this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
781 points (92.1% liked)

Political Memes

5232 readers
1845 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 85 points 10 months ago (25 children)

Just tax billionaires and we can have all of the above and a surplus budget.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 38 points 10 months ago (8 children)

How about we tax billionaires and also not give giant gifts to defense companies every year?

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 23 points 10 months ago (8 children)

unless conflicts end worldwide I want my country to maintain the highest level of military technology and local capacity to ramp up if needed. That being said I don't want my country involved with every conflict in the world.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 24 points 10 months ago (5 children)

If the USA wouldn't be randomly invading countries every few years, they could keep the same level of military technology while spending much less.

The Iraq war did nothing to increase the US military's capabilities but just wasted enourmous amounts of money while killing civilians on a daily basis.

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah but it also gave us the Saddam Hussein outline meme.

Trillions well spent.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

NCD user spotted

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

that's not how technology works, stuff will get outdated if we use it or not

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bilboswaggings@sopuli.xyz 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As a Finn I don't want the US to stop fully... but they have a huge amount of excess, it's insane how much money they waste

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Good news, they could reduce it by 400 billion a year and still spend more than the the other 3 biggest spenders combined

[–] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

If it's at the expense of everything else that could help the state of the country and quality of life, what's the point?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'm pretty sure the U.S. can do that without an $816.7 billion defense budget, much of which goes to giant corporations, and without being larger than the next 20 militaries combined.

How about we do a $400 billion defense budget and only be larger than the next 10?

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

, much of which goes to giant corporations, and without being larger than the next 20 militaries combined.

The biggest expenses, by far, are personnel costs and maintenance. The idea that the defense budget is a giant gift to contractors is just not backed up by evidence.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I want my country to maintain the highest level of military technology and local capacity to ramp up if needed

There is N-word that will burn some asses: nationalize.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Watching Ukraine absolutely stonewall Russia using cold era tech has been incredible. Imagine what modern equipment could do. I can't wait to see what happens when they get f-16s, which were developed in the mid 70s by the way.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] takeda@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Yeah, because that for sure will stop other world powers from arming themselves and attacking others.

And to answer upcoming question: why we should care not others instead of ourselves. No one attacks us militarily (we are attacked via hubris warfare with disinformation such as this though) because we are armed.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] uis@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

not give giant gifts to defense companies

There is N-word that will burn some asses on lemmy.world: nationalize.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not just billionaires; corporations.

[–] Glytch@ttrpg.network 13 points 10 months ago

If we consider corporations people (and the Supreme Courts says we have to) then we should tax their income. That means total income, not profits because I don't pay taxes on what's left over after my bills, so why should corps get to?

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 45 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We would have money for both if we taxed the rich.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 22 points 10 months ago

This is the thing that really drives me nuts.

It's not either/or. That's the billionaires' argument.

[–] Bye@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The USA spends twice as much on public healthcare than it does on defense.

(Medicare and Medicaid = 1.4 trillion per year, vs. defense = 700 billion per year)

The problem isn’t that tax money is being used for defense.

The problem is that healthcare prices are insane in the US, and that the government isn’t allowed to negotiate lower prices (even though they have the weight to do so).

[–] nbafantest@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The real problem is that US insurance/healthcare was specifically designed to tie you to an employer.

[–] Bye@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

Absolutely true. In the late 40s, when other countries were setting up public healthcare, we didn’t do it because we didn’t need to since employers offered healthcare plans. So it didn’t happen for us. Now there is no political will, because employers LOVE the leverage it gives them.

[–] MooseBoys@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

DoD spending was $1.8 trillion in 2023, of which $700B was “discretionary” spending. Medicare and medicaid spending was $1.6 trillion, of which $0 was discretionary.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

and that the government isn’t allowed to negotiate lower prices

I'm not even sure how it works. This sounds like any company can sell any bullshit to medicare and they have no choice, but to buy it.

I don't live in US, that's why I'm asking.

[–] runjun@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago (11 children)

Kind of funny that it’s an F-16 used here. The 22 or 35 would have been even more apt as an example.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

Yeah, the F16 is one of the best examples of a fighter that can do nearly every role competently while being reasonably affordable. There is a reason so many countries bought it.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

An F-35 would have been better for this picture, but still a good meme.

Edit. Shit someone else said this

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Dumb Russian propaganda.especially that the equipment we are sending we would have to pay to dispose.

Besides one doesn't exclude the other and GOP wants to cut it no matter what.

Also stuff like Medicare for all would actually save money. Social security is another pool of money separate from other taxes and working people pay for it. Aren't student loan cuts actually a good thing? What is job opportunity cuts? What are legal services cuts? At least in my school school lunches expanded and include all children regardless of income.

Edit: for those downvoting, here's why it is dumb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget just for Medicare alone we already spending the same amount as for the defense.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

No, you can have all those but it would result in a rounding error for the rich

[–] FleetingTit@feddit.de 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Medicare isn't old enough to have paid for the F-16.

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 6 points 10 months ago

Wow I guess the whole point is moot.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Make another one except for corporate fat cats and the rich getting tax cuts.

[–] danekrae@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (5 children)

I live in a first world country, so can anyone tell me what a food stamp is? I've heard a lot about them from TV, but I don't understand wth it is. Is it discounts that the government pay for food, who makes them, where do people get them?

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It just means that the goverment will give you money to buy food if you're poor.

They used to be stamped paper cards, hence "Food Stamps", but are now distributed via debit cards. The name stuck, even though current programs have different names

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Sorry you're getting down votes for just asking a question

The other comment reply got you your answer, but I'll just add that these days, I believe "food stamps" are under the government acronyms of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and are dispersed via EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer).

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›