republicans always focus on stopping smallest spending with the most appreciable results, versus military spending which vastly outweighs all other expenses with little result. they are true morons.

I'm gonna have to be that guy. $500 a month for a family of four is $2k, which is a very good chunk of money to drop in your lap.

That works out the same as it they were on a single income, working 40 hour weeks at $10/hr, so almost equivalent to a full time job. No doubt that's gonna be a big deal and noticeable financial improvement to the recipient(s).

As always with UBI schemes, the devil is in how you pay for it. If it's truly universal, paying $500/month to ~330 million Americans would cost $1.98 Trillion dollars, meanwhile the current entire US gov budget for 2022 is estimated at $1.2 Trillion.

So, to implement $500/month universally in America would require not only increasing overall tax revenues by almost 50% it would also require the cancellation of 100% of every single other expenditure. That not includes military spending going to zero, but even cancelling the jobs of everyone that collects taxes and would presumably have been responsible for distributing the $500 checks.

If the 'fix' is to just tax the pants off anyone earning more than the $500/month, or limiting who we give it to, then it ceases to be a UBI scheme, and is instead just a mundane modification of the existing social security scheme by shuffling more money back and forth between different folks.

I think, for humanity's sake, especially since WWI, no war is really that "necessary", there are ample ways for countries to file their grivances and seek restitution. War propaganda is the age old version of "toxic masculinity" politicians & the MIC love to impressed upon easily persuaded youths & the gullibles to fight for heir own political & financial agenda.

Every tax dollar going into the military is a dollar taken away from other social services. People have to decide what's the balance. But name me the last year that the US gov't have decreased military spending and upped social services (or lower taxes)?

"Thank you for your service".... ha! Easily said than done. Just look at how much governments reaaaaaally put their moeny into VA services to help the Vets in need.

I know you're joking, but you aren't wrong.

As a Canadian I am pretty sick of hearing some of the very snide attitudes up here about look at us and how we afford public healthcare at similar taxation to the US. How dumb are you guys to be spending so much money on evil killing machines. snicker snicker

The thing of it is though, we spend as good as nothing on military spending by comparison, and yeah, by saving that money we get to cheap out on taxes and still afford the public health program we have. However, we 100% are earning that luxury on the backs of US taxpayers funding a military that protects BOTH our country and theirs.

We are getting a free ride and mocking the driver for spending so much on their car that we absolutely rely upon because our car is missing two wheels and the engine needs to be rebuilt and we're too cheap to be bothered.

On March 16, 2017 President Trump submitted his request to Congress for $639 billion in military spending—$54 billion—which represents a 10 percent increase—for FY 2018 as well as $30 billion for FY2017 which ends in September.

Not wanting to get rich in Norway? Not wanting toys? Meh.
Military spending in Norway per capita? We're in 7th place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita

In Scandinavia anyone can get wealthy. Anyone can get a proper college education.

Health care? In the US you spend more per capita than in Scandinavia.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-spending/u-s-health-spending-twice-other-countries-with-worse-results-idUSKCN1GP2YN

I quite prefer the model here, and wouldn't switch for the world.
Sure I pay a lot of taxes - half my salary goes to taxes, and I pay 25% VAT on the rest - but I do get value for my money; education, health care, pension and a good infrastructure.

And hey - to help other countries - how about we add up the military spending we use with with how much we spend on development aid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

I'm pretty sure that if the tables were turned and somehow Hillary ran as a Republican, the Democrats would have voted for Trump as well. We tend to overlook things like reason and sanity in the USA when it comes to people/teams/etc that we hate.

Plus Trump was selling a message that a lot of people bought into, that they were somehow going to go back to a time when factory and coal jobs were a thing for middle class union type people. People who didn't work in those fields knew it was bogus from the get go, but when you live in a shitty area and desperately want to scroll back progress so that you can get your guaranteed 30+ an hour job/lifetime pension without a college education, you tend to overlook small things like guys grabbing pussies.

You are right, in a sane country Hillary probably would have been elected. She also probably wouldn't have been eligible to run because she would have beaten out Obama in 2008. She didn't because people were so desperate for something, anything to change in our fucked up government that they went with Obama. Hell, I even voted for him the first time. But, we lost our sanity sometime around the period when elected an actor over a generally 'nice guy' kind of president. Said actor/governor then instituted the following amazing things:

* The War on Drugs - utter failure
* Reaganomics - depends on who you ask, but it pretty much fucked us for years to come.
* Wonderful changes and cuts to education - See previous. They are still trying to undo the fuckery that was done to education in the 80's.
* Increased military spending to astronomical levels - pretty much fucked anyone not working for defense contractors.
* Destabilized Nicaragua and pissed off Iran worse at us - yeah, that didn't work out for us.
* Largely ignored the AIDs epidemic - tragedy on multiple levels.
* Etc

That fucker is still viewed as one of the best presidents and Carter as one of the worst.

It's so disheartening to see how relatively cheap it would be to put a base on the moon but countries like the US and China would rather spend 5-10x that amount on their defense budgets. The US alone could fully fund a moon base project by reducing their defense budget by 5-10% and that money could probably even be found simply by eliminating all the mismanagement, misappropriation, and waste that occurs with military spending.

@CrushBug -- Very good arguments in favor of absorbing the cost, even IF hormone therapy / gender reassignment is paid for by the military / government.

@entr0py -- Links that I've read from conventional news outlets claim that hormone therapy and gender reassignment were covered by military healthcare IF a doctor signed off on them as being medically necessary. An article I read about Chelsea Manning specifically stated that the hormone therapy was definitely paid for by the military, but that it wasn't 100% clear who paid the bill for her gender reassignment. I can't find that exact article, but here's another one from 2015 that suggests the same things:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/12/chelsea-manning-hormone-therapy/23311813/

Another article I read said that Obama issued an order / proclamation / whatever that the military would pay for those things if they were deemed medically necessary, which was a change from the former system (not covered). Not sure when/if that went into effect, but I think it must have. I'll look and see if I can find a link to that one.

I'm not saying that my info is right and yours is wrong, but it seems unclear. They (gender reassignment and hormone therapy) definitely weren't covered for a long time, but it seems like the hormone therapy was for sure at least in Manning's case.

Again, just to my personal opinion, I think the old system of "welcome to serve but we ain't paying for that stuff" was fine (ideal?). CrushBug presents a good argument for the military absorbing those costs since they are such a tiny fraction of the military budget (even though trans soldiers are arguably also a tiny fraction of the total).

Strangely enough, I'd pretty happily agree to those services being covered (if deemed medically necessary) as part of single-payer universal health care available to ALL CITIZENS. That would still be paying for them with tax dollars, but not tax dollars earmarked for military, which seems better to me somehow.

And again, I think Trump is 100% in the wrong for barring trans people from service simply for being trans. I agree that he's really just trying to rile up his base and trigger their righteous indignation. But, I do still basically think that the military paying for those services (or viagra / hair transplants / botox / cosmetic stuff, etc.) out of their budget is wrong. Even if amounts to a drop in the ocean that is military spending.

I see we've reached the point where the Dems have decided that they can go back to the playlist of ignoring the lower to average middle class vote. It might work for a single election or two, because Trump is an unmitigated disaster, but it is going to come back and bite them in the rear again.

Obama, even though he ended up being centrist and a clinton style democrat, preached change and got elected. Trump spoke of change and got elected. When are the politicians going to realize that we WANT change?

What they are doing now and before just isn't working. If we cut our military spending in half, we would still have the most advanced force in the world, would still be spending billions more than anyone else, and could probably offer either free college or a single payer healthcare system (maybe both, I haven't tried to figure out the numbers).

Every clip they show of this amazing laser-guided precision weapon disperses randomly and misses 90% of the vehicles in the target zone.

Seems to me the lasers, rockets, computer chips, etc. are a bit wasted.

Typical American military. Spend $50 billion on a weapon system which is barely better than the simple low-tech solution and poverty-level wages for the people who will deploy it.

As great as John Oliver is, he spent more time there mocking them over petty things as opposed to really concentrating on the (admittedly real) flaws in their platforms.

OK, Stein's "music" is cringeworthy. And Johnson's "skirt" comment is creepy and ill advised, but clearly meant in a metaphorical way.

It kinda bothers me when people (not just Oliver) do it to Trump and Clinton also. Like Trump having "tiny hands", or bringing up cankles or pantsuits for Clinton.

All of those things can be funny, a few times. But bringing them up constantly makes it seem like we have nothing of actual substance to criticize them for -- which is clearly not the case.


He did bring up legitimate concerns for some of Stein and Johnson's signature platforms. In both cases, that criticism boiled down to "you can't actually do that", as in the president doesn't actually have the power to implement the policy that they want. That's fair ... BUT, pretty much every single politician ever makes campaign promises that they don't actually have the power to implement. You pretty much have to if you want to get elected.

That doesn't mean that setting those policies as goals can't have value. Obama wanted a much more thorough overhaul of healthcare and insurance, but he didn't have the power to make it happen unilaterally. So we ended up with a watered-down version of Obamacare after the Republicans in the legislature did everything they could to obstruct it. But still, even though it isn't exactly what Obama originally had in mind, there are plenty of people now with some health coverage who had none before. That's a tangible positive result.

Trump will never build his wall, even if he ends up in the White House (not likely). I offer no defense for this idiotic idea, but it is at least possible for massive public works projects to be used to create jobs, improve infrastructure, and have other tangible positive effects; like FDR's New Deal.

Hillary would face lots of obstruction if she attempts to implement her plan to let people attend public universities for free. Probably more than Obama did on Obamacare. But trying to do something to make post-secondary education more available to everyone is a good goal. Even if the cynic in me thinks she only produced this "plan" as a way to try to win support of Sanders voters.

Johnson couldn't eliminate income tax, or abolish all those departments he mentioned. But he could rein in a lot of spending that the Executive branch does have power over. That could be a good thing in many cases (I'd be happy to see the TSA eliminated and military spending drastically reduced), but there are also a lot of potential problems. See Kansas transformation to "Brownbackistan" as a result of Sam Brownback's drastic tax cuts.

And Stein couldn't forgive student loan debt for this "entire generation". But just like Clinton's proposal to make public universities free, there is potential value to be found in just trying to do something about the insane problems with our university system. Hillary is a savvy enough politician to know not to say too much about her plan, which would open it up to scrutiny and criticism. Stein stepped into that by revealing her political inexperience, but I tend to trust that she does actually want to do something as opposed to Hillary just saying what she needs to say to get more votes.

First up, bring back the old quoting system!

"I'm of the opinion that both Hillary and Trump would make bad presidents."

Agreed.

"That being said, I don't really believe the narrative that Trump would be the worse of the two; the "apocalyptic" one to elect. Trump is incompetent and chaotic. Hillary is greasy and corrupt."

Which one has campaigned for a law that flagrantly violates the first amendment? Which one has called an entire demographic of US citizens rapists and murderers?

" I think the system (which is actually pretty well designed at its core..."

The American political system is a complete clusterfuck. You have a two party monopoly, the electoral college is a disaster and then there's Citizens United.

"The DNC had a chance to put in another option that would have easily had as much support from core Democrats as Hillary, but also would have energized younger voters AND been a very attractive option for Republicans who don't buy in to Trump (of which there are many). But instead, they left their fingers on the scales and tipped things in favor of Hillary."

Completely agree. Instead of the excitement of a Bernie running, you have the "ugh, Hillary, I guess" attitude.

"So, I'll vote for one of the 3rd party candidates (I like Stein's stance on Snowden, so probably her) or write in the option that crooked DNC and Hillary denied us. Either of those actions is de-facto more likely to result in President Trump, and I acknowledge that. But like I said, I'm OK with that -- I honestly believe Hillary would be worse, and the main thing is that me and other people like me have to send a message to both parties that they need to present us with more reasonable candidates if they expect us to have any degree of the "party loyalty" that both sides expected / enjoyed in the past. This election cycle shows that they are taking that for granted -- so screw 'em."

And here we have the major issue. I have NO IDEA how people think electing Trump will somehow bring down the system. "Screw 'em"?? As in the dems and the gop? It won't bother them in the slightest.

But it will bother Mexicans, Muslims, LGBT people and em.... damnit, there was another demographic that the Republicans want to fuck over.... oh yeah... women.

Forget Trump. As much of an unconscionable arsehole as he is, look at the GOP platform for 2016:
- tax cuts for the rich
- repeal environmental protections
- an anti-abortion amendment
- oppose stem cell research
- prop up the electoral college
- ignore climate change agreements
- repeal obamacare
- abolish net neutrality
- oppose same-sex marriage
- abstinence-based sex education
- increase military spending
- the ridiculous and wasteful border wall

and finally, appoint a new Supreme Court Judge to push all this through. And THAT is the real reason Trump can't be allowed to be President. Say what you want about Hillary, but at least she won't choose a complete loon for the supreme court. Trump might pick David Duke, for all we know.

@bareboards2

I've been operational in a war-zone. Shot at twice, and in a Mexican standoff once, but I never fired my own weapon.

Fact is, other developed nations manage just fine (for the most part) when it comes to things like this. It doesn't help that the US has never and probably will never allow any member of the forces to be prosecuted internationally for war crimes.

I know someone who was in Italy many years ago when a US plane decided to buzz underneath the wires of a gondola (the mountain kind, not the Venice kind, obviously). The tail of the plane caught on the wire and 12 people died, including a few children. There was no criminal prosecution for the pilot, crew, or commanding officers. I mean, just look at all the Wikileaks files on war crimes committed by US soldiers, barely any of them received any kind of judicial review (if any at all did, I never heard of them) including indiscriminate killing of random civilians.

Like it or not, that's a part of the US military culture and they worked hard to make things that way. In Vietnam it was estimated that one in a million shots fired from small arms actually HIT an enemy combatant. They learned it was because fewer than one in ten soldiers even TRIED to hit.

On top of that, the pay is so terrible, it's mostly those desperate to lift themselves and their family out of abject poverty that apply for enlisted positions. They are not well-educated and they are certainly not (for the most part) intelligent, hard-working individuals. The US chooses to spend the vast bulk of military spending on technology, rather than people (after all, it's easier to give kickbacks to your political donors that way).

Well, this is the result. A military with no fear of repercussions unless you're one of the poor scapegoats at Abu Ghraib (and if you think they represent even one tenth of the total personnel involved, you're out to lunch) and you're dumb enough to take pictures of yourself, there's pretty much nothing you can do to the 'enemy' that will get you in serious trouble.

Why do you think the Brits insisted on their own zones of Iraq for the second gulf war? In the first one they fought alongside Americans and suffered more casualties from American fire than they did from Iraqi fire. I talked to a Brit armored officer who was in the first gulf war. He went to introduce himself to the colonel of the American unit next to them, the Colonel stared in amazement at the Scorpion light tank and said, "What the hell kind of Bradley is that?" I can guarantee you, every soldier, from Private to the Colonel of my regiment could have identified every armored vehicle on the battlefield.

It seems it's more like 18-19% of every dollar. It's around 54% of DISCRESSIONARY spending, but only 18-19% of the total spent by the fed (what's on the books, that is).
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2014
http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go