is that person living in the 80s or what? the B2 has been in enough movies and carried out enough military propaganda at sports events that everyone knows how they look...
How high are they flying? Looks like well below 500 feet but I can't tell if it's just perspective. I'm no expert and only have a very basic knowledge from flying drones, but I thought military jets were still supposed to maintain altitudes above 500 feet in sparse areas, and 1000 feet minimum in dense areas like pictured above. 400 feet is the normal max altitude for consumer drones. It kinda appears that this jet is within that ballpark. I know, the rules don't matter to them...
Thanks. I figured it was a bigger jet than I thought. And 172 feet is about 3x larger than what I guessed. So I suppose 500 ft * 3x = 1500 ft tracks and it's simply that the jet is a big boi. TIL.
Thatâs what the muskplane would look look like if Elon Musk was Muskman. But heâs not, instead we have cuntman and pedos running the freelike world
The big secret is we can afford bombing schools AND all the social programs that improve our lives. The money is there, they just don't want to improve your life.
The military spending budget is a giant grift too. They purposely inflate the costs on their spending to ensure that their budgets all get fully spent so that they don't get shrunk down if money is left unspent. All that extra profit just disappears into the pockets of military contractors and suppliers. There needs to be regulated caps placed on the price of goods and services in the US like yesterday. It's perfectly reasonable to have a successful business model that doesn't price gougue.
Yep. The US leadership hate schools both in their own country (deliberately lowering education levels to ensure support for the regime while purposfully enacting policies to increase school shootings) and in other countries (murdering brown children for fun and profit).
But, if we gave people Universal Healthcare, how could all those trust fund babies afford to buy all those politicians ensuring we are slaves to a system of debt that ensure we don't complain about the pay those same trust fund babies keep suppressing in order to live like kings?
To be fair military spending gave us EpiPens, blood banks, synthetic penicillin, microwaves, the internet (this post), duct tape, digital cameras, wristwatches, nylon, ... Like literally, "what have the Romans ever done for us?"
Thats just normal R&D, theres no reason it has to be linked to the military. The key is centralized government spending with no profit motive. Our militant fascist society can only envision that kind of spending as a military project but it doesnt have to be
That is a stealth bomber not being stealthy because the idiots in charge of the shit show called America want to show off how impressive and scary they are with their weapons.
Alternatively, it's just a B-2 on a training flight.
As a pilot, any weird and awesome aircraft, which are usually warplanes, makes me all giggly. As a pacifist and a lefty, warplanes also fill me with a sort of sad rage. Itâs a frustrating state of existence, let me tell ya.
I'm a realist that understands in the west we need a strong military shield to defend our values and democratic systems. Increasingly from the US unfortunately. So I can still enjoy the cool stuff. Just hope it's existence means we don't have to use it.
I also hold these troubling, contradictory thoughts. That B-2 is made of so many incredible advancements in engineering. It's a triumph of human ingenuity. But its also $2.1Bn of our resources, sharpened into an arrow head meant for killing the defenseless. It is at once an object of vague pride at human achievement, vague shame at human failures and a pointed reminder of the things we need to change as quickly as we can.
It's worse than you think. The B2 is just about 100% useless as a defensive weapon. A crappy little F16 is much more effective at fighting off an attack. The B2 can bomb people who piss trump off and do so fantastically well; but that's it.
I get ya. I am from a neutral country but when I went to the korean war museum and saw all the tanks and planes up close.......... amazing. Sad but amazing
TBF... We could do Universal healthcare WITHOUT impacting the DOD budget much, if at all. All we have to do is redirect a PORTION of the GDP that is flowing into the private health care insurance industry into the funding of Medicare, (or a full replacement Universal Healthcare system.) All of the billions going into insurance marketing, lobbying, shareholder profits, ego buildings, arena naming rights, executive salaries, attorney's fees... and SOME of the payments to care.
Your Government currently spends more per capita on healthcare than most countries with universal healthcare. You're already paying for it. You're just not getting it.
True. Not least because the 'private' healthcare insurance racket purposefully drives UP the prices of healthcare so they can negotiate 'discounts' and on top of that they are using the ACTUAL funds allocated by Medicare for a person's limited covered care to cover 'more' things and make it look like a good deal. It's so friggin rigged.
We really, quite literally, don't have to do even that. What we are currently paying is nearly DOUBLE what many countries pay for their healthcare, per capita.
If we switched to copy, for instance, the NHS, we'd spend nearly 60% LESS money than we're spending now.
1/2) Well yeah, but then we couldn't tell ourselves that we aren't paying for poor people's healthcare. Because the hospitals that are treating stuff that could have been solved by a primary care prescription and pickup are definitely going to avoid offloading the costs of shoving a tube down the homeless person's throat and putting them on bipap. Nope, they definitely don't inflate my costs because of that. Especially after all the doctor run ones got run out of town by obamacare and bought by
2/2) private equity firms that run run them like any other business for profit. And the insurance companies also suck up those costs and definitely don't also punch up my prices to compensate. I don't pay for other people's healthcare now and I'm willing to pay more money and receive worst care if it means keeping a POOR person from receiving assistance.
Ok im gonna be that guy, but inherently military spending isnt a bad thing. Tax payer money does fund this stuff but that means jobs to design, build, fly and maintain. Thata possibly billions of dollars making their way into the economy. Unlike with Billionaires. That said would be nice to prioritise social spending a little more
There is absolutely no reason to produce weapons with the spending. Why not make useful things people need, like bridges and power plants instead of stupid shit like war planes?
Because unfortunately the world sucks. Yes Trump is a deranged war monger, but there are also people like Putin in the world who are no better. So while I would love a world where we dont need military spending we dont live in that world and military spending itself isn't inherently bad it creates jobs and economic stimulus. The US could keep spending crazy money on tanks and planes and still fund bridges and schools they just find a lot of reasons not to fund things that arent jets
Not only that, but the US also already spends more federal tax dollars per capita on various healthcare related measures and funding than Canada does on its entire universal healthcare system. You guys literally already have enough federal going to healthcare to fund it. It's just going to middlemen, duplication, bureaucracy and pharma companies currently.
In percentage of the GDP, the US spends so much more on health care than the 2nd most expensive system that they could DOUBLE their defence budget and still SAVE MONEY if they'd copy the 2nd most expensive system.
No! Something something drug innovation, something something death boards and waitlists. Look not at the tons of Americans that die in their homes every year avoiding medical care they can't afford lol.
This right here. The people who chose not to have healthcare are responsible for making people argue over the virtues of having a strong military when in reality we could easily have both.
That is true, but also outrage at the military budget is good. I think connecting the two is strategically useful because it helps visualize how domestically important the waste is. Point at the missile who's only job is to turn brown kids into skeletons and equate it to the very real harm economic deprivation is doing to Americans. Obviously, it shouldn't take primacy over the argument that turning brown kids into skeletons just isn't a thing we should be doing at all.
That is also true. I feel like the kind of person who doesn't want to "weaken our great military" probably already hates UHC, but maybe there's exceptions to that. Ideologies tend to run in packs.
I hope the first statement isn't true. I hope most people can see the value in helping others and not just helping ourselves. But maybe. It can be easy to lose hope that selflessness is common when selfishness is so much of a focus right now. I hope that there's just some very loud selfish people making others look selfish by proxy, rather than selfishness really being this bad.
The second statement is true, IMO. At least for a century. When people get UHC, they do not want to let go.
Oh dang okay my mistake, I thought it had something to do with the very same class of people making sure we spend inordinate amounts of money on a war machine also saying we can't afford "socialist healthcare".
We'll be sure to update our talking points for international audiences next time!
Update them for your domestic audience. Imma guess the chance of getting more support for UHC is better when more people get that the money needn't come out of defense spending.
No, ending our endless militarism is actually a very popular position here. We're also not allowed to advocate for more spending without detailing what we cut. So we combine the two things. Cut military, increase health. Thematically they're also polar opposites.
It's a strong message. Your critique is noted but it's weak
I seem to see Americans who can barely contain their orgasm for everything military on the daily. You sure it's not just your bubble that opposes military spending? Republicans and many Democrats seem to think it's a selling point to spend like crazy.
Apart from communication tactics, I'm also simply right on the facts. Call that weak if you want.
You're claiming you're right on the facts after you guessed at what polling might suggest without citing any examples. Trump ran on ending wars. I remember the NYT headline "Donald the Dove, Hillary the Hawk". Republicans hold a paradoxical position of wanting to not involve ourselves in wars but also are insanely jingoistic. Democrats want to maintain American empire through use of soft power. They can be convinced that certain spending is necessary but that's as far as that goes.
ziggystardust7
đ€
OneUniverse
That's 5 years of SNAP for people who can't afford food.
rustyroo1
Imagine by John Lennon, such a great song.
Base841
Also, that's a banking B2 Spirit bomber. It's replacement, the B21, is about 2/3rds the span and doesn't have the scallops at the back.
GuitarGeorge
Itâs a Northrop B-2 Spirit.
RecurringNightmare
is that person living in the 80s or what? the B2 has been in enough movies and carried out enough military propaganda at sports events that everyone knows how they look...
ConstitutionalHeresy
When I see Alexandria, I assume Egypt...
mjperk
How high are they flying? Looks like well below 500 feet but I can't tell if it's just perspective. I'm no expert and only have a very basic knowledge from flying drones, but I thought military jets were still supposed to maintain altitudes above 500 feet in sparse areas, and 1000 feet minimum in dense areas like pictured above. 400 feet is the normal max altitude for consumer drones. It kinda appears that this jet is within that ballpark. I know, the rules don't matter to them...
ptrimg
Easily about 1,500 feet. The B-2 is 172 feet wingspan, tip to tip.
If you're not used to seeing them down low, it can be hard to estimate.
mjperk
Thanks. I figured it was a bigger jet than I thought. And 172 feet is about 3x larger than what I guessed. So I suppose 500 ft * 3x = 1500 ft tracks and it's simply that the jet is a big boi. TIL.
irisewithredeyes
Pff , Elon and Bezos could find that in the couch...
nottheotherguybutme
It's a good view from my Coleman tent on the sidewalk...
annonymouse211
You and your fancy brand name tent
duktayp
BaloneyBob
VerySmallDuck
TakuanSoho
"GUN IS GOOD ! PENIS IS EVIIIL !"
MothMonsterMan
SHOW ME WHAT YOU GOT! I WANT TO SEE WHAT YOU GOT!!
AyrA
This specific head is actually from the sex robot episode (S01E07).
Kyzyl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zardoz The floating head collects food and dispenses guns.
chrispisme
Damnit youâre right! I never thought of that
Seethreepeeoh
Thatâs what the muskplane would look look like if Elon Musk was Muskman. But heâs not, instead we have cuntman and pedos running the freelike world
t9dawg
btw a B-2 crashed because it got water on a sensor.
Why The B-2 Spirit Can't Handle The Rain https://simpleflying.com/b-2-spirit-cant-handle-rain/
ptrimg
That accident was in 2008. Almost 20 years ago. That "problem" is no longer a problem.
Feralkyn
Used to get these very rarely fly over in flight tests, I believe something to do with the Northrop-Grumman facility nearby.
SlayerOfGoat
That's all the things that could've improved the lives of everyone in the US off to bomb a school in the Middle East.
Goldensands
Yes but anyway how about that green pool - every fking amerimoron
Trunkmonkay
The big secret is we can afford bombing schools AND all the social programs that improve our lives. The money is there, they just don't want to improve your life.
StellarJay77
The military spending budget is a giant grift too. They purposely inflate the costs on their spending to ensure that their budgets all get fully spent so that they don't get shrunk down if money is left unspent. All that extra profit just disappears into the pockets of military contractors and suppliers. There needs to be regulated caps placed on the price of goods and services in the US like yesterday. It's perfectly reasonable to have a successful business model that doesn't price gougue.
Beardedgeek72
Yep. The US leadership hate schools both in their own country (deliberately lowering education levels to ensure support for the regime while purposfully enacting policies to increase school shootings) and in other countries (murdering brown children for fun and profit).
Jamesstin
But it's stealthy!
madmax17
Bombing a girl's school is high priority.
Rangar
But, if we gave people Universal Healthcare, how could all those trust fund babies afford to buy all those politicians ensuring we are slaves to a system of debt that ensure we don't complain about the pay those same trust fund babies keep suppressing in order to live like kings?
roughingupthesuspect
Money we use to âthreatenâ IranâŠ
lonelyrangerofthedreams
The crazy part is that you could get both, but billionaires wonât allow it
vurcease
Or is that the back button? OMG click it, we have to go back!
ziggystardust7
No it's this đ€
ricpaul
Just a glitch in the Matrix. https://imgur.com/NqlTIMN
jt42
To be fair military spending gave us EpiPens, blood banks, synthetic penicillin, microwaves, the internet (this post), duct tape, digital cameras, wristwatches, nylon, ... Like literally, "what have the Romans ever done for us?"
WaxedApple
Thats just normal R&D, theres no reason it has to be linked to the military. The key is centralized government spending with no profit motive. Our militant fascist society can only envision that kind of spending as a military project but it doesnt have to be
ToSisPoS
All that shiny tech, and no decisive war win since 1945. And no, I do not count Grenada or Panama.
sashasdad2
Taking kid rock đ€ for a ride, and unfortunately I donât know if this is satire or not đ«
TalanRhodes
That is a stealth bomber not being stealthy because the idiots in charge of the shit show called America want to show off how impressive and scary they are with their weapons.
Alternatively, it's just a B-2 on a training flight.
EstellaOsoka
I doubt a B2 would be conducting a training flight from Whiteman AF Base to Alexandria, VA.
BenderSaysNeat
As a pilot, any weird and awesome aircraft, which are usually warplanes, makes me all giggly. As a pacifist and a lefty, warplanes also fill me with a sort of sad rage. Itâs a frustrating state of existence, let me tell ya.
BrdCdn
I'm a realist that understands in the west we need a strong military shield to defend our values and democratic systems. Increasingly from the US unfortunately. So I can still enjoy the cool stuff. Just hope it's existence means we don't have to use it.
Something1Said
I also hold these troubling, contradictory thoughts. That B-2 is made of so many incredible advancements in engineering. It's a triumph of human ingenuity. But its also $2.1Bn of our resources, sharpened into an arrow head meant for killing the defenseless. It is at once an object of vague pride at human achievement, vague shame at human failures and a pointed reminder of the things we need to change as quickly as we can.
StephenDaniels
It's worse than you think. The B2 is just about 100% useless as a defensive weapon. A crappy little F16 is much more effective at fighting off an attack. The B2 can bomb people who piss trump off and do so fantastically well; but that's it.
Macwalrus
I get ya. I am from a neutral country but when I went to the korean war museum and saw all the tanks and planes up close.......... amazing. Sad but amazing
SecretAgentSuperBooger
percs
But will you actually move out of America is the real question?
oldguyexlurker
TBF... We could do Universal healthcare WITHOUT impacting the DOD budget much, if at all. All we have to do is redirect a PORTION of the GDP that is flowing into the private health care insurance industry into the funding of Medicare, (or a full replacement Universal Healthcare system.) All of the billions going into insurance marketing, lobbying, shareholder profits, ego buildings, arena naming rights, executive salaries, attorney's fees... and SOME of the payments to care.
TheSecondPiewackit
We could do universal healthcare by making selective service unisex, and then declaring every one of them service member on Tricare.
TheSecondPiewackit
Then our military budget gets a significant subsection transformed into our healthcare budget.
WholeWheatBunnyHugger
UHC for the cost of a paint job on a bomber. https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1Y2tyZ25tNXc2cDdhNjJ1MGpobDI4bDZqcDN3anhidnU1dXJpYnBpMiZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/UUgt9ScALp0BKAiTNV/200w.webp
UncleMeaty
Your Government currently spends more per capita on healthcare than most countries with universal healthcare. You're already paying for it. You're just not getting it.
oldguyexlurker
True. Not least because the 'private' healthcare insurance racket purposefully drives UP the prices of healthcare so they can negotiate 'discounts' and on top of that they are using the ACTUAL funds allocated by Medicare for a person's limited covered care to cover 'more' things and make it look like a good deal. It's so friggin rigged.
ADMNtek
All the US would have to do would be to tax biloneers at the same rate as most other people. They would have enough money left over for new bombers.
terajack2048
Donât even have to do that merge congress healthcare with va and eliminate insurance companies , bomb entire health care paid for
VosperOfAntarctica
But that would make eight men slightly ress rich. Can't have that when we can go bankrupt over an upper limb injury
ADMNtek
The US has 989 billionaires just this year; 87 more people in the US became billionaires.
LoudBirb
We really, quite literally, don't have to do even that. What we are currently paying is nearly DOUBLE what many countries pay for their healthcare, per capita.
If we switched to copy, for instance, the NHS, we'd spend nearly 60% LESS money than we're spending now.
foolycharged
1/2) Well yeah, but then we couldn't tell ourselves that we aren't paying for poor people's healthcare. Because the hospitals that are treating stuff that could have been solved by a primary care prescription and pickup are definitely going to avoid offloading the costs of shoving a tube down the homeless person's throat and putting them on bipap. Nope, they definitely don't inflate my costs because of that. Especially after all the doctor run ones got run out of town by obamacare and bought by
foolycharged
2/2) private equity firms that run run them like any other business for profit. And the insurance companies also suck up those costs and definitely don't also punch up my prices to compensate. I don't pay for other people's healthcare now and I'm willing to pay more money and receive worst care if it means keeping a POOR person from receiving assistance.
BigRobbo
Ok im gonna be that guy, but inherently military spending isnt a bad thing. Tax payer money does fund this stuff but that means jobs to design, build, fly and maintain. Thata possibly billions of dollars making their way into the economy. Unlike with Billionaires. That said would be nice to prioritise social spending a little more
WaxedApple
There is absolutely no reason to produce weapons with the spending. Why not make useful things people need, like bridges and power plants instead of stupid shit like war planes?
BigRobbo
Because unfortunately the world sucks. Yes Trump is a deranged war monger, but there are also people like Putin in the world who are no better. So while I would love a world where we dont need military spending we dont live in that world and military spending itself isn't inherently bad it creates jobs and economic stimulus. The US could keep spending crazy money on tanks and planes and still fund bridges and schools they just find a lot of reasons not to fund things that arent jets
DarthVaderDidNothingWrong
UHC costs less in percentage of the GDP than the US system does.
It's not your insane military budget that's the reason for your lack of UHC. It's a political choice you as a country made for decades.
lopix
Say it with me: Profits over people
TheSecondPiewackit
The folks flying and maintaining that plane get UHC. We have it, just not for the regular folk.
BrdCdn
Not only that, but the US also already spends more federal tax dollars per capita on various healthcare related measures and funding than Canada does on its entire universal healthcare system. You guys literally already have enough federal going to healthcare to fund it. It's just going to middlemen, duplication, bureaucracy and pharma companies currently.
DarthVaderDidNothingWrong
In percentage of the GDP, the US spends so much more on health care than the 2nd most expensive system that they could DOUBLE their defence budget and still SAVE MONEY if they'd copy the 2nd most expensive system.
BrdCdn
No! Something something drug innovation, something something death boards and waitlists. Look not at the tons of Americans that die in their homes every year avoiding medical care they can't afford lol.
DarthVaderDidNothingWrong
Right, I forgot that companies will stop innovating if they all(!) make a bit less in profits.
Weird that no one told that to the Germans who invented the first mRNA vaccine against covid
tzahtman
I agree but our military spending is still grotesque.
n0n53n53
This right here. The people who chose not to have healthcare are responsible for making people argue over the virtues of having a strong military when in reality we could easily have both.
JackieTreehornProductions
it's a profit driven industry in the US - the lobbyists will never let it go so we need to get rid of them first
Nooooooooooooooooooooo
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1Z3l4Zjl6MWJ1OXY2amY1YnMzZGMwZGE4eGQxOHo5bzM3ZjZ4dmFycyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/JsLeGG6QfNlpS/200w.webp
Something1Said
That is true, but also outrage at the military budget is good. I think connecting the two is strategically useful because it helps visualize how domestically important the waste is. Point at the missile who's only job is to turn brown kids into skeletons and equate it to the very real harm economic deprivation is doing to Americans. Obviously, it shouldn't take primacy over the argument that turning brown kids into skeletons just isn't a thing we should be doing at all.
DarthVaderDidNothingWrong
Fair point. Otoh there's people who won't be for UHC if they think it would have to "weaken our great military" to be paid for.
Something1Said
That is also true. I feel like the kind of person who doesn't want to "weaken our great military" probably already hates UHC, but maybe there's exceptions to that. Ideologies tend to run in packs.
DarthVaderDidNothingWrong
Most people, I assume, hate UHC until they need it.
Pretty sure that all it takes is 2 or 3 years with UHC to make that a holy cow for almost all Americans that no one will dare to touch.
Something1Said
I hope the first statement isn't true. I hope most people can see the value in helping others and not just helping ourselves. But maybe. It can be easy to lose hope that selflessness is common when selfishness is so much of a focus right now. I hope that there's just some very loud selfish people making others look selfish by proxy, rather than selfishness really being this bad.
The second statement is true, IMO. At least for a century. When people get UHC, they do not want to let go.
Arbitrarynamehere
Oh dang okay my mistake, I thought it had something to do with the very same class of people making sure we spend inordinate amounts of money on a war machine also saying we can't afford "socialist healthcare".
We'll be sure to update our talking points for international audiences next time!
DarthVaderDidNothingWrong
Update them for your domestic audience. Imma guess the chance of getting more support for UHC is better when more people get that the money needn't come out of defense spending.
Arbitrarynamehere
No, ending our endless militarism is actually a very popular position here. We're also not allowed to advocate for more spending without detailing what we cut. So we combine the two things. Cut military, increase health. Thematically they're also polar opposites.
It's a strong message. Your critique is noted but it's weak
DarthVaderDidNothingWrong
I seem to see Americans who can barely contain their orgasm for everything military on the daily. You sure it's not just your bubble that opposes military spending? Republicans and many Democrats seem to think it's a selling point to spend like crazy.
Apart from communication tactics, I'm also simply right on the facts. Call that weak if you want.
ThisIsAllYouCouldComeUpWith
Yeah, you SOUND perfectly unbiased
Arbitrarynamehere
You're claiming you're right on the facts after you guessed at what polling might suggest without citing any examples. Trump ran on ending wars. I remember the NYT headline "Donald the Dove, Hillary the Hawk". Republicans hold a paradoxical position of wanting to not involve ourselves in wars but also are insanely jingoistic. Democrats want to maintain American empire through use of soft power. They can be convinced that certain spending is necessary but that's as far as that goes.