Cut all Military Spending

[GClevelandFan]

I challenge everyone to oppose the rapidly ballooning "Defense"(read: Raytheon) budget that the Uniparty is working towards. If you are a war hawk you cannot seriously be considered a "fiscal hawk". Likewise, if you are for bombing Mexico or "defending the border", or "confronting China", or "arming Ukraine", you cannot seriously be considered serious about fiscal policy. The way the MIC justifies itself is by inventing new excuses for it's existence.

Are you for "confronting China"? Consider how your policy will affect the budget.
Are you for "arming Ukraine"? Consider how your policy will affect the budget.
Are you for "defending the border" from the bugaboo of "illegals" and opioids, or even bombing Mexico? Consider how your policy will affect the budget.

 

[phoenix2020]

I’d be okay with a $500B annual defense budget.

 

[Mr Person]

I'd rather prefer to amuse myself by reading an argument that America could retain all its massive power and influence without having by far the most powerful military on Earth.

I used to think otherwise. But you know what? It's good to be king. Because if you're not king, someone else is. And then you're licking their ass, not the other way around. The way homo sapiens are built, power vacuums are a zero-sum game. Other things aren't. But power? Influence? Control? Oh yes, yes it is.

What I want is it to be better run, tracked, and punished when there is misconduct and/or inexcusable ****ery. Other than that, I think it gets us much more than it costs to spend the...what... 800 billion a year we're spending.

I’d be okay with a $500B annual defense budget.

Eh, I wouldn't pick a number out of a hat. To have a reasonable position, I'd have to comb through more than anyone person can comb through. It's not so much the having of the military that our mistakes have been related to, but rather deployment. But far more than the military, the CIA has done international damage. We ****ed up countless countries to fight the commies (which actually was a rational fight in a general sense. We just didn't fight it all that intelligently)

 

[Rexedgar]

I'd rather prefer to amuse myself by reading an argument that America could retain all its massive power and influence without having by far the most powerful military on Earth.

I used to think otherwise. But you know what? It's good to be king. Because if you're not king, someone else is. And then you're licking their ass, not the other way around. The way homo sapiens are built, power vacuums are a zero-sum game. Other things aren't. But power? Influence? Control? Oh yes, yes it is.

What I want is it to be better run, tracked, and punished when there is misconduct and/or inexcusable ****ery. Other than that, I think it gets us much more than it costs to spend the...what... 800 billion a year we're spending.



Eh, I wouldn't pick a number out of a hat. To have a reasonable position, I'd have to comb through more than anyone person can comb through. It's not so much the having of the military that our mistakes have been related to, but rather deployment. But far more than the military, the CIA has done international damage. We ****ed up countless countries to fight the commies (which actually was a rational fight in a general sense. We just didn't fight it all that intelligently)

Some of those conflicts were more about preserving US interests, (read money.)

 

[rickc]

Some of those conflicts were more about preserving US interests, (read money.)

Protect/expand U.S. multinational corporations profits

Iraq and the neocon dream is a great example.

and we have to feed the U.S. military industrial complex. Have to use up those war materials where they can sell the government more!

 

[Mr Person]

Some of those conflicts were more about preserving US interests, (read money.)

They did indeed.

I'd prefer the power, with the need to monitor and the moral guilt of supporting the power despite us not monitoring like we should over simply giving up the power. We cede global power and guess who fills it: China first. It's a zero sum game, and there are no good approaches. Like everything, only least worst approaches.

The only people I'd want to have the power if it weren't us is some Canada-Europe-South America-Parts of Africa alliance. But they would have to do it in an extragovernmental organization. Implementation would be far more fraught, ripe for dispute on every front.

Am I comfortable with evil done in the name of my position? No. But I'm even less comfortable with the evil that would be done if it was China filling our boots, and they're the only country remotely close to that size.

 

[Rexedgar]

They did indeed.

I'd prefer the power, with the need to monitor and the moral guilt of supporting the power despite us not monitoring like we should over simply giving up the power. We cede global power and guess who fills it: China first. It's a zero sum game, and there are no good approaches. Like everything, only least worst approaches.

The only people I'd want to have the power if it weren't us is some Canada-Europe-South America-Parts of Africa alliance. But they would have to do it in an extragovernmental organization. Implementation would be far more fraught, ripe for dispute on every front.

Am I comfortable with evil done in the name of my position? No. But I'm even less comfortable with the evil that would be done if it was China filling our boots, and they're the only country remotely close to that size.

Not sure what your point is here…….

 

[GClevelandFan]

Protect/expand U.S. multinational corporations profits

Iraq and the neocon dream is a great example.

and we have to feed the U.S. military industrial complex. Have to use up those war materials where they can sell the government more!

Absolutely correct. War may be a broken window, but it gets checks to Raytheon. Congress and the Presidency will go to bat for the MIC even if it results in hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, Libyan Slave Markets, and much more.

 

[Mycroft]

Cut all Military Spending​

I challenge everyone to oppose the rapidly ballooning "Defense"(read: Raytheon) budget that the Uniparty is working towards. If you are a war hawk you cannot seriously be considered a "fiscal hawk". Likewise, if you are for bombing Mexico or "defending the border", or "confronting China", or "arming Ukraine", you cannot seriously be considered serious about fiscal policy. The way the MIC justifies itself is by inventing new excuses for it's existence.

Are you for "confronting China"? Consider how your policy will affect the budget.
Are you for "arming Ukraine"? Consider how your policy will affect the budget.
Are you for "defending the border" from the bugaboo of "illegals" and opioids, or even bombing Mexico? Consider how your policy will affect the budget.

That is like demanding the end of all gun possession by law abiding citizens in order to end criminals who use guns.

Military spending is not bad. What is bad are the criminals who will use the military for their own political and monetary benefit.

 

[AmNat]

Are you for "defending the border" from the bugaboo of "illegals" and opioids, or even bombing Mexico? Consider how your policy will affect the budget.

Protecting the country from invasion is one of the most basic functions of government.

 

[GClevelandFan]

Cut all Military Spending​

That is like demanding the end of all gun possession by law abiding citizens in order to end criminals who use guns.

Military spending is not bad. What is bad are the criminals who will use the military for their own political and monetary benefit.

Mr. Mycroft,

I believe there is a key difference. That of the distinction between the military and the law-abiding citizen.

The military, like all other governmental institutions, does not hold itself to the same rules. Whereas the law abiding citizen might buy a gun out of his or her own pocket, the military complex buys weapons out of someone elses pocket, the taxpayers.

It is good that you oppose the criminals that use the military for their own gain. But you must understand that as long as there is a different set of laws for the citizen, and a different set of laws for the military official, such corruption will continue.

Regards.

 

[GClevelandFan]

Protecting the country from invasion is one of the most basic functions of government.

AmNat,

Let me clear this up with you: Are you saying "illegals" and opioids are "invading" the United States, as if they were a foreign army? I mean this not to condescend but to clear up your position.

 

[Moon]

I’d be for cutting all spending. Let’s start at 10% across the board and go from there.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I'd rather prefer to amuse myself by reading an argument that America could retain all its massive power and influence without having by far the most powerful military on Earth.

I used to think otherwise. But you know what? It's good to be king. Because if you're not king, someone else is. And then you're licking their ass, not the other way around. The way homo sapiens are built, power vacuums are a zero-sum game. Other things aren't. But power? Influence? Control? Oh yes, yes it is.

What I want is it to be better run, tracked, and punished when there is misconduct and/or inexcusable ****ery. Other than that, I think it gets us much more than it costs to spend the...what... 800 billion a year we're spending.



Eh, I wouldn't pick a number out of a hat. To have a reasonable position, I'd have to comb through more than anyone person can comb through. It's not so much the having of the military that our mistakes have been related to, but rather deployment. But far more than the military, the CIA has done international damage. We ****ed up countless countries to fight the commies (which actually was a rational fight in a general sense. We just didn't fight it all that intelligently)

Thats some real weak bullshit right there IMO.

"Its OK because its good to be king."

LOL. FFS

 

[Mycroft]

Mr. Mycroft,

I believe there is a key difference. That of the distinction between the military and the law-abiding citizen.

The military, like all other governmental institutions, does not hold itself to the same rules. Whereas the law abiding citizen might buy a gun out of his or her own pocket, the military complex buys weapons out of someone elses pocket, the taxpayers.

It is good that you oppose the criminals that use the military for their own gain. But you must understand that as long as there is a different set of laws for the citizen, and a different set of laws for the military official, such corruption will continue.

Regards.

It is not the military officials, for the most part, who are corrupt. It is the civilian authority that commands the military that is corrupt.

 

[rickc]

Now I am all for America's military being involved with NATO's peace keeping force.

But I would like someone to name one war since WWII that we were involved in where there was a true threat to America?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Protect/expand U.S. multinational corporations profits

Iraq and the neocon dream is a great example.

This happened because Bush Jr. was mad at Saddam for threatening Bush Sr.

and we have to feed the U.S. military industrial complex. Have to use up those war materials where they can sell the government more!

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Now I am all for America's military being involved with NATO's peace keeping force.

But I would like someone to name one war since WWII that we were involved in where there was a true threat to America?

Iraq tried to steal American FrEeDuMbZ$™.

Remember that?

 

[Exquisitor]

I challenge everyone to oppose the rapidly ballooning "Defense"(read: Raytheon) budget that the Uniparty is working towards. If you are a war hawk you cannot seriously be considered a "fiscal hawk". Likewise, if you are for bombing Mexico or "defending the border", or "confronting China", or "arming Ukraine", you cannot seriously be considered serious about fiscal policy. The way the MIC justifies itself is by inventing new excuses for it's existence.

Are you for "confronting China"? Consider how your policy will affect the budget.
Are you for "arming Ukraine"? Consider how your policy will affect the budget.
Are you for "defending the border" from the bugaboo of "illegals" and opioids, or even bombing Mexico? Consider how your policy will affect the budget.

As long as we're ready for WWII in 2027. All preparations should be for it. By the end of the Tribulation White Horse 2020-2030.5 it will reflect to the millennial reign. Try to keep your Country till then.

 

[Roadvirus]

Cut all military spending?

That's a bad plan.

 

[rickc]

This happened because Bush Jr. was mad at Saddam for threatening Bush Sr.

Oh there was a whole lot more to the invasion of Iraq than that.

Read Paul Bremmers book. My year in Iraq. Cheney, Rumsfield and the rest of the neocons cooked up the plan for Iraq when they were in Reagans administration. That oil was very attractive. But basically they were planning to sell off the entire country to their corporate buddies. Create a little american capitalism right there in the middle east. That famous line by Cheney "we will be greeted as liberators" is an example of how wrong they got it. Iraq was and is much to violent for any of those corporations to invest money there. The neocon plan fell apart.

 

[Yarn]

I challenge everyone to oppose the rapidly ballooning "Defense"(read: Raytheon) budget that the Uniparty is working towards. If you are a war hawk you cannot seriously be considered a "fiscal hawk". Likewise, if you are for bombing Mexico or "defending the border", or "confronting China", or "arming Ukraine", you cannot seriously be considered serious about fiscal policy. The way the MIC justifies itself is by inventing new excuses for it's existence.

Are you for "confronting China"? Consider how your policy will affect the budget.
Are you for "arming Ukraine"? Consider how your policy will affect the budget.
Are you for "defending the border" from the bugaboo of "illegals" and opioids, or even bombing Mexico? Consider how your policy will affect the budget.

Defense spending is not ballooning as a % of GDP. It is declining slightly. We have been spending 3-11% of GDP on defense since WW2 without that resulting in an economic crisis. Right now, we are at around 3%, which is historically quite low.
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/04/t...n-defense-than-the-next-10-countries-combined


The debt has been going up significantly since the 2008 financial crises. That may not be sustainable, but since defense spending didn't go up significantly during that time, this increase was caused by other changes. These other changes were primarily how we responded to the 2008 financial crisis and Covid 19. Massive stimulus bills were a major factor. Reduced tax revenue due to unemployment was a major factor. A greater number of people qualifying for government assistance was a major factor (due to unemployment/furloughs/lock downs).

Absent an economic crises, it seems like the norm is for the debt to slowly level off and even slightly go down.

Why is the U.S. Debt Expected to Keep Growing? | Econofact

Despite the high-stakes debt ceiling negotiations, U.S. debt relative to GDP is projected to keep growing over the next decade. What factors account for this projection and why does it matter?

econofact.org

 

[GClevelandFan]

Oh there was a whole lot more to the invasion of Iraq than that.

Read Paul Bremmers book. My year in Iraq. Cheney, Rumsfield and the rest of the neocons cooked up the plan for Iraq when they were in Reagans administration. That oil was very attractive. But basically they were planning to sell off the entire country to their corporate buddies. Create a little american capitalism right there in the middle east. That famous line by Cheney "we will be greeted as liberators" is an example of how wrong they got it. Iraq was and is much to violent for any of those corporations to invest money there. The neocon plan fell apart.

But didn't Cheney lobby against oil sanctions on Iraq in the '90s? Obviously Cheney is a corrupt neocon but I'm not sure it's as simple as him and his buddies simply cooking up plans for Iraq. I think Mearsheimer's Israel lobby thesis is more convincing.

 

[dseag2]

Cut all Military Spending​

That is like demanding the end of all gun possession by law abiding citizens in order to end criminals who use guns.

Military spending is not bad. What is bad are the criminals who will use the military for their own political and monetary benefit.

Sorry, I didn't know we were discussing Trump again?

 

[Mycroft]

Sorry, I didn't know we were discussing Trump again?

I know how you like to make everything about Trump, but I'm not discussing Trump.