New Policy Bill Puts 700 Billion into Military Spending

[enchilada_style]

I don't belong here.

 

[fishonjazz]

I don't belong here.

Lol
You and me both

 

[LogGrad98]

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

What a ****ty argument. "Well, since it only required a simple majority of course all the dems voted for it, I mean like why not?" Yeah, of course no one EVER votes against a bill that is guaranteed to pass. They wouldn't want to be seen as a dissenter or something. Give me a break! Yeah Clinton and others voted to attack Iraq because, you know, everyone else was doing it. Yeah, none of them think about their political future and if it is to their advantage to vote against a bill that might pass so later they can say "see I didn't vote yes". Look at all the back-pedaling ALL of the dem presidential candidates have done since we invaded Iraq, since most of them voted for it. But on this one, wow since it was passing anyway, well I may as well vote yes. Wow you probably the most blinded real poster on this site. Mind-boggling.

 

[Stoked]

What a ****ty argument. "Well, since it only required a simple majority of course all the dems voted for it, I mean like why not?" Yeah, of course no one EVER votes against a bill that is guaranteed to pass. They wouldn't want to be seen as a dissenter or something. Give me a break! Yeah Clinton and others voted to attack Iraq because, you know, everyone else was doing it. Yeah, none of them think about their political future and if it is to their advantage to vote against a bill that might pass so later they can say "see I didn't vote yes". Look at all the back-pedaling ALL of the dem presidential candidates have done since we invaded Iraq, since most of them voted for it. But on this one, wow since it was passing anyway, well I may as well vote yes. Wow you probably the most blinded real poster on this site. Mind-boggling.

He only posts when he can bash the vile and evil "right". That is his sole purpose. He's Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Harris-Perry and Maddow all rolled into one.

Even when he has a point, sometimes he does, he loses it in his rush to attack his sworn enemy.

 

[The Thriller]

He only posts when he can bash the vile and evil "right". That is his sole purpose. He's Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Harris-Perry and Maddow all rolled into one.

Even when he has a point, sometimes he does, he loses it in his rush to attack his sworn enemy.

[MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION]

How is this in accordance with the forum's rules? I'm eager for a response since if any of the "regular" posters had made a similar post, I'm sure Stoked would be the first to award them with a warning. Who's moderating the moderators?

Stoked, do you have anything worthwhile to add in this thread? Want to talk about deficit spending? Tax reform? Economics? If not, keep your damn middle school ad hominem attacks to yourself and save the bandwidth. Cheap and petty personal attacks do zero to move this discussion forward. If you don't have anything worthwhile to say, just move onto the next thread and "moderate" it to the best of your abilities.

 

[The Thriller]

What a ****ty argument. "Well, since it only required a simple majority of course all the dems voted for it, I mean like why not?" Yeah, of course no one EVER votes against a bill that is guaranteed to pass. They wouldn't want to be seen as a dissenter or something. Give me a break! Yeah Clinton and others voted to attack Iraq because, you know, everyone else was doing it. Yeah, none of them think about their political future and if it is to their advantage to vote against a bill that might pass so later they can say "see I didn't vote yes". Look at all the back-pedaling ALL of the dem presidential candidates have done since we invaded Iraq, since most of them voted for it. But on this one, wow since it was passing anyway, well I may as well vote yes. Wow you probably the most blinded real poster on this site. Mind-boggling.

Hey man, don't hate the messenger. I'm not synonymous with the democratic party.

Bringing up the backpedaling that dem candidates made since the Iraqi invasion promotes my opinion that today's right wing media is so strong and so ill-serving that it is even hurting the "other" party.

You brought up Hillary Clinton, known throughout Washington as a senator who would reach across the aisle and get things done. Even she was afraid of being labeled "anti-American" by well funded forces like the Kochs, Heritage, Fox News, and AM radio and went along with the program. Her political career would've ended prematurely had she come out in 2001-2002 attacking Bush's conduct on the war on terror and resisting the ill-advised Iraqi War.

If your issue is with the democrats not standing up to these forces instead of standing up to their principles, then join the club. I'd love to see democrats stand up for science, women's rights, equality, unions, strong public schools, retraining of labor in obsolete professions (like coal), and tax reform where we drastically raise taxes on the rich and corporations. But unfortunately Right now there's just too much money in keeping Americans indoctrinated by supply side economics and paranoid against single payer systems. Too many Americans will be duped into voting against democrats and against their own self interests by the right wing media and other well funded Koch, Adelson, and Mercer groups.

And until mainstream Americans begin to educate themselves and doubt the nonsense they're being sold by busty women on Fox and angry white men on am radio, I do not think things will change. Maybe the next generation? Fox and AM radio doesn't seem to have the same death grip on those 40 and under than those older.

So don't attack me, I'm just the messenger. You say it's a ****ty argument but it is the truth, isn't it? I'd love to see democrats stand up for their principles. We need a real democratic party. One that will stand up for truly left-wing issues. Instead, we have one fascist/Libertarian party today and one traditional republican party and a handful of traditional democrats (like Warren and Sanders).

 

[The Thriller]

Btw before you get angry at me, think about this. Earlier this year the koch family announced that it would give $400 million in 2018 to the GOP if they succeeded in repealing Obamacare. There isn't a family on the left who could do the same thing. If you don't think the Kochs are having a huge effect on both parties then you need to pull your head out.

 

[Stoked]

[MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION]

How is this in accordance with the forum's rules? I'm eager for a response since if any of the "regular" posters had made a similar post, I'm sure Stoked would be the first to award them with a warning. Who's moderating the moderators?

Stoked, do you have anything worthwhile to add in this thread? Want to talk about deficit spending? Tax reform? Economics? If not, keep your damn middle school ad hominem attacks to yourself and save the bandwidth. Cheap and petty personal attacks do zero to move this discussion forward. If you don't have anything worthwhile to say, just move onto the next thread and "moderate" it to the best of your abilities.

All you do is spin any subject you can into an attack on the right. You have proven this extensively. If you feel offended or unfairly "attacked" then you know where the report button is at.

I often engage with others in discussion. If you want better discussion between us then stop trying to focus on attacking the right non stop 24/7. Nice attempt to attack my integrity btw. Fail.

 

[The Thriller]

All you do is spin any subject you can into an attack on the right. You have proven this extensively. If you feel offended or unfairly "attacked" then you know where the report button is at.

I often engage with others in discussion. If you want better discussion between us then stop trying to focus on attacking the right non stop 24/7. Nice attempt to attack my integrity btw. Fail.

Don't worry, I know where the report button is and you've been reported.

 

[Stoked]

Don't worry, I know where the report button is and you've been reported.

I saw it, as usual I won't vote on it. Damn that integrity

On a side note, for anyone that wants to know.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/senate-pentagon-spending-bill.html

The Senate Bill still has to be reconciled with the House bill before it goes to the President. One area of contention is the House bill creates a "Space Corp" and the Senate bill does not. lol

 

[The Thriller]

Those who feel like "the right" is being unfairly attacked, answer me this question:

Which party has whined nonstop for 8+ years about safety nets and deficits yet proceeds to give the Dept of defense a blank check and is right now planning to slash taxes?

If you feel like this is an unfair criticism then maybe instead of attacking the messenger you should re-analyze your political beliefs? Maybe the GOP has some issues to work out, namely, hypocrisy. I have no problem if we feel the need to beef up defense in light of foreign threats. But if we are headed to a wartime economy, why are we even debating slashing taxes?

If the deficit truly is a concern, why are we considering a tax cut that would explode deficits by trillions?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/ap-report-gop-tentatively-agrees-1-5-trillion-plan-tax-cuts/

Let's stay on topic now. If we want better discussion then let's stick to the issues and refrain from ad hominem attacks. If you can't do it then find another thread. Find the ignore button.

 

[The Thriller]

I saw it, as usual I won't vote on it. Damn that integrity

On a side note, for anyone that wants to know.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/senate-pentagon-spending-bill.html

The Senate Bill still has to be reconciled with the House bill before it goes to the President. One area of contention is the House bill creates a "Space Corp" and the Senate bill does not. lol

If only that integrity would show itself in your posts. You persist in reminding everyone of your integrity despite posts showing otherwise. Why is that?

Damn me for expecting someone to follow the rules and refrain from personal attacks. If you want to discuss issues, discuss them. But trying to convince me of your integrity moments after you post a pathetic and insulting post seems incredulous, don't you think?

 

[Stoked]

oof

Yes, let's stay on topic and go back to talking about the military bill and not nonstop political attacks.

If you don't like the responses than take your own advice and use ignore.

 

[The Thriller]

oof

Yes, let's stay on topic and go back to talking about the military bill and not nonstop political attacks.

If you don't like the responses than take your own advice and use ignore.

Hilarious! Ok ok if that's how it's going to be.

So let's discuss! What shall we talk about? The defense spending? Why are we increasing defense spending? How much is sustainable? Was this necessary? Should we increase it more?

Why did you come into this thread?

 

[LogGrad98]

Hey man, don't hate the messenger. I'm not synonymous with the democratic party.

Bringing up the backpedaling that dem candidates made since the Iraqi invasion promotes my opinion that today's right wing media is so strong and so ill-serving that it is even hurting the "other" party.

You brought up Hillary Clinton, known throughout Washington as a senator who would reach across the aisle and get things done. Even she was afraid of being labeled "anti-American" by well funded forces like the Kochs, Heritage, Fox News, and AM radio and went along with the program. Her political career would've ended prematurely had she come out in 2001-2002 attacking Bush's conduct on the war on terror and resisting the ill-advised Iraqi War.

If your issue is with the democrats not standing up to these forces instead of standing up to their principles, then join the club. I'd love to see democrats stand up for science, women's rights, equality, unions, strong public schools, retraining of labor in obsolete professions (like coal), and tax reform where we drastically raise taxes on the rich and corporations. But unfortunately Right now there's just too much money in keeping Americans indoctrinated by supply side economics and paranoid against single payer systems. Too many Americans will be duped into voting against democrats and against their own self interests by the right wing media and other well funded Koch, Adelson, and Mercer groups.

And until mainstream Americans begin to educate themselves and doubt the nonsense they're being sold by busty women on Fox and angry white men on am radio, I do not think things will change. Maybe the next generation? Fox and AM radio doesn't seem to have the same death grip on those 40 and under than those older.

So don't attack me, I'm just the messenger. You say it's a ****ty argument but it is the truth, isn't it? I'd love to see democrats stand up for their principles. We need a real democratic party. One that will stand up for truly left-wing issues. Instead, we have one fascist/Libertarian party today and one traditional republican party and a handful of traditional democrats (like Warren and Sanders).

A messenger of what? Twisted biased takes on obvious situations? The vote for the 700 billion passed nearly unanimously and if I remember right (haven't looked it it for a few days) there were dissenters on both sides. How can you twist that into some republican conspiracy that democrats bought into and voted for overwhelmingly because....reasons? Or some other ********? You are the single most biased poster on this site and seriously blinded by your ideology.

Even this, I posted about how the vote was just that, a vote that had bipartisan support, and you try to twist that into some hatred of dems? I have no "issue" other than setting the record straight that this appropriation of funds was not a repub conspiracy of some sort. It was passed nearly unanimously.

Now go ahead and spin it again. Show how that somehow means I hate dems or have some agenda against them or that politicians somehow vote randomly depending on what fits thriller's preconcevied notions of republican conspiracies or whatever other poppycock you can cook up in that twisted brain of yours.

Here is some actual evidence, somewhat light on spin, so you go ahead and spin it around and around until it fits that dodecahedron shape you call a world view:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/senate-pentagon-spending-bill.html?mcubz=0

WASHINGTON — In a rare act of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill, the Senate passed a $700 billion defense policy bill on Monday that sets forth a muscular vision of America as a global power, with a Pentagon budget that far exceeds what President Trump has asked for.

Senators voted 89-9 to approve the measure, known as the National Defense Authorization Act; the House has already adopted a similar version.

And even more bipsrtisanship defying Trump:

Senators had proposed more than 500 amendments, but the vast majority were not attached to the bill.

Among the amendments kept out of the measure was a controversial proposal by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, the New York Democrat, to block Mr. Trump’s directive barring transgender troops from serving in the military. On Friday, Mr. McCain and Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services panel, joined Ms. Gillibrand in introducing a separate bill that would allow transgender troops to serve.

Here is one heavily skewed left. I am sure this will help you breathe a sigh of relief. But even here grudgingly and with a heavy dose of disgust, they admit it was a bipartisan deal.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...programs-700-billion-kill-people-yeah-we-have

Many critics were raising this question Monday after the Senate—in what was portrayed as yet another indication of bipartisan support for endless war—overwhelmingly approved the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which will dump a larger sum of money into the military budget than even President Donald Trump asked for while also authorizing the production of 94 F-35 jets, two dozen more than the Pentagon requested.

Passage of the NDAA—which this year approves a $700 billion defense budget, an annual increase of $80 billion—is something of an automated process in Washington, one that often flies under the radar and garners little opposition.

As The Intercept's Alex Emmons notes, the implications of this persistent refusal to question the bloated military budget are massive.

Emmons observes that the annual increase in spending alone—$80 billion—would be more than enough to "make public colleges and universities in America tuition-free. In fact, Sanders' proposal was only estimated to cost the federal government $47 billion per year."

"If the additional military spending over the next ten years instead went to pay off student debt," Emmons added, "it could come close to wiping it out entirely."

Instead, as Monday's vote revealed, the a bipartisan majority of U.S. senators appear content to continue unquestioningly pouring money into a military budget that already far exceeds spending of any other nation in the world.

Only 8 senators voted against the NDAA, which is expected to become law by the end of this year: Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ron Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). Three senators did not vote.

^^^ wow look at all the repubs that voted against. Crazy huh?

 

[The Thriller]

LG, as I've said before, in this political climate no one wants to be branded as "anti troops" or "unpatriotic." Those who voted against this bill were just a handful of senators ho feel safe enough to withstand attacks on their lack of "patriotism" by refusing to rubber stamp this bill.

 

[Stoked]

Hilarious! Ok ok if that's how it's going to be.

So let's discuss! What shall we talk about? The defense spending? Why are we increasing defense spending? How much is sustainable? Was this necessary? Should we increase it more?

Why did you come into this thread?

Well if you had read the thread you'd see that I am not really in favor of this. As strongly implied by my mocking posts about doubling the amount of aircraft carriers the U.S. has. I cannot remember the thread but when the President first announced his intended massive increase to military spending I was against it.

I think one of the major reasons is the clear intention to continue the M.E. military involvement. Something I am against. We never should have stayed in Afghanistan for example. I don't see the need for a massive military base in Kuwait.

As for sustainability, I think that answer is clearly no. Look at the soaring deficit. This is a massive increase in an area that simply does not need it. There are far more deserving areas. Like infrastructure, education and medical research. The gov. at large is trying to do far to much in far to many areas. I think a complete reset needs to be done as that is the only way to bring the out of control spending under control. Something that both sides have gladly engaged in where it suits them.

 

[fishonjazz]

If only that integrity would show itself in your posts. You persist in reminding everyone of your integrity despite posts showing otherwise. Why is that?

Damn me for expecting someone to follow the rules and refrain from personal attacks. If you want to discuss issues, discuss them. But trying to convince me of your integrity moments after you post a pathetic and insulting post seems incredulous, don't you think?

Stoked is probably the most fair poster on this site. Has more integrity than most, if not all of us, imo... me included.

 

[The Thriller]

Stoked is probably the most fair poster on this site. Has more integrity than most, if not all of us, imo... me included.

He's a pretty good guy and I usually like his posts.

However, there are times when he takes some real cheap and petty cheap shots, personally attacking other based on political positions or posts. It's completely unnecessary and inappropriate especially for one who's a moderator. There's just no need to attack people personally over politics on a forum like this.

 

[colton]

[MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION]

How is this in accordance with the forum's rules? I'm eager for a response since if any of the "regular" posters had made a similar post, I'm sure Stoked would be the first to award them with a warning. Who's moderating the moderators?

The other moderators. When a moderator's post is reported, there's the usual discussion in the Mod Forum as with any reported post, just with the potential offender being recused from the discussion.