Democrats join Republicans in refusing to cut pentagon Budget by 10%

[HorusRa2 5,005]

Looks like the Democrats continue to give the right everything they want by JOINING republicans to refuse to cut the Pentagon budget by 10% (p.s. this would have reduced it down to close to  2017 levels). The latest budget that was passed was 738B. 2017 was ~619B. This bill would have dropped the budget down to about 664B. 

 

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/12/19/pentagon-finally-gets-its-2020-budget-from-congress/

[POP2 4,206]

What this doesn’t show you is that military spending is already down by 15% since 2010. 

[Daredevil 2,133]

of course they do. In Europe the Democrats would be considered a centre right party. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

1 minute ago, POP2 said:

What this doesn’t show you is that military spending is already down by 15% since 2010. 

What are you talking about? 

2010 Military Budget

The President's request was $533.7 billion for the DoD Base Budget. This was a 3.5% increase over the FY 2009 budget request of $515.4 billion. There was an additional request of $130 billion for the overseas contingency fund. This supported an increase of troops in Afghanistan and a safe wind-down in Iraq. This was a 72% increase in the $75.5 billion supplemental requests for FY 2009.

Source: https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2010-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306312

 

 

[shoful 13,304]

I wonder if they’re doing this to cut a deal for another stimulus. I feel like a lot of people see these types of articles but not realize congress has a give and take nature. So Democrats might give in to this so that Republicans vote for a better stimulus bill. I mean only time will tell but probably something like this is happening 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

8 minutes ago, shoful said:

I wonder if they’re doing this to cut a deal for another stimulus. I feel like a lot of people see these types of articles but not realize congress has a give and take nature. So Democrats might give in to this so that Republicans vote for a better stimulus bill. I mean only time will tell but probably something like this is happening 

lol. that's a very naive way to look at it but I would say that would make sense (maybe) but they offered no opposition to any of the defense budgets and gave trump more money than he asked for. 

[shoful 13,304]

2 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

lol. that's a very naive way to look at it but I would say that would make sense (maybe) but they offered no opposition to any of the defense budgets and gave trump more money than he asked for. 

Again we’ll have to wait and see but hopefully that is what happened. The government is so corrupt so who the **** knows anymore

[JRCF29 8,230]

There’s another chance in the Senate, where Bernie Sanders has an amendment, but I fully expect it to be a similar result, with only Rand Paul defecting from the GOP side

[Economy 52,861]

1 hour ago, HorusRa2 said:

What are you talking about? 

2010 Military Budget

The President's request was $533.7 billion for the DoD Base Budget. This was a 3.5% increase over the FY 2009 budget request of $515.4 billion. There was an additional request of $130 billion for the overseas contingency fund. This supported an increase of troops in Afghanistan and a safe wind-down in Iraq. This was a 72% increase in the $75.5 billion supplemental requests for FY 2009.

Source: https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2010-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306312

 

 

Maybe he means as a share of the economy factoring in economic growth and inflation

 

This is what I hate about this stuff. People can say different things depending what technicalities of the numbers they are analysing they wanna cherry pick to prove their point

 

That being said, regardless of how much it's up or isn't... The absolute fortune the US continues to waste on military that can't be used for something actually useful like education, infrastructure more healthcare coverage etc is a total scandal

[POP2 4,206]

1 hour ago, HorusRa2 said:

What are you talking about? 

2010 Military Budget

The President's request was $533.7 billion for the DoD Base Budget. This was a 3.5% increase over the FY 2009 budget request of $515.4 billion. There was an additional request of $130 billion for the overseas contingency fund. This supported an increase of troops in Afghanistan and a safe wind-down in Iraq. This was a 72% increase in the $75.5 billion supplemental requests for FY 2009.

Source: https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2010-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306312

 

 

As a percentage of GDP

[StarstruckIllusion 53,566]

Bipartisanship yas ❤️😍❤️😍❤️😍❤️😍😍😍

[Economy 52,861]

13 minutes ago, POP2 said:

As a percentage of GDP

I figured that's probably what u were refering to

 

It really should drop further tho. It's so high

[HorusRa2 5,005]

18 minutes ago, Economy said:

I figured that's probably what u were refering to

 

It really should drop further tho. It's so high

Its just so fascinating that the democratic party as a whole is taking the approach of being on the opposite side of Trump on every issue except this one. It shows that the military industrial complex has its grip on both parties. But its so obvious that with the new crises facing our country makes this unsustainable. With an aging population, automation and climate change, there just isnt the luxury to continue spending what we do on the military. Not to mention the loss of life, american and otherwise that comes with it. 

I just wish more americans cared about this issue more. 

[Economy 52,861]

6 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

Its just so fascinating that the democratic party as a whole is taking the approach of being on the opposite side of Trump on every issue except this one. It shows that the military industrial complex has its grip on both parties. But its so obvious that with the new crises facing our country makes this unsustainable. With an aging population, automation and climate change, there just isnt the luxury to continue spending what we do on the military. Not to mention the loss of life, american and otherwise that comes with it. 

I just wish more americans cared about this issue more. 

I would argue automation is actually what gives us the luxury to do anything or put resources into whatever as the population ages and the workforce as a share of the population shrinks. Technology producing more per worker I think actually what is what's saving us or we'd be in even worse shape

 

But on the issue of climate change, it could use both the funds and labor. 

 

On the issue of automation, the funds saved can go towards education that helps train people in jobs that are relevant in an automated world like programming and engineering. There's actually a lot of those jobs going unfilled and that skills mismatch hurts both the companies and the workers that aren't qualified to take advantage of such opportunities

 

I think automation is supposed to be great for the economy. Unemployment did not go to 95% just because since industrial revolution we only need a small fraction of the labor we needed to farm and do the basics like clothing and construction. Hence freed up savings from cheaper mass produced goods as well as freed up labor made new industries possible. We wouldn't be able to have people sitting in cubicals listening to customers complain on a service or have entertainment, spas, hairdressers etc be such a big fraction of the economy and jobs without automation otherwise all our money and labor would still have to be on the essentials

 

But automation also brings changes because some jobs become outdated and are replaced with other that are more technical, and when we lag in preparing for changes in how things work, that's when ppl suffer. It's not automation in itself that's bad. I think that's a myth many people have. The real issue is we don't keep our population adapting to it fast enough and many get left behind

[HorusRa2 5,005]

38 minutes ago, Economy said:

I would argue automation is actually what gives us the luxury to do anything or put resources into whatever as the population ages and the workforce as a share of the population shrinks. Technology producing more per worker I think actually what is what's saving us or we'd be in even worse shape

 

But on the issue of climate change, it could use both the funds and labor. 

 

On the issue of automation, the funds saved can go towards education that helps train people in jobs that are relevant in an automated world like programming and engineering. There's actually a lot of those jobs going unfilled and that skills mismatch hurts both the companies and the workers that aren't qualified to take advantage of such opportunities

 

I think automation is supposed to be great for the economy. Unemployment did not go to 95% just because since industrial revolution we only need a small fraction of the labor we needed to farm and do the basics like clothing and construction. Hence freed up savings from cheaper mass produced goods as well as freed up labor made new industries possible. We wouldn't be able to have people sitting in cubicals listening to customers complain on a service or have entertainment, spas, hairdressers etc be such a big fraction of the economy and jobs without automation otherwise all our money and labor would still have to be on the essentials

 

But automation also brings changes because some jobs become outdated and are replaced with other that are more technical, and when we lag in preparing for changes in how things work, that's when ppl suffer. It's not automation in itself that's bad. I think that's a myth many people have. The real issue is we don't keep our population adapting to it fast enough and many get left behind

I agree with what your saying. Its just that we arent prepared for what automation is going to do & the US is a country with a recent pattern of ignoring the suffering of everyday people in order to cater to the oligarchs. And i see that as a massive challenge and is why I included it in my list. ☺