Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Cody montana

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well aside from the wealth tax act just being a cheap jibe at JD rockerfeller to drain a mans pockets .

The creation of the welfare state in the US at that time has had intergenerational effects creating ghetto's , welfare dependence and combined with pro union acts hurt American business and productivity.

The new deal could have been an uplift for everyone but instead it was a cheap shot at rebooting the American economy by taking a swipe at business owners and relieving them of capital.

Can’t run a trillion dollar deficit forever.

Wanderer78

Cody montana wrote: »

Can’t run a trillion dollar deficit forever.

depends on the state of the economy, but sometimes you actually can, and it ll be fine

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well aside from the wealth tax act just being a cheap jibe at JD rockerfeller to drain a mans pockets .

The creation of the welfare state in the US at that time has had intergenerational effects creating ghetto's , welfare dependence and combined with pro union acts hurt American business and productivity.

The new deal could have been an uplift for everyone but instead it was a cheap shot at rebooting the American economy by taking a swipe at business owners and relieving them of capital.

Elon Musk when the tax act is enacted...

Leroy42

Eric, I'm interested. Do you happen to know the income distribution stats in the US? Has the split be getting better or worse, relatively, for the richest 1% over the last number of years?

If the distribution is becoming more skewed, then unless you are in the very highest portion (5% or so) then the current taxation policies are actually working against you. Why would you argue for that to continue on?

There won't ever be a point when the rich actually start to hand the money back, unless they are forced to, through taxation.

With such massive amounts needed for, and even Trump accepts the need for massive infrastructure investment but was unable to work out how to do anything about it, infrastructure in the US that will benefit everyone in the US, how do you think it should e paid for?

Wanderer78

Leroy42 wrote: »

Eric, I'm interested. Do you happen to know the income distribution stats in the US? Has the split be getting better or worse, relatively, for the richest 1% over the last number of years?

If the distribution is becoming more skewed, then unless you are in the very highest portion (5% or so) then the current taxation policies are actually working against you. Why would you argue for that to continue on?

There won't ever be a point when the rich actually start to hand the money back, unless they are forced to, through taxation.

With such massive amounts needed for, and even Trump accepts the need for massive infrastructure investment but was unable to work out how to do anything about it, infrastructure in the US that will benefit everyone in the US, how do you think it should e paid for?

i ll give him a hand!

everlast75

Certain posters, who are by luck born where they are born, which helps them to be achieve a privileged position often have no empathy for others who were simply born in a different part of the world, or didn't have the opportunities they were presented with.

ohnonotgmail

Leroy42 wrote: »

Eric, I'm interested. Do you happen to know the income distribution stats in the US? Has the split be getting better or worse, relatively, for the richest 1% over the last number of years?

If the distribution is becoming more skewed, then unless you are in the very highest portion (5% or so) then the current taxation policies are actually working against you. Why would you argue for that to continue on?

There won't ever be a point when the rich actually start to hand the money back, unless they are forced to, through taxation.

With such massive amounts needed for, and even Trump accepts the need for massive infrastructure investment but was unable to work out how to do anything about it personally benefit from it, infrastructure in the US that will benefit everyone in the US, how do you think it should e paid for?

FYP.

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

Certain posters, who are by luck born where they are born, which helps them to be achieve a privileged position often have no empathy for others who were simply born in a different part of the world, or didn't have the opportunities they were presented with.

Helps when Mommy and Daddy pay for everything. Often has the unfortunate outcome of raising a gob****e however.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

You're a tad obsessed with looking down at poor people. Meanwhile iirc you approve of wealthy people engaging in tax avoidance and evasion...

For some people, all that matters is seeing people they don't like getting brutalised. The cruelty is the point.

Muahahaha

everlast75 wrote: »

Certain posters, who are by luck born where they are born, which helps them to be achieve a privileged position often have no empathy for others who were simply born in a different part of the world, or didn't have the opportunities they were presented with.

At this point I think any poster who constantly rants and raves about the evils of socialism whilst advocating for corporates to dodge tax on here shouldnt have the license to do so until they can show us their cheque to the Irish government repaying the 18 years of childrens allowance they themselves benefited from. They're fierce quick to criticise the very system that paid them out for 18 years but not so quick to put their hand in their pocket and repay the money they think others shouldnt have.

Will we be seeing any of these exteme neo liberal types repaying the 18 years of childrens allowance they got? I wont be holding my breath

stefanovich

Muahahaha wrote: »

At this point I think any poster who constantly rants and raves about the evils of socialism whilst advocating for corporates to dodge tax on here shouldnt have the license to do so until they can show us their cheque to the Irish government repaying the 18 years of childrens allowance they themselves benefited from. They're fierce quick to criticise the very system that paid them out for 18 years but not so quick to put their hand in their pocket and repay the money they think others shouldnt have.

Will we be seeing any of these exteme neo liberal types repaying the 18 years of childrens allowance they got? I wont be holding my breath

Good job perpetuating false stereotypes. I certainly got nothing from my parents and came from a very disadvantaged background. I worked for everything I have.

Pit the working class against the middle class. Meanwhile the very rich employ every tax loophole afforded to them.

Child allowance? This is one case where the squeezed middle get a little back - they pay for everything in this country.

stefanovich

Muahahaha wrote: »

Will we be seeing any of these exteme neo liberal types repaying the 18 years of childrens allowance they got? I wont be holding my breath

The child allowance is funded by taxation. I consider it a tax rebate. Why am I paying back? Myself?

Eric Cartman

Cody montana wrote: »

Can’t run a trillion dollar deficit forever.

This is it, drastically cut non infrastructure and essential service federal spending until you can pay down the debt. Government has been spending too much the world over, a smaller more efficient model is needed.

Wanderer78

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is it, drastically cut non infrastructure and essential service federal spending until you can pay down the debt. Government has been spending too much the world over, a smaller more efficient model is needed.

...and default to the usual, over dependence on the private sector money supply!

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is it, drastically cut non infrastructure and essential service federal spending until you can pay down the debt. Government has been spending too much the world over, a smaller more efficient model is needed.

I prefer the idea of billionaires paying tax.

MisterAnarchy

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Ahh would that be white privilege ? :rolleyes:

Do you think being fiscally privileged isn't a thing too? You can do the sarcastic responses etc but I think it's good to reflect on the fact that people came from poorer backgrounds than me and that I'm lucky in scheme of things. So definitely not gonna be looking down at anyone because they're economically disadvantaged and am happy for state supports being a thing.

Smee_Again

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is it, drastically cut non infrastructure and essential service federal spending until you can pay down the debt. Government has been spending too much the world over, a smaller more efficient model is needed.

You only have an issue with government debt when its being used to better the lives of people instead of being funnelled into corporations.

stefanovich

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think being fiscally privileged isn't a thing too? You can do the sarcastic responses etc but I think it's good to reflect on the fact that people came from poorer backgrounds than me and that I'm lucky in scheme of things. So definitely not gonna be looking down at anyone because they're economically disadvantaged and am happy for state supports being a thing.

People should strive to be net contributors to society. I'm all for support for people when they need it. A leg up.

That said, if I work all my life and save and invest my money, I'm doing that for my kids. To help them out. I am going without so they have a better chance at a good life.

Seizing that money to redistribute to those who were obviously less conscientious is wrong.

Wanderer78

stefanovich wrote: »

People should strive to be net contributors to society. I'm all for support for people when they need it. A leg up.

That said, if I work all my life and save and invest my money, I'm doing that for my kids. To help them out. I am going without so they have a better chance at a good life.

Seizing that money to redistribute to those who were obviously less conscientious is wrong.

so you re for wealth taxes also?

stefanovich

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so you re for wealth taxes also?

I'm against my hard earned money being used to fund people's irresponsibly or idleness.

I'm not against taxation but I believe it should be simple. A single rate across the board. No loopholes.

Smee_Again

stefanovich wrote: »

I'm against my hard earned money being used to fund people's irresponsibly or idleness.

I'm not against taxation but I believe it should be simple. A single rate across the board. No loopholes.

You’ll fare a lot worse than you think in such a scenario.

Wanderer78

stefanovich wrote: »

I'm against my hard earned money being used to fund people's irresponsibly or idleness.

I'm not against taxation but I believe it should be simple. A single rate across the board. No loopholes.

its arguable that the wealthy have been so!

flat rate of taxes have been tried, and have failed, it ends up worsening inequality issues

an interactive graph of American taxation, to aide the conversation

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html

Tony EH

everlast75 wrote: »

Certain posters, who are by luck born where they are born, which helps them to be achieve a privileged position often have no empathy for others who were simply born in a different part of the world, or didn't have the opportunities they were presented with.

Such a thing requires thinking and a little reflection in a self critical manner which many people are simply incapable of.

Eric Cartman

Smee_Again wrote: »

You only have an issue with government debt when its being used to better the lives of people instead of being funnelled into corporations.

Im against government debt and most government spending all the time. Taxes are too high and theres no other solution except small government with low spending

Smee_Again

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im against government debt and most government spending all the time. Taxes are too high and theres no other solution except small government with low spending

You’re wrong, and the only evidence we need to show that is by pointing at the US.

Crumbling infrastructure, massive and widening inequality, little to no healthcare for a significant chunk of the population.

You know all this but you think that you could beat the system if only taxes were lowered, and that’s the saddest part of all your posts, the complete lack of self awareness.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im against government debt and most government spending all the time. Taxes are too high and theres no other solution except small government with low spending

What is your evidence for that? Like what peer reviewed papers have you read in accredited journals that have suggested that?

Are you aware of what a Laffer curve is? And how it's shape is determined? What models have you found that suggests that the maximum revenue point would occur for a lower tax rate?

A poll was done in 2012 asking dozens of experts from Harvard, MIT, Yale etc. the following question:

"A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut."

Not one of those dozens of experts agreed with that statement. So why are you right and they are all wrong? Or do you just believe that we should not try to maximise total tax revenue?

https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/laffer-curve/

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im against government debt and most government spending all the time. Taxes are too high and theres no other solution except small government with low spending

Taxes are too high? That is a very sweeping statement.

What taxes, on whom? Should all taxes be lowered?

How big is big government? What parts of the government would you remove? Military obviously. Law enforcement, the legal system? Should the entire Federal government be done away with or maybe get rid of local government?

Denmark and Sweden both have 'high' taxes and continue to be prosper and seem to have relatively content and stable citizens.

Smee_Again

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im against government debt and most government spending all the time. Taxes are too high and theres no other solution except small government with low spending

Oh, and it’s fairly clear from all your posts that your real issue is with helping people you just hide that behind claims that taxes are too high.

francois

stefanovich wrote: »

I'm against my hard earned money being used to fund people's irresponsibly or idleness.

I'm not against taxation but I believe it should be simple. A single rate across the board. No loopholes.

Ah the old idlesness strawman appears, from the epi report,

Among families or individuals receiving public assistance, the majority (66.6 percent) work or are in working families (families in which at least one adult in the household works). This number grows to 71.6 percent when focusing on non-elderly recipient families and individuals (those under age 65).

https://www.epi.org/publication/wages-and-transfers/

Eric Cartman

francois wrote: »

Ah the old idlesness strawman appears, from the epi report,

Among families or individuals receiving public assistance, the majority (66.6 percent) work or are in working families (families in which at least one adult in the household works). This number grows to 71.6 percent when focusing on non-elderly recipient families and individuals (those under age 65).

https://www.epi.org/publication/wages-and-transfers/

From your own link :

About 69.2 percent of all public assistance benefits received by non-elderly families or individuals go to those who work.
Nearly half (46.9 percent) of all working recipients of public assistance work full time (at least 1,990 hours per year).

So over 30% on benefits are not working at all and are not elderly
Less than half of the 69.2% who work are in full time employment .

So 32.4% of those in receipt of benefits in the state work full time, so over 2 thirds either dont work, or only work part time .

Sounds like 2/3rds of these people need to get themselves a full time job.

Also looking at that link , of the ‘benefits’ most are on , most full time workers are just in receipt of the EITC earned income tax credit, its just a tax rebate for those earning under 25k a year , its hardly a benefit. Who knew... lower taxes also help the poor

Smee_Again

Eric Cartman wrote: »

From your own link :


So over 30% on benefits are not working at all and are not elderly
Less than half of the 69.2% who work are in full time employment .

So 32.4% of those in receipt of benefits in the state work full time, so over 2 thirds either dont work, or only work part time .

Sounds like 2/3rds of these people need to get themselves a full time job.

Employers don’t offer full time hours to avoid having to pay extra benefits.

For example in Wall Mart full time hours are 34. That means workers would have to work 58 weeks a year to hit 1990 hours.

Eric Cartman

Smee_Again wrote: »

Employers don’t offer full time hours to avoid having to pay extra benefits.

For example in Wall Mart full time hours are 34. That means workers would have to work 58 weeks a year to hit 1990 hours.

And im sure you can cherry pick a handful of other bad actors, walmart and amazon are just sleazy employers , 49% of americans work for small businesses who dont have the HR departments to pull these stunts

Also over 85% of american men are working over 40 hours a week : https://bluewatercredit.com/americans-now-working-hours-country-world/

Smee_Again

Eric Cartman wrote: »

And im sure you can cherry pick a handful of other bad actors, walmart and amazon are just sleazy employers , 49% of americans work for small businesses who dont have the HR departments to pull these stunts

Also over 85% of american men are working over 40 hours a week : https://bluewatercredit.com/americans-now-working-hours-country-world/

It’s not cherry picking when they are among the biggest employers in the US.

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

And im sure you can cherry pick a handful of other bad actors, walmart and amazon are just sleazy employers , 49% of americans work for small businesses who dont have the HR departments to pull these stunts

Also over 85% of american men are working over 40 hours a week : https://bluewatercredit.com/americans-now-working-hours-country-world/

And what about those that can't work. Disabilities, lack of education, family situation, mental health.

You mention a few bad actors. These are massive companies, employing thousands of people. Before going after the powerless, you should be focused on getting tough on these bad actors. Sort those out and it would make a massive difference.

But back to your point.

What taxes are too high, what is the right tax rate?
What defines big government and what needs to be done to reduce it?

Smee_Again

Leroy42 wrote: »

You mention a few bad actors. These are massive companies, employing thousands of people. Before going after the powerless, you should be focused on getting tough on these bad actors. Sort those out and it would make a massive difference.

Millions, not thousands.

The Pareto principal would apply here, getting tough on the few large bad actors like Walmart, Amazon etc would have a massive impact on workers.

Igotadose

Here's some excerpts from an article by Paul Krugman about the tax plan, from yesterday's NYT:

"Bidenomics Is as American as Apple Pie"

"Bidenomics consists, roughly speaking, of large-scale public investment paid for with highly progressive taxation. And both of these things are as American as apple pie."

"Actually, given extremely low borrowing costs it’s not obvious that we would even need a tax hike if infrastructure spending were the end of the story. But we will need more revenue to pay for the whole Biden program, which everyone expects will eventually include another round of spending targeted on families. So it makes sense to tie tax hikes to the jobs plan; polling suggests that paying for public investment with taxes on corporations and the rich increases support for an infrastructure plan, and that something along the lines of the Biden proposals will command very high public approval.

Republicans will no doubt denounce the idea of taxing the rich as un-American class warfare. In reality, however, such taxation is another long tradition in this country. As Thomas Piketty, the inequality scholar, likes to put it, America basically invented progressive taxation."

...
"There will and should be extensive debate over the details of Biden’s spend-and-tax plan over the next few months. In its broad outline, however, the plan represents a turn away from the free-market extremism that has ruled U.S. policy in recent years, back to an older tradition — the tradition that prevailed during America’s years of greatest economic success."

--

Krugman points out the greatest era of US prosperity was ushered in, in part, by the progressive tax plan implemented under Eisenhower, who used the money to build the Interstate highway system, DARPA, fund lots of other infrastructure. Biden's plan aims to do the same, pretty much a conservative playbook for building up an economy. He points out that the Erie Canal, the first government infrastructure project (NY State government) was publically funded to the tune of $1 million, which in today's $$ would be about $1 trillion, and was a roaring success opening up the midwest to settlement and commerce. Just one of several examples.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/opinion/biden-infrastructure.html

Eric Cartman

Igotadose wrote: »

Here's some excerpts from an article by Paul Krugman about the tax plan, from yesterday's NYT:

"Bidenomics Is as American as Apple Pie"

"Bidenomics consists, roughly speaking, of large-scale public investment paid for with highly progressive taxation. And both of these things are as American as apple pie."

"Actually, given extremely low borrowing costs it’s not obvious that we would even need a tax hike if infrastructure spending were the end of the story. But we will need more revenue to pay for the whole Biden program, which everyone expects will eventually include another round of spending targeted on families. So it makes sense to tie tax hikes to the jobs plan; polling suggests that paying for public investment with taxes on corporations and the rich increases support for an infrastructure plan, and that something along the lines of the Biden proposals will command very high public approval.

Republicans will no doubt denounce the idea of taxing the rich as un-American class warfare. In reality, however, such taxation is another long tradition in this country. As Thomas Piketty, the inequality scholar, likes to put it, America basically invented progressive taxation."

...
"There will and should be extensive debate over the details of Biden’s spend-and-tax plan over the next few months. In its broad outline, however, the plan represents a turn away from the free-market extremism that has ruled U.S. policy in recent years, back to an older tradition — the tradition that prevailed during America’s years of greatest economic success."

--

Krugman points out the greatest era of US prosperity was ushered in, in part, by the progressive tax plan implemented under Eisenhower, who used the money to build the Interstate highway system, DARPA, fund lots of other infrastructure. Biden's plan aims to do the same, pretty much a conservative playbook for building up an economy. He points out that the Erie Canal, the first government infrastructure project (NY State government) was publically funded to the tune of $1 million, which in today's $$ would be about $1 trillion, and was a roaring success opening up the midwest to settlement and commerce. Just one of several examples.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/opinion/biden-infrastructure.html

its quite funny because apple pie is Dutch , another country in which taxation is too high.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its quite funny because apple pie is Dutch , another country in which taxation is too high.

Apple pie is English, not Dutch.

Here is the first known recipe from the 14th century. http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/foc/FoC160small.html

The first known Dutch apple pie is from the 16th century. http://www.kookhistorie.nl/index.htm

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

Apple pie is English, not Dutch.

Here is the first know recipe from the 14th century. http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/foc/FoC160small.html

The first known Dutch apple pie is from the 16th century.

well we can agree its not American. But I am definitely up for a fascinating thread on the origins of apple pie and possibly a boards.ie pie competition :pac:

Igotadose

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its quite funny because apple pie is Dutch , another country in which taxation is too high.

Actually, per Southern Living, it originated in England. Chaucer recorded a recipe. But, apples were not native to the new world and people like Johnny Appleseed helped encourage their spread.

https://www.southernliving.com/desserts/pies/history-apple-pie

Good quote from that article:
"Phony symbolism aside, apple pie actually does represent America, but not for the reasons most people think. Apple pie is American because it represents how cultures from all over the world can join together to create something new and altogether wonderful. Like apples, we’re all transplants."

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well we can agree its not American. But I am definitely up for a fascinating thread on the origins of apple pie and possibly a boards.ie pie competition :pac:

It does, however, suggest that you have a tendency to state things as fact without doing a few second's research first.

eagle eye

Eric Cartman wrote:

its quite funny because apple pie is Dutch , another country in which taxation is too high.

Wrong, oldest known recipe is English.

And apple pie has been hugely popular in the US for a long, long time so it's a fitting saying.

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its quite funny because apple pie is Dutch , another country in which taxation is too high.

And yet you still haven't given any indication of what a correct taxation rate is.

Too high? Based on what? Is there a basis for this , clearly very embedded, opinion?

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its quite funny because apple pie is Dutch , another country in which taxation is too high.

It's pretty telling that you didn't actually criticise one thing from the article. Worth pointing out by the way as infrastructure projects start coming out of all of this, it's gonna create jobs and stimulate the economy as a direct result too.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

And yet you still haven't given any indication of what a correct taxation rate is.

Too high? Based on what? Is there a basis for this , clearly very embedded, opinion?

It's too high because some of it goes to poor people, refugees and other people the right despise. The US could easily slash its tax take but spending less on its military, literally the world's largest employer but you'll just see the usual conservative histrionics if that's even mooted.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's too high because some of it goes to poor people, refugees and other people the right despise. The US could easily slash its tax take but spending less on its military, literally the world's largest employer but you'll just see the usual conservative histrionics if that's even mooted.

we despise them because they cause tax. Id personally be in favour of cutting military spending in the US. if there was no income tax, cgt, property tax and no vat and little to no corporate tax then I wouldn't care where the money was spent because I wouldn't be funding it. As that sadly is not the case, ill rally against anything funded by those taxes.

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

we despise them because they cause tax. Id personally be in favour of cutting military spending in the US. if there was no income tax, cgt, property tax and no vat and little to no corporate tax then I wouldn't care where the money was spent because I wouldn't be funding it. As that sadly is not the case, ill rally against anything funded by those taxes.

Let's be honest, when you see huge conservative support for racists, bigots and the storming of the Capitol by the far right then I think we can put it down to good old racism. I doubt the specimens of the master race waving swastikas bothered to research public spending.

You never hear conservatives clamour for cutting the military. All they seem to want is more cruelty.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

we despise them because they cause tax. Id personally be in favour of cutting military spending in the US. if there was no income tax, cgt, property tax and no vat and little to no corporate tax then I wouldn't care where the money was spent because I wouldn't be funding it. As that sadly is not the case, ill rally against anything funded by those taxes.

Meanwhile you don't care in the slightest that some of America's largest employers prevent employees from being classified as full time employees. Instead you complain about the employees. Based on your previous posts, I'd suspect you actually admire companies for taking advantage of such loopholes.

Also this idea of zero taxation basically ends with a country collapsing. You aren't going to have any large-scale infrastructure developments, healthcare will cost a fortune. Eg you're claiming taxes are too high in the US but they aren't...

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

Meanwhile you don't care in the slightest that some of America's largest employers prevent employees from being classified as full time employees. Instead you complain about the employees. Based on your previous posts, I'd suspect you actually admire companies for taking advantage of such loopholes.

Also this idea of zero taxation basically ends with a country collapsing. You aren't going to have any large-scale infrastructure developments, healthcare will cost a fortune. Eg you're claiming taxes are too high in the US but they aren't...

I dont admire them at all for it. But all these things are done as a tax fiddle, its to avoid being forced to pay for things. If you had a flat tax system where it was say 10% corporation tax and 20% across the board income tax, no fiddles, credits, loopholes, additional taxes or forced responsibilities etc.. then companies wouldn't be offshoring profits, using multiple part time workers instead of a single full time, etc.. All these rules about treating part time and full time workers differently. At the moment we have a competition gap where big employers can play these funny games and squeeze out small businesses. If we just reduce the tax burden but close all the loopholes then everyones on an even playing field and small businesses can compete , employees are better off as they have more certainty that their lives won't be turned upside down to suit a loophole etc..

at the moment the biggest problem is that its built tomes of regulations designed to stop businesses being evil, helped written by big corporations who make them sound nice but in reality they just hurt all but the biggest players who can loophole around them. If you cut taxation and regulation more Americans would go back to running and working in small businesses which are less likely to be crappy employers, it also opens up the route to start more businesses in deprived areas where the only jobs available are the crap ones like Walmart.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Let's be honest, when you see huge conservative support for racists, bigots and the storming of the Capitol by the far right then I think we can put it down to good old racism. I doubt the specimens of the master race waving swastikas bothered to research public spending.

You never hear conservatives clamour for cutting the military. All they seem to want is more cruelty.

Ill mostly agree, Some conservatives ala Ron / rand paul have definitely opposed more military spending but ill agree its woefully unpopular to oppose the military in those circles. Theres a fair few democrats also who are pretty happy to keep spending on the war machine.

Its personally not something I support, defending domestic interests and peace keeping should be the stretch of any modern military.