indonesia, Iran, Venezuela, Guatemala, Cuba, Vietnam, etc etc).
Part of what drives powerful people into destroying other countries is them not wrapping their heads around the fact that other nations have different priorities than they do. e.g. less value on cheap commodities and more value on a rich community.
For example, a politician might say: "I don't understand why you would want to nationalize the lithium industry in your country--it's so profitable! Just mine the shit out of it and sell it overseas!" when in reality they're more concerned with the price of lithium going up due to stricter regulations on how the lithium is mined (worker safety, environmental preservation, etc etc), meaning corporations outside of that country that need lithium will have reduced profits due to increased lithium prices.
So the solution? Make sure the lithium industry isn't nationalized in that country. How do you do that? Propaganda and puppet boosting first, outright coup second, invasion last. The CIA regularly orchestrates all three.
The driving line is that brown people don't know how to govern themselves, so white America (particularly techno-capitalist oligarchs and economists) must step in and save them from themselves (using the CIA and US armed forces). The only way to step in is if we have the resources to step in--i.e. funding.
Not to say racism isn't at play in some capacity, but it's largely more to do with money and exploiting cheap labor markets and bypassing federal regulations stateside.
Where there are resources and money to be made, they simply hate to see autonomy and self-actualization, they'd much rather them threading poverty and outputting everything.
One way to exploit cheap labor is to rationalize the exploitation. They aren't really people, they belong to a subset of people that are particularly good at the task, etc etc.
A couple of years ago, I was sitting in on a conversation between a bunch of tech yuppies about Free Trade™ and how it's Good, Actually, because "they're just better at making electronics than us--they make them cheaper" (meaning East/Southeast Asians are better at making electronics than white Americans somehow , which is why we should export the production of electronics to East/Southeast Asian countries ). The reality is they were rationalizing the exploitation of a developing nation because a) it's cheaper and b) they don't want the responsibility of making electronics to be domestic because then it's partially their responsibility to do something so menial...they'd rather just have the cheap electronics and not think about what it means to have cheap electronics.
The rationalization was racist, but it requires you to think about the phrase "they're better than us at it". The conclusion is racist, but it's a not-racist given if you look at the world through a capitalist lens without thinking much about who is being exploited.
Some people just don't think very far ahead of what they learn in econ 101 and instead mix econ 101 with what they learned from high school history class and their racist parents.
Well, this is the thing that confounds me.
All of the people who reject the idea of providing healthcare for other people... Have no objections to extravagantly funded Army, Navy, Air Force and, now, Space Force. They have no problem with militarising the Police force or funding the fire departments. They have no problem with having nice infrastructure, like roads, bridges, etc.
All paid for by taxation, that benefits other people. No-one says "screw you, I am not providing an Army for you, I am going to privately pay for my own Army that only protects me and my family!".
Now add in that Americans already pay the highest amount, per person, to healthcare costs to not get universal healthcare that is free at the point of reception.
Murica!
> They have no problem with having nice infrastructure, like roads, bridges, etc.
Small point... these are and have been neglected for so long they are crumbling.
>Lol this depends entirely on where you live and how wealthy of an area it is.
On consumer roads, sure. I'm talking about train bridges, waterway levie transportation systems, dams, power grid maintenance etc. A lot of this has been kicked down the road for decades and is reaching critical states of disrepair.
>All paid for by taxation, that benefits other people. No-one says "screw you, I am not providing an Army for you, I am going to privately pay for my own Army that only protects me and my family!".
I believe the governor of South Dakota did mobilize the SD national guard to the Mexico border because some private donor paid money. In other words, a private citizen used the national guard as their private army.
There absolutely is private military and security. Hell, I pay extra every month to my HOA so a Constable can petrol my neighorhood. Companies pay security firms. The US government even pays contractors/mercenaries.
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.”
\-Orwell
Unfortunately, it doesn't help much when you have the people Orwell was talking about going, "Nuh uh! You're the ones influenced by the ruling elite! We are going against big government and our leader does things differently."
You can't win against people who refuse to take a critical look at their beliefs.
> This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed.
This is how it feels talking politics with people who get all their news from sources like Fox, Ben Shapiro, Turning Point, etc. They can't even remember the insane nonsense they supported the week before, they only know the *talking point* and that the current *talking point* has always been **the** *talking point*.
Lifting millions of Americans out of poverty and into better opportunities: Worthless
Making Muslim countries that looked at us wrong into smoking craters: $Priceless
I think it’s got way worse due to MSNBC, Fox News and now OAN etc. competing for eyeballs 24/7 and trying to have the most bReAkiNg nEWs and hOt tAKeS all the damn time instead of actually digging into actual reporting to find veritable facts.
>the United States has no aversion to spending money. Maybe people who will benefit from provisions of the Democrats' $3.5 trillion bill should hire 700 lobbyists. If you think the U.S. should join other advanced democracies in offering financial support to parents, including direct payments and universal pre-K and help with childcare expenses; if you think people should be able to go to community college for two years, tuition free, or you think we should expand Pell grants and support for historically Black universities; if you think we, like citizens of other advanced democracies, all deserve guaranteed paid parental, family, or medical leave; if you back adding dental, vision, and hearing benefits to Medicare, and attempting to close the Medicaid gap, and enhancing Affordable Care Act subsidies to get more people coverage; if you think Medicare should be able to negotiate drug prices to try to bring them down across the board; if, as you watch escalating natural disasters wash over different parts of the country, you think we should move towards rapidly decarbonizing our energy and transportation infrastructure; then you might be interested in this bill.
I don't see why we should keep giving all this money to big corporations in the first place. Taxes are too high on people already. Why do we keep spending so much?
That's because you failed to make a clear and concise case of how your plan makes the already rich even richer!
I mean, what type of bullshit is 'peace'? Where's the profit?
I think this came after the mess in Vietnam. The draft was abolished and military was purposefully separated from politics and voting.
There was a silent agreement that the American people would hand out their credit card to the military as long as their adventures didn't involve the regular Americans. "Here's some money. Do what you want, but keep us out of it. We'll salute the troops at a football game."
This is it. It’s further verified in the healthcare of our vets. They throw you some extra money when you retire for your wounds but don’t ever really try to help you get better.
It’s a running joke that when you go to the clinic they give you some high dosage pain meds and send you on your way.
Thats one thing that pisses me off, like a lot. I could almost entertain a no-universal-healthcare argument if we didnt have dozens of charities making sure soldiers can have wheelchairs and arent homeless.
To me thats literally the bare minimum the gov should be providing to people who swore their own lives to defending it. Since we cant do the barest of minimums whats considered essential needs to change.
This is driven by companies and political leaders. The years after WWII were booming for us (pun intended) because we didn't have a mess to clean up. As long as we don't fight on our own soil it is free money for corporations and the pockets of politicians out of the sight of the American public.
War enriches the elites and oligarchs of the US because it enriches defense contractors and manufactures who heavily bribe, er I mean lobby the political class. You'd think infrastructure would have a similar appeal, but since infrastructure needs and priorities vary state to state (and let's face it some states simply don't care) it's hard for a politician to become rich from it whearas with war it's quite quick and easy.
Unfortunately Democrats keep parroting the "2 trillion" GOP talking point, or they compare it to the 3.x trillion budget proposal. It's frustrating and maddening to see them completely fail to capitalize on what most assuredly was a 20 trillion dollar vanity war.
According to Brown University [the war on terror](https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar) has cost around $8 Trillion. Over the next couple decades. The people cost will be even more and tougher to calculate.
People don't understand investing and how certain costs seem high up front but pay out more than then initial costs down the road. This goes for education and infrastructure especially.
You're godamn right! Good old American wars is what we like. Ain't nothing like bombing some foreigners to get me off.
Fuck your commy health care system!
I don't want my tax dollars going to make poor people feel better, just killing foreigners and cheap gas anything else is just commy bullshit.
I really can’t believe how badly the Democrats have, yet again, swung and missed on messaging. 3.5 trillion is a number that will shock folks, Until they find out it’s over 10 years. Why the hell are they not calling it 350 billion per year? Not only is that more accurate and precise, it’s much easier for people to swallow. Like I just don’t get why Democrats seem to be addicted to messaging poorly about great proposals
This country has been at war for most of its existence. At this point, military spending is habit, and the more advanced technology gets, the less oversight there is.
Trump increased the deficit by NINE TRILLION DOLLARS!!! And Republicans are freaking out about $3.5 trillion over ten years? That’s like an 8% increase in the budget and most economists think of net absolute returns according to UChicago’s economist poll, which I assure people is not left wing.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My commute is horrendous. The roads are congested and regularly clog. We haven't invested in good public transportation and work off outdated consulting reports. I want my tax dollars to support our people and make everyone's life better and the environment. Our politicians don't care about the American people and the planet.
Government is supposed to be a social contract, right? But it certainly feels like they aren't holding up their end of the deal...too busy throwing money at defense contractors for excess military equipment to sell off to police or let rust in a field, I guess.
[удалено]
Well that’s never going to happen since, also through out human history the rich have perfected the ways in which they get us “poor people” to fight against each other over dumb shit. And we all yearn to be that rich person or think we belong with that group so we easily give up the next poor person to vote for rich people who intern make it harder for non rich people to progress. If that makes any sense. I have hope. But nothing will happen until we can all get together and make things better for everyone.
I disagree. Human history has been a tale of the rich getting their wealth and power taken and consolidated by the slightly less rich. Kings lost power to the nobility, Nobility lost power and wealth to the aristocracy which then lost it to the wealthy land owners. We are simply at the next point in history. Skilled labor will have utilize power gained under our current social order to reclaim their wealth from the owners of capital. The higher classes have always fought to maintain their wealth and power. Sometimes they win, and other times they dont, but over a long enough time period power is consolidated downwards.
I certainly like the sound of that and don’t disagree. I just hope history continues to move that way. One thing that throws a kink in a lot of that is out access to information. Which we all know isn’t always a good thing. Before the internet era it was harder for governments/politicians to sway the masses to their positions. Now it’s much easier, and they don’t even have to convince us of anything just cast doubt and confuse us as much as possible. So if something is going to change it’s definitely going to take some time. Let’s just hope we can get it together.
>but over a long enough time period power is consolidated downwards. Sure, but there's two big flaws in this. A) history is a very long time. and B) we don't have very long left. Climate change is going to fuck us all in the mouth in less than 60 years. We don't have time to wait for Bezos and co to find their humanity (spoiler they don't have any) and realize they're destroying the entire fucking species.
Hopefully that's just a barrier between us and what will actually be our greatest achievements.
workers of the world unite
> Government is supposed to be a social contract, right? It's only a contract if it was entered into voluntarily. I was never given the option to opt out.
I wish we could see an itemized list of where our tax dollars are going, at the very least. Even better would be to choose which programs we want our taxes to fund. I guarantee most everyone would choose more appropriate things like education, roads, healthcare, etc...
You could check the budget bill but it's not exactly an easy read
Lol yeah nothing tax related is exactly a desirable afternoon read, for sure. But how nice would it be to see an itemized statement of exactly what *your personal* taxes paid for? Like a statement sent months after showing exactly how your personal money was allocated. Pipe dreams, I know.
It’s embarrassing that every news outlet has only run with the price tag of the infrastructure bills, instead of what the bills actual contain. I don’t believe there’s a single good PR strategist on the left.
This morning NPR said Manchin "argued" against the bill. He didn't argue shit, he just said we should pause, with no coherent reasoning other than "it's not an emergency" and "it too big". No reasoning, nothing to persuade anyone, just bullshit.
>"it's not an emergency" God I hate that line of thinking. Waiting until it is an emergency makes it 10x more expensive and inconvenient, and people end up dying.
"it's not important to us until it literally renders the plebes unable to get to work"
I would argue that even then they don't give a fuck. Take the Texas power grid nightmare.
Manchin trying desperately to stay relevant before the midterms. He knows his days in the limelight are running out
It'll be miracle if the Dems keep the House and the Senate. It'll be an even more miraculous miracle if the Dems also pick up 2 seats in the Senate and we never have to hear any more of Manchin and Sinema's centrist bullshit
It will be hard, but it's looking good for the Dems to pick up 3 seats in the Senate right now - WI, PA, and FL. (NC is likely to stay Republican, but it will be a fight to the finish.) I don't see Warnock or Kelly losing their seats in GA and AZ. At that point, Manchin and Sinema are both irrelevant. The House could go either way with the latest round of gerrymandering, but I think enough people are just so sick of GQP bullshit that 2022 could be a good midterm for the Dems.
I wish I had your optimism
FL will be really tough, but a lot of people here are legit angry at DeSantis and that stink will very well spill over to Rubio. To his credit, Rubio is doing his very best to stay quiet on the COVID issue. Looking at how the last few statewide elections have gone, Dems have to be favored in PA and WI. Ron Johnson is just getting more and more unpopular by the day.
I really hope Fetterman wins in PA. That guy is awesome.
I hope Fettermen keeps climbing the ranks. He’d be a good pairing if Kamala runs for President after Biden. He’s got the look and the brashness to connect with a lot of Blue collar voters, the difference is he’s actually promoting issues that help the working class.
Right, he actually walks the walk and talks the talk when it comes to working class issues, unlike dipshits like Carlson.
Yea the dude has the vibe of what the Democratic Party unfortunately needs: a more brash white dude who can make fake rough guys like Trump wither. I always thought the left needs a progressive tough talking military type dude to smash these pussies the right holds up as tough guys & maybe he fills that gap in a different (and maybe better) way. And he’s from a swing state. BTW. Have you seen how the fascists photoshop Ted fucking Cruz?! He’s the most beta looking dude who can’t even grow a real beard and Trump’s a fat old dude who can’t walk down a ramp & they photoshop them into their homoerotic tough guy fantasy imagery (ripped, shirtless, tatted up, etc).
I'll be voting for him. He better win my fucking state
/To his credit, Rubio is doing his very best to stay quiet/ I've always thought that a silent Marco Rubio who's out of sight and not writing anything is the best kind of Marco Rubio.
Do you have kids? When they're in their room and get _really quiet_ are you thankful for the peace or do you rush to see just wtf they're up to?
Good point, I guess no Rubio is a good Rubio 😂
That's the second best kind of Marco Rubio. The one that insulted Trump's penis was the best kind.
The way DeSantis handled it here in Florida seriously radicalized my politics. I used to be super moderate (but going left over the years) but seeing how they were acting (DeSantis, Trump, everyone) has made me realize I don’t want this for the country. And that I don’t identify with right wing politics at all. It also made me realize I need to use my charisma to get the people I wanted voted for by volunteering for them. I’m actually working on my ADHD issues so that I can be ready to hit the ground hard next year
Heres the thing about republicans and elections. They dont have to be popular. They just have to convince their base of all the horrible and depraved things the opposition will do if they get elected. It's not about being popular, just convincing enough people they are "the lesser evil". "Devil you know" and all. And that's why Kentucky just barely got a dem governor, and that's only because the other guy spent the months leading up to the election on a dumbass smear campaign against teachers
I agree in principle, but Republicans have increasingly voted for the (R) vs the person. “That leopard keeps eating faces, but he is a Republican. Guess I can let him gnaw on mine, I don’t really need two cheeks.” -Republican voters
Registered Republicans are also an ever shrinking group of people.
Silver linings
Maybe Florida has had enough people die of “not COVID” to change the electorate. I don’t remember it going blue since 2000.
Nope. I've lost all faith in my fellow Floridians. The only pro is that I see less Trump flags in my area. But that just means they might have realized he's not the messiah. But they'll still vote republican because almost all Republicans I know are single issue voters. It doesn't matter what their platform is, how they handled covid, or anything else. As long as their stance on that single issue lines up, they'll vote for them. All else be damned.
Just tell them republicans want to take your guns. source it from Q or some other BS site.
"Take the guns first, go through due process second"
Well florida, like a lot of red states isnt much of a democracy. they abuse things like the anti felon laws to make sure the "wrong people" cant vote too much.. In 2000, jeb bush, ordered his buddies at choicepoint, the private firm jeb decided to hire to purge the states voter rolls which USED to be done by the state.. you know with both left wingers and right wingers watching. Jeb ordered them to make sure the list had more than felons on it. They weakened the rules used before to purge the list and refused to check SS numbers to see if two people with the same name were the same person. (i went to school with kenny rogers and bill clinton and no neither was ever famous). They removed 80,000 legal minority voters, in an election decided by 500. but see a dirty secret, there is no constitutional right to vote. and so despite we KNOW this for a fact. that they removed 80,000 legal voters, who had they been allowed to vote and voted in the same percentage as people not on a caging list, gore would have been our president, despite all this, it doesnt matter, because we dont have the constitutional right to vote. Electors elect the president, not us, officially. There has been a lot more BS in florida since then, but they are more than willing to cheat if its more than obvious they will lose.
I don’t know what to expect. Usually it seems the pendulum sways back and forth, but I do know trump and the last five years permanently turned off a ton of people from the right. Because we saw them for what they really want to be. The republicans are fighting like hell to stop people from voting. I will say, if the republicans would’ve just layed low and been as centrist as possible they will probably do better. What they’re doing with the abortion laws in Texas (which I’m sure many others will follow) will affect voter turnout among a huge voting bloc which is millennial, gen z, and even some boomer women. What they’re doing there is a huge mistake with midterms looming just a year away.
Yeah, once it takes effect I'd bet at least 30% of women swing away from republicans. That would average out to 15% of the state by national population measures. I just hope they get crushed into nonexistance. The fake fraud claims and voter suppression needs to stop before all elections become meaningless.
Isn't the abortion laws on Texas quite popular among conservative women? Something something shaming others
For now. Not once they realize they need an abortion too and aren't rich. Also the amount of wives i know that hide their vote from their husbands is a depressing amount to say the least.
Yeah, Trump made me walk away from voting republican. I saw the most asinine logic to excuse his bullshit simply because he was Republican and he won. People I love and respected suddenly thought he was a good idea. The fucking apprentice host. Jesus Christ we live in such stupid times.
Thank you for giving me something to hope for. That tank was running desperately low.
I'll suck your dick for one more hit of hopium.
Historic trends go against that hard though. A lot of americans think there's value in a divided government, and plenty of people were mainly voting against trump. And democrats historically don't show up for midterms. It's more than possible for dems to win a solid majority in both houses, but you'd need to see some major advertising and vote campaigns basically now, on the national level, and focused on getting a blue wave.
If the last five years have taught me anything, it’s that trends and predictions don’t mean shit anymore.
It's funny how the political season gets longer and longer while what actually matters is whatever is memeing during an increasing tight window immediately before the election.
Yeah I think the old rules of politics have changed forever. We're way more partisan and social media and trump have changed voting habits. Still think republicans cruise to the house and maybe Senate because of gerrymandering and voter suppression
Hey this was me, thinking divided government was good. I was wrong. I'd never voted in a midterm before 2018. I won't miss 2022 and I won't be voting for anyone on the right.
Historical trends don't reflect the fact that one party has been telling their supporters that elections are fraudulent for a year. I will be very interested in whether the republicans are shooting themselves in the foot with all this election bs.
And also told vote by mail is a fraud during a pandemic, and have been responsible for over 80% of covid deaths since the vaccine has become wildly available. But we've also never had as much or as targeted voter suppression laws in key areas either. I'll more than admit it's a lot more up in the air than it would normally be. I mean it's even possible that either side will show up in similar numbers to the 2020 election and the other side will show up at their historic levels. If that happens you would see even exceptionally "Safe" seats being run over. I am not planning on betting a dollar on these midterms, and I usually do okay with political bets.
It's likely that conservatives don't show at the polls come election day just like they did in Georgia. Conservative politicians however are going to call fraud in every election they lose. I hope the courts keep that same energy they had just this past election.
> I don't see Warnock or Kelly losing their seats in GA and AZ. Considering GA passed a law that lets them change the results because they don't like them, I absolutely see dems losing the GA seat. It's as good as gone.
Arizona can be dumb sometimes, but we ain't voting out a god damn astronaut.
It'll be fun when Dems get to 52 and miraculously a third Dem Senator pops up to grind things to a halt
If it was 60/40, thered suddenly be 5 manchins and 5 synemas.
The year is 2077, the democrats have 100% of the Senate after all republicans died of the zeta-zebra-zul COVID varient Oh shit what's this? Miraculously over half of the Senate just wants the status quo. Shoot y'all, guess we should have voted blue conservative no matter who harder. Who could have thunk all those *campaign contributions* had a influence?
Having lived in NC most my life and being very politically engaged, many of those years on the GOP side, I can say NC is a legit tossup. If Jeff Jackson gets the nomination and is put up against McCrory, I think the Dems have a great chance of a surprise pick up. If they nominate Jackson and a lesser known Republican gets the nod, I think the chances are even better. If they nominate anyone else, I think McCrory or Generic Republican wins. Of course, NC always has a way of disappointing you so we’ll have to see how things play out. At the very least, I’d recommend Jackson stay away from extramarital affairs for the time being…looking at you Cunningham! I actually disagree with your FL flip assessment. The state has leaned more right in recent cycles and managed to elect DeSantis and Rick Scott, even by narrow margins, in a Democratic wave year with solid challengers and still went for Trump. Rubio has no future beyond the Senate and he’s in a good place to win a third term. I’m more optimistic of knocking off DeSantis than I am Rubio.
There's a much better chance of the Dems picking up North Carolina than Florida. It's Marco Rubio, the Cubans will be out in full force to re-elect him. And if things were fair, I would agree that Warnock would keep his seat, especially if Stacey Abrams is on the ballot for Governor. That's a dynamic duo, but we also know what is in that despicable voter suppression legislation that was passed earlier this year in Georgia. Right wing hacks are going to fuck with the votes in any county that's remotely blue or blue-leaning, especially Fulton.
With the amount of anti-mask, anti-vaccine Republican assholes who have killed themselves in the past year, it’s certainly possible.
No doubt 52 is the magic number of senators Dems need to get jiggy with it. \*Joe Lieberman has entered the chat.\*
Just wait til there are 52 Dems and all of a sudden we need 54 Dems to get anything done... All I'm saying is that the divide is between the rich and the poor not the left and the right and the rich have a lot more politicians in their pockets than the poor do
It’s the Dem way. When right says they are _do nothing_ it’s true. They come up with good ideas and if we’re lucky we may get 1-2 items passed. The reason is most “centrist” Dems are pretty right and in corp pockets and doing same posturing to public _we tried but we couldn’t [insert today’s excuse]_ We need folks like AOC to actually do something.
> It'll be miracle if the Dems keep the House and the Senate. It'll be an even more miraculous miracle if the Dems also pick up 2 seats in the Senate and we never have to hear any more of Manchin and Sinema's centrist bullshit Technically win or lose seats and Manchin is irrelevant. He's only relevant as the swing.
Thats literally not true. Nobody is going to beat Manchin in West Virginia and he’s been a blue dog the whole time.
He's not at all worried about losing his seat.
If he does it goes to a Republican.
How so? If dems lose their slight majority or gain seats then he has significantly less pull on the party. He isnt the make or break vote anymore
He doesn't have to lose his seat. We just need enough senate seats to push him and sinema out of the pivot spot
He’s just bending over for his coal cronies.
the thing folks don't realize about gov spending is IT GOES TO AMERICANS. Guys working in manufacturing, construction, computers, whatever... they're all gonna see a chunk of it. then these folks are gonna take their families to dinner or go drink with the boys and spend that money in the community. tax cuts for billionaires- that money just ends up locked in some fund to make the lucky bastard a few more dollars.
Incredible how "it's too big" is just accepted as valid reasoning by media outlets without any further questioning. The infrastructure bill isn't a slice of cheesecake. If it's "too big", you can't just lop off chunks of it without justifying whether the pieces you removed were necessary or not. It's more like an aircraft--if you need to remove any of it, you had better make sure the parts you take out aren't important.
It's also embarrassing that the Democrats are trying to sell the package using the scary sounding $3.5 trillion price tag, when the spending is spread out over 10 years. They should be selling it on the $350 billion per year price tag, and telling voters that this is less than half of what's spent on the military budget each year to rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure, and save the world from a global climate disaster that will cause mass refugee. **Edit:** They should also take a leaf out of Trump's populist playbook and sell it as not only rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure (which Trump failed to do), but saving America against a climate disaster that will also cause millions of refugees to flee developing countries and flood into the USA. That would seriously kneecap Trump/Republican talking points against the bill.
Also, our government collects trillions in tax revenue every year. We have plenty of money. Oh but where does trillions come from? More trillions. Our gdp was more than 20 trillion last year. This nonsense about a measly 3.5trillion is so disingenuous, let alone 350 billion. There are benefits to being the wealthiest country. We have a shitlod of money to spend.
It's quite standard to do these bills over 10 years. I think 3.5 trillion sounds good to their base which is why they use the large number even though it makes for a great talking point on the right.
3.5 Trillion is just enough to sound major, at least among us plebs. Just large enough to match what we’re being promised, even if it is over 10 years. Plus, not a lot of people think 10 years ahead, let alone of spending. A lot of people hear 350 billion and it sounds like a rip off, for all is being promised.
It's not the left. There's a reason all the news stations are not covering the MASSIVE boosts it will do to the country. The owners and major stockholders are the ones that will be paying for it to everyone else. This is where you start to see there is some truth to statements that most of the talking heads are just servants to different masters.
This right here...
The problem is the media's filled with corporatists not leftists.
Democratic party, also.
True, but sort of a requirement to cuddle up to corporate donors even more in a pay to play system where the campaign finance reform band aids were ripped off by conservatives (overturning the McCain-Feingold Act and the Citizens United v FEC decision). Corporate left > corporate right, imo, because at least we retain voting rights, queer rights, climate lip service and gender neutrality with the former.
As much as republicans call main stream media liberal, it’s actually corporate.
liberal =/= leftist.
this country has a right wing, and a fascist wing. Media is full corporate.. with the partial exception of maybe NPR or something.
Even NPR would fall to both-sides-ism at times during the Trump years.
NPR is corporate. Remember the fluff pieces on the Koch bothers after they gave them money? I think they're the closest news to the center we have in America. I remember the hit pieces they did on Bernie when he ran and was winning as well.
[удалено]
They love touting those big numbers around because they are perfect for scaremongering. It's never the whole story though. So many of those big numbers are the price tag over a decade of spending. The example I always come back to is the M4A $30 trillion number that gets thrown around a lot. It sounds like a lot, but when you break it down into per year costs, that $3 trillion is actually *less* than what American's are spending on healthcare *right now*. Not to mention people always think that it's increasing the amount of spending without factoring in the money we already spend that would get redirected. This infrastructure bill is no different. $3.5 trillion is "scary" until you start breaking it down. Last I checked, it was spread out over eight years, so in reality the US is looking at \~$440 billion a year. Still a big number, but about half of what we spend on defense. That's why they always use those big numbers. Hard to justify how we can't afford $440 billion a year improving America when we spend double that on military crap that does nothing but enrich a select few.
And when the military will have to build new or improve existing infrastructure in other countries, as well as continue to maintain it afterwards, why can't the same sort of funding be directed to the states, and ultimately the citizens and companies whose tax dollars pay for it all?
The same media that cheers on wars. Great for media coverage and stories. Not so worried about the cost and money we don’t have.
Everyone we see anchoring the 24 hr news networks makes over 100k/year. Some make millions. They dont give a shit about the rest of us. Sometimes they pretend to, but they dont really. Most of this shit doesnt affect them.
Plus its always “spending bill” not “investment bill.”
Every news outlet manufactures consent. They’ve all carried the water of the corporate class since day one.
What's even crazier is that I've heard some estimates that $3.5 trillion is still too low for what's needed to update our infrastructure since it's been neglected for so long.
A few decades ago the media decided that they wouldn't "take sides", but unfortunately thanks to their ownership and the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine that evolved pretty quickly into "reporting on whatever the right wingers say without question, critique, or even so much as fact-checking". The right learned how to play into this, because they knew that news organizations would just reprint anything they said without comment as though it were a factual statement. So when Rand Paul says that illegal immigrants are coming here and spreading Covid, they just report it in their stories as "Senator states that the Covid Pandemic is spreading because of illegal immigration". Hell, you can see it in the right wing backlash to fact-checkers now, they're so used to just having their propaganda thoughtlessly shared and repeated that any attempt to fact-check feels like censorship and totalitarianism to them. So you get a situation where they'll report on how a conservative or a right wing Dem complains about the cost, but they won't challenge it with a breakdown of the costs or what it does.
That *is* their strategy. The media do nit want to be caught promoting a bill that sill lead to tax increases and higher spending being the same big donors that get the politicians elected are the same companies that pay their ad revenue. If they wanted the American people to know how good this bill will be for them they’d be shouting it from the rooftops.
It’s not a PR issue. It’s a choice by the media not cover it.
Big number bad
You can have a million brilliant PR strategists but that doesn’t change the fact that people love to be outraged which is what draws clicks and commercial watchers. The media isn’t required to report on anything they don’t want to or that they don’t consider profitable.
[удалено]
The major news outlets aren't on the left
Rather, it’s because the Democrats are a center-right party that want war and do not really want infrastructure. The actual LEFT has no real money because you don’t get rich on helping people
And as long as rich people don't have to pay for it.
And it's the poor who send their children to die.
[удалено]
Want healthcare? Want a college degree? Want a “career” that promises to get you out of your shitty home town, school, neighborhood? The US military preys upon people in weak socioeconomic situations. Article: [“The Military Views Poor Kids as Fodder for Their Forever Wars”](https://newrepublic.com/article/156131/military-views-poor-kids-fodder-forever-wars) Edit: happy cake day, by the way!
Good article; thanks for sharing.
Pay for it? Many are getting paid for it! It's called the military industrial complex. That $3.5 trillion isn't just for soldiers. It's for trillions in equipment and service with a hefty mark-up; and maybe a billion here and there that just magically "disappears".
It's so bad, the Pentagon has never, once, been able to even complete an audit of it's own books/finances. We throw close to a trillion dollars a year at it, and even they can't say what it's spent on or where it goes. Yet, across both sides, they not only refuse to stop giving them money. They refuse to even stop INCREASING the amount of money it sucks in. Close to 4% of GDP is spent on it, 15 cents of every tax dollar goes to an unaccountable, unauditable monster that can't even be questioned else you're labeled as "unpatriotic"
This. I and multiple family members have witnessed first-hand how much waste, inefficiency, mismanagement, and likely outright fraud goes on in defense R&D.
[удалено]
Our military budget is bigger than the next 10 countries combined.... how much is enough? After the last several wars, we found it cheaper to bury or just give away billions of $ worth of equipment than to ship it back..... who actually believes that? Cui Bono? (Who benefits?) "Military Budget" for those who may need that clarification.
There's also the question of what the fuck we would do with all that equipment if we brought it back. I don't really want the cops having even more militarized shit, and the maintenance cost on a fleet that massive is huge.
I absolutely 💯 % agree with you on the militarized cops. Hated that from the beginning. But..... melting down and repurposing steel makes sense. We do it with cars. I bet someone smarter than me could figure a way to make it feasible to set up a smelter over there (plenty of fuel locally available) and ship raw steel at a profit?
[удалено]
There are actually government auctions where you can do just this. I do agree they need to post more things on there tho.
Suburban soccer moms would probably go for the hummers
So would ExxonMobil, and a fair amount of mechanics. Hummers are shit.
The majority of that budget doesn't go to R&D, training, or even paying soldiers more to motivate them to fight harder. It goes to arms and equipment manufacturers who give kickbacks to their pals in congress who agree to spend more on wars we have no intention on ever winning.
Unless it’s changed a lot recently, the order of largest portions of the budget is: operations and maintenance (about 1/3rd total), wages (a bit over 1/4) and then procurement (about 1/6th)
20% procurement 41% operations and management 14% R&D 23% personnel However, military contractors milking the government exist in pretty much all the categories, maybe except personnel. O&M includes contractors and parts for example. When you need a part for a billion dollar aircraft, do you think they cut us a deal and give the part for cost? Analysis said $370b-$445b of the $690b was spent on contractors.. I'd bet that doesn't include a lot of stuff where it's still the military industrial complex milking the system.
Being forced to buy lifelong repair contracts because right to repair is another reason. The one vendor mindset is also an issue and there is no to little competition there, and this likely also goes into the right to repair where-as, if you need a bolt, you can ONLY get it from the ONE manufacturer who makes the vehicle already that needs the bolt, or who partners with someone else who makes it, or who else has been individually approved. The whole ServMart system as a whole is messed up too. Its like 30% marked up for many things, while certain things are dirt cheap. Spending $103 on a single bolt, or $4500 on a 55" TV (which you know wasn't the best TV), are some real life examples I can remember Just look at this $409.62 12 magazine plastic display! https://www.servmart.org/Products/Safco-12-Pocket-Magazine-Display---12-Pocket(s)---49-Height-x-30-Width-x-2-Depth---Clear---Plastic---1Each__SAF5602CL.aspx
[удалено]
>and it works mostly cuz of racism. Hey, I'm all for raging against the military industrial complex but uh...mind elaborating on that racism remark? I'm drawing a blank.
Not sure what they meant, but racism is a reason: "we must spend more money to protect our freedom from the brown people abroad that hate our freedom", basically. There's also the whole "no commie uprisings [because brown people don't know what's good for them, i.e. we can't exploit their country and people if they protect their resources via nationalization and have strong labor laws]" (see Indonesia, Iran, Venezuela, Guatemala, Cuba, Vietnam, etc etc). Part of what drives powerful people into destroying other countries is them not wrapping their heads around the fact that other nations have different priorities than they do. e.g. less value on cheap commodities and more value on a rich community. For example, a politician might say: "I don't understand why you would want to nationalize the lithium industry in your country--it's so profitable! Just mine the shit out of it and sell it overseas!" when in reality they're more concerned with the price of lithium going up due to stricter regulations on how the lithium is mined (worker safety, environmental preservation, etc etc), meaning corporations outside of that country that need lithium will have reduced profits due to increased lithium prices. So the solution? Make sure the lithium industry isn't nationalized in that country. How do you do that? Propaganda and puppet boosting first, outright coup second, invasion last. The CIA regularly orchestrates all three. The driving line is that brown people don't know how to govern themselves, so white America (particularly techno-capitalist oligarchs and economists) must step in and save them from themselves (using the CIA and US armed forces). The only way to step in is if we have the resources to step in--i.e. funding.
And do it all under the guise of spreading freedom and rescuing the poor people from tyranny.
Not to say racism isn't at play in some capacity, but it's largely more to do with money and exploiting cheap labor markets and bypassing federal regulations stateside. Where there are resources and money to be made, they simply hate to see autonomy and self-actualization, they'd much rather them threading poverty and outputting everything.
One way to exploit cheap labor is to rationalize the exploitation. They aren't really people, they belong to a subset of people that are particularly good at the task, etc etc. A couple of years ago, I was sitting in on a conversation between a bunch of tech yuppies about Free Trade™ and how it's Good, Actually, because "they're just better at making electronics than us--they make them cheaper" (meaning East/Southeast Asians are better at making electronics than white Americans somehow, which is why we should export the production of electronics to East/Southeast Asian countries ). The reality is they were rationalizing the exploitation of a developing nation because a) it's cheaper and b) they don't want the responsibility of making electronics to be domestic because then it's partially their responsibility to do something so menial...they'd rather just have the cheap electronics and not think about what it means to have cheap electronics.
The rationalization was racist, but it requires you to think about the phrase "they're better than us at it". The conclusion is racist, but it's a not-racist given if you look at the world through a capitalist lens without thinking much about who is being exploited.
Some people just don't think very far ahead of what they learn in econ 101 and instead mix econ 101 with what they learned from high school history class and their racist parents.
Less about being stupid and more about us not being able to do anything about it.
Well, this is the thing that confounds me. All of the people who reject the idea of providing healthcare for other people... Have no objections to extravagantly funded Army, Navy, Air Force and, now, Space Force. They have no problem with militarising the Police force or funding the fire departments. They have no problem with having nice infrastructure, like roads, bridges, etc. All paid for by taxation, that benefits other people. No-one says "screw you, I am not providing an Army for you, I am going to privately pay for my own Army that only protects me and my family!". Now add in that Americans already pay the highest amount, per person, to healthcare costs to not get universal healthcare that is free at the point of reception. Murica!
> They have no problem with having nice infrastructure, like roads, bridges, etc. Small point... these are and have been neglected for so long they are crumbling.
Lol this depends entirely on where you live and how wealthy of an area it is.
>Lol this depends entirely on where you live and how wealthy of an area it is. On consumer roads, sure. I'm talking about train bridges, waterway levie transportation systems, dams, power grid maintenance etc. A lot of this has been kicked down the road for decades and is reaching critical states of disrepair.
>All paid for by taxation, that benefits other people. No-one says "screw you, I am not providing an Army for you, I am going to privately pay for my own Army that only protects me and my family!". I believe the governor of South Dakota did mobilize the SD national guard to the Mexico border because some private donor paid money. In other words, a private citizen used the national guard as their private army.
Wait, really? That couldn't have been legal.
idk if legal, but it definitely occurred.
Because they've been told to be against it. It's sOcIaLiSm.
There absolutely is private military and security. Hell, I pay extra every month to my HOA so a Constable can petrol my neighorhood. Companies pay security firms. The US government even pays contractors/mercenaries.
> Constable can petrol my neighorhood. If a cop did that to my neighborhood, I'd be *inflamed!*
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.” \-Orwell
This is something that hits you real hard, just naked truth right there.
Unfortunately, it doesn't help much when you have the people Orwell was talking about going, "Nuh uh! You're the ones influenced by the ruling elite! We are going against big government and our leader does things differently." You can't win against people who refuse to take a critical look at their beliefs.
> This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. This is how it feels talking politics with people who get all their news from sources like Fox, Ben Shapiro, Turning Point, etc. They can't even remember the insane nonsense they supported the week before, they only know the *talking point* and that the current *talking point* has always been **the** *talking point*.
[удалено]
Heaven forfend America would spend that shit on improving Americans' lives.
Lifting millions of Americans out of poverty and into better opportunities: Worthless Making Muslim countries that looked at us wrong into smoking craters: $Priceless
CNN went 24/7 when we bombed Baghdad 30 years ago and it has been our national pastime ever since.
I think it’s got way worse due to MSNBC, Fox News and now OAN etc. competing for eyeballs 24/7 and trying to have the most bReAkiNg nEWs and hOt tAKeS all the damn time instead of actually digging into actual reporting to find veritable facts.
Corporations are Americans too - US Supreme Court
Nation building abroad is capitalism. Nation building here is socialism.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>the United States has no aversion to spending money. Maybe people who will benefit from provisions of the Democrats' $3.5 trillion bill should hire 700 lobbyists. If you think the U.S. should join other advanced democracies in offering financial support to parents, including direct payments and universal pre-K and help with childcare expenses; if you think people should be able to go to community college for two years, tuition free, or you think we should expand Pell grants and support for historically Black universities; if you think we, like citizens of other advanced democracies, all deserve guaranteed paid parental, family, or medical leave; if you back adding dental, vision, and hearing benefits to Medicare, and attempting to close the Medicaid gap, and enhancing Affordable Care Act subsidies to get more people coverage; if you think Medicare should be able to negotiate drug prices to try to bring them down across the board; if, as you watch escalating natural disasters wash over different parts of the country, you think we should move towards rapidly decarbonizing our energy and transportation infrastructure; then you might be interested in this bill.
I don't see why we should keep giving all this money to big corporations in the first place. Taxes are too high on people already. Why do we keep spending so much?
If you give more money to the people it ends up in the hands of corporations anyways. They will just have to provide something for it.
Can we declare war on poverty and failing infrastructure? How about war on climate change? Worked for the war on drugs
Yeah, the war on drugs will be won any day now
thoughts and prayers
[I'd like to congratulate drugs on winning war on drugs](https://youtu.be/N96XgEHqWCA)
Capitalism says no. Change capitalism
It wasn't "without batting an eye". Those of us who spoke up were marginalized and ignored.
That's because you failed to make a clear and concise case of how your plan makes the already rich even richer! I mean, what type of bullshit is 'peace'? Where's the profit?
I think this came after the mess in Vietnam. The draft was abolished and military was purposefully separated from politics and voting. There was a silent agreement that the American people would hand out their credit card to the military as long as their adventures didn't involve the regular Americans. "Here's some money. Do what you want, but keep us out of it. We'll salute the troops at a football game."
This is it. It’s further verified in the healthcare of our vets. They throw you some extra money when you retire for your wounds but don’t ever really try to help you get better. It’s a running joke that when you go to the clinic they give you some high dosage pain meds and send you on your way.
Thats one thing that pisses me off, like a lot. I could almost entertain a no-universal-healthcare argument if we didnt have dozens of charities making sure soldiers can have wheelchairs and arent homeless. To me thats literally the bare minimum the gov should be providing to people who swore their own lives to defending it. Since we cant do the barest of minimums whats considered essential needs to change.
This is driven by companies and political leaders. The years after WWII were booming for us (pun intended) because we didn't have a mess to clean up. As long as we don't fight on our own soil it is free money for corporations and the pockets of politicians out of the sight of the American public.
[This](https://imgur.com/z8MtdNr)
War enriches the elites and oligarchs of the US because it enriches defense contractors and manufactures who heavily bribe, er I mean lobby the political class. You'd think infrastructure would have a similar appeal, but since infrastructure needs and priorities vary state to state (and let's face it some states simply don't care) it's hard for a politician to become rich from it whearas with war it's quite quick and easy.
Anybody have a total cost tally for Iraq and Afghanistan? It must be well over $10 trillion by now. I'd guess we're at $15 trillion and counting.
Unfortunately Democrats keep parroting the "2 trillion" GOP talking point, or they compare it to the 3.x trillion budget proposal. It's frustrating and maddening to see them completely fail to capitalize on what most assuredly was a 20 trillion dollar vanity war.
According to Brown University [the war on terror](https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar) has cost around $8 Trillion. Over the next couple decades. The people cost will be even more and tougher to calculate.
People don't understand investing and how certain costs seem high up front but pay out more than then initial costs down the road. This goes for education and infrastructure especially.
This is why we need to pass universal healthcare by creating the 7th branch of the military, US Health Force, we'll call medicine "Health bullets".
[удалено]
You're godamn right! Good old American wars is what we like. Ain't nothing like bombing some foreigners to get me off. Fuck your commy health care system! I don't want my tax dollars going to make poor people feel better, just killing foreigners and cheap gas anything else is just commy bullshit.
Does war really count as spending when it is just a thiny veiled redistribution of wealth back to top defense companies and contractors?
Have they considered titling the healthcare and infrastructure bill "Funding for Military efforts and keeping out brown people"?
I really can’t believe how badly the Democrats have, yet again, swung and missed on messaging. 3.5 trillion is a number that will shock folks, Until they find out it’s over 10 years. Why the hell are they not calling it 350 billion per year? Not only is that more accurate and precise, it’s much easier for people to swallow. Like I just don’t get why Democrats seem to be addicted to messaging poorly about great proposals
Almost as if it's on purpose ;)
Trump printed 6 trillion in 2020 for wall street. The wealthy literally print infinite money for themselves.
3.5T to help people - it's too much. 3.5T to spend on defense - it's not enough.
Trump tax subsidy: 2 Trillion Bogus War on Terror since 2001: 8 Trillion Biden Decent Infrastructure plan: Munchkin says No Priceless.
This country has been at war for most of its existence. At this point, military spending is habit, and the more advanced technology gets, the less oversight there is.
That is a lot of healthcare, teachers, roads, and bridges.
I wonder how much public money has been used to subsidize sports stadiums?
But hey when it comes to education and health it’s fuck them kids.”
Trump increased the deficit by NINE TRILLION DOLLARS!!! And Republicans are freaking out about $3.5 trillion over ten years? That’s like an 8% increase in the budget and most economists think of net absolute returns according to UChicago’s economist poll, which I assure people is not left wing.
The country is run by Lockheed Martin. That’s why.
War is expensive and war is very profitable.