By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Democrats Vote To Give Trump Obscene $717 Billion Mílítary Budget

Good!! Trump is such a great president!! I love this administration!! Money spent on our military is money well spent!! 



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
Aeolus451 said:

You have to consider the role the US military. It functions as a security force for all of North America, South Korea, Japan, EU, etc. It's easy to be snarky about US defense spending when your own country doesn't have to spend much due to the US protecting your shit and maintaining world peace.

The US doesn't do that though. The US military didn't stop the whole middle east thing from starting. It didn't stop Afghanistan. It didn't stop the Russian "invasion" of Crimea. It didn't stop the Vietnamese war. It didn't stop the Argentinian attack on the Falklands. It didn't stop the Korean war. So much for that "security force".

Besides, if spending = strength as you seem to think then places like the EU don't even need the US anyway since the UK and France together outspend Russia and that's without the other 50 odd EU countries chipping in. So not only have you been useless in defending Europe (and the rest of the world) anyway, you're not even needed. Besides, what kind of messed up logic do you need to think that Russia or China are suddenly going to become Nazi Germany and try and conquer the world if the US lower their military budget, because it sounds like that's what you're saying, while the reality is it wouldn't really change a thing for either of those countries (or the countries near them).

Nighthawk117 said:

Two points:

1. Have any terrorists hijacked airplanes and flown them into buildings of any of those other 7 closest countries?

2. If ever a terrorist group got their hands on a WMD - i.e. a stash of nerve gas, or bio weapon, or some plutonium and made a dirty bomb,would they be more likely to set it off in one of those 7 countries or in the USA?  To a terrorist, what's a more inviting target? NYC or Beijing? Washington DC or Riyadh?

1. That insane military budget isn't working very well then if despite spending all that money that's happened to the US but not any other country.

2. Depends on the terrorist group. The only group I can think of that has used one of those (nerve gas specifically) was in the Tokyo sarin gas attack, so not a US city. Although assuming you're talking solely about islamic terrorists then cities in some of those other 7 countries would be just as attractive as any US city (Paris and London for example).

Besides, in my experience dealing with terrorists and counter-terrorism operations is typically a police rather than military matter. So how exactly are a bunch of rockets, tanks and fighter jets going to help the police do their job?

It's called REVENGE.  You might get luckly and kill some of our people but we will hit back at you with overwhelming force - no matter where your hiding on this planet.  Ask any alive Al Qaeda or Taliban member about America's resolve and capabilities.



Military spending is actually at a record low, went to ca. 4% of GDP, down from 10% in the 1950s.

Meanwhile social spending went up from 4% to 15% of GDP in the same time.

 

The US gov spends 73% of its budget on humans services (mostly social security) and 15% on the military.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-the-federal-government-spend-your-tax-dollars-on-social-insurance-programs-mostly/

Last edited by numberwang - on 02 August 2018

Hiku said:

The USA defense budget was already beyond insane before this vote...

People often forget, or don't commonly mention, that even though Republicans are the main offenders of taking large corporate donations, there are plenty of Democrats that do the same.

I fail to see why USA's defense budget needs to be that much higher than the top 7 closest countries combined.
Need to vote all these people out.

In the last election, Hillary Clinton became the poster child for taking large corporate donations. She had so much money in her arsenal to the point where at one time, she was outspending Donald Trump on campaigning ten times over. She had the backing of the big banks. She had the backing of the Saudi Royal Family. She was supported by the mainstream media outlets. That's why she really didn't campaign that hard despite somehow spending a lot of money. She thought she had the election in the bag. But then again, Hillary Clinton is a Neo-Liberal. She could pass as a moderate Republican if she wanted to.

 

Aeolus451 said:

You have to consider the role the US military. It functions as a security force for all of North America, South Korea, Japan, EU, etc. It's easy to be snarky about US defense spending when your own country doesn't have to spend much due to the US protecting your shit and maintaining world peace.

Thank you for posting this. This is what a lot of people don't get. The majority of the US's defense spending comes from oversees costs. Personally, I don't think the US should be the world's policemen anymore. Maybe during the immediate post-WWII years, there was a reason for it and even throughout the Cold War, but there isn't anymore. The Commies aren't coming to take over and the Russians aren't the Soviet Union anymore despite what some people would like to think. The thing is some of these countries get real pissy when the US asks them step up their own defense. They're asking this in order to relieve the American taxpayer. 

 

DonFerrari said:
Seems like the democrats in power hate Trump less than they voters.

The Democrats just love spending period. That isn't to say the Republicans are much better. With the exception of Rand Paul, Justin Amash and Thomas Massie, who are the few libertarian-leaning Republicans, the Republicans just as bad. The difference is the Republicans like to pretend to be fiscally conservative whereas the Democrats don't even hide the fact that they love spending.



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

I hope they make some Gundams.



Around the Network
Jon-Erich said:
Aeolus451 said:

You have to consider the role the US military. It functions as a security force for all of North America, South Korea, Japan, EU, etc. It's easy to be snarky about US defense spending when your own country doesn't have to spend much due to the US protecting your shit and maintaining world peace.

Thank you for posting this. This is what a lot of people don't get. The majority of the US's defense spending comes from oversees costs. Personally, I don't think the US should be the world's policemen anymore. Maybe during the immediate post-WWII years, there was a reason for it and even throughout the Cold War, but there isn't anymore. The Commies aren't coming to take over and the Russians aren't the Soviet Union anymore despite what some people would like to think. The thing is some of these countries get real pissy when the US asks them step up their own defense. They're asking this in order to relieve the American taxpayer.

Allot of countries also pay the USA in Billions of dollars every year in their mutual defense agreement... I mean, trump has only whinged about that how many times?

In regards to some countries... The USA has bases in Australia because they are trying to counter China, we also give you a ton of support with information, infrastructure, food, fuel, air-space... And we even help train your military... And we are also the USA's main conduit into the area, it's of a strategic importance. - So we are SAVING you money.

We don't actually need you here, you can't actually invade and control all of Australia successfully, regardless of what movies might try and say otherwise.

I would imagine the same is applicable for a ton of other nations as well.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

You don't want to be outspend by Russia? That would be collusion I've heard.



Ka-pi96 said:

The US doesn't do that though. The US military didn't stop the whole middle east thing from starting. It didn't stop Afghanistan. It didn't stop the Russian "invasion" of Crimea. It didn't stop the Vietnamese war. It didn't stop the Argentinian attack on the Falklands. It didn't stop the Korean war. So much for that "security force".

Besides, if spending = strength as you seem to think then places like the EU don't even need the US anyway since the UK and France together outspend Russia and that's without the other 50 odd EU countries chipping in. So not only have you been useless in defending Europe (and the rest of the world) anyway, you're not even needed. Besides, what kind of messed up logic do you need to think that Russia or China are suddenly going to become Nazi Germany and try and conquer the world if the US lower their military budget, because it sounds like that's what you're saying, while the reality is it wouldn't really change a thing for either of those countries (or the countries near them).

You can say that all you want but when European politicians come on US television shows and say that "the United States, as a world leader, needs to do more to help out in Europe," then it rings hollow as fuck.  That's nothing but self-serving hypocrisy.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm fully behind the idea of reducing defense spending and telling Europe to fuck off the next time they come demanding help. Still, we do have allies I think we should help in other parts of the world and it would be unfair to abandon them.



Hiku said:

The USA defense budget was already beyond insane before this vote...

People often forget, or don't commonly mention, that even though Republicans are the main offenders of taking large corporate donations, there are plenty of Democrats that do the same.

I fail to see why USA's defense budget needs to be that much higher than the top 7 closest countries combined.
Need to vote all these people out.

Comparing numbers based on nominal exchange rates for different sized countries is misleading. Do you think a Chinese soldier costs as much as an American soldier? National spending has to be compared as a percentage of GDP.



Nighthawk117 said:
Hiku said:

The USA defense budget was already beyond insane before this vote...


I fail to see why USA's defense budget needs to be that much higher than the top 7 closest countries combined.
Need to vote all these people out.

Two points:

1. Have any terrorists hijacked airplanes and flown them into buildings of any of those other 7 closest countries?

2. If ever a terrorist group got their hands on a WMD - i.e. a stash of nerve gas, or bio weapon, or some plutonium and made a dirty bomb,would they be more likely to set it off in one of those 7 countries or in the USA?  To a terrorist, what's a more inviting target? NYC or Beijing? Washington DC or Riyadh?

Depends wholly on whom the terrorists in question have a beef with. Someone who is afraid of the rise in power of China isn't going to attach the US, he's going to attack China for sure. The problem for the US is that they supported crazy maniacs left and right if they just opposed the Soviet Union, which has left the US with a boatload of enemies.

But in any case, counter-terrorism is Police work (generally dedicated units even, like GSG9 in Germany), not work of the military. Hence why defending against terrorists isn't a valid reason for a military budget increase.