It's offensive to suggest more of that money will get spent on entertainment (etc) than food, clothing, shelter, education, medical expenses (etc)
The military is also a source of medical training, new medical knowledge, various forms of stability, and research that helps create new products.
I am advocating for people not being bled by the 1 percent to begin with. Charity never provides anyone a secure, comfortable life. It makes you their bitch and thus de facto undermines quality of life.
I want people to have the money they deserve, but not by saying it is okay for the rich to first bleed us and then we will ask for some piddling check afterwards and kiss their butts and say "Thank you, massah."
They outlawed slavery in the US. I would like it to really die and not come back from the grave with a new name.
2) Yes, there are good economic side effects that come from spending 600B on just about anything. Lifting people out of poverty a few inches couldn't possibly be less economic waste than grossly disproportionate military spending.
3) You've got a pretty novel definition of slavery.
Perhaps. FWIW, my definition of slavery is that the value of your productivity is owned and controlled by someone else, not you. I see the movement towards basic income as the promotion of a world of poor people in chains.
Money grows out of power, not the other way around. If money alone created power, lottery winners would all promptly take their place in the halls of power. They don't. Most wind up bankrupt within 5 years.
I see, so you too consider capitalism a form of slavery.
Of course, when workers and stockholders are entirely separate classes of people, then, basically, yes. But that is not an inevitable outcome, even though it seems to generally be the state of things currently.