I disagree, we don’t have to sacrifice social benefits and public service to divert all the money to the defense. We can tax the rich fairly and get both, a welfare state with strong public service and social security, and a strong army for our defense!
Neo-liberals are using the current situation as a new justification for the same shitty policies they are pushing for 3 decades. No change in strategy, just a new excuse.
No disagreement here, though I’d say the image is probably not meant to be taken literally. After all, if it’s originally about the US, it doesn’t seem to factor in how much more funding actually goes to healthcare over the military. Basically, thinking of this idea:
We can tax the rich fairly and get both, a welfare state with strong public service and social security, and a strong army for our defense!
In practice, I think there will always be disagreements on where government spending can be best used, which is an argument that exists and will continue to exist regardless of how much extra revenue a country is able to obtain via changes in tax policy.
Increase taxes on the rich and get more money on principle, because the rich should be paying their fair share regardless, but someone will always make the point that the extra revenue could still be better used by social programs over defense.
It’s hard to put into numbers exactly how expensive it is for a government to prevent an existential crisis like the EU is currently seeing, but at this point they have a lot of catch-up to do after decades of assuming their American “allies” would continue to have their backs when needed.
I disagree, we don’t have to sacrifice social benefits and public service to divert all the money to the defense. We can tax the rich fairly and get both, a welfare state with strong public service and social security, and a strong army for our defense!
Neo-liberals are using the current situation as a new justification for the same shitty policies they are pushing for 3 decades. No change in strategy, just a new excuse.
No disagreement here, though I’d say the image is probably not meant to be taken literally. After all, if it’s originally about the US, it doesn’t seem to factor in how much more funding actually goes to healthcare over the military. Basically, thinking of this idea:
In practice, I think there will always be disagreements on where government spending can be best used, which is an argument that exists and will continue to exist regardless of how much extra revenue a country is able to obtain via changes in tax policy.
Increase taxes on the rich and get more money on principle, because the rich should be paying their fair share regardless, but someone will always make the point that the extra revenue could still be better used by social programs over defense.
It’s hard to put into numbers exactly how expensive it is for a government to prevent an existential crisis like the EU is currently seeing, but at this point they have a lot of catch-up to do after decades of assuming their American “allies” would continue to have their backs when needed.