Very interesting, I had always thought that it was the US government's defense spending which was ballooning out of control and was the primary driver behind government debt, but it's actually non-defense spending!? I am curious where those spending figures came from I would like to investigate that more.
Also I think this again points to a fundamental flaw in democracy itself, you write that "[special interests] hire lobbyists and donate to sympathetic political campaigns, pulling every string they can find." That there is the fundamental problem, if you have money, you can buy influence in a democratic government, and more money means more influence, more power to shape policy. We imagine the people in charge of a democracy or republic are the ones we elect, but as that Senator aptly stated, "sometimes it feels like the rudder is disconected from the wheel.
The true owners of a democracy are the people who can shape narratives through control over mass media by either having a stake in media companies themselves, or having the money to purchase space in that media to propagandize the population. Money can be directly translated into votes, its as simple as that, thus the rich and powerful will almost always control democracies.
Outside of the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and a few other conflicts, defense spending hasn't taken up most of the budget. And we spend way less, as a percent of GDP and of the federal budget, than we did as recently as the 1980s/Cold War.
However, it is true that US defense spending takes up much of "discretionary spending." It's just that interest payments, and nondiscretionary social welfare programs, eat up most of everything, so there's not much discretion left.
The Office of Management and Budget puts out yearly data on this, and the congressional side does something similar. If you want to official data, go to them.
But often third parties do a better job displaying the data in graphs and such. Here's the 2023 data sourced from the OMB displayed in charts:
Well, the one soul-one-vote-myth is clearly a one-$-one vote-reality ...
Considering, that the US and most other currencies are FIAT-ones, whoever owns the printing press and supplies enough ink has a LOT of power (FED is smirking ear-to-ear) 🤣🤣🤣
{...they individually stand to lose so little they usually can’t be bothered to protest at all...}
The elites well know how to keep the "bleeding" (and thinking) restricted. That, hopefully will change swiftly once the CBDCs are being implemented on a wider scale ...
Very interesting, I had always thought that it was the US government's defense spending which was ballooning out of control and was the primary driver behind government debt, but it's actually non-defense spending!? I am curious where those spending figures came from I would like to investigate that more.
Also I think this again points to a fundamental flaw in democracy itself, you write that "[special interests] hire lobbyists and donate to sympathetic political campaigns, pulling every string they can find." That there is the fundamental problem, if you have money, you can buy influence in a democratic government, and more money means more influence, more power to shape policy. We imagine the people in charge of a democracy or republic are the ones we elect, but as that Senator aptly stated, "sometimes it feels like the rudder is disconected from the wheel.
The true owners of a democracy are the people who can shape narratives through control over mass media by either having a stake in media companies themselves, or having the money to purchase space in that media to propagandize the population. Money can be directly translated into votes, its as simple as that, thus the rich and powerful will almost always control democracies.
Outside of the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and a few other conflicts, defense spending hasn't taken up most of the budget. And we spend way less, as a percent of GDP and of the federal budget, than we did as recently as the 1980s/Cold War.
However, it is true that US defense spending takes up much of "discretionary spending." It's just that interest payments, and nondiscretionary social welfare programs, eat up most of everything, so there's not much discretion left.
The Office of Management and Budget puts out yearly data on this, and the congressional side does something similar. If you want to official data, go to them.
But often third parties do a better job displaying the data in graphs and such. Here's the 2023 data sourced from the OMB displayed in charts:
https://www.pgpf.org/article/chart-pack-the-us-budget/?utm_term=federal%20budget%20breakdown&utm_campaign=The+Budget&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=1523796716&hsa_cam=1482082493&hsa_grp=181724430687&hsa_ad=746182190372&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=kwd-282848664&hsa_kw=federal%20budget%20breakdown&hsa_mt=b&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=1482082493&gbraid=0AAAAADhh2DrsQWe02Y_1e_rJcMXtFgPSB&gclid=Cj0KCQjwoZbBBhDCARIsAOqMEZU3O6ifdxW4F4ZmnpJw5nJF91yVkRK9cEKOaX6IXd_Rd06U31Wd0QgaArhXEALw_wcB
Thanks for the link to PG Peterson !!!
Looks like a still-framed horror-film ...
Well, the one soul-one-vote-myth is clearly a one-$-one vote-reality ...
Considering, that the US and most other currencies are FIAT-ones, whoever owns the printing press and supplies enough ink has a LOT of power (FED is smirking ear-to-ear) 🤣🤣🤣
Death by a thousand paper cuts. It's painful and slow but we accept it.
The distinction between capitalism and crony capitalism is still too rarely understood.
Nice post indeed !!! 👍👍👍 🔥🔥🔥
{...they individually stand to lose so little they usually can’t be bothered to protest at all...}
The elites well know how to keep the "bleeding" (and thinking) restricted. That, hopefully will change swiftly once the CBDCs are being implemented on a wider scale ...
Eager to see your next post !!!