Do We Need to Spend an Additional $54 Billion on Defense?

Green Mt BoyGreen Mt Boy Senior MemberPosts: 909 Senior Member
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/27/trump-seeking-54b-increase-in-defense-spending-cuts-elsewhere.html

We already spend more on defense than the next umpteen (forgot the exact number, but it is a lot) countries combined. But, defense hawks in Congress say the extra $54 billion Pres. Trump is going to propose tomorrow is still not enough.

Dang weapon systems are too freakin' expensive.

Edited to add:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-white-house-budget-blueprint-235435

Sounds like some of the money for the defense increase will come from the EPA, which "only" has a budget of $8.1 billion. I say "only" because with the $54 B increase the defense budget would be $603 billion.
«1

Replies

  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 6,569 Senior Member
    Nope, not at all.
  • tim_stim_s Senior Member Posts: 1,947 Senior Member
    we'll have more tanks while our infrastructure crumbles.....


    do we need increased spending on veteran's healthcare and benefits? sure.....but....
    Fly Fishing in Maine - www.flyfishinginmaine.com
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    America needs more nukes.. You know, uranium and stuff and junk..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    Since every other country in the world will soon hate us with a passion, a stronger defense establishment is absolutely necessary.
  • WetdogWetdog Senior Member Posts: 5,149 Senior Member
    creekguy wrote: »
    Since every other country in the world will soon hate us with a passion, a stronger defense establishment is absolutely necessary.

    true...amd very funny. Canada and Mexico already are plotting together.
    I find the assault on free thought disturbing,
    I find the willingness to give it up frightening.
  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 6,569 Senior Member
    creekguy wrote: »
    Since every other country in the world will soon hate us with a passion, a stronger defense establishment is absolutely necessary.

    Ha, ha!

    As a DoD employee I'm very against this increase. Why? Little of this money will go towards what commanders need and want. Hell, the USAF does not want the A-10. The former Chief of Staff, General Welch was an A-10 guy and he led the charge to retire them. But, they will be upgraded and then when our next war/skirmish isn't fighting cavemen with pick-up mounted .50's the **** thing will be useless.

    I'm a tax-and-spend guy, but I really don't like it when a huge piece of the pie goes to make the defense contractor's shareholders even richer. Corporate welfare, pure and simple.

    I'm actually against some of the things Tim said as well.
  • BushartBushart Senior Member Posts: 2,425 Senior Member
    Rule #1

    Say the most Batshit crazy things you can to distract the media focus---or Conway on a couch

    Spend a few more Bill on your friends---nobody's lookin
  • WetdogWetdog Senior Member Posts: 5,149 Senior Member
    People should be reminded that three Russian T2 rockets with ten warheads each have a three thousand mile diameter "zone of death" and would obliterate the U.S.. I heard some "expert" (with an agenda) say that you can detonate all the nukes in the world in the America and most people would still live. These ain't your mothers nukes...idiot. We definitely have nothing to fear from nuclear warfare. If we have them, why don't we use them. (paraphrasing Trump)

    This world is filled with idiots, ignoramus and fools, maybe we should just get it over with.:p;)
    I find the assault on free thought disturbing,
    I find the willingness to give it up frightening.
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 3,632 Senior Member
    I can certainly think of a lot of less deserving causes than our military men and women to spend it.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,936 Senior Member
    Has anyone asked Ed what he thinks about this?

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,298 Senior Member
    MikeA wrote: »
    I can certainly think of a lot of less deserving causes than our military men and women to spend it.

    It is not going to be spent on them. It is going to be spent on weapons manufacturers and fat cat contractors.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 3,632 Senior Member
    I think Trump will see that it goes to the right places. He's not Bush or Cheney.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,298 Senior Member
    hahahahahaha. The right places will be his billionaire friend's pockets.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 3,632 Senior Member
    hahahahahaha. The right places will be his billionaire friend's pockets.

    Well if that were true, and it's not, it'd still, better than giving it to Iran...
    Defense spending helps our military men and women. Better tech, better weapons, better intelligence, equals better odds at not getting killed. Besides if you dems get your way we'll have us another cold war with Russia soon. Might as well get a jump on it.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,689 Senior Member

    It's them pesky facts again, Joe, the ones that seem to trip you up so often: "All told, then, the budget request for national defense adds up to $608 billion—a 2.1-percent increase over this year’s budget: not enormous, but not trivial either, and certainly not a cut."

    That's from your Slate link. Last time I looked, 2.1% is not quite of the same magnitude as the 9% proposed by Trump. And, Obama did not propose cutting traditional diplomacy and foreign aid or gutting environmental protection to pay for it.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,936 Senior Member
    The slate is a one year old article I posted as an FYI.

    Apparently you didn't read the one day old Forbes article...

    So the last Obama spending plan for 2018 proposed a Pentagon budget of $557 billion, plus an additional $8 billion in so-called mandatory spending not covered by the budget law -- for a total of $565 billion. Analyst Callan figures that if you take out the 5% of President Trump's proposed $54 billion increase in "defense" that would go to Department of Energy nuclear-weapons programs rather than the Department of Defense, the actual number the White House is proposing the Pentagon get in 2018 is $573 billion.

    In other words, the difference between the Obama plan and the Trump proposal would be quite modest when you do an apples-to-apples comparison. Setting aside that extra $8 billion that Obama was required to add outside the strictures of the budget law, the most accurate comparison is between Trump's $573 billion and Obama's $557 billion. The difference is about $16 billion, or as Senator McCain's press release put it, 3%. That's not a historic increase compared with the kind of increases President Reagan secured.



    3%...Big Whoop. But hey...the media did it's job of stirring people up and some bought into it as if it was some sort of big deal.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,689 Senior Member
    The slate is a one year old article I posted as an FYI.

    Apparently you didn't read the one day old Forbes article...

    So the last Obama spending plan for 2018 proposed a Pentagon budget of $557 billion, plus an additional $8 billion in so-called mandatory spending not covered by the budget law -- for a total of $565 billion. Analyst Callan figures that if you take out the 5% of President Trump's proposed $54 billion increase in "defense" that would go to Department of Energy nuclear-weapons programs rather than the Department of Defense, the actual number the White House is proposing the Pentagon get in 2018 is $573 billion.

    In other words, the difference between the Obama plan and the Trump proposal would be quite modest when you do an apples-to-apples comparison. Setting aside that extra $8 billion that Obama was required to add outside the strictures of the budget law, the most accurate comparison is between Trump's $573 billion and Obama's $557 billion. The difference is about $16 billion, or as Senator McCain's press release put it, 3%. That's not a historic increase compared with the kind of increases President Reagan secured.



    3%...Big Whoop. But hey...the media did it's job of stirring people up and people bought into it.

    You're the one who got stirred up about it. And 9% is 50% more* than 6%, so it is kind of a big whoop.

    * (half again as much bigger, that is, for those who struggle with statistics)
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,936 Senior Member
    3%

    I'm not stirred up...I could care less. Just pointing out the double standards.

    Ya know...because with some it's always "us" against "them" and "my side never does wrong"
  • Green Mt BoyGreen Mt Boy Senior Member Posts: 909 Senior Member
    3%

    I'm not stirred up...I could care less. Just pointing out the double standards.

    Ya know...because with some it's always "us" against "them" and "my side never does wrong"

    So, I assume you are/we're pretty good with Obama's position on defense spending.

    I am OK with an increase in defense spending so long as the extra money is spent effectively. I don't agree with funding the increases with big cuts in the EPA and state department foreign aid. Even though I am nearing retirement age I am OK with modest cuts to entitlement programs which, other than defense, is where the real spending is.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,936 Senior Member
    So, I assume you are/we're pretty good with Obama's position on defense spending.

    See the part above where I said I really don't care.
    I am OK with an increase in defense spending so long as the extra money is spent effectively. I don't agree with funding the increases with big cuts in the EPA and state department foreign aid. Even though I am nearing retirement age I am OK with modest cuts to entitlement programs which, other than defense, is where the real spending is.

    Well these are all proposals now. So things could change by the time it all shakes out. No need for people to get their undies in a bundle. Or as comic would say...apoplectic

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    I still don't get the need for any increase in defense spending. Russia (economy is in shambles) is not ready to challenge NATO and the Euro countries are going to up their ante according to Donny. China is still way behind us. Note that he did not specify a real threat we need to meet. Maybe this is a famous Trump negotiating tool against the Chinese? Pointless if so.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,689 Senior Member
    Trump seems to be infatuated with the military, perhaps as a way of making up for attending a military academy but never actually serving.

    Or perhaps it's just all the bright shiny stuff on the dress uniforms. :)
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • GoldenladleGoldenladle Super Moderator Posts: 3,852 Senior Member
    The reality tv star's way of coping with size challenges. Look at the size of my missiles now

    Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.

  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 6,569 Senior Member
    When Obama does it: Good. When Trump does it: Bad :rolleyes:

    No. There is a yuge gulf between the broader policies here as "tax and spend" is not equal to "don't tax and spend." Funny how you rightwads hate government spending and budget deficits only when I Democrat is in the white house.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,936 Senior Member
    Funny how you leftwads have double standards when a republican is in the white house. :p

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    It's Libtards, come on Joe, pick up your game..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 6,569 Senior Member
    I know for a fact that I have been consistent in my opinion of reducing military spending no matter who is in charge.
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 2,942 Senior Member
    Some of you guys are really obsessed with this size thing. Does it really bother you that much.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie just look at the flowers.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,936 Senior Member
    The Lodge is obsessed with Trump. Just look at the list of topics here.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.