this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
460 points (98.5% liked)

politics

23063 readers
3460 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

We already have the money for social programs. We just choose to spend it on war instead of on people.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago

Because the system of exploitation benefits when it has a strong military enforcement arm, and it also benefits when its underclass is perpetually desperate.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 week ago

we already have the money for single payer, tax funded universal health care, too. currently it's referred to as 'profits' and 'shareholder value'.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Because, unfortunately, war means more profit for unscrupulous profiteers.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 8 points 1 week ago

It would help our economy so much as well not only to remove the connection with work but also just to remove the burden in general and let people concentrate on health.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Because the American upper classes feel it's worth it for them to pay for a large, advanced military and surveillance state, but they don't think it's worth it for them to pay for "other people's healthcare." They're not enlightened enough to recognize that we all benefit when we all contribute to the health of the nation. The same is true of education, housing, and other universal necessities. I hope that enlightenment will one day come to the United States, but it's not looking good.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago

It also means stripping away rights. Same thing as "protecting the children."

Privacy? Why do you want that? You must be a terrorist or a pedophile. Only they want privacy.

You don't wanna invade Iraq? You must support Al Qaeda, and hate the children the terrorists want to hurt.

You want to ensure teen can do as they please without parents breathing down their neck? I dunno, that sounds like you want them to be brainwashed into being queer.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Because "national security" means protection from external threats. Internal matters would be "national health", or similar.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Like disease, propaganda, supply chain issues, election interference.

It would be nice if we focused on any of these existential threats, instead of just the threat of "brown children in sandy countries"

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Having a healthy population to recruit from seems pretty important to me. The US ran into this issue at the onset of both world wars.

Then again modern wars might need a bunch of keyboard jockeys.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

This is why.

[–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Because, in this context, they are using security to mean the opposite of insecurity. They want to cure national insecurity, and the only way to do that is to "prove you have the bigger dick". And since they already know from practice that they probably don't, they have to find some other way to prove it.

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Because the system is made to make money for weapons manufacturers. War is good, not war is bad.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They should just change the name to

NATIONAL INSECURITY

[–] ebolapie@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Why would the poors join up if their families didn't need Tricare? The bennies are a primary draw, they can't hand that shit out to everyone

[–] Maiq@lemy.lol 3 points 1 week ago

More healthcare doesn't make billions of $/year for 4 corporations that own our government and who dictate our foreign and domestic policies.

Leukemia isn't going to sink our Dara

Everybody talks about National Security...

What about National Prosperity?