It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump budget to increase defense, slash EPA, other agencies

page: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




Defense spending means welfare, corporate and personal.


No it isn't.




posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Then what do you call the government paying people to do jobs that don't need to be done?



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: neo96

Then what do you call the government paying people to do jobs that don't need to be done?


Time to invest in the MIC rampup to War. Halliburton at....54.92 and rising. Raytheon....155.06

America is in the business of WAR. Trump is just following neocon orders.
edit on 1-3-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   

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.


So it begs the question.. why did we need to spend 600 billion on old systems? How is China now modernized spending less than half of what we are? I imagine the answers is somewhere buried in the lost records in the Pentagon audit, where trillions can't be accounted for. Of course, that's not counting veteran or foreign aid support. When added with our defense spending, it is around 800 billion a year.

And we consistently spend around 600 billion a year. Where in the world is that going?

I am all for a strong military. I just think we probably can get the same thing we are getting now for a lot less.. once they figure out where all that money is -really- going. That's the only thing that irritates me. Nothing about fixing our defense budget.. it's just.. throw more money at it to see if it gets better.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit




Nothing about fixing our defense budget.. it's just.. throw more money at it to see if it gets better.


War is a business.....They don't call it the Military INDUSTRIAL complex for nothing.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

Because most of that goes to base upkeep, fuel, pay, overseas operations and other areas. Only a fraction goes to procurement, and we're only in the process of procuring a few new systems now, although that's growing.

The Air Force TOA in FY16 was $122M. Of that almost $50 went to Operations and Maintenance. Then you have to take about $25M for procurement, something like $28M for personnel, plus $17M for R&D, and smaller amounts for housing and BRAC. The budget gets eaten up fast.

It also helps that almost all Chinese military industry has governmental ties.
edit on 3/1/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


It also helps that almost all Chinese military industry has governmental ties.


The funny thing is that seems to be a big problem with our own military spending. There's such a revolving door between the DoD and the private sector that the top brass have no problem paying $75,000 for a ladder to help out an old friend. And then that same top brass gets a cushy job for the same contractor when they retire.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Welfare is wealth resdistrubution to people that pay ZERO income tax.

Defense spending pays/keeps middle class jobs that pay income tax.

Capital gains TAXES on defense contractors stocks is paid to the state.

Offsetting the cost compared to people that pay ZERO.

Increased revenues of Defense corporations also pay taxes.

And they do compared to the outright LIES some people say that they don't.

I call it better than paying people that do nothing but sit on their sofa's per welfare programs.

edit on 1-3-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit




How is China now modernized spending less than half of what we are?


Because China is a communist state where the STATE owns all the business's.

Big damn difference.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

A big part of the problem is the use it or lose it rule that's in place. They buy that $7,000 ladder because they're reaching the end of the FY and if they don't burn all their money, the next year budget is cut by what they have left.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Taxes are irrelevant in this scenario, all the money comes from the state initialy, it's not private sector funds being siphoned out.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 12:55 AM
link   
It's tragic how many people are actually defending this ridiculous level of military spending.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Well, looks like he made good on his promise! Also, that "massive" defense boost? Still makes defense spending roughly half of what the federal government spends on ACA.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Well this tells me Trump is just another stooge for the military industrial complex.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

(iii) The Plan shall include:

(A) a comprehensive strategy and plans for the defeat of ISIS;

(B) recommended changes to any United States rules of engagement and other United States policy restrictions that exceed the requirements of international law regarding the use of force against ISIS;

(C) public diplomacy, information operations, and cyber strategies to isolate and delegitimize ISIS and its radical Islamist ideology;

(D) identification of new coalition partners in the fight against ISIS and policies to empower coalition partners to fight ISIS and its affiliates;

(E) mechanisms to cut off or seize ISIS's financial support, including financial transfers, money laundering, oil revenue, human trafficking, sales of looted art and historical artifacts, and other revenue sources; and

(F) a detailed strategy to robustly fund the Plan.


There's a teensy problem with this.

A plan like this isn't just some guy wandering back into his cubicle and coming out with a draft (well, it might be but you'd better hope it isn't.) These plans need information and coordination from a lot of sources, including the research and development arm which relies heavily on civilian contractors.

So that means a lot of people have to get information from a lot of other people... and in case you haven't noticed, Trump has not filled about 2,000 positions in government (where this information comes from) and has fired a number of people and still doesn't have several Secretaries in place.

And then there's his hostile relations with the US spy and information agencies.

So if he does get one in 60 days, you can bet it'll be something that folks just pulled out of their back yards. And it won't be good for anyone going on these missions.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is the EPA really taking care of us and making sure we don't get sick? Are they really fighting for us to not be poisoned? Ummmm I think they really need to cease to exist.

This link is to one of the many articles about the EPA screwing the little guy in favor of helping corporations and whatnot. epawatch.org is a good starting point to see what a tragedy it is that so many actually think we need the EPA to save the earth and it's inhabitants.

epawatch.org...



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Ellie Sagan

The EPA isn't perfect, but I'd rather have the flawed agency than no agency at all.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Ellie Sagan

The EPA isn't perfect, but I'd rather have the flawed agency than no agency at all.


I don't think it will disappear, rather step back from the global warming religion and focus on the actual environment in a sensible way.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

What you said is hypocritical. Focusing on the environment includes global warming.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

What you said is hypocritical. Focusing on the environment includes global warming.


Partially yes, but the religious extremism associated to it over regulates and destroys jobs.

You don't have to worship at the alter to want to ensure clean air and water as well as protecting natural habitats and ensuring safety (for example at nuclear facilities).

The priests have to be run out of town.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join