President Donald Trump

[DMT]

If percentages are easier to digest, then how about 33% of the world's military spending is from us. Yet at the same time Trump whines about other countries not paying their share.

[cardboardbox]

Isn't it enormous?

the 10%? No, I dont think it is.

Is it a good idea? Probably not.

[Sour Masher]

Actual $ makes it sound enormous, GDP% puts it in perspective.

It doesn't "sound" enormous, it IS enormous, and it IS filled with stomach churning amounts of waste and graft and porkbelly and corruption. There can be no informed defense of our current defense budget, particularly the extreme waste in equipment and contracts for more equipment that we will never, ever use. We spend billions building flawed designs, so they will sit in hangers and buildings. We spend billions to fight conventional land, air, and sea wars on a global scale, preparing for WWIII that would likely only ever come if we decide we want it to. Meanwhile, we continue to fall behind in terms of cyber warfare and intelligence gathering, as our POTUS attacks our intelligence operations.

[Sour Masher]

Right, because GDP is comprehensible?

Our POTUS said we have a GDP below 0, so by that number, our defense budget represents an infinite percentage of it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ro-trump-says/

[nots]

It doesn't "sound" enormous, it IS enormous, and it IS filled with stomach churning amounts of waste and graft and porkbelly and corruption. There can be no informed defense of our current defense budget, particularly the extreme waste in equipment and contracts for more equipment that we will never, ever use. We spend billions building flawed designs, so they will sit in hangers and buildings. We spend billions to fight conventional land, air, and sea wars on a global scale, preparing for WWIII that would likely only ever come if we decide we want it to. Meanwhile, we continue to fall behind in terms of cyber warfare and intelligence gathering, as our POTUS attacks our intelligence operations.

Hate to disagree, but even if there was zero waste, zero graft and zero corruption, it is way to much to spend while our bridges and airports continue to decay.

[Sour Masher]

Hate to disagree, but even if there was zero waste, zero graft and zero corruption, it is way to much to spend while our bridges and airports continue to decay.

We aren't disagreeing--I agree with that entirely. But I choose to focus on the tremendous waste when arguing with hawks, because you could easily cut the defense budget by billions to build infrastructure without actually making us "weaker". In fact, in addition to cuts, we could redirect some of those billions to the realities of modern warfare, and be better off, even with a much smaller budget.

[baldgriff]

If you want to put many of the unemployed workers back to work in the labor force - we need to invest in our INFRASTRUCTURE. There are so many roads, bridges, railway systems and other parts of our infrastructure that need fixing or replacement.

[Sour Masher]

If you want to put many of the unemployed workers back to work in the labor force - we need to invest in our INFRASTRUCTURE. There are so many roads, bridges, railway systems and other parts of our infrastructure that need fixing or replacement.

Yes, and this is one thing I thought Trump would get right. Every penny more he plans to spend on defense is waste that could go to infrastructure and/or the debt. There is not enough to cut in all other programs to allow for this increase in defense spending and an increase in infrastructure. If/when he gets around to infrastructure spending, it would all be debt.

And yes, I know of the difference between personal debt and national debt, but we are reaching a point in terms of our debt ratio to GDP that it actually does matter, and is becoming a concern.

[nots]

If you want to put many of the unemployed workers back to work in the labor force - we need to invest in our INFRASTRUCTURE. There are so many roads, bridges, railway systems and other parts of our infrastructure that need fixing or replacement.

Well, President Trump initially proposed $1T of infrastructure spending, which I fully support, endorse and would speak positively about on these boards. Sadly, he hasn't actually followed thru.
If he actually does follow thru, I will post a link immediately say something positive, I promise.

[Redbirds Fan]

Well, President Trump initially proposed $1T of infrastructure spending, which I fully support, endorse and would speak positively about on these boards. Sadly, he hasn't actually followed thru.
If he actually does follow thru, I will post a link immediately say something positive, I promise.

He didn't actually propose $1T of infrastructure spending. His plan was to give $125B+ in tax incentives to private companies to invest in building roads, in hopes that this would result a trillion dollars worth of investments over a decade. Another had private companies building the roads and then getting their money back from tolls or from payments made by the states which benefited from the roads. He's certainly not talking about a federal infrastructure-based job program. The idea could possible create jobs, but they would be subject to the whims of private industry. Low wages, no benefits, etc. More of the same, except we would be giving up potential tax revenues, and the rich would get richer.

[nots]

He didn't actually propose $1T of infrastructure spending. His plan was to give $125B+ in tax incentives to private companies to invest in building roads, in hopes that this would result a trillion dollars worth of investments over a decade. Another had private companies building the roads and then getting their money back from tolls or from payments made by the states which benefited from the roads. He's certainly not talking about a federal infrastructure-based job program. The idea could possible create jobs, but they would be subject to the whims of private industry. Low wages, no benefits, etc. More of the same, except we would be giving up potential tax revenues, and the rich would get richer.

$1T of private infrastructure spending is fine by me too.

[Redbirds Fan]

$1T of private infrastructure spending is fine by me too.

I'd like it, too. But having the tax breaks now, maybe having some spending later? Not so much.

[cardboardbox]

and it IS filled with stomach churning amounts of waste and graft and porkbelly and corruption.

of course it is. And it has been for the past 8 years also, and the 8 before that, etc, it never changes.

[Sour Masher]

of course it is. And it has been for the past 8 years also, and the 8 before that, etc, it never changes.

If Trump has his way, it will change bigly--for the worse. He hopes to grow an already bloated budget by 10%.

BTW, defense spending is separate from veterans spending, which has a much smaller budget. If he wants to pander and play to military proponents, he should increase veterans spending, not defense spending. That would at least possibly address real issues with how we treat our veterans. But I guess we should just rely on private capital/altruism, like the Wounded Warrior program that spends most of its donations on fancy hotels and parties for its staff.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/10...ntroversy.html

Trump paid lip service to helping vets, but his defense budget increases do not address that issue.

[Igor]

trumpeo.jpg

Saw this and could not post it here fast enough, there you go Steve!!