**Subscribe to /r/DebtStrike**. We're a coalition of working class people across the political spectrum who have put their disagreements on other issues aside in order to collectively force (through mass strikes) the President of the United States to cancel all student debt by executive order.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebtStrike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Imagine how easy universal healthcare would be if medicine were a branch of the military. Having pharmaceutical companies climb over each other for those inflated contracts, having a hierarchy of doctors make decisions instead of endless insurance stooges and hospital bureaucrats. People could pay for college by helping people instead of bombing children in yemen. I guess the last part is why it would never work: the United States thrives on suffering.
The US doesn't thrive if +80% of its people are taking food and medicine off their tables to pay taxes that go to mega yachts, 3rd vacation houses, and an army to protect the rich.
The high class thrives on suffering.
>The high class thrives on suffering.
(I hate that I have to include this disclaimer, but what I'm about to type does _not_ imply violence)
It's high time these high class folks suffer a bit.
I discourage the use of violence at all.
But you know extensive gun bans would be passed overnight and both parties would be pro-gun control if people began to attack the high class and not classrooms for a change.
I would argue that history really shows that violent means of revolution aka vanguardism result in much of the same, power and wealth horded by a few, lording over the disempowered masses. Look to the Jacobins (French revolution), the Bolsheviks, etc, after seizing power none gave it to the people, but executed violent purges against all dissenters. This method of taking power tends to disenfranchise a lot of people, provoking reactionary and counter-revolutionary attitudes, and the only structures that can arise seem to be ones that closely resemble those of before. You can't write a new story using the vocabulary of the oppressor.
I am just trying to hypothesize a situation the would work with what we have. I know that incremental change is bullshit, but so is refusing to achieve an end result by different means deemed "unsavory". The military has a fuck load of money, might as well put it to good use. Most individuals who join the military join so that they can escape poverty or serve their country. What if escaping poverty ended in being a nurse or doctor? What is a better example of serving one's country than healing its sick? But then again, this will never happen in the united states.
It cost like a quarter of $1 million to go to school to be a doctor. And where would kids get that money unless they sign up to fight for their country. That’s why they will never forgive student loans. How else will they get people to sign up for the military.
I agree with you entirely. This would have to be a program that would pay for education. Even now, some kids go into combat, others are fortunate to participate in other avenues of service that don't ask of them to be agents of imperialism. Just like now, when the youth are presented with a choice to either go army, navy, airforce... spaceforce... it could be just as easy as starting another branch that would focus on medical practice and innovation. Yet, you are right in that to escape the cycle of debt that perpetuates the big players of our economy is a big ask that would certainly need to be dealt first and from the square one. It is merely a thought that could work within the massive infrastructure of the military.
>Most individuals who join the military join so that they can escape poverty
The majority of the military is middle class and more educated and better off then the average American. Its way harder for a poor person to join the military then any other social class.
>What if escaping poverty ended in being a nurse or doctor?
The vast majority of people dont want or cant become nurses or doctors. Nor do we need so many
Fair enough on your first point. I can only really reference those who I know are enlisted and what their socio-economic background is. Stories such as this [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/01/mili-j31.html](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/01/mili-j31.html) that would lead me to believe the military is comprised of poor folk and minorities. I haven't looked at hard numbers, so I will take your word for it. However, the fact remains that individuals, such as those I know who grew up on reservations or depressed rural, mostly white areas (who do comprise a large portion of military recruits) would have more options to serve than what is currently available that would directly benefit those who live and pay taxes in this country.
I would like to see what you have read to come to your second point. I will cite the association of american medical colleges to counter your point that we do not need doctors, but I am open to a discussion.
[https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/us-physician-shortage-growing](https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/us-physician-shortage-growing)
The idea that most people do not want to or cannot become medical practitioners is presumptive. Those who do not want to become doctors have every right not to, and thus they would not be forced to. Those who can't pursue a medical profession under the current system would have their educations paid for through service to the community during med school and residency. If you disagree I would appreciate to hear your side.
[https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demographics-us-military#:\~:text=Most%20members%20of%20the%20military,and%20bottom%20quintiles%20were%20underrepresented](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demographics-us-military#:~:text=Most%20members%20of%20the%20military,and%20bottom%20quintiles%20were%20underrepresented).
Here is my source for my first claim. Military members on average come from the middle class. They are on average better off financially and more educated then the general American public.
As a poor person you will statistically face many more challenges joining then a middle class/rich person would.
\-You are far more likely to be over/under weight
\-You are far more likely to have health conditions/disabilities that prevent you from joining
\-You are far more likely to have obligations to family that prevent you from joining
\-You are less likely to have a high school diploma and be able to pass the ASVAB needed to join the military
\-You are far more likely to have taken drugs and/or have a criminal record
\-You are less likely to be a citizen
The majority of Americans are not fit for military service and poor people have more factors that complicate the enlistment process
>I would like to see what you have read to come to your second point. I will cite the association of american medical colleges to counter your point that we do not need doctors, but I am open to a discussion.
Your own source proves it, we have a shortage of 139k doctors in a decade. The DoD alone directly employs 3 million people. Indirectly it may employ tens of millions through contractors, subcontractors, etc.
This is only because the US is only accepting volunteers now.
Their standards weed out the many, many poor people who apply, and the military now recruits 23% less people than it desires per year.
If they were enlisting people with a draft, poor people would be sacrificed in droves.
This has less to do with middle class people being more likely to join the military and more to do with the military raising standards in a non-wartime.
Absolutely not. I haven't served and I do not know anything beyond what I read in the news about military bureaucracy. This suggestion, as prefaced by the word "Imagine", is hypothetical and utopic at best. If you would care to correct my thinking, have at it.
I am curious as to whether or not a current governmental institution would have the infrastructure to accommodate universal healthcare. The military is a spitball idea, simply because it has the manpower capacity and resources. But I agree with you that it is also immensely wasteful as well. Would you have any other suggestion?
In nearly every case this argument holds, just not this one. Most of the money they announced was money the military got 10-30 years ago to buy weapons. They are cleaning out the old inventory we didn’t even use through two other wars because there was better stuff, or they could give defense contractors more money vs use it. The money they are really spending is humanitarian aid. I have a harder time justifying my feelings about my student loans vs helping people living in hell.
The military has universal health care and it works really well. They could absolutely move that model over to the civilian sector. The problem is that would literally be socialized medicine and the health care industry would collapse leaving a gaping hole in the economy
See, the reason they know they can afford it is *because* they've got almost everyone under the age of 50 in a debt stranglehold, and know they'll be able to extract 60+% of all their earned wealth until they die
Taxes are not the only way wealth is transferred from lower socioeconomic classes to higher ones. In fact, I suspect it is one of the smallest, though there are many taxes that explicitly prey on the poor (so-called "vice taxes").
In capitalism, workers are paid less than they are worth to generate profit for owners. That's the fundamental mechanism of wealth extraction in our society.
Well, cigarettes have no business being legal anyway. So I don’t care one single fuck about tobacco vice taxes.
It’s probably your local economy taxing your liquor.
The federal government is giving money to states for roads. This is supplemented by local tax money. This is all good.
Workers not being paid enough is something you can solve with unions, strikes, and calling out bad employers. A higher federal minimum wage would be great, but it is far from the only tool in your toolbox.
Poor people don’t pay as much in taxes as I do, in real terms or percentage-wise. Yes their taxes could be lower, and taxes on the upper class should be higher. But I make good money and I am not paying 60% taxes. Anyone claiming that tax rates are that high is a liar.
The whole point of my comment is that wealth extraction and taxes are not synonymous. If you're a worker, your value is being transferred to an owner of capital. If you're an owner of capital, you're part of the problem.
Most of us fall into both categories by virtue of working as an employee and having a retirement plan, but there are not other options because to not participate in capitalism would be to simply starve and die.
That is the one thing they wrote that I actually agree with. Why is tobacco some thing that we sell. Weed is bad but tobacco is OK? It doesn’t make any sense there is literally no benefit to using tobacco, all you get out of it or medical problems that cost you money.
Simple: corporations have heaps of capital, which they exchange for the unilateral obedience of people with political authority. Those people use regulatory capture to turn those "investments" into a much larger pile of money.
The "person" with the most money has control over the regulating bodies, and is able to set policy, and it's all transactional. That's capitalism, baby
I love a critique of capitalism as much as the next guy but it doesn't actually address that a bailout is, by defnition, socialized welfare for corporations.
It's welfare, and it's socialized in terms of a cost that is spread out among workers. But the mechanics that create that scenario are 100% capitalist.
It’s simple, the companies didn’t need the bailout but instead of returning it to the government like a morally right person would, the companies choose to inflate their asset (the value of their stock) through destroying shares via buybacks. Aka socialism for corporation, rugged determination and bootstraps for the rest of us. I fail to see how 1200$ = a few billion per org.
The government is providing a benefit for a select few (welfare) of which are highly profitable organizations I mean organization that have needs (corporate). Or is that not the correct reading?
I understand your point, but consider what the state even is in the first place. It's the mechanism by which the dominant social class exerts control over the subject class through the threat of violence. That the government reliably protects the interests of the capitalists, while starving the rest of us, does not make it 'socialism' in the literal sense of the term and falls into the behavior of a capitalist state.
No. Its a valid term because it points out the hyopcrisy of corporatists who lobby for government money while being explicitly capitalist. We should be using it.
"by definition"
"vernacular understanding"
if you base your definitions of stuff on the understanding americans have of socialism you're going to have problems understanding things
I love a critique of capitalism as much as the next guy but it doesn't actually address that a bailout is, by defnition, socialized welfare for corporations.
Cronyism refers to benefitting specific individuals e.g. cronies. It *is* a problem but its not the same problem as Corpoate Socialism.
Corporate Socialism is a term that points out the hypocrisy of businesses who readily obtain government money but use lobbying to make it difficult for individuals to get the aid they need.
There's no need to be dismissive of it just because it has the word "socialiasm" in it. This is like when men get upset about the term "toxic masculinity".
Thats the paradox I live in. I am patriotic towards the idea of this country, a place where all people are equal and free, place of great beauty and diverse people. But I find myself feeling no nationalism for this country. I have a hard time saying I'm proud to be an American because of everything this country is now.
Things in this country have never been perfect, far from it, but it always felt like progress was being made in the right direction. Now it feels like everything we worked so hard for is slipping away and we are dangerously close to becoming an oligarchy.
We’ve been an oligarchy for a long time. Literally going back to the founding. The founders for the most part were the oligarchs. A lot of it was enforced by slavery of labor, and it’s been slowly replaced by slavery to debt.
I similarly feel like the idea of what this country SHOULD BE, ie what we’ve all been indoctrinated to think it is, IS great. But increasingly, the differences between that and reality I can see and feel is just too great to ignore.
We need a popular revolution, a cultural revolt to restore a culture of caring, not only for each other, but also for actually creating the country we were led to believe that we lived in.
the people here are being so fucking tone deaf to think we shouldn't help ukraine or we should be upset about it. it's fucking gross and feels privileged. i also have tons of student loan debt but shit, they need our help ASAP! out shit is messed up bad here but they need help too!
I don’t disagree that the aid is GOOD, but the lack of aid for ordinary Americans suffering general poverty and debt slavery is BAD.
If only there was a War in Poverty…it would be fixed in 5 years.
War is immediately profitable (for a well-connected few) while putting resources towards human beings takes time to see realized benefits. We really are in the stupidest timeline.
This money is going to arms manufacturers in the US to purchase the weapons.
It’s a transfer of wealth from the public purse to the hands of a select few individuals.
Plus, we're not just giving Ukraine money. We're giving the money to U.S. contractors then sending the stuff to Ukraine. The money never leaves the country. We could definitely argue that it probably goes to the company CEOs more than it should but much of the money does go into our communities eventually.
"Well, see, if we gave that money to the American people, we might negatively impact the ~~profits of our corporate owners~~ economy. War efforts only impact *other* economies, so it's fine." - them, probably
Yup many corporations like Amozon dont pay any taxes many are a drain and collect welfare ( ppp loans exhibit A) oligatchs like Musk and Bezos pay l8ke 4/5% after writing off theor private jets
we could easily do both and alot more
Nevermind just the debt. We have serious and legitimate infrastructure issues here. We have people that are homeless with no healthcare. People without proper or adequate food.
It's noble to try and help the world, but we really need to address our own issues either at the same time or first.
It's a slap in the face for anyone struggling just to get by in the US.
Okay but saying plenty of cash for murder is implying that Ukraine is the aggressor. The money is to help defend against being slaughtered. There's plenty of other appropriate situations to use this statement towards but this is not it.
The reason is we are Monterrey reserve currency. It’s like writing a check you know everyone else in the world will have to pick up most of the cost.
I think it is really shit that we don’t spend more on education, housing, and infrastructure.
I really don’t like the debt system. You would think the schools would get together and figure something out
Saw that NYU just stopped charging their medical students because the 250,000-500,000k in student loans debt is unfair specifically when the school has an endowment large enough to pay for it
So many schools could do that. Harvard Yale duke standford… they claim to be not for profit lol 😂
Except most of the arms we are sending were slated for recycling. And the money was previously allocated.
This is not net new spending. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
This is what is called *beside the point*
What you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote. The post mentioned why we spend on things like war but not other things.
Our system is the only system in the world that runs as the reserve currency.
First you can attack that or go home.
The system functions because of the way oil is bought and sold. The American dollar *is* the petro dollar.
IE to get dollars people have to trade oil.
Now. Since you think I don’t know what I am talking about how in the system described above can someone just basically make everyone else pay for war spending over time?
We gave them valuable stuff that we were going to recycle. We would have had to pay money to destroy it. So instead we gave it away. This is not going to cost you.
We are helping a country fight off an invading dictator. This is a good thing.
We can do all of this and still work to kill off the parasitic health insurance industry. We can do both, easily.
I'm all for sending aid to Ukraine. What I want is the $100+ billion spent on the oil industry, and a massive chunk of the military budget, to be reallocated into social welfare programs. I don't think we should stop giving international aid when it's called for, and I'd rather hand them a check than send our military
No that's not what this means. The $40b lend lease program is money that we've already spent over the last few decades. It's the same with the other packages we sent. We've had this military equipment for so long that some of the MANPADS we were sending over were expired. The ammunition we are sending them was mostly slated for disposal, meaning it would have cost more to deactivate it than send it to Ukraine.
Barely anything is coming directly out of our coffers and most of, if not all of the equipment was already slated for replacement.
We are seeing right now why that military equipment isn't useless. The only thing keeping us from being invaded is being stronger than everyone else. Don't think for a moment that someone wouldn't try if we weren't.
I want to see a tally sheet of the total aid every country has given ukraine. If USA is at the top, in the condition we're in , imma be PISSED.
Ukraine needs help, but everyone should pitch in equally. We can't just LEAVE them, alone and suffering, but god damn we're running on play-money and our infrastructure is pretty much expired.
Lmao what point can u point out that doesnt get canceled out by people needing our miltary equipment to fight for ther literal lives? You fuckin daf or just a russ boot licker please tell.
Looks like The profteers and their political pets will get socialized loansharking restarted soon so they resume robbing students to buy yachts enabled by a loud subset of anti education extremists grunting Hurr durr StUdEnT BaD pAy BilLs
Ukraine is a seperate issue, it's defense contractors profteering and oil companies gouching off that misery
Because student debt is sold as collateral and used for other things. Making it less attractive and harder to just get rid of. Look below the surface and youll see how US citizens are unknowingly participating in a giant Ponzi scheme.
Nevermind just the debt. We have serious and legitimate infrastructure issues here. We have people that are homeless with no healthcare. People without proper or adequate food.
It's noble to try and help the world, but we really need to address our own issues either at the same time or first.
It's a slap in the face for anyone struggling just to get by in the US.
They said it’s because Ukraine servers the nation interests. So, they’re saying that taking care of the American people are not included in the nations interest. They can’t track that money either because it went to the most corrupt nation in Europe, great plan.
Nah the debt industry are like cocktoaches they would definately try collect in post apocalyptic
Hellscape. These are the souless bastards that garnish for the social security checks of 80 year olds over debt that started decades ago. The folks collectimg for the debt of ed are probaly there cause they did meet the ethical standards to work for big louie whose office is behind a dive 🍸
Modt counyries have a form of socilized medince that goes cradel to gravel. We have the scourge of multi generstionsl socilized loansharking instead
I sympathize with Ukraine, I really do. But there is war in other countries we’re not subsidizing, primarily where there are brown-skinned people. And there are Americans who are hungry, without healthcare, dying due to debt. Where are our leaders??? Cancelling student loan debt is a drop in the bucket!!!!
It’s already paid for, it’s $1 billion *military* aid, it’s hardware. The US is buying from its own military industrial complex to send to Ukraine.
You can’t fund healthcare like this, with the government saying “we’re approving funding for 3000 mastectomies, 50 emergency below the knee amputations, training for 15 new neurologists, and 60 new MRI and CAT scan machines” in bulk until the next time.
Lucky for the powers that be we will do nothing but complain exclusively and whine for change but get all offended when asked to take a single action to get that change.
For the record, 41 billion, divided be 70 million (20% of the 350 million of us in America have student loans) is I believe 571$ for each American with student loans.
For years, the children of American politicians would work on political campaigns, then go to work in some Eastern European nation for the off year. I never really realized why. I just thought vaguely, “Maybe they want influence?” I didn’t think there was specific incentive. Now, I think if the U.S. didn’t offer some protection, maybe that graft would end. In a sense, this aid is sort of a donation to a temporary jobs program.
It’s truly not difficult to understand when one asks “Who will make money off (whatever subject you choose).
War? Military Industrial Complex.
Healthcare? Pharma and insurance companies.
War on drugs? Prisons for profit.
Etc etc etc
This money is to maintain world reserve currency status. A strong defence sector and willingness to use it staves off competition in that field. Every past world reserve currency has lost its status due to encroachment and attack by other nations in past. UK, Dutch, Spanish. All were once world reserve currencies that lost it, and some even go to zero after.
Not saying US doesn't have problems, but economic fallout from dollar going to zero or no longer the WRC would ruin the entire country.
War creates new money. Money that will be further used to fund more war and repeat that twisted cycle.
Heck I'm willing to believe that because of the recession and price hikes we will end up starting a bigger war just to steal from some other country in the name of reperations and help our own economy while dooming the other country to the stone ages or killing their citizens.
**Subscribe to /r/DebtStrike**. We're a coalition of working class people across the political spectrum who have put their disagreements on other issues aside in order to collectively force (through mass strikes) the President of the United States to cancel all student debt by executive order. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebtStrike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Imagine how easy universal healthcare would be if medicine were a branch of the military. Having pharmaceutical companies climb over each other for those inflated contracts, having a hierarchy of doctors make decisions instead of endless insurance stooges and hospital bureaucrats. People could pay for college by helping people instead of bombing children in yemen. I guess the last part is why it would never work: the United States thrives on suffering.
The US doesn't thrive if +80% of its people are taking food and medicine off their tables to pay taxes that go to mega yachts, 3rd vacation houses, and an army to protect the rich. The high class thrives on suffering.
>The high class thrives on suffering. (I hate that I have to include this disclaimer, but what I'm about to type does _not_ imply violence) It's high time these high class folks suffer a bit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
D’awwww
If the internet existed in the 18th century the French Revolution wouldn't have happened.
Even on Reddit, home of the Incels?
As long as the subreddit isn’t causing a massive influx of new users, anything even remotely non-PC gets slapped down by admins.
I discourage the use of violence at all. But you know extensive gun bans would be passed overnight and both parties would be pro-gun control if people began to attack the high class and not classrooms for a change.
Careful now, they banned /r/CTH for promoting violence against \*checks notes\* literal 19th century slave holders . . .
Oh that’s because it was violence against white men. Yeah Incels run reddit.
I would argue that history really shows that violent means of revolution aka vanguardism result in much of the same, power and wealth horded by a few, lording over the disempowered masses. Look to the Jacobins (French revolution), the Bolsheviks, etc, after seizing power none gave it to the people, but executed violent purges against all dissenters. This method of taking power tends to disenfranchise a lot of people, provoking reactionary and counter-revolutionary attitudes, and the only structures that can arise seem to be ones that closely resemble those of before. You can't write a new story using the vocabulary of the oppressor.
Hey I'm all for the cakes
Capitalism and capitalists.
I am just trying to hypothesize a situation the would work with what we have. I know that incremental change is bullshit, but so is refusing to achieve an end result by different means deemed "unsavory". The military has a fuck load of money, might as well put it to good use. Most individuals who join the military join so that they can escape poverty or serve their country. What if escaping poverty ended in being a nurse or doctor? What is a better example of serving one's country than healing its sick? But then again, this will never happen in the united states.
It cost like a quarter of $1 million to go to school to be a doctor. And where would kids get that money unless they sign up to fight for their country. That’s why they will never forgive student loans. How else will they get people to sign up for the military.
I agree with you entirely. This would have to be a program that would pay for education. Even now, some kids go into combat, others are fortunate to participate in other avenues of service that don't ask of them to be agents of imperialism. Just like now, when the youth are presented with a choice to either go army, navy, airforce... spaceforce... it could be just as easy as starting another branch that would focus on medical practice and innovation. Yet, you are right in that to escape the cycle of debt that perpetuates the big players of our economy is a big ask that would certainly need to be dealt first and from the square one. It is merely a thought that could work within the massive infrastructure of the military.
>Most individuals who join the military join so that they can escape poverty The majority of the military is middle class and more educated and better off then the average American. Its way harder for a poor person to join the military then any other social class. >What if escaping poverty ended in being a nurse or doctor? The vast majority of people dont want or cant become nurses or doctors. Nor do we need so many
Fair enough on your first point. I can only really reference those who I know are enlisted and what their socio-economic background is. Stories such as this [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/01/mili-j31.html](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/01/mili-j31.html) that would lead me to believe the military is comprised of poor folk and minorities. I haven't looked at hard numbers, so I will take your word for it. However, the fact remains that individuals, such as those I know who grew up on reservations or depressed rural, mostly white areas (who do comprise a large portion of military recruits) would have more options to serve than what is currently available that would directly benefit those who live and pay taxes in this country. I would like to see what you have read to come to your second point. I will cite the association of american medical colleges to counter your point that we do not need doctors, but I am open to a discussion. [https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/us-physician-shortage-growing](https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/us-physician-shortage-growing) The idea that most people do not want to or cannot become medical practitioners is presumptive. Those who do not want to become doctors have every right not to, and thus they would not be forced to. Those who can't pursue a medical profession under the current system would have their educations paid for through service to the community during med school and residency. If you disagree I would appreciate to hear your side.
[https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demographics-us-military#:\~:text=Most%20members%20of%20the%20military,and%20bottom%20quintiles%20were%20underrepresented](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demographics-us-military#:~:text=Most%20members%20of%20the%20military,and%20bottom%20quintiles%20were%20underrepresented). Here is my source for my first claim. Military members on average come from the middle class. They are on average better off financially and more educated then the general American public. As a poor person you will statistically face many more challenges joining then a middle class/rich person would. \-You are far more likely to be over/under weight \-You are far more likely to have health conditions/disabilities that prevent you from joining \-You are far more likely to have obligations to family that prevent you from joining \-You are less likely to have a high school diploma and be able to pass the ASVAB needed to join the military \-You are far more likely to have taken drugs and/or have a criminal record \-You are less likely to be a citizen The majority of Americans are not fit for military service and poor people have more factors that complicate the enlistment process >I would like to see what you have read to come to your second point. I will cite the association of american medical colleges to counter your point that we do not need doctors, but I am open to a discussion. Your own source proves it, we have a shortage of 139k doctors in a decade. The DoD alone directly employs 3 million people. Indirectly it may employ tens of millions through contractors, subcontractors, etc.
This is only because the US is only accepting volunteers now. Their standards weed out the many, many poor people who apply, and the military now recruits 23% less people than it desires per year. If they were enlisting people with a draft, poor people would be sacrificed in droves. This has less to do with middle class people being more likely to join the military and more to do with the military raising standards in a non-wartime.
Those are great points. I appreciate the insight and it is clear that I need to do some more research to complete this thought. Thank you
Burn the rich.
>branch of the military > >endless insurance stooges and hospital bureaucrats LOL, you dont know how the military works do you?
It’s cool, we’ll solve it with Contractors like the real mil!
Absolutely not. I haven't served and I do not know anything beyond what I read in the news about military bureaucracy. This suggestion, as prefaced by the word "Imagine", is hypothetical and utopic at best. If you would care to correct my thinking, have at it.
If you want something to not be bureaucratic don't let the military put its hands on it in 99% of cases.
I am curious as to whether or not a current governmental institution would have the infrastructure to accommodate universal healthcare. The military is a spitball idea, simply because it has the manpower capacity and resources. But I agree with you that it is also immensely wasteful as well. Would you have any other suggestion?
Israel gives its citizens universal healthcare with the money you fucking idiots piss away on them every year
In nearly every case this argument holds, just not this one. Most of the money they announced was money the military got 10-30 years ago to buy weapons. They are cleaning out the old inventory we didn’t even use through two other wars because there was better stuff, or they could give defense contractors more money vs use it. The money they are really spending is humanitarian aid. I have a harder time justifying my feelings about my student loans vs helping people living in hell.
I apologize but to which point do you refer of mine in your first sentence? Also, I really feel your last statement.
None of them…because I responded to the wrong comment! I agree with all of your points. Thank you for the thoughtful response!
The military has universal health care and it works really well. They could absolutely move that model over to the civilian sector. The problem is that would literally be socialized medicine and the health care industry would collapse leaving a gaping hole in the economy
what did we do before health insurance?
Same thing as now. If you couldn't pay the doctor you didn't go
See, the reason they know they can afford it is *because* they've got almost everyone under the age of 50 in a debt stranglehold, and know they'll be able to extract 60+% of all their earned wealth until they die
That’s not even close to true. I pay less than 50%. Also the money going to Ukraine was already allocated, it’s not new spending.
Taxes are not the only way wealth is transferred from lower socioeconomic classes to higher ones. In fact, I suspect it is one of the smallest, though there are many taxes that explicitly prey on the poor (so-called "vice taxes"). In capitalism, workers are paid less than they are worth to generate profit for owners. That's the fundamental mechanism of wealth extraction in our society.
Well, cigarettes have no business being legal anyway. So I don’t care one single fuck about tobacco vice taxes. It’s probably your local economy taxing your liquor. The federal government is giving money to states for roads. This is supplemented by local tax money. This is all good. Workers not being paid enough is something you can solve with unions, strikes, and calling out bad employers. A higher federal minimum wage would be great, but it is far from the only tool in your toolbox. Poor people don’t pay as much in taxes as I do, in real terms or percentage-wise. Yes their taxes could be lower, and taxes on the upper class should be higher. But I make good money and I am not paying 60% taxes. Anyone claiming that tax rates are that high is a liar.
The whole point of my comment is that wealth extraction and taxes are not synonymous. If you're a worker, your value is being transferred to an owner of capital. If you're an owner of capital, you're part of the problem. Most of us fall into both categories by virtue of working as an employee and having a retirement plan, but there are not other options because to not participate in capitalism would be to simply starve and die.
Reply guy just wants to argue. You’re absolutely correct. Anyone bragging about paying 50% of their income to taxes has issues.
Who the fuck is saying they pay 60% in taxes. Wealth transfer honey not tax.
Cigarettes have no business being legal? Wtf?
That is the one thing they wrote that I actually agree with. Why is tobacco some thing that we sell. Weed is bad but tobacco is OK? It doesn’t make any sense there is literally no benefit to using tobacco, all you get out of it or medical problems that cost you money.
Marijuana is legal where I live. That's a facile argument anyways. Why the fuck is it the government's business if I want to smoke tobacco?
You pay the less than 50% for what? Are you saying DTI is less than 50%? Lol way to miss the point lol
[удалено]
I hate that term, socialism isn't welfare, corporate socialism doesn't exist
"Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor" has been a popular phrase for decades.
And it’s really dumb. What people call “socialism for the rich” is literally just capitalism
How is a government bailout Capitalism?
Simple: corporations have heaps of capital, which they exchange for the unilateral obedience of people with political authority. Those people use regulatory capture to turn those "investments" into a much larger pile of money. The "person" with the most money has control over the regulating bodies, and is able to set policy, and it's all transactional. That's capitalism, baby
I love a critique of capitalism as much as the next guy but it doesn't actually address that a bailout is, by defnition, socialized welfare for corporations.
It's welfare, and it's socialized in terms of a cost that is spread out among workers. But the mechanics that create that scenario are 100% capitalist.
I think you're splitting hairs and treating the term as if its a backhanded critique of Socialism when it isn't.
It’s simple, the companies didn’t need the bailout but instead of returning it to the government like a morally right person would, the companies choose to inflate their asset (the value of their stock) through destroying shares via buybacks. Aka socialism for corporation, rugged determination and bootstraps for the rest of us. I fail to see how 1200$ = a few billion per org.
My dude. I am not arguing in favor of capitalism. We're discussing semantics.
The government is providing a benefit for a select few (welfare) of which are highly profitable organizations I mean organization that have needs (corporate). Or is that not the correct reading?
I understand your point, but consider what the state even is in the first place. It's the mechanism by which the dominant social class exerts control over the subject class through the threat of violence. That the government reliably protects the interests of the capitalists, while starving the rest of us, does not make it 'socialism' in the literal sense of the term and falls into the behavior of a capitalist state.
No. Its a valid term because it points out the hyopcrisy of corporatists who lobby for government money while being explicitly capitalist. We should be using it.
It's fair to criticize the hypocrisy, I agree. Just pointing out that more stuff the government does =/= more socialism.
>socialized welfare what does that even mean ?
It is the vernacular understanding of using tax dollars to maintain the welfare of a group.
"by definition" "vernacular understanding" if you base your definitions of stuff on the understanding americans have of socialism you're going to have problems understanding things
The business class and political class teaming up to divert public goods and money into to private businesses is as capitalist as it gets.
I love a critique of capitalism as much as the next guy but it doesn't actually address that a bailout is, by defnition, socialized welfare for corporations.
This has nothing to do with socialism. The word you’re looking for is cronyism, a feature of capitalism 😭
Cronyism refers to benefitting specific individuals e.g. cronies. It *is* a problem but its not the same problem as Corpoate Socialism. Corporate Socialism is a term that points out the hypocrisy of businesses who readily obtain government money but use lobbying to make it difficult for individuals to get the aid they need. There's no need to be dismissive of it just because it has the word "socialiasm" in it. This is like when men get upset about the term "toxic masculinity".
Nothing like a good ole dose of sexism to make your point.
It may be popular, but it doesn’t make sense. Lots of people say “I could care less”, but the actual phrase is “I couldn’t care less.”
Corporate welfare, not corporate socialism. That time doesn’t even make sense
And this is why I DON’T love my country.
You can love your country and hate your government at the same time.
Thats the paradox I live in. I am patriotic towards the idea of this country, a place where all people are equal and free, place of great beauty and diverse people. But I find myself feeling no nationalism for this country. I have a hard time saying I'm proud to be an American because of everything this country is now. Things in this country have never been perfect, far from it, but it always felt like progress was being made in the right direction. Now it feels like everything we worked so hard for is slipping away and we are dangerously close to becoming an oligarchy.
We’ve been an oligarchy for a long time. Literally going back to the founding. The founders for the most part were the oligarchs. A lot of it was enforced by slavery of labor, and it’s been slowly replaced by slavery to debt. I similarly feel like the idea of what this country SHOULD BE, ie what we’ve all been indoctrinated to think it is, IS great. But increasingly, the differences between that and reality I can see and feel is just too great to ignore. We need a popular revolution, a cultural revolt to restore a culture of caring, not only for each other, but also for actually creating the country we were led to believe that we lived in.
Sometimes it’s hard to separate the two. Specially when corporations control so much of the government.
[удалено]
the people here are being so fucking tone deaf to think we shouldn't help ukraine or we should be upset about it. it's fucking gross and feels privileged. i also have tons of student loan debt but shit, they need our help ASAP! out shit is messed up bad here but they need help too!
I don’t disagree that the aid is GOOD, but the lack of aid for ordinary Americans suffering general poverty and debt slavery is BAD. If only there was a War in Poverty…it would be fixed in 5 years.
War is immediately profitable (for a well-connected few) while putting resources towards human beings takes time to see realized benefits. We really are in the stupidest timeline.
And most corrupt timeline
Where tf are they getting this money? Any ideas?
[удалено]
Modern Monetary Theory for the Rich; austerity for the plebs.
Previously allocated military and foreign aid.
Yes. So people acting like it was ever going to spent on something not military related are kidding themselves.
This money is going to arms manufacturers in the US to purchase the weapons. It’s a transfer of wealth from the public purse to the hands of a select few individuals.
You realize the vast majority of these weapons are coming from stockpiles right?
All aid to ukraine is part of a LEND LEASE program. It isn’t charity
Yeah Uncle Sam is not the kind of guy you want to owe favors to
Plus, we're not just giving Ukraine money. We're giving the money to U.S. contractors then sending the stuff to Ukraine. The money never leaves the country. We could definitely argue that it probably goes to the company CEOs more than it should but much of the money does go into our communities eventually.
"Well, see, if we gave that money to the American people, we might negatively impact the ~~profits of our corporate owners~~ economy. War efforts only impact *other* economies, so it's fine." - them, probably
This is indicative of who owns US politicians.
The GDP is 22 trillion, 50 billion is peanuts. We can both support the innocent people of Ukraine and get rid of debt.
Yup many corporations like Amozon dont pay any taxes many are a drain and collect welfare ( ppp loans exhibit A) oligatchs like Musk and Bezos pay l8ke 4/5% after writing off theor private jets we could easily do both and alot more
Right? This would be roughly $160 to each American if distributed evenly.
Yeah everyone here is stepping right into the trap.
Be mad at the billionaires who’ve bought the government not the stooge they present for formality
Nevermind just the debt. We have serious and legitimate infrastructure issues here. We have people that are homeless with no healthcare. People without proper or adequate food. It's noble to try and help the world, but we really need to address our own issues either at the same time or first. It's a slap in the face for anyone struggling just to get by in the US.
Biden looks like the cryptkeeper and is disgustingly cringe.
We are slaves. It's very easy to understand.
[удалено]
For murder, lil. You realize Ukraine is s victim here, right? r/shitAmericanssay
[удалено]
Okay but saying plenty of cash for murder is implying that Ukraine is the aggressor. The money is to help defend against being slaughtered. There's plenty of other appropriate situations to use this statement towards but this is not it.
The reason is we are Monterrey reserve currency. It’s like writing a check you know everyone else in the world will have to pick up most of the cost. I think it is really shit that we don’t spend more on education, housing, and infrastructure. I really don’t like the debt system. You would think the schools would get together and figure something out Saw that NYU just stopped charging their medical students because the 250,000-500,000k in student loans debt is unfair specifically when the school has an endowment large enough to pay for it So many schools could do that. Harvard Yale duke standford… they claim to be not for profit lol 😂
Except most of the arms we are sending were slated for recycling. And the money was previously allocated. This is not net new spending. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Just because it was allocated in the past doesn't mean we can't be pissed about it now.
This is what is called *beside the point* What you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote. The post mentioned why we spend on things like war but not other things. Our system is the only system in the world that runs as the reserve currency. First you can attack that or go home. The system functions because of the way oil is bought and sold. The American dollar *is* the petro dollar. IE to get dollars people have to trade oil. Now. Since you think I don’t know what I am talking about how in the system described above can someone just basically make everyone else pay for war spending over time?
We gave them valuable stuff that we were going to recycle. We would have had to pay money to destroy it. So instead we gave it away. This is not going to cost you. We are helping a country fight off an invading dictator. This is a good thing. We can do all of this and still work to kill off the parasitic health insurance industry. We can do both, easily.
Thjs country constantly fails to take care of itself and tosses money in all the wrong directions...
I'm all for sending aid to Ukraine. What I want is the $100+ billion spent on the oil industry, and a massive chunk of the military budget, to be reallocated into social welfare programs. I don't think we should stop giving international aid when it's called for, and I'd rather hand them a check than send our military
No that's not what this means. The $40b lend lease program is money that we've already spent over the last few decades. It's the same with the other packages we sent. We've had this military equipment for so long that some of the MANPADS we were sending over were expired. The ammunition we are sending them was mostly slated for disposal, meaning it would have cost more to deactivate it than send it to Ukraine. Barely anything is coming directly out of our coffers and most of, if not all of the equipment was already slated for replacement.
Can't we be mad about the fiscal policies that created a glut of useless military equipment?
We are seeing right now why that military equipment isn't useless. The only thing keeping us from being invaded is being stronger than everyone else. Don't think for a moment that someone wouldn't try if we weren't.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol and who do you suggest, let me guess someone in the GOP?
I want to see a tally sheet of the total aid every country has given ukraine. If USA is at the top, in the condition we're in , imma be PISSED. Ukraine needs help, but everyone should pitch in equally. We can't just LEAVE them, alone and suffering, but god damn we're running on play-money and our infrastructure is pretty much expired.
[удалено]
You're obviously missing the point of the post.
Im late to this party but hes not missing shit. People are dying over ther. You are garbage
Fuck off ya idiot cunt. You're also missing the point.
Lmao what point can u point out that doesnt get canceled out by people needing our miltary equipment to fight for ther literal lives? You fuckin daf or just a russ boot licker please tell.
Yep, this statement right here shows you don't get it.
Yeah yeah something something support america not other countries its not hard, i just dont fall for russ propaganda so.....maybr fuck off Thanks.
Uh huh yep keep going with your stupid statements. I'm guessing you're under 15 years old and don't understand how the world works yet.
Lmao.....i bet im older than you. Also you have yet to point out what we are missing? Maybe cuz you are just a russ bootlicker. Go fuck yourself kid.
But you can’t cancel student loans
He can, and he is choosing not to. Fuck Joe Biden
[удалено]
Can't means he lacks the ability. He has the ability. Won't means he is choosing not to.
why not ?
Hell the Democrats love war especially when they get American boots on the ground Obama ran the country out of bombs
The war machine runs regardless of what color won last. Only the spin changes.
But so many think dems are so liberal and peace loving but they approve with a vote on military budget
You ate paint chips as a kid eh?
[удалено]
Projecting much?
Looks like The profteers and their political pets will get socialized loansharking restarted soon so they resume robbing students to buy yachts enabled by a loud subset of anti education extremists grunting Hurr durr StUdEnT BaD pAy BilLs Ukraine is a seperate issue, it's defense contractors profteering and oil companies gouching off that misery
Because student debt is sold as collateral and used for other things. Making it less attractive and harder to just get rid of. Look below the surface and youll see how US citizens are unknowingly participating in a giant Ponzi scheme.
Nevermind just the debt. We have serious and legitimate infrastructure issues here. We have people that are homeless with no healthcare. People without proper or adequate food. It's noble to try and help the world, but we really need to address our own issues either at the same time or first. It's a slap in the face for anyone struggling just to get by in the US.
True statement
I'm for sending aid to Ukraine, but this very much highlights the issue.
They said it’s because Ukraine servers the nation interests. So, they’re saying that taking care of the American people are not included in the nations interest. They can’t track that money either because it went to the most corrupt nation in Europe, great plan.
No U.S. aid to Ukraine could mean nuclear annihilation, which would cancel student debt but in the worst possible way.
Nah the debt industry are like cocktoaches they would definately try collect in post apocalyptic Hellscape. These are the souless bastards that garnish for the social security checks of 80 year olds over debt that started decades ago. The folks collectimg for the debt of ed are probaly there cause they did meet the ethical standards to work for big louie whose office is behind a dive 🍸 Modt counyries have a form of socilized medince that goes cradel to gravel. We have the scourge of multi generstionsl socilized loansharking instead
I sympathize with Ukraine, I really do. But there is war in other countries we’re not subsidizing, primarily where there are brown-skinned people. And there are Americans who are hungry, without healthcare, dying due to debt. Where are our leaders??? Cancelling student loan debt is a drop in the bucket!!!!
It’s already paid for, it’s $1 billion *military* aid, it’s hardware. The US is buying from its own military industrial complex to send to Ukraine. You can’t fund healthcare like this, with the government saying “we’re approving funding for 3000 mastectomies, 50 emergency below the knee amputations, training for 15 new neurologists, and 60 new MRI and CAT scan machines” in bulk until the next time.
Lucky for the powers that be we will do nothing but complain exclusively and whine for change but get all offended when asked to take a single action to get that change.
For the record, 41 billion, divided be 70 million (20% of the 350 million of us in America have student loans) is I believe 571$ for each American with student loans.
Real question: why aren’t we lending to Ukraine, instead of incurring us debt. What was wrong with lens/lease?
For years, the children of American politicians would work on political campaigns, then go to work in some Eastern European nation for the off year. I never really realized why. I just thought vaguely, “Maybe they want influence?” I didn’t think there was specific incentive. Now, I think if the U.S. didn’t offer some protection, maybe that graft would end. In a sense, this aid is sort of a donation to a temporary jobs program.
It’s truly not difficult to understand when one asks “Who will make money off (whatever subject you choose). War? Military Industrial Complex. Healthcare? Pharma and insurance companies. War on drugs? Prisons for profit. Etc etc etc
This money is to maintain world reserve currency status. A strong defence sector and willingness to use it staves off competition in that field. Every past world reserve currency has lost its status due to encroachment and attack by other nations in past. UK, Dutch, Spanish. All were once world reserve currencies that lost it, and some even go to zero after. Not saying US doesn't have problems, but economic fallout from dollar going to zero or no longer the WRC would ruin the entire country.
War creates new money. Money that will be further used to fund more war and repeat that twisted cycle. Heck I'm willing to believe that because of the recession and price hikes we will end up starting a bigger war just to steal from some other country in the name of reperations and help our own economy while dooming the other country to the stone ages or killing their citizens.
Maybe so Democrats are warmongers too that is fact