It's clear that these businesses profit directly from war

It's clear that these businesses profit directly from war.
But is it true that social welfare programs, in turn, profit from these businesses?

Is the welfare state funded by war?

Broken window fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy.

fallacy fallacy is saying you're right because someone else made a fallacy. correctly addressing your retarded argument is not a fallacy.

not op but:
not an argument. but:
op is still a fag.

>businesses profit directly from war
Only certain buisenesses, user

That's a thing.
I didn't use it, but that's a thing.

I'm simply asking a question. In the United States at least, are our social programs funded by war?
It's very easy for people to point to the military-industrial complex and cry about a "lack of priority" in public spending. I've got a hunch that their preferred moneysinks necessitate the bloodshed anyway.
The whole "BAWWW STOP SPENDING MONEY ON GUNS WHEN WE SHOULD BE SPENDING IT ON EDUCATION" argument would be moot if it was actually the "guns" that were providing for the education, no?

i don't see the connection you're making between social welfare programs and military spending (besides that military spending includes welfare programs for veterans)

Ahh, I think both of you missed it. I said *these* businesses profit directly from war.
Of course the fellow whose shop has to close for repairs doesn't benefit - nor do the folks who die in the war - but the weapons manufacturers do. I'm wondering if other social programs do as well, in some less-than-direct way.

Then I could tell these people to fuck off with their virtue signalling and stop advocating for more public spending.

That's because I'm asking you guys to do it for me.
Lockheed martin gives to charity, and promotes scientific research, and engineering, for example.
Do you think there's more to it? Would these "anti-war" democrat types really be able to sustain their public services without war?

>Would these "anti-war" democrat types really be able to sustain their public services without war?
yes

Is there proof?
I immediately think of the Germans' economic boom under Hitler, which was immediately followed by a violent landgrab that followed through with a great big war.
Same thing with FDR. Big expansion of welfare, string of enormous wars.

they did that by attacking their creditors, looting things and generally just going 'nuh uh' on payments. just shooting some ragheads doesn't print money.

>looting things and generally just going 'nuh uh' on payments

So they funded their social programs primarily through blatant theft - not even under the guise of taxation and democracy?
How did they get away with this? What were the consequences?

>How did they get away with this?

I'm assuming through deathcamps btw, and war.

>How did they get away with this?
they literally didn't

Right, they had to
a)shift the debt over to the military industrial comnplex, and then go to war
b)murder people or force them into work camps, to facilitate the war machine

At best, you have to murder Jews, at worst, you have to go to war.
The anti-war democrat is a myth.

not everyone funds things through robbery you dumbass

You're right, market forces facilitate the funding of many services. Private schools, grocery stores, surgeries.

But much is funded by "the vote". Which often means taxes.
And if you don't pay your taxes, people eventually come to your house to collect. If you don't comply, you're eventually forced to leave your home at gunpoint. But some people think that's necessary for society.

Still, if nobody complies, where does the money come from?
The answer is war. You go to the neighboring country and you pillage.

I see you've just finished watching Patlabor 2.

Not necessarily. War industries typically get subsidies either direct or indirect (in form of large contracts, buy American even though overseas is 200 mil cheaper). The majority of government revenues come from income tax.

LMAO brilliant movie

>I didn't use it, but that's a thing.
M8, you fell for it hook, line and sinker. Military companies consume labour, research and capital, as does any other business. Thing is, unlike most other businesses, that labour, research and capital isn't used on something that increases the quality of life. It is spent on weapons because war requires them. That means that that labour, research and capital is locked in an unproductive economic activity. Basically, national wealth is not increased by that line of work (Weapons for export ate another thing, but you specifically spoke of weapons for war. Also, war can serve economic goals in terms of securing resources, but you wanted war to have economic value by itself, which it doesn't have any more than digging holes does.), money is just redistributed through unproductive work. Basically, the State buys weapons from arms manufacturers, spends them in wars (which by itself doesn't increase quality of life/national wealth), gets that money back partly by taxing that company, mostly by taxing other companies and the little man, and then buys and uses more weapons. Not only does that not increase national wealth, it decreases it. And if national wealth is not increased, but rather decreased, it is obvious that national programs could do without it better than they do with it. The profit the arms industry has during wars is literally just the money the state spent on them to get weapons. It is the broken window fallacy par excellence.