Defund the military

[daytripper]

Oh yeah? Can I charge tolls?

On a more serious note, if you actually dispute the facts I cited, either provide some evidence or I'll continue to treat your posts as frivolous.

But your evidence of I found it on the internet is ok....but your right, I suppose china is always completely honest.

If you were willing to put in an ounce of time for research you would find that there are numerous sources you can cite to for this information. But you'd rather just deny the facts and not bother to research it, so I didn't answer you honestly. Nor will I until you actually put in some effort to discern the facts. Right now you're like a guy at the end of the bar saying, "Nuh uh!" in response to a factual argument. That kind of thing doesn't merit a serious response.

Yup, china and russia are always honest.

[easyrider16]

Okay bud. Maybe do some research. Best way to cure ignorance. Or, you know, just make up your own facts and believe whatever you want. Apparently that's the new American way.

[daytripper]

I don't need to do research to know that you can't believe what russia and china say. It's called common knowledge. You are trying to tell me that they are honest and trustworthy. Your either lying to prove your point or very naive.

[XtremeJibber2001]

This is very much like Winston pondering how do we know that two and two make four or that the force of gravity works? But in this case it's just a red herring.

[easyrider16]

I don't need to do research to know that you can't believe what russia and china say. It's called common knowledge. You are trying to tell me that they are honest and trustworthy. Your either lying to prove your point or very naive.

Actually, you're being ignorant. Willfully so, apparently. For your edification, you don't have to depend on what China and Russia say. There are many intelligence agencies, think tanks, and universities that study this stuff and try to estimate and verify what China and Russia report to the U.N. as far as defense spending. That information is readily available. But you know, if you actually did any sort of inquiry, even a tiny bit, you'd have found that out. But you'd rather be the guy at the end of the bar saying ignorant things.

However, as XJ said - this is a total red herring argument. I suspect at this point you're just trolling for fun.

[XtremeJibber2001]

The way Cori Bush presents the argument is a deal breaker for most of the electorate. It was probably done deliberately.

As of 2015, 16% or $609B is spent annually on defense. Could it be reduced by 1% or $6B and be repurposed to social programs? Sure.

I'm not sure I agree with moving defense funds to social programs. Right now is we're living beyond our means. I've always been in favor of across the board cuts to get to a point where we're running a budget surplus. The problem is neither party is trying to address the spending issue.

[easyrider16]

I have to imagine the "defund" mantra, whether in regards to police or to the military, is not very popular with the overall electorate.

As for the budget, I'd be satisfied with a balanced budget during the good years. In times of emergency, like with Covid, deficit spending makes some sense. But it shouldn't be our default position. The Fed is playing games with government bonds to prop up spending, and so far we've avoided any negative repercussions like runaway inflation. I'm skeptical as to how long that will last.

If inflation goes up, rates will go up, and the Fed will likely have to stop buying bonds. When that happens, the cost of all that debt is going to skyrocket. It's going to consume a larger and larger chunk of the budget, squeezing out other spending priorities. You may even get to the point where debt service exceeds tax revenue. If that happens, or we even get close to it, the whole thing could collapse like a house of cards. Scary thought.

[daytripper]

I don't need to do research to know that you can't believe what russia and china say. It's called common knowledge. You are trying to tell me that they are honest and trustworthy. Your either lying to prove your point or very naive.

Actually, you're being ignorant. Willfully so, apparently. For your edification, you don't have to depend on what China and Russia say. There are many intelligence agencies, think tanks, and universities that study this stuff and try to estimate and verify what China and Russia report to the U.N. as far as defense spending. That information is readily available. But you know, if you actually did any sort of inquiry, even a tiny bit, you'd have found that out. But you'd rather be the guy at the end of the bar saying ignorant things.

However, as XJ said - this is a total red herring argument. I suspect at this point you're just trolling for fun.

I may be half trolling, I mean you do fall for it pretty easily. I don't really care enough what you think to do any research.

[Bubba]

There is no question that we overspend on the military. The fault, however, lies with military contracting and how we pay for things. Too many "cost plus" contracts, military specs when off-the-shelf standards would do, etc. raise the cost of many things purchased by our armed forces. Stories of $700 hammers and $1000 toilet seats (or was that $1000 hammers and $700 toilet seats?) abound. We also have trouble cutting spending on outdated or failing projects because so many jobs are at stake. It is no accident that military contracts and contractors are spread far and wide across all fifty states. Critics in the House and Senate rail against military waste until they learn that "X hundred or thousand" jobs in their state will be lost if a project is eliminated. The Navy didn't want another submarine of some type years ago but were forced into another purchase because of the jobs at stake in Connecticut. Lots of other examples of Congress forcing unwanted hardware on the Pentagon in order to keep jobs going. And none of that takes into account base closures. Congress needed to set up a base closure committee to take the dirty work off their hands.

So, do we overspend? Yes, and we're our own worst enemy when it comes to reducing overspending.

[Mister Moose]

The Navy didn't want another submarine of some type years ago but were forced into another purchase because of the jobs at stake in Connecticut. Lots of other examples of Congress forcing unwanted hardware on the Pentagon in order to keep jobs going. And none of that takes into account base closures. Congress needed to set up a base closure committee to take the dirty work off their hands.

The submarine contracts was more of 1) the need to keep the industry solvent, only 2 sub builders. 2) the very long time frame of procurement, you don't unwind the whole industry for just a few years of low demand.

One of the recent cost cutting successes in the recent past are those base closures. So what if they needed a committee, look at the closures and changes just here in NY/New England:

Plattsburg
Quonset
Loring
Bradley
Pease
Newburgh

Might be more, that's just a non googled list.

[asher2789]

considering our war budget makes up over 50% of our discretionary budget, and we have an imperial military base in nearly every country on earth, and we have black budgets and covert wars that congress doesn't even vote on... i'd say its LONG PAST TIME to defund our military.

when the "defense" department is defunded back into actual defense and is not an offense department then ill be happy.

we could have universal healthcare (like nearly every country in the world besides the US), universal higher education, universal child care, universal basic income, and many more things that make our country safe and prosperous instead of enriching the military industrial complex and their hoardes of private contractors.

hell i'd even be for reinstating the draft if they could cut the war budget in half. when every person's kid is at risk of dying on a misguided foreign adventure for "american [corporate] interests" we'll stop our wars of choice and covert operations that subvert congressional oversight. the current situation is exploitative as can be, relying on young men and women with little opportunity to sell their bodies, their health and even their lives to the government in exchange for paltry pay and "free" higher education (if they survive their service). how many members of congress have children in the military? how many members of congress have seen combat?

instead we have president bone spurs and his party of cowards.

[asher2789]

The way Cori Bush presents the argument is a deal breaker for most of the electorate. It was probably done deliberately.

As of 2015, 16% or $609B is spent annually on defense. Could it be reduced by 1% or $6B and be repurposed to social programs? Sure.

I'm not sure I agree with moving defense funds to social programs. Right now is we're living beyond our means. I've always been in favor of across the board cuts to get to a point where we're running a budget surplus. The problem is neither party is trying to address the spending issue.

the % youre quoting is a cherry picked figure. its only 16% of the budget when you count non-discretionary spending (SS and medicare spending funded via our payroll taxes, and debt servicing). since the "defense" department is part of discretionary spending, or you know, things voters sort of have control over via our representatives in congress, it makes up over 50% of the discretionary spending budget, which is beyond outrageous.

we could have universal health care but why have that when we could have a few F35s....