Trump budget to increase defense, slash EPA, other agencies

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
Push it to the state level and incentivise businesses to take appropriate action.

There is no way this will work. As a previous poster JUST pointed out a few posts above yours, there are natural resources that extend across state lines. A state with more lax regulations upends one resource and it can negatively effect all the others with little recourse by the other states.

This is just a huge problem waiting to happen, and the environment should be FAR more important to us than you are considering it. We happen to live in it.

Natural resources stretch across state lines, so that calls for centralised control and tens of thousands of useless regulations? Don't think so. The states can sort out 95% of their issues without the EPA.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Xcalibur254


EPA needed a big budget back in the day. Kick it down to the states right now is a good way to handle.

It can't be handled at the state level because the environment crosses state lines. All it takes is one state wanting more and every other state is powerless other than to accept their own environment being ruined.

It can only be solved on a national level.

This is a good argument for the Feds stepping in. It's the same reason we can't allow individual states to handle their own immigration policies. California heeds the Feds when it comes to the EPA, they should do the same when it comes to ICE.

I see no problem in either case with states having their own more stringent policies, but you're correct. We have open borders between states. As a result, our border is only as secure as the weakest link and right now the weak link ironically enough isn't the border, it's sanctuary cities.

Then again, I've never been much of a states rights person.

originally posted by: glend
Have to agree with Zaphod58. Given that debt is growing at twice the rate of growth a smaller more functional military is the only direction to go from here. But as long as senate is buying votes by approving the building of 10,000 tanks etc, it cannot be done. Trump will need force the issue from the presidency as a matter of urgency. Just throwing money at the madness isn't going to benefit anyone.

The other issue is military spending in US versus Russia/China spending. US is spending twice that of both China and Russia combined but a Russian SU27 costs 40M compared to US F35 at 148M so the cheaper labour forces of other countries gives them more bang for the buck (excuse the pun). So military spending cannot be reduced by a great amount unless US can build cheaper fighters.

That's not why. Admitadely, my foreign military knowledge is a bit weak. But, Russia takes a quantity over quality standpoint. Troops dying to malfunctions is just the cost of doing business. They use many cheaper craft knowing that some will get through and complete the mission. The US uses the opposite approach. I don't know where China stands on that, but I do know China maintains their military by moving them away from being a cost center. When not being deployed China uses their army to build roads, buildings, and so on... producing useful goods for the nation rather than have them sit on a base and do constant maintenance or training.

I actually think China has a pretty good idea myself. Copying them would be a great way to get our infrastructure improvements in. Direct the military to build them under the command of the Army Corps of Engineers.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not a buildup. It's an overhaul and repair. Big difference.

We don't need new nukes...
No one does.
Vlad even said so.
Trump said Obama is a tool. So let's start building new ones. Even though we have enough to destroy the world several times over.

But these will be bigger better nuclear weapons. Biggly ones. The best nukes ever!

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not a buildup. It's an overhaul and repair. Big difference.

We don't need new nukes...
No one does.
Vlad even said so.
Trump said Obama is a tool. So let's start building new ones. Even though we have enough to destroy the world several times over.

But these will be bigger better nuclear weapons. Biggly ones. The best nukes ever!

There is more to the military then nukes.

So our military is supposedly depleted and worn.. and that may be true.. so it begs the question, where did we spend 600 billion dollars last year for the military? Of all the money spent on military worldwide last year, we accounted for more than 1/3rd of it. China has been spending a ton on military lately.. and even they only spent 215 billion. We more than doubled their military spending.

Trump seems so eager to correct and slash Federal agencies.. how about starting with the one that spends the most. Because for some reason, with the supposed sad state of our military, I don't think we're really getting our monies worth. When the Pentagon can't account for 6.5 TRILLION dollars in a long overdue audit.. and there are records missing by the thousands, you would THINK that Trump would maybe I don't know.. correct the issues in military spending.

Instead, he is fixing it.. by throwing more money at it. If they could I don't know.. correct spending to say.. spend "only" 500 billion on the military, and spend 100 billion instead on say.. our schools or issues at home, imagine how much good it could do.

Military spending is primarily about making money for the people at the top. As is war. Simple as that.

You now have a president cutting budgets which are a fraction of military spending (I refuse to call it 'defence') and wanting to add 54bn to it, along with the wall which will be 40bn+ easily (and will never be finished - you can quote me on that).

What baffles me is why so many of you are happy to support this? Particularly rust-belt folks who need investment in infrastructure as a priority - not jets.

Sad.

a reply to: fencesitter85

The Department of Offence sound better?
It was a campaign promise, get the military in shape for the upcoming crusades.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: fencesitter85

The Department of Offence sound better?
It was a campaign promise, get the military in shape for the upcoming crusades.

Crusades is about right. I just don't see how so many Americans can continue to support the ludicrous amount of money spent on the military, while middle America rusts away, automation and AI will continue to make jobs obsolete. It's that which we need to address - we have to evolve for the future.

Senator John ("Make War, not Love!") McCAIN is upset because $100 Billion more in Defense Spending wasn't proposed.

thehill.com...

He exclaims, "The World is on FIYA!"

a reply to: Zaphod58

You have done an amazing job in this thread trying to explain reality to those who will likely never understand it.
Fantastic job sir.

a reply to: network dude

I understand what he's saying but I can't help but feel the money to achieve those goals is already there. For example, the F-35 ended up costing something like $200 billion over its original budget. How many other projects are out there that have gone grossly over budget?

And yet we continue to give huge amounts of money to these companies that can't deliver. It almost seems like we're rewarding them for their failure.

Instead of increasing defense spending by $54 billion maybe the government should instead reevaluate how they do business with these contractors. Because right now it seems like we're getting the short end of the stick while the execs of these companies get rich off taxpayer money.

If Trump is expecting seemingly every other agent to do more with less why doesn't the same also apply to the companies? Probably because there's such a revolving door between these companies and the government that they can get whatever they want.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not a buildup. It's an overhaul and repair. Big difference.

The last thing the military needs is an increase in their allowance. About half of our budget is military spending. We spend 4 times more than China on the military. It seems to me that the largest segment of our spending is likely to be where the largedt amount of waste is. The first place anyone should be looking for cuts snd savings is our bloated military budget. The F-35 to date is 7 years overdue and billions over budget, it is time to declare it a failure and start over.

The Military Industrial Complex needs to be put in check, and we need to focus on putting defense spending where it belongs the men and women serving. People want to raise minimum wage and that should apply to the military as well, you enlist your starting pay should be 30k a year. The VA shouldnt be a nightmare to navigate, and there should not be a homeless veteran. It woiuldnt take much to construct some no cost apartments, staffed with counselors to help get them back on their feet.

Yea.. sure, whatever. 600 billion spent last year.. and 654 this year is somehow going to magically rebuild our military? Our military.. the Pentagon.. is terrible at managing money. The only way you have trillions of dollars of unaccounted for money is by REALLY really sucking at managing your budget. Like.. historically and tragically sucking at budget-management.

If 600 billion last year couldn't fix our military woes.. how is 54 million more this year going to magically do it?

a reply to: fleabit
McCain said in a statement that Trump’s plan would mark an increase of just $18.5 billion over what President Barack Obama wanted for new fiscal spending in a two-year plan he proposed last year.

Really this spending is needed, the military is not in the state of readiness it could be in.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: fleabit
McCain said in a statement that Trump’s plan would mark an increase of just $18.5 billion over what President Barack Obama wanted for new fiscal spending in a two-year plan he proposed last year.

Really this spending is needed, the military is not in the state of readiness it could be in.

Let's be honest: this just displays ENDEMIC issues. I'd have said the same for Obama. Comparing US spending to all other nations, and it's STILL not up to scratch?

Corruption, poor money management, and a network of rich old men getting richer. Spending half your annual budget on military is utterly insane. This isn't a party political issue - it's just in desperate need of a complete shakeup.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Why do we need more money going into our military?

Because the majority of weapon systems were designed in the 70s and 80s.

Most people don't have cars, or computers as old as most of military systems.

Eventually there will be a war with China.

The rest of the world has modernized their systems.

Defense spending is something we need desperately, but it also needs reformation.

Our tax pay money, and their budgets shouldn't be going to defense contractors for R and D.

The military needs to tell them what they need, and DC's should spend their own cash to build them.

And use our money for purchase orders.

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not a buildup. It's an overhaul and repair. Big difference.

We don't need new nukes...
No one does.
Vlad even said so.
Trump said Obama is a tool. So let's start building new ones. Even though we have enough to destroy the world several times over.

But these will be bigger better nuclear weapons. Biggly ones. The best nukes ever!

Nukes do have a shelf life.

As old as our arsenal is. The older they are the more costly to maintain.

Ole VLAD has modernized his and is making new news deadlier.

a reply to: UKTruth

Some day you will realise that a healthy economy is not a bad thing and does not mean the environment has to suffer.

Sure isn't,

Defense spending equals middle class jobs. That pay tax revenues.

Defense spending means middle class IRAs,401ks,Keogh Accounts increase in value since they are invested in those companies.

Which means more tax revenue.

The only thing the EPA does it put the middle class out of work.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: UKTruth

Some day you will realise that a healthy economy is not a bad thing and does not mean the environment has to suffer.

Sure isn't,

Defense spending equals middle class jobs. That pay tax revenues.

Defense spending means middle class IRAs,401ks,Keogh Accounts increase in value since they are invested in those companies.

Which means more tax revenue.

The only thing the EPA does it put the middle class out of work.

Defense spending means welfare, corporate and personal. Defense contractors have one customer, the federal government. And they mainly employ people to not do anything. The military is the biggest welfare program in the US. More military spending is more welfare. I have no problem with spending government money to employ people, but we should be getting something useful produced in exchange for that spending. Get back to me on defense spending when a combat MOS actually makes a product rather than provides a service of dubious value.