New Policy Bill Puts 700 Billion into Military Spending

[Saint Cy of JFC]

One of Trump's best selling points in his campaign was he was for becoming less involved in foreign wars. That has been an absolute farce, just like it was when Obama said it during his campaign. The Senate is run by military contractors.

 

[Stoked]

One of Trump's best selling points in his campaign was he was for becoming less involved in foreign wars. That has been an absolute farce, just like it was when Obama said it during his campaign. The Senate is run by military contractors.

Yup, we never should have stayed in Afghanistan. Let Russia have their traditionally ally Syria.

US should pull back to only our formal allies (NATO, Israel, Japan, Australia, S. Korea....) We don't nee 900 (or whatever the # is) bases around the world.

This increase was stupid IMO. Pull back like that and leave the funding as it was and suddenly there is a lot more money to go around for things like better pay for the soldiers.

 

[franklin]

One of Trump's best selling points in his campaign was he was for becoming less involved in foreign wars. That has been an absolute farce, just like it was when Obama said it during his campaign. The Senate is run by military contractors.

When they get into office they find out the real geo-political details and reasonings and act properly by turning their backs on folks who think they have it all figured out but are completely out of the know. But it gives us something to complain about and play armchair 4 star general.

 

[candrew]

I just found out something very troubling!!

The US only out numbers the rest of the world in aircraft carriers by a score of 11-8!!

The US and its allies v potential enemies by a score of 15-4 (being generous and lumping India and Thailand in with enemies)

We need to at least double this.

We should at least triple it.

After Trump's speech to the UN today everyone including NATO might be declaring war on us.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

When they get into office they find out the real geo-political details and reasonings and act properly by turning their backs on folks who think they have it all figured out but are completely out of the know. But it gives us something to complain about and play armchair 4 star general.

Yeah, like a lot of job are tied to making up reasons to kill people and the powers that be dont want any change to the status quo to move into new industries.

 

[Boris]

When they get into office they find out the real geo-political details and reasonings and act properly by turning their backs on folks who think they have it all figured out but are completely out of the know. But it gives us something to complain about and play armchair 4 star general.

You some kinda moron? Even a half wit kin see tha government has been bought an paid for by the MIC.

I heard someone tell me once the powers that be wanna war at least every 10 years to keep are military experienced. They use war like it is a sports training camp.

 

[franklin]

Yeah, like a lot of job are tied to making up reasons to kill people and the powers that be dont want any change to the status quo to move into new industries.

No doubt it's a Keynesian work program that a president can exploit if he has congress' support but I'm not willing to boil military spending down to that alone. That's straight up dumbing down.

Believe it or not, people high up in the military actually do believe in external threats and want to do what they see fit to curb those threats. So does congress who gets debriefed on high level intelligence. That it passed 89-9 says a little bit about how important it might actually be.

Also, I don't like the crazies having their finger on the nuke button. That kind of has me fully supporting installation of missile defense systems all over the world. I don't know if they can knock out a nuke or not but I think the extra defense is in order.

 

[franklin]

This also hasn't even been brought up. Ask yourselves why exactly are we allowing a rogue nation to fire missiles over an ally that we don't allow to have a true military and are sworn to protect. Do you think we'd allow N.K. to shoot a missile over a US state? Hell no.

The whole reason Kim is firing missiles over Japan is to test whether our missile defense systems can shoot them down. Either we can and show our dominance or we try and fail, revealing our bluff hand. In the latter, Kim gains a huge confidence advantage while the international community becomes skeptical of our true ability to keep everyone safe.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

No doubt it's a Keynesian work program that a president can exploit if he has congress' support but I'm not willing to boil military spending down to that alone. That's straight up dumbing down.

Believe it or not, people high up in the military actually do believe in external threats and want to do what they see fit to curb those threats. So does congress who gets debriefed on high level intelligence. That it passed 89-9 says a little bit about how important it might actually be.

Also, I don't like the crazies having their finger on the nuke button. That kind of has me fully supporting installation of missile defense systems all over the world. I don't know if they can knock out a nuke or not but I think the extra defense is in order.

Yes, I'm sure the majority of people believe it too. It's a lot of brainwashing supported by racism and religion.

 

[♪alt13]

 

[The Thriller]

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

- Dwight D Eisenhower

 

[The Thriller]

It's certainly interesting to see how the right bitches about the deficit and questions where every little penny for social programs is supposed to come from... but when it comes to defense, no cost is too high and noone questions where the money comes from. Deficit spending on social programs that benefit everyone? Bad. Deficit spending on already bloated defense programs that benefit a handful? Good.

SNAP, pell grants, Medicare???!!! That's socialism that takes money out of the economy!!! How are we supposed to pay for $10 million dollars of SNAP?

Defense? $700 billion? Crickets

Just how much is enough to keep America safe?

 

[LogGrad98]

It's certainly interesting to see how the right bitches about the deficit and questions where every little penny for social programs is supposed to come from... but when it comes to defense, no cost is too high and noone questions where the money comes from. Deficit spending on social programs that benefit everyone? Bad. Deficit spending on already bloated defense programs that benefit a handful? Good.

SNAP, pell grants, Medicare???!!! That's socialism that takes money out of the economy!!! How are we supposed to pay for $10 million dollars of SNAP?

Defense? $700 billion? Crickets

Just how much is enough to keep America safe?

The vote was within single digit votes of being unanimous if I remember right. Can't say this 700 billion is solely an issue of the right.

 

[franklin]

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

- Dwight D Eisenhower

That's one of the dumbest things I've read from a sitting president. The US army is by far the world's largest jobs program both directly and indirectly. So now creating jobs is somehow starving children because you have an agenda to push?

10 percent of Hawaii's economy is millitary. $7.8 billion direct, $14.7 billion direct and indirect combined. That's possibly 20-25 % of their entire economy.

Colorado - 8.7 billion in direct spending and 27 billion in total state output in 2015. 170,000 jobs.
\
Aside from creating millions of jobs that feed tens of millions, have you any clue how much tax revenue this spending provides to states that is helping them fund welfare programs? So yeah, one of the dumbest reasons possible to be against military spending.

 

[NAOS]

That's one of the dumbest things I've read from a sitting president. The US army is by far the world's largest jobs program both directly and indirectly. So now creating jobs is somehow starving children because you have an agenda to push?

10 percent of Hawaii's economy is millitary. $7.8 billion direct, $14.7 billion direct and indirect combined. That's possibly 20-25 % of their entire economy.

Colorado - 8.7 billion in direct spending and 27 billion in total state output in 2015. 170,000 jobs.
\
Aside from creating millions of jobs that feed tens of millions, have you any clue how much tax revenue this spending provides to states that is helping them fund welfare programs? So yeah, one of the dumbest reasons possible to be against military spending.

I wonder if all that spending/labor could be of a different sort, toward different ends?

 

[franklin]

I wonder if all that spending/labor could be of a different sort, toward different ends?

That would have been the smarter line. Outside of technological advancements, direct military spending does little to enhance quality of life. It's a drain of resources. Infrastructure investments obviously increase quality of life. You could argue the same for nature preservation and community park investments.

 

[NAOS]

That would have been the smarter line. Outside of technological advancements, direct military spending does little to enhance quality of life. It's a drain of resources. Infrastructure investments obviously increase quality of life. You could argue the same for nature preservation and community park investments.

Cheers, bruh. This Keynesian stuff is where our minds have always met and agreed.

 

[♪alt13]

That's one of the dumbest things I've read from a sitting president. The US army is by far the world's largest jobs program both directly and indirectly. So now creating jobs is somehow starving children because you have an agenda to push?

10 percent of Hawaii's economy is millitary. $7.8 billion direct, $14.7 billion direct and indirect combined. That's possibly 20-25 % of their entire economy.

Colorado - 8.7 billion in direct spending and 27 billion in total state output in 2015. 170,000 jobs.
\
Aside from creating millions of jobs that feed tens of millions, have you any clue how much tax revenue this spending provides to states that is helping them fund welfare programs? So yeah, one of the dumbest reasons possible to be against military spending.

Hmmm, wasn't somebody making an argument that a guaranteed basic income would be nullified by inflation? Isn't it a little inconsistent to abandon that inflation argument here. Shouldn't all that tax payer funded income simply cause inflation and wipe out the gains? No of course it doesn't.

 

[The Thriller]

The vote was within single digit votes of being unanimous if I remember right. Can't say this 700 billion is solely an issue of the right.

It only needed a simple majority to pass due to it being done under the appropriatations session. So even if all democrats had voted against it, it would've passed. Besides, no one wants to waste political capital on "starving the poor wittle twoops" when issues like tax reform, immigration, and that zombie known as Trumpcare are still alive.

The truth however, cannot evade us forever, we need to have a sit down and critically analyze how much defense spending is sustainable. How much do we need to really keep us safe? And how much of it is bloat given to contractors with good lobbyists and states desperate for some federal bucks to boost employment? IMO, defense spending isn't sustainable right now, it's far too high. But in the political climate we are in, conversation is abandoned and any resistance to whatever the GOP wants in defense spending will be used as cannon fodder on Fox News and am radio as "being un-American, anti troops, un-patriotic."

In reality, one of the least patriotic things I see in Washington today is giving the Dept of Defense a blank check while scrutinizing over every penny for old people and single moms.

Exhibit A: the F-35, which struggles to fly at night, in the rain, and has a faulty ejection seat.

Costs $100 million per jet. The program was supposed to "only" cost $400 billion but for some "odd" reason it costs $1.1 trillion.

But you know, "support the troops, love it or leave it, her emails, #MAGA" and let's continue to focus on the (black) welfare queens using food stamps while ignoring the "patriotic" 800 lbs gorilla that's so over bloated and taking away from infrastructure, health care, education. A jet plane program produces a piece of crap that the AF doesn't want to even fly and goes billions over? Good. SNAP, Pell grants, Medicare? We just can't afford it. Cuz socialism and deficits.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

 

[franklin]

Hmmm, wasn't somebody making an argument that a guaranteed basic income would be nullified by inflation? Isn't it a little inconsistent to abandon that inflation argument here. Shouldn't all that tax payer funded income simply cause inflation and wipe out the gains? No of course it doesn't.

You really need to pick your spots better. You realize how many straw men you set up to burn here, or how you've shown you know absolutely nothing on the subject? For starters, anyone who has a cursory understanding of economics would automatically realize my comments above implicated inflationary forces.

The straw men:

--Comparing status quo military spending to a complete overhaul of the system by pumping money into a completely unproductive state.

--Inferring that all government spending has equal volume inflationary effects. It doesn't.

--Sidestepping the convo between NAOS and myself about direct and indirect benefits, as well as ignoring the technological advancements that military brings.

--Inferring that a one size fits all policy would have equal effect across the board. Wrong.

--Pretending we don't already have a UBI. We do, it's called welfare.

My congrats on using so few words for that many straw men.