US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9675

On January 13 2018 01:07 zlefin wrote:

it's not exactly welfare, but it's not necessarily dissimilar (though it's not well-aimed as a welfare program, other programs do a far better job of being welfare programs). It's not economically productive activity, so it's loss would not result in horrible economic consequences; not sure it should even effect gdp at all.
it's not a very good welfare program, so if the only point of it is welfare spending it'd be FAR better spent in other ways, or simply not spent at all to reduce debt.

remember - this is ultimately all from me disputing your claim of disastrous economic consequences from cutting US military spending.

On January 13 2018 00:59 bo1b wrote:
Just to be clear, are you advocating that both the spending on military during peace time is welfare, and that a massive reduction in welfare would be better?

On January 13 2018 01:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Military spending doesn't produce anywhere near the economic dividends that other spending does. This is pretty hard to argue against.

That said, progressives tend to show an astounding lack of appreciation for what our military policy and activities actually do for both our national interests and international relations.

First off, the military's budget has been routinely cut for nearly a decade. The problem is that our mission has stayed the same. This is why our forces are stretched thin, there are more mistakes, less benefits to veterans, etc. Second, if you reduce the scale of the military's mission, you will see profound consequences for both the U.S. and the world as a whole.

The idea that you can just magically cut the U.S. military's budget significantly and the world will be all roses and sunshine is a progressive child fantasy that is completely devoid of nuanced, mature understanding of the geopolitical landscape.

On January 13 2018 01:16 Gorsameth wrote:

In a wierd way in the US is kinda of is actually.

Congress keeps mandating the Military to buy equipment that it doesn't want/need.
When your own military is telling you "please stop, we don't know what to do with all this stuff" you know you done fucked up.

Senators are trying keep production artificially high so factories stay open and workers make equipment that is not needed.

On January 13 2018 01:16 Gorsameth wrote:

In a wierd way in the US is kinda of is actually.

Congress keeps mandating the Military to buy equipment that it doesn't want/need.
When your own military is telling you "please stop, we don't know what to do with all this stuff" you know you done fucked up.

Senators are trying keep production artificially high so factories stay open and workers make equipment that is not needed.

On January 13 2018 01:15 Uldridge wrote:
Global dissatisfaction. The last conquests we had that had reasonable influence over people were colonial times. We saw how that ultimately turned out. People started to say to get the fuck out of their shit. Don't think a military occupation will be tolerated. At the very least it won't be something a 300 billion dollar military budget couldn't fix anyway, no?
Also, I don't agree with nukes flying everywhere. What good you have with nuked land?
Arms races have been relevant up until nuclear missiles, imo, where they ultimately understood that it's in everyone's best interest not to nuke each other to oblivion.
Maybe I'm just such a big pacifist, idk, but I don't understand that humans from different regions can't work together on a fundamental level, when they basically already are..

On January 13 2018 01:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Second, if you reduce the scale of the military's mission, you will see profound consequences for both the U.S. and the world as a whole.

On January 13 2018 01:19 KwarK wrote:

There are actual economic rationales for the state buying manufactured goods that it neither wants nor needs, tipping them in the ocean, and then ordering more.

Production capability isn't a switch that you can toggle on or off. It's more like a feature of an ecosystem. If the ecosystem itself has value to the defence of the nation then propping it up may be rational.

On January 13 2018 01:20 bo1b wrote:

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1213034/mattis-says-dod-needs-years-to-correct-effects-of-sequestration/

Are you sure about that?

On January 13 2018 01:22 Sbrubbles wrote:


Quite the overstatement, if I've ever seen one.

On January 13 2018 01:23 Plansix wrote:

That is a general asking for funding for the military he runs. The head of HUD and the EPA also ask for increased budgets each year.

On January 13 2018 01:16 bo1b wrote:

That's fair, to be honest we don't have a particularly good way of predicting the outcome of such an event so we're both shooting in the dark a little bit aren't we?

I'd personally say the economic benefits (or not) of the military spending are a side effect of the greater goal of maintaining a military. As nice as it is having NASA be funded by the defense force, the ultimate goal is to maintain a level of discipline and up keep on the military itself, I think.

It just has the side effect of putting a lot of young men and women through college, providing a decent enough income, providing a way of gaining a green card, and just generally being a pretty decent way of moving up socioeconomically.

While I personally believe the damage to the global economy would be fairly dramatic if Russia was able to fulfill it's colonial plans, and China too, I have no way of quantifying that. Just like I have no way of quantifying what changing the spending direction of 540 billion dollars or so would do to the world. It is just conjecture at this point

On January 13 2018 01:29 zlefin wrote:

the greater goal of the military is unnecessary, at least unnecessary at the current highly wasteful spending levels. the goals could easily be achieved at far lower cost. the spending is mostly a result of politics rather than actual need.
the side effect doesn't mean much when there's other far cheaper ways to get those effects.

while we can't perfectly predict it, there's enough data to make some fairly clear conclusions on it, so we're not just shooting in the dark (or at leas ti'm not, dunno about you, but I'm assuming you have similar knowledge).

and as I said, a 90% cut would be a bit much, but 50% would be fine.

On January 13 2018 01:30 Uldridge wrote:
We were savages with pretty high tech pre 1950. We've come a long way in becoming more civilized since then. We've become more dependent on each other since ever and every passing day we're more and more intertwined.
New plan: give everyone one nuke they get to point at someone if they feel danger looming from that side.

Why do you guys think we still have this distrust (well Russia's pretty thinly veiled) between the US and China?

On January 13 2018 01:25 bo1b wrote:

I'm replying to someone saying the military is telling you "please stop, we don't know what to do with all this stuff". Mattis could be right or wrong, but my article is relevant.