America gives $700bn to the military – but says healthcare is a luxury

[umbertino]

 

On Monday, the Pentagon received even more money than it had asked for. Funding war is something that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on

 

 

Wednesday 20 September 2017 15.49 BST

 

By  Trevor Timm

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/20/america-700bn-military-healthcare-luxury

[Muleslayer]

10 hours ago, umbertino said:

Democrats and Republicans can agree on

 

Lol!😱

[MyLadiesDaddy]

6 hours ago, Muleslayer said:

 

Lol!😱

Right there with ya, Brother 

 

 

[bostonangler]

Almost a TRILLION dollars a year on the war machine... Now that is pathetic...

 

B/A

[bostonangler]

Seriously I get negged? Our country is sinking under trillions in debt and you clowns don't think we are wasting money? What a bunch of rubs...

 

B/A

[Jaxinjersey]

4 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

Seriously I get negged? Our country is sinking under trillions in debt and you clowns don't think we are wasting money? What a bunch of rubs...

 

B/A

Probably something to do with your math perspective, B/A... that's quite the "rounding-up"... $300 BILLION!!!  But, hey... whatever's convenient for the agenda, right?!!!  LOL

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 

11 minutes ago, Jaxinjersey said:

Probably something to do with your math perspective, B/A... that's quite the "rounding-up"... $300 BILLION!!!  But, hey... whatever's convenient for the agenda, right?!!!  LOL

BOOM!!!!!!

I do love intelligence.

[bostonangler]

42 minutes ago, Jaxinjersey said:

Probably something to do with your math perspective, B/A... that's quite the "rounding-up"... $300 BILLION!!!  But, hey... whatever's convenient for the agenda, right?!!!  LOL

 

I said almost, or nearly... If you think that budget is giving us the taxpayer value then there is nothing left to say... We can blow up the many times over, what's the point? Next thing they will do is tax you church so they can build more bombs... Think about it. Our government needs to be cutting spending not increasing it... But as a conservative you already know that.

 

B/A

[bostonangler]

34 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

 

BOOM!!!!!!

I do love intelligence.

‘Shaq’,  Kyrie Irving, Bobby Ray Simmons Jr, Tila Tequila,  AJ Styles... Your in good company with your intelligence...

 

B/A

[bostonangler]

Wow the negs keep coming from the same old trumpsters... He will lead you to damnation!!! LOL

 

B/A

[BJinMontreal]

Do something about fixing all the corruption then, instead of constantly whining about Trump!!

[bostonangler]

Just now, BJinMontreal said:

Do something about fixing all the corruption then, instead of constantly whining about Trump!!

 

I did my part and voted for no incumbents... How about you? Oh that's right you're not American.

 

B/A

[Synopsis]

22 minutes ago, BJinMontreal said:

Do something about fixing all the corruption then, instead of constantly whining about Trump!!

 

21 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

I did my part and voted for no incumbents... How about you? Oh that's right you're not American.

 

B/A

 

I believe personal freedom and personal responsibility is a core principle to Patriotic Americans. Collective security is imperative that requires a potent military as one means of ensuring the ability for Americans to be personally free and personally responsible. Health Care is NOT a right or a privilege for any American Citizen or visitor to America. The American Government has NO right whatsoever to determine the availability or extent of my Health Care (or pay for my or anyone's Health Care). Within the appropriate exercise of my personal freedom and personal responsibility, I will seek out the care I believe I would like to have. I am solely responsible for the ill consequence of my acute and chronic behaviors leading to satisfying my Health Care needs including issues relating to my genetic makeup. I am not financially responsible for any one else's pursuit of Health Care and I am only financially responsible for my own Health Care.

 

I find BJInMontreal's perspectives to be very, very refreshing and to be a highly respected articulation of American personal freedom and personal responsibility.

 

Well, OK, BJInMontreal is a highly esteemed Canadian friend to the North and not an American Citizen but, in my opinion, is far more American than some "Americans" who post here.

 

Welcome BJInMontreal and The Best Of Your Weekend To You! 

[bostonangler]

2 minutes ago, Synopsis said:

 

 

I believe personal freedom and personal responsibility is a core principle to Patriotic Americans. Collective security is imperative that requires a potent military as one means of ensuring the ability for Americans to be personally free and personally responsible. Health Care is NOT a right or a privilege for any American Citizen or visitor to America. The American Government has NO right whatsoever to determine the availability or extent of my Health Care (or pay for my or anyone's Health Care). Within the appropriate exercise of my personal freedom and personal responsibility, I will seek out the care I believe I would like to have. I am solely responsible for the ill consequence of my acute and chronic behaviors leading to satisfying my Health Care needs including issues relating to my genetic makeup. I am not financially responsible for any one else's pursuit of Health Care and I am only financially responsible for my own Health Care.

 

I find BJInMontreal's perspectives to be very, very refreshing and to be a highly respected articulation of American personal freedom and personal responsibility.

 

Well, OK, BJInMontreal is a highly esteemed Canadian friend to the North and not an American Citizen but, in my opinion, is far more American than some "Americans" who post here.

 

Welcome BJInMontreal and The Best Of Your Weekend To You! 

 

Thanks Synopsis I always enjoy your posts... I agree about personal responsibility. Of course we have many great senior American citizens who fought for your freedom and now need our help... My father has friends who worked their entire lives, took bullets for you and have little to get by on due to their sacrifice. I guess you can just write them off... I'm sure all the veterans here will agree with your belief you are not here to help those who need help.

 

B/A

[Shelley]

51 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

Thanks Synopsis I always enjoy your posts... I agree about personal responsibility. Of course we have many great senior American citizens who fought for your freedom and now need our help... My father has friends who worked their entire lives, took bullets for you and have little to get by on due to their sacrifice. I guess you can just write them off... I'm sure all the veterans here will agree with your belief you are not here to help those who need help.

 

B/A

Wow B/A you really twisted that whole conversation to suit your needs , didn't you. ?? 

[bostonangler]

29 minutes ago, Shelley said:

Wow B/A you really twisted that whole conversation to suit your needs , didn't you. ?? 

 

Not really, he and others think no one should get help and be responsible for their own wellbeing.. With that logic, the government shouldn't be spending money on rebuilding the cities affected by the hurricanes, the government shouldn't send help to those people suffering. According to some, it is everyone for themselves. By the tone of your remark, I guess you don't know a single person who could use a helping hand.  Jax bashed me because  I said the military budget was almost one trillion. He said 300 billion was a convenient rounding up of the numbers. But the damage from Harvey and Irma, not counting Maria is estimated at 300 billion to rebuild. Do we just let those cities go to waste or do we as a nation help out? Some here think the government shouldn't get involved I disagree. When it comes to healthcare, Synopsis and others think we shouldn't help underprivileged people and let them suffer if they can't afford care. I don't agree. I know good people who need help. I'm a tax payer and I would rather see my money go to the health and welfare of our citizens instead of the pockets of multinational corporations with bank accounts off shore. We have more than enough bombs to protect ourselves, but as they say "To each his own"

 

B/A

[patrickgold]

36 minutes ago, Shelley said:

Wow B/A you really twisted that whole conversation to suit your needs , didn't you. ?? 

Sure did!!! That's their specialty, that's their agenda.  I don't know where BA get her info from, but President Trump isn't  done helping our Veterans, if the lawmakers would support him, a lot more can get done.  He may not please everyone, but he's doing his best considering all those who are working against him.  

 

 

[Synopsis]

2 hours ago, bostonangler said:

 

Thanks Synopsis I always enjoy your posts... I agree about personal responsibility. Of course we have many great senior American citizens who fought for your freedom and now need our help... My father has friends who worked their entire lives, took bullets for you and have little to get by on due to their sacrifice. I guess you can just write them off... I'm sure all the veterans here will agree with your belief you are not here to help those who need help.

 

B/A

 

58 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

Not really, he and others think no one should get help and be responsible for their own wellbeing.. With that logic, the government shouldn't be spending money on rebuilding the cities affected by the hurricanes, the government shouldn't send help to those people suffering. According to some, it is everyone for themselves. By the tone of your remark, I guess you don't know a single person who could use a helping hand.  Jax bashed me because  I said the military budget was almost one trillion. He said 300 billion was a convenient rounding up of the numbers. But the damage from Harvey and Irma, not counting Maria is estimated at 300 billion to rebuild. Do we just let those cities go to waste or do we as a nation help out? Some here think the government shouldn't get involved I disagree. When it comes to healthcare, Synopsis and others think we shouldn't help underprivileged people and let them suffer if they can't afford care. I don't agree. I know good people who need help. I'm a tax payer and I would rather see my money go to the health and welfare of our citizens instead of the pockets of multinational corporations with bank accounts off shore. We have more than enough bombs to protect ourselves, but as they say "To each his own"

 

B/A

 

What I am extremely disappointed in is any inferences that the Federal Government of any nation is a panacea to any malady or any personal ail.

 

First and foremost, there is the REQUIRED spheres of responsibility to meet any individual's need whatsoever which are:

• The individual.
• The nuclear family (one man with one woman (married) and biological children, adopted children, and those children of appropriate and legal guardianship). I realize there are numerous one parent families that are one parent for a variety of reasons and are included here.
• Extended family (Dad, Mom, Brothers, Sisters then Grandparents, Uncles, Aunts, Cousins, Kids, Grandkids).
• Church.
• Community.
• County.
• State.
• LASTLY, the Federal Government.

So, the individual needs are to be met by the closest sphere of responsibility to the individual. Not the Federal Government. I will make one very notable exception here. Any American service person will receive free of charge by the Federal Government at the tax payer's expense any reasonably necessary Health Care to reasonably rectify any physical or psychological impairment received during there term of honorable service that is acute or chronic. Obviously extensive scrutiny and corrective actions taken when necessary is order while the Federal Government administers this service to ensure the finest services are available to these service persons and there is no corruption involved.

 

I would NEVER advocate throwing a needy person in a ditch and neglecting them if they sought help from the relevant sphere of responsibility starting with the individual - except if they only go to the Federal Government to meet their need except the one notable exception. In that case they can have all the ditch they want.

 

The perspective presented in the quote assumes that the Federal Government is all there is. Sad. The Federal Government is an extreme bastardization of everything held dear by Freedom Loving American Patriots regarding meeting individual needs with the noted exception presented. The alternate is to say there are no nuclear families, extended families, churches, communities, Counties, or States that are far more adequately equipped and desirous to meet individual needs provided the individual is being reasonably responsible in personally addressing their own needs.

 

To illustrate further, Liberal Leftists (a variety of Communist, Socialist, Fascist, or combination or derivative thereof) can go to any uninhabited island capable of sustaining human life and see what that Liberal Leftist philosophy would provide for them. Nothing. Liberal Leftists are parasites bent on destroying the institutions they drain.

 

Freedom Loving and Personally Responsible Individuals would be quite at home in such an environment and are more than willing to help others make good use of the available resources to have a decent standard of living so that each can enjoy the benefits of their own efforts - especially without any Government.

 

The lowest form of Government and it's influences coincides with the highest level of personal and collective responsibility. Therefore, the highest and most desirable standard of living is achieved through eradicating Federal Government Social Programs for the individual (except for the noted exception) by fully engaging in the responsible execution of the expanding sphere of responsibility described above. Any "disaster" should only be met by the next highest sphere of responsibility. For Puerto Rico as an example, the Federal Government does need to assist the Government of Puerto Rico who then provide assistance to the local Puerto Rican govenment who then provide for the Puerto Rican communities. So, individuals, nuclear families, extended families, and churches can all provide for and participate in returning Puerto Rico to a reasonable state of normalcy.

 

Are you saying no individual, nuclear family, extended family, or church is doing everything they can to help in Puerto Rico? To me, untold numbers of individuals, nuclear families, extended families, and churches are all after this. A daunting endeavor nonetheless but each of these spheres of responsibility is necessarily activated here.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Synopsis
misspelling

[bostonangler]

28 minutes ago, patrickgold said:

 I don't know where BA get her info from

 

Read it and weep, your guy is a phony... Or maybe his followers have an issue with reading and comprehension...

 

Budget Calls for Cuts to VA Programs as Tradeoff for Extending Choice

 

Stars and Stripes | 23 May 2017 | by Nikki Wentling

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump's budget released Tuesday proposes cutting monthly stipends to some disabled, unemployed veterans and reducing veterans' cost-of-living adjustments as offsets to continue a program that allows veterans to seek care outside the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The $186.5 billion budget calls for $2.9 billion in new spending in fiscal 2018, which begins Oct. 1, to fund the Veterans Choice Program, which was created as a temporary measure and allows veterans, in certain instances, to seek health care in the private sector at the VA's expense. Trump's budget also asks for $3.5 billion more for the program in 2019 and every subsequent year.

The increase would bring the total amount that the VA spends through its various community care programs to $13.2 billion in fiscal 2018.

The Choice program -- created in response to the system-wide scandal of veterans suffering long waits for health care -- was set to end Aug. 7, 2017. Congress passed legislation in April allowing it to continue beyond the expiration date with the approximately $1 billion remaining of $10 billion appropriated for the program in 2014.

It's now authorized to continue until it runs out of money. VA Secretary David Shulkin is working on improvements to the program, which has been criticized by veterans and lawmakers as confusing and complex.

"Veterans' access to timely, high-quality health care is one of this administration's highest priorities," the budget states. "The budget provides mandatory funding to extend the Veterans Choice Program, enabling eligible veterans to receive timely care, close to home."

Listed as one of the offsets for the extra cost is a new restriction on compensation for veterans through the VA's "individual unemployability" program.

Currently, veterans eligible for the program have a 60 to 100 percent disability rating through the VA and are unable to secure a job because of their service-connected disability. The program allows them to get paid at the highest compensation rate. For 2017, the monthly rate for a 100 percent disabled veteran living alone is $2,915 per month.

The change, which the budget describes as a "modernization," would stop the higher payments once a veteran who is eligible for Social Security payments reaches the minimum age to receive them. Veterans who have already reached the age to receive Social Security would be removed from the VA benefit program if Congress approves the proposal.

The change would save $3.2 billion for the VA in fiscal 2018, according to budget documents.

Also listed as an offset to the Choice program is a practice to round down cost-of-living adjustments to all veterans who receive disability compensation. The practice was standard until 2013.

The Office of Management and Budget estimates reinstating the round-down policy would decrease payments by a total of $12 annually per veteran. It would save $20 million for the VA in fiscal 2018, the documents show.

The last offset would be to cap student veterans' Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for flight training. Flight programs tend to be more expensive than other courses of study, the budget states. It proposes capping benefits for flight training at the maximum the VA will provide to students at private schools, which is about $21,000 each year. The cap would save $42 million for the VA for fiscal 2018, according to the budget.

"Through these tradeoffs, VA will focus its budgetary resources on providing veterans with the most efficient and effective care and benefits," the budget reads.

In total, the president's budget calls for $82.1 billion in discretionary spending for the VA, an increase of about 6 percent from fiscal 2017. Once mandated funding is included, the budget surpasses $186 billion.

If passed by Congress, the VA's budget would be another in a succession of increases for the agency. When former President Barack Obama took office in 2008, the VA budget was about $90 billion. In 2012, it was $130 billion.

Shulkin said at a congressional hearing earlier this month that he would not be seeking a budget increase for the VA in future years, but needed one in fiscal 2018 for modernization efforts.

He is set to testify about the budget Wednesday morning before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

"The 2018 budget request reflects the strong commitment of the president to provide the services and benefits that our nation's veterans have earned," Shulkin said in a statement issued Wednesday. "VA has made significant progress in improving its service to veterans and their family members. We are fully committed to continuing the transformation across the department, so we can deliver the standards of performance our veterans expect and deserve."

[pokerplayer]

37 minutes ago, patrickgold said:

Sure did!!! That's their specialty, that's their agenda.  I don't know where BA get her info from, but President Trump isn't  done helping our Veterans, if the lawmakers would support system" rel="">support him, a lot more can get done.  He may not please everyone, but he's doing his best considering all those who are working against him.  

 

 

 

 

Evened you out patrick. Don't believe a Ruby was warrented here.

 

   pp

[Synopsis]

11 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

The $186.5 billion budget calls for $2.9 billion in new spending in fiscal 2018, which begins Oct. 1, to fund the Veterans Choice Program, which was created as a temporary measure and allows veterans, in certain instances, to seek health care in the private sector at the VA's expense. Trump's budget also asks for $3.5 billion more for the program in 2019 and every subsequent year.

 

SAY WHAT???!!!

 

You mean to tell me that the products of Liberally Left Educational Institutions have been denied the ability to comprehend printed material as well???!!!

 

What future is there for these very same United States Of America and what are we coming too???!!!

 

                            

 

        

 

                         

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Synopsis
corrected sentence

[bostonangler]

Posted By: Tom Philpott May 25, 2017

Military Update: President Trump’s first budget request embraces many Obama administration ideas to dampen military compensation growth. It would cap the next military pay raise; hike healthcare fees “modestly” for working-age military retirees, and increase co-payments on pharmacy drugs for TRICARE beneficiaries, including retirees of any age, though prescriptions filled on base would still be free.

But the new administration has fresh cost-cutting plans. Many target federal civilian employees but one that would hit 208,000 seriously disabled older veterans particularly hard. These “IU” veterans have disability ratings from the Department of Veterans Affairs of 60 to 90 percent, but because they aren’t able to work they receive VA compensation as if 100-percent disabled.

Individual Unemployability or IU status provides, on average, an additional $1300 a month in VA disability pay. The administration wants Congress to end IU eligibility next year for any veteran 62 and older who qualifies for at least minimum Social Security payments. Their VA compensation would be rolled back to amounts payable based on their actual disability ratings of 60 to 90 percent.

The “IU modernization” plan would save $3.2 billion annually, which VA would use to expand the Choice program, making private sector healthcare more available when veterans can’t get timely or appropriate care at VA medical facilities. (giving money to private companies what a surprise)

Rollback of IU payments hasn’t gotten a serious look from Congress for more than a decade ago. The Government Accountability Office in 2006 released a report criticizing VA for lax oversight of the program. One criticism by auditors was that VA compensation for being “unemployable” continued into old age. (Read more about the proposed VA budget on Military.com)

Veteran service groups can be expected to resist the rollback vigorously. At the Pentagon, meanwhile, Defense officials presented familiar plans for modifying compensation programs starting in fiscal 2018 to save a total of $7.1 billion over the next five years. Here are details:

MILITARY PAY RAISE CAP – By law, active duty and reserve component personnel are due a 2.4 percent raise Jan. 1, 2018, to match recent wage growth in the private sector. The budget proposed would cap that raise at 2.1 percent, matching the 2017 raise but staying higher than the 1.9 percent projected for 2018 by Obama budgets. Shaving the raise by .3 percent would free up $200 million next year, and $1.4 billion through 2022, to spend on other readiness-related priorities.

WORKING-AGE RETIREE TRICARE FEES – Last year, Congress embraced the Defense plan to raise TRICARE fees, deductibles and co-payments on working-age retirees (those younger than 65). But lawmakers disappointed TRICARE officials by applying the fees only to future force members. This will delay any serious tamp down in healthcare costs through higher beneficiary cost shares for 20 years and create inequities in benefits between generations of future retirees.

The Trump administration wants that “grandfather” protection shelved and current working-age retirees exposed to higher TRICARE fees starting in 2018, to save the department $3.6 billion in just the next five years.

In an interview, Jon Rychalski, acting principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, said the more important reason to repeal the grandfather protection is “make things equitable” across year groups of working-age retirees.

Without repeal, he said, “you’re going to have a situation where you have two people potentially working side by side with very different benefits. One grandfathered and one who is not. So, our overarching interest this year is to have one equitable benefit for everybody.”

If Congress agrees, many retirees are likely to view higher TRICARE fees as a broken promise and not restored equality. Only the elderly, those who qualify for TRICARE for Life (TFL) and Medicare, would be spared higher fees. This budget drops the idea of imposing a new enrollment fee on newly-eligible TFL retirees.

It does propose for TRICARE Prime, the military’s managed care option, that the enrollment fee be renamed a “participation” fee and be raised from $282.60 to $350 for single coverage and from $565.20 to $700 for family coverage.

A participation fee would be set too for TRICARE Standard and Extra, which are to be merged and renamed TRICARE Select on Jan. 1. Retirees using Select would have to pay $450 a year for single coverage and $900 for family coverage.

Though new to TRICARE Standard users, Rychalski said, a participation fee is a “best practice” of industry to ensure a healthcare system knows year to year “who it’s treating. It is our belief that having people buy into the system, to know what our population is, we can better serve that population through disease management service or things like that. And frankly maybe keep costs lower.”

Annual deductibles also would climb. For family coverage under TRICARE Select, deductibles would be reset at $300 to access network providers and $600 to be able to use non-network providers. The deductible for single coverage would be $150 for network coverage and $300 for out-of-network providers.

Co-pays for primary and specialty care also would rise. Catastrophic caps on total out-of-pocket health costs would increase to $3500 from $3000 per family, with annual participation fees not counted against the cap. TRICARE fees, deductibles and co-pays would be adjusted yearly to keep pace with inflation.

Overall, officials estimate, out-of-pocket costs for a non-Medicare-eligible retiree family of three would climb from an average of $1517 a year to $1986, assuming a weighted mixed use of network and non-network providers. The proportion of health costs borne by working-age retirees would climb from 8.6 percent to 11.3 percent. Officials argue that retirees had paid an average of 27 percent out-of-pocket in 1996, the year of TRICARE was fully implemented.

Higher costs will be accompanied by improved services, Rychalski said.
“We want to have a sustainable benefit, for the beneficiary and for the government,” he said. While older retirees will still cite recruiter promises of free lifetime healthcare, generations of younger retirees should weigh TRICARE coverage and “realize this is actually really a great benefit. And not only is it a great benefit, [they] get great service, great access,” said the interim healthcare chief.

TRICARE PHARMACY CO-PAYS – Congress last year rejected the department’s call to raise beneficiary co-pays for prescription drugs filled at retail outlets or through TRICARE Mail Order. The new administration seeks higher co-pays again, projecting savings of $400 million in 2018 and $2.1 billion through 2022 if adopted.

Prescriptions on the military formulary would continue to be filled for free on base. Co-pays for prescriptions filled off base would rise gradually for generic, brand names and non-formulary drugs. The slope the increases planned over the next five years would be more gradual than under last year’s proposal.

For example, the co-pay for a 30-day supply of a brand drugs at retail would increase from $24 to $31 by 2022. The co-pay for a 90-day supply of a brand drug by mail order would rise from $20 to $31. The co-pay for generic drugs at retail would stay at $10 until rising to $11 in 2022.

Last year The Military Coalition, comprised of 32 organizations representing members of the uniformed services and their families, opposed any TRICARE fee increases until access and quality of care improved. The coalition called the higher fees, then targeted only at new entrants, “disproportionately high” and rejected the notion of a participation fee for TRICARE Select (Standard) users.

Rychalski said quality of care remains high, and TRICARE users should be seeing improved access to care, the results of multiple reform initiatives.

“We have had about a 43 percent increase in access to primary care appointments” and “a 29 percent increase in access to specialty care,” he said.

“While it’s not 100 percent free, our hope is that [beneficiaries] still think this is really a great value,” he said, compared to private sector health insurance plans

 

 

 

Glad he is looking out for our vets... Imagine if he wasn't supporting the troops and their families...

 

B/A

[bostonangler]

One of the most controversial proposals put forward by Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential campaign was a pledge to make tuition free at public colleges and universities. Critics from both parties howled that the pie-in-the-sky idea would bankrupt the country. Where, after all, would the money come from?

Those concerns were brushed aside Monday night, as the Senate overwhelmingly approved an $80 billion annual increase in military spending, enough to have fully satisfied Sanders’s campaign promise. Instead, the Senate handed President Donald Trump far more than the $54 billion he asked for. The lavish spending package gives Trump a major legislative victory, allowing him to boast about fulfilling his promise of a “great rebuilding of the armed services.”

The bill would set the U.S.’s annual military budget at around $700 billion, putting it within range of matching the spending level at the height of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

To put that in further perspective: If the package becomes law, U.S. military spending would exceed the total spending of its next 10 rivals put together, going off of 2016 military spending estimates from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Put another way, with a $700 billion military budget, the U.S. would be spending more than three times as much as China on its military, and 10 times as much as Russia. According to SIPRI, the U.S. already accounts for more than a third of all military spending.

 

The share of world military expenditure of the 15 countries with the highest spending in 2016. (Credit, SIPRI)

Or with $80 billion a year, you could make public colleges and universities in the U.S. tuition-free. In fact, Sanders’s proposal was only estimated to cost the federal government $47 billion per year.

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/18/the-senates-military-spending-increase-alone-is-enough-to-make-public-college-free/

 

And this is just the increase they want. Hmmm, a smart citizenship or more smart bombs????

 

B/A

[bostonangler]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow a whopping 7% on vets... He truly is a man of the people...

 

B/A

[Muleslayer]

Get up on the wrong side of the bed there B/A?

there there shh go nighty night!

🎵rock a by babies in the tree top's🎵