1 edit
@sonhouse saidNow, this is just too long, man. But you talk about citizens paying more for this or that, but you do not mention their tax breaks, additional pay increases, all the good stuff,,,,oh, and the fact that these things take time, as we turn the corner to prosperity. ....and you predict what the effects of the coming tariffs will be??. You are the only person in DC that knows that. How DO you know that, anyway. Should we all place all of our bets on this prediction.
Tell me how the citizens of US having to pay some 2 or 3 thousand dollars more then they would have without the tariffs, how is that going to contribute to making the economy grow, eh?
And I just cannot google it for you , but you can find that you brainwashed wretches have no idea about how wrong you are about 'tax breaks for the rich'. You will find that to be a pitiful lie that Schumer all the way down to you and Suzianne have fallen for. It is a total lie. I have no, but it is on the internet.
What you been readin', man?
@AverageJoe1 saidYeah, SUCH a burden reading a WHOLE page of words. You are just fking LAZY and there is no other term to describe that. You don't WANT to deal with the issued I put forth, REAL issues that WILL effect our every day life.
Now, this is just too long, man. But you talk about citizens paying more for this or that, but you do not mention their tax breaks, additional pay increases, all the good stuff,,,,oh, and the fact that these things take time, as we turn the corner to prosperity. ....and you predict what the effects of the coming tariffs will be??. You are the only person in DC that kn ...[text shortened]... len for. It is a total lie. I have no, but it is on the internet.
What you been readin', man?
But you don't have the mental capacity to deal with those issues so you just go Ears covered, NYA NYA NYA I can't hear you, just like a ten year old brat.
1 edit
@sh76 saidNo, I think you see that the grift is much much worse at DOD than elsewhere. There is almost no accounting. That is not true elsewhere.
I know that the the supervision and accountability is so effective that there's no graft, pork or waste in government programs?
You are just guessing when you say that the money goes to middle class households. Lockheed cannot even tell you. That's not even mentioning that the allocation comes without any explicit policy objective. So, all of it is waste.
But the NIH dollars that went to Yale or Harvard? Every penny is accounted for.
@sh76 saidHow would you "correct" for non-economic security benefits?
I will admit that article is eye-opening, so thank you. Still, number of jobs created is one, very limited, metric.
Plus, you'd have to correct for the non-economic security benefits that defense provides to make a real apples-to-apples comparison.
Anyway, security vs. healthcare and education is not a dichotomy. Each type of spending and each element of spending within the framework can be worth it or not worth it.
Does the $150 billion make us safer, somehow? How?
Northrup grumman could just as well use the no-bid contract for stock buy backs and we wouldn't even know.
@wildgrass said===How would you "correct" for non-economic security benefits?===
How would you "correct" for non-economic security benefits?
Does the $150 billion make us safer, somehow? How?
Northrup grumman could just as well use the no-bid contract for stock buy backs and we wouldn't even know.
Gee, I dunno. But I'll bet someone'll figure it out.
@wildgrass saidDo military providers employ middle class people?
No, I think you see that the grift is much much worse at DOD than elsewhere. There is almost no accounting. That is not true elsewhere.
You are just guessing when you say that the money goes to middle class households. Lockheed cannot even tell you. That's not even mentioning that the allocation comes without any explicit policy objective. So, all of it is waste.
But the NIH dollars that went to Yale or Harvard? Every penny is accounted for.
@wildgrass saidSecurity can be quantified and good-quality studies with transparent methodology can be done to measure its benefits. There are lots of studies that do so. Not being an economist, I can only dabble.
You proposed the idea, mate.
The point I made is that comparing security to other spending without accounting for the benefits of security is apples and oranges. You made the comparison between military spending and other spending.
1 edit
@sh76 saidOf course security can be quantified. But you cannot track the spending. You cannot make any reasonable argument that the $150 billion in extra spending on defense led to increased security. This is not the case for other government agencies where the deliverables are transparent and quantified (and a lot cheaper).
Security can be quantified and good-quality studies with transparent methodology can be done to measure its benefits. There are lots of studies that do so. Not being an economist, I can only dabble.
The point I made is that comparing security to other spending without accounting for the benefits of security is apples and oranges. You made the comparison between military spending and other spending.
Conversely, it has been argued for decades by fiscal conservatives that cuts to defense spending would have no impact on military readiness or civilian safety.
2 edits
Back in 2016, when the military budget was much lower than it is now, the Pentagon briefly released and then buried an internal audit that identified $150 billion in wasteful administrative spending. At the time that was nearly 20% of the pentagons entire budget.
For point of comparison the entire HHS budget is only $95 billion.
The meaning of that report was to acknowledge that a 20% cut in DoD spending would not impact military readiness.
What did DC politicians do? They increased their budget, by a lot, to the point where we are now exceeding $1 trillion in spending. About half of that money is given to private companies who refuse to disclose what they are spending it on. The CEOs of these companies are among the highest compensated in the country. A large chunk goes to black ops, which is even more shrouded in secrecy. In conjunction with this, Trump's team fired all the inspectors who were tasked with monitoring the fraudulent use of this money.
It's not the same as other government agencies. They're funneling money out of HHS which has better accounting practices into DoD so they can use it for whatever they want.
@sh76 saidI suspect the non-economic security benefits for each dollar of such spending over an amount far lower than what we spend now is negligible or even negative.
I will admit that article is eye-opening, so thank you. Still, number of jobs created is one, very limited, metric.
Plus, you'd have to correct for the non-economic security benefits that defense provides to make a real apples-to-apples comparison.
Anyway, security vs. healthcare and education is not a dichotomy. Each type of spending and each element of spending within the framework can be worth it or not worth it.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidI spent the last 10 years of my Pharma career estimating drug development costs and advising companies on risk, timing, cost, and revenue.
The US pays way more because the innovation was done here which offsets the cost overseas.
Most of the cost of drug development occurs in Phase 3 and MANY of the patients are recruited overseas because they are MUCH cheaper. Eastern Europe was a favorite - competent medical centers and low-cost patients.
You need a certain number of US patients to get past the FDA of course.
Also there is the old saw "we have to charge a lot to keep developing new drugs!" Well, nonsense. Most drugs fail in Phase 1 or 2 before there is significant cost. And a lot of Phase 3 failures are avoidable except that companies don't want to admit they are "giving up" on a drug - so they keep the fiction going as long as they can until the executives can get all their stock options sold.
I should write a book about this. TL;DR: The drug companies are scamming the American public, charging 3-10X what they should (especially for "me-too" knockoffs and patent-extending scams like Nexium) and crying "but we have to!"
Rubbish. 😆
1 edit
@spruce112358 saidThere's also a lot of research and development (sometimes a decade or more) before phase 1 trials. In aggregate these dollars can exceed trials, especially including the failed ideas. Most of that is supported by NIH and DoD not pharma.
I spent the last 10 years of my Pharma career estimating drug development costs and advising companies on risk, timing, cost, and revenue.
Most of the cost of drug development occurs in Phase 3 and MANY of the patients are recruited overseas because they are MUCH cheaper. Eastern Europe was a favorite - competent medical centers and low-cost patients.
You need a ce ...[text shortened]... e-too" knockoffs and patent-extending scams like Nexium) and crying "but we have to!"
Rubbish. 😆
I agree with you it's a con. Still don't think single payer will fix it. Unless maybe you're aiming to roll big pharma into government?
@no1marauder saidAn analysis would make an interesting paper.
I suspect the non-economic security benefits for each dollar of such spending over an amount far lower than what we spend now is negligible or even negative.
I skimmed this one, but I'm not an advanced math guy, so I didn't really understand it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268025000564
I've bookmarked this one to read later.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/focusing-on-quality-over-quantity-in-the-us-military-budget/
Many studies focus on the economic impacts of defense spending, but I'd like to see one that quantifies security completely aside from measurable GDP effects.