To not understand why we are cutting social care but can afford a war?

[Destinysdaughter]

Was just watching on the news about massive cuts in social care and it's seen as the only way to reduce the defecit bla bla but if that is really the case his can we afford to spend millions bombing Syria???

I may be naive but why is there money for killing people but not for caring for people..?

• how not his.

YANBU.

The answer is because the cuntservatives are in and get off on warmongering and depriving the poor

Because it's totally different budgets.

Yes, there were no wars when labour were in, of course.

Because the Military Industrial complex has got its talons into everything.

In the USA there are cuts everywhere but not for the armed forces
in the UK there are cuts everywhere but Trident will be renewed

the arms companies profit from war and death and destruction

we sell arms to Saudi which end up in the hands of ISIS

arms companies keep selling machine guns over the counter in the USA

but arms companies fund politicians

So cut the war budget and boost the social budget!

They weren't doing it while royally fucking over the disabled and the young though loft were they.

Quite.
I don't think totally different budgets is much of an excuse - if they are so keen to reduce the (ever growing) deficit they can just as easily take it out of military spending as welfare.
But of course they wouldn't want to piss off their chums in the arms industry.
Far easier to shit all over the poor and the vulnerable.

It's not a "war" budget it's a defence budget.

Off the top of my head:- war is immediate and needs addressing, it's dictated by outside influences.

And there are different budgets for different departments.

Exactly slaggy

Because it's totally different budgets.

Allegedly the country is broke, completely, if however there is enough to 'go to war' then maybe a little more thought should have gone into it. This military action has no after plan, just like the mess that is Libiya, 14 other countries are already involved, our intervention is not necessary. Decent welfare however is, sadly Dave wants to be Churchill.

I was using the OP's terminology. Since it's bombing Syria that's the biggest point of contention right now, I think most people don't really feel that has a lot to do with defence. Even if that's how it's labelled.

I work for under one budget and OH works for the other.

Nothing is that simple - there are massive cuts in the forces too - and whether people like it or not we have to be prepared should be attacked or need to invade (not condoning Syria), but it's not easy working in social care right now either.

Because those who stand to benefit from social care do not have the funds to pay for analysts and lobbyist to convince the government that social care is necessary, unlike the defence contractors and weapons manufacturers.

Cameron has actually massively under invested in the military and we're seen as a weaker ally because of it.

However whilst different budgets sounds a bit cold, you can't just do one thing can you? Not defend this country or other nations countless but have an amazing social care system. Where does it end? No investment in culture, foreign aid, prisons? You can make an argument to stop spending on pretty much everything

It's unlikely to be a coincidence that the UKs first bombing target was 'oil fields'.

You could argue about the cost to the LA of taking a child into care and the reasons behind that and how that crippled SC budgets.

cutecat
Because it's totally different budgets.
But virements between budgets are standard in all levels of Government.

I read somewhere a comment to the effect that governments are not too bothered if their citizens die, even in quite large numbers.

But they get terribly upset if Someone Else kills a citizen.

Explains a lot.

Someone posted this on facebook -- lets drop Cameron on Syria

To be fair, war defence is a core function of government, and social spending is just a nice-to-have, which can be funded or not according to the voters preferences. In most countries it's not the governments job to fund social care.

Unfortunately OP we don't have the option to ignore the terrorists. They are determined to destroy our way of life. You can see the sort of social care they give in the territory they have already occupied.
Whether the bombing is the best way of dealing with them is another question.

BTW, "somewhere" was the LRB, in a review of a book about some historical USA event. But it struck me as nail on head.

It keeps coming back to me when there's a question like the OP.

A 'nice to have'? Wow that's cynical. WTF is the point of a Government ( actually what is the point?) if it's not to care for the citizens and use taxpayers money to care for people that need it...? Which will be many of us at some point in our lives.