Billboard With a Simple Message

[G_j]

https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2020/02/12/op-ed-a-billboard-with-a-simple-message/

A Billboard With a Simple Message

Erected downtown this month and for DNC: 3% of U.S. military spending could end global starvation.

By David Swanson - Feb 12th, 2020




A billboard at the south-east corner of Wells and James Lovell (7th) streets, across the street from the Milwaukee Public Museum through the month of February and again for the month of July when the Democratic National Convention is held nearby, reads:

“3% of U.S. Military Spending Could End Starvation on Earth”

Is it a joke?

Hardly. Milwaukeeans and others around the country with little money of their own to spare have been chipping in to put up billboards like this one in an effort to call attention to the biggest elephant in the American room — even if, in political mascot terms, it’s a hybrid elephant-donkey: the U.S. military budget.

Organizations that have contributed to this billboard include World BEYOND War, Milwaukee Veterans For Peace Chapter 102, and Progressive Democrats of America.

Paul Moriarity, president of Milwaukee Veterans For Peace said, “As veterans, we know that endless wars and the Pentagon’s corporate handouts do nothing to make us safe. We waste hundreds of billions of dollars that would be better spent on pressing needs like education, health care, and averting catastrophic climate change. Educating and reminding people of the true costs of war is a primary mission of Veterans For Peace. We are happy to be a partner in this effort by World BEYOND War.”


.. more..

[2naSalit]

1. K&R!!!

Very good!

[YOHABLO]

2. And probably pay for healthcare for all U.S. citizens. Are the candidates talking about this?

HELL FUCKING NO !

[Hoyt]

4. Actually, entire defense budget wouldn't even cover 20% of cost of healthcare. It would help, though

[YOHABLO]

6. You are so very wrong on that.

[Hoyt]

7. No, I'm not. Sanders says MFA will cost $3.5 T annually, Warren says $5.2 T. Defense budget is $800

Billion.

Do the math.

[patphil]

18. That 3.5 trillion dollar figure equaled the total cost of healthcare across the nation in 2017.

And, the US government directly or indirectly financed about 1.5 trillion of that amount.
See the following:

https://www.crfb.org/papers/american-health-care-health-spending-and-federal-budget

This is from a 2018 article, that estimates the government would contribute 2.9 trillion dollars to the total cost of healthcare in the US in 2018.
I would assume the number is higher for 2019, and will be higher yet for 2020.

With that in mind, Bernie's estimate of 3.5 trillion dollars for Medicare For All is not unreasonable. It looks like we are going to spend that much, and probably more anyway. The fact is that healthcare costs far more per capita in the United States than in any other country.

This is a national crisis that just going to get worse.
The real answer is to completely revise and restructure our healthcare system with the idea in mind of not just containing costs, but actually reducing them.
I realize there is no easy solution, but we need to take drastic action to fix this.
If we ignore the problem, it's only going to get harder to fix over time.

I'm not talking about the government managing the healthcare system; more like becoming a partner with the healthcare industry in a project to make it work better for us all.
The alternative looks more and more like healthcare will be out of reach for a large majority of US citizens not that many years from now.
How come other nations can make health care work for their people at much lower cost to them?

Pat Phillips

[Hoyt]

19. Yes, and $3.5 T to $5.2 T is what it will cost under Sander's and Warren's plan. The defense budget

won't come close to covering that as a single payer plan, although it's a start. No need to even advance BS like that because it will get shot down easily. If we are lucky, folks might be willing to pay a lot more in taxes to avoid premiums and out-of-pocket costs, but we aren't there yet, unfortunately.

Other countries pulled it off because they did it right after WWII when heathcare probably ran $100 per person on average. We should have too. In fact, we should have stuck with Britain in 1700s. We'd have healthcare and would have ended slavery sooner.

[Hoyt]

3. Agree with sentiment, but 3% is less than $25 Billion annually. Not sure that's enough to

end hunger in USA, much less world. It is a good start though.

[pwb]

5. Defense contractors should retool and make bullet trains

and tracks etc. Something we can all use. Oh wait that is socialist ah shit.

[IronLionZion]

10. That would be like Europe (especially Germany) and Japan

wonder what happened in their histories to make them switch military funding over to things that help people?

There are historians who claim that having Nazis massacre your people makes a population more interested in socialist ideas like universal healthcare and education.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. That 3% would buy a lot more peace than 3% on weaponry. . . . nt

[ramen]

15. Definitely. Whether it would or would not end world hunger,

it would certainly be better spent doing almost anything but what it is currently doing, for the most part.

[sandensea]

9. But it might deprive some crony capitalist of another yacht.

And we can't very well have that, can we.

[Hulk]

11. Maybe that 3% could go to the farmers...to buy their crops...

...that these insane tariffs have left the farmers to store and dump?

WE can feed the world, or contribute to other undeveloped countries to produce crops that can boost their economies to sell to those hungry citizens around the world.

Probably didn't convey my thought very well, but you get the idea?

[Hekate]

14. The food stamp program benefits US farmers, as does the school lunch program...

But in some people's shriveled little souls, that is less important than making an example of "useless eaters" and their children.

[FakeNoose]

16. Sure it would help our farmers, but it would also make us a lot of friends

Instead of hating us like they do now, countries would suddenly love us for the food we're providing. Wouldn't it be nice - suddenly we're the good guys, paying it forward instead of being the assholes.

[Pepsidog]

12. Wow that's a amazing statement

[Hekate]

13. ....or build Trump's frickin Wall

[Oldem]

17. Just proves

where our priorities are. Could it be that we're more interested in the prospect of killing people than in keeping them alive?