If you look at the US budget and the main driving force from the President and from Congress the clearest, most impassioned and strongest driver is war. The War in Afghanistan started with a 99.8% vote in favor of war. The proxy war in Ukraine officially started on Feb 24th with the 'brutal unprovoked unjustified attack' speech. The same elements of 'unprovoked' had worked so well 56 years earlier to start the war in Vietnam, and although it was known the speech could not be supported, the power, focus and tone of the speech proved to be very persuasive. So while the US is suffering from a loss of production capacity, morale, continuing debt and inflation, somehow many thousands of millions of dollars were available to dump into a hole on the western border of Russia, along with a number of Russians and Ukrainians. If there is one thing that galvanizes and motivates the country it is war. The US is optimized for only one thing.
as a nation: war is something you prepare for, but hope will not come to pass. the whole acc thing is something that has been hyped up the ass, but prioritizing co2 is a sure fire path to failure. the best bet on that front is to continue to reduce all pollutants and keep working on the technology that will make clean renewables viable. prioritizing happiness is just silly, that's a personal goal and not a political ambition, and world harmony is simply out of our reach. the only logical answer is economic success. economic success allows us to properly prepare for conflict, provides the necessary funding for investing in nonpolluting technologies, injects capital into the nation to allow it to spread and enable more people the means to seek their own happiness and brings us back to that happy state where the people themselves can once again become the greatest source of charity in the world. one thing economic success will not do is enhance the need for an ever expanding welfare state. this is why it will never be prioritized by the political establishment in general and the democratic party in particular.
There is a reason defense contractors like to spread their manufacturing processes out across as many congressional districts as possible.
You know what's interesting... of course the Republicans were going to get onboard or go along with any war, but those who seemed the most gung-ho about this war were Democrats. I mean the Democrats really seemed to be the ones leading the charge on this conflict. I think there were only a small handful of Democrats who expressed their disaproval.
Yes, it has been argued that the Democrats care about people and the Republicans care about money, but... the government is mainly interested in picking the next war. The public don't want another war, so how does the government the media pull the public around to accepting just one more war, a little one. They lie a lot and somehow make it sound like war is unavoidable and the only way to peace is through this war, just this one. and this time we got it right, for sure, forget all the previous wars, this time we are 110% in the right, this time.
. I think your characterization of the parties is 180 degrees out of sync. IF you examine that major money people and organizations today you'd find they're driven by Dems.
The 180 is between the declared ideals of the Democratic Party, that it is for the people, and the reality which is Hillary switched to the DP in Chicago because it was and is more corrupt there than the RP, though I doubt if I would trust either, and Donald was with the Democrats in NY for the same reason. While the wheelers and dealers get the public debating over whether it is better to be on the left and helping the people, or on the right and developing the economy, with the end result that it would help the people. That is just a distraction to keep the public busy, while the actual politicians of both sides are primarily interested in filling their own pockets. Here in this Democrat run city in a Democrat state the kind-hearted democrats did something for the homeless and got 30 shelters built. So now we have 8 homeless people in 120sqft homes that lack water, kitchen etc., just a shed with a light and heating and cooling, and there's a toilet/shower block, and the cost was just 4.92 million dollars. A good estimate of the cost was 1/3 of that, so there was some money made by friends and relatives of those in power. Many of the Democrats claim to be helping people which makes accounting for the myriad ways they spend money more complicated.
The best way to cover evil intentions is to claim to have good ones. Historically if you omit G W Bush, pretty well all wars were started by, or in some way involved, Democrats, because it's a good cover.
I almost chose "world harmony", but then i remembered that every time the United States tries to work for world harmony, it just ends up being another damned thing that we are expected to pay all the costs for. No thanks, we've already had all of that we can stand and we're almost broke now because we cannot afford that kind of utopian stuff anymore.
the Republican run FED is working hard to take money out of the system and cool the hot Biden economy
In the pamphlet 'War is a Racket' Major General Butler detailed how private companies made big profits supplying the govt with everything needed, and things that weren't as well, for in some cases exorbitant prices. I think it is accurate to say we would not go to war if some big companies weren't making a lot of money as a result, from the public purse.
Overall the country makes a loss but the war goes ahead as long as the people controlling the government expect to make money.
