Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

CherokeeFiddle

(297 posts)
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 07:23 AM Sep 2017

US Says No Money for Social Programs, But '$700 Billion to Kill People? Yup!

I'm sorry but this enrages me. Absolutely infuriates me. Makes my head spin and say "what the hell is going on with our reps?!"

I am sick and tired of hearing the argument of "that costs too much!" or "no we can't have this because it will raise taxes!" as excuses for NOT having social programs like the rest of the damn world has. When are we going say enough is enough while we seemingly have all this money for military bullshit? Seriously!

Only 8 senators voted against this bill, 3 didn't vote. 8. EIGHT.
This isn't right folks. Here is a list of the 8 who said no: Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ron Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

Here is a list of those who all said yes.



US Says No Money for Social Programs, But '$700 Billion to Kill People? Yeah That We Have'

Where were the pundits and elected lawmakers who complain about the cost of providing healthcare to all Americans when the Senate voted to spend $700 billion on the military?

Many critics were raising this question Monday after the Senate—in what was portrayed as yet another indication of bipartisan support for endless war—overwhelmingly approved the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which will dump a larger sum of money into the military budget than even President Donald Trump asked for while also authorizing the production of 94 F-35 jets, two dozen more than the Pentagon requested.

Passage of the NDAA—which this year approves a $700 billion defense budget, an annual increase of $80 billion—is something of an automated process in Washington, one that often flies under the radar and garners little opposition.

However, with support for Medicare for All and free public college tuition soaring, many are calling attention to the hypocrisy of pundits who yell about the costs of single-payer healthcare providing debt-free higher education while remaining entirely silent about the war budget.

MORE https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/09/19/us-says-no-money-social-programs-700-billion-kill-people-yeah-we-have

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
US Says No Money for Social Programs, But '$700 Billion to Kill People? Yup! (Original Post) CherokeeFiddle Sep 2017 OP
I'm sure people will say Bettie Sep 2017 #1
Sadly you're more than likely correct CherokeeFiddle Sep 2017 #2
I share your outrage WinstonSmith00 Sep 2017 #3
I'm so disappointed in the Democrats on this list. alarimer Sep 2017 #4
At least for Sherrod Brown . . . . HughBeaumont Sep 2017 #6
I get that for red states, it would be a problem not to be seen as pro-military alarimer Sep 2017 #9
So, yeah . . . . HughBeaumont Sep 2017 #5
Another brick in the Wall ... GeorgeGist Sep 2017 #7
DURec leftstreet Sep 2017 #8
 

WinstonSmith00

(228 posts)
3. I share your outrage
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 08:01 AM
Sep 2017

Its truly disgusting that the people that voted yes on that list would rather see a baby die from US bomb than give children in our own country guaranteed universal health care.

Death and destruction is more important than life to anyone who supported this fraud against US tax payers.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
4. I'm so disappointed in the Democrats on this list.
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 09:01 AM
Sep 2017

At least Sanders is consistent. But Warren? Voting for what is essentially a corporate giveaway? Because for sure that money is not gong to the troops in the form of higher pay or benefits. It is a slush fund for corporations to create more weapons systems that don't actually work.

It seems Democrats are still trying to overcome their wimp image. Though that is unwarranted, given how war-mongery they are when they are elected President.

HughBeaumont

(24,461 posts)
6. At least for Sherrod Brown . . . .
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 09:33 AM
Sep 2017

. . . . normally one of the best progressives we have in the Senate, he's between a rock and a hard-on.

Koch-funded Josh Mandel is running against him . . . again . . . and having Koch money is the only thing propping up Josh Mandel, as bigwigs in his own party don't even like him. They think he's a sleazy, smarmy Rovian shit with zero scruples and they're right. Unfortunately, Ohio just committed the mother of all fuck-ups and turned the state as deep red as Texas.

Despite Brown being pro-worker and anti-offshore outsourcing, any one less thing Mandel can hang on Brown ("WEAK ON THE TROOPS!!&quot retains his seat. That's all Ohio doesn't need is two teabagger Senaturds.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
9. I get that for red states, it would be a problem not to be seen as pro-military
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 01:32 PM
Sep 2017

(Leaving aside that this bill is not at all about the people in the military), but for the rest it just seems cowardly.

But of course the MIC has everyone over a barrel. Some of the few manufacturing jobs still left in this country are all in war-based corporations. So more weapons = more jobs. Never mind the actual need or the fact that our military is hundreds of time bigger than anyone else's.

HughBeaumont

(24,461 posts)
5. So, yeah . . . .
Thu Sep 21, 2017, 09:28 AM
Sep 2017

. . . . anyone who wants to start 200 response threads about how a single-payer system will never work in this country because "IT JUST CAWSTS TOO MUUUUUUUUUUUCCH" can, you know, just shut the rip-roaring fuck up forever.

Oh, did I also mention that the US spends almost twice as much on Corporate Welfare as it does on social welfare?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»US Says No Money for Soci...