Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 643K
  • Politics 
finesse said:
start spending it on Americans FDR and LBJ style.

Curiously, defense spending by percentage reached its peak under FDR (that WWII thing) dropped after the war but remained high until the end of Vietnam and been dropping fairly steadily since. Both of those had a greater % of defense spending than currently. That not to say we don't need to refocus but those aren't great examples.

Do you ever research things before you post? If you do, why don't you look at the change in corporate and farm subsidies? I suspect there's more serious fat there that can be trimmed than in overseas defense spending without harming the country.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I guess I didn't really need to research that defense spending went up under two major wars but maybe you can provide a link since that seems to be the go-to statement for everyone.

You are aware that FDR held office for a a few months before world war II started and during that time he was able to implement a number of social welfare programs? Of course you're also aware that LBJ tried to continue that legacy.

I specifically talked about social welfare spending LBJ and FDR style. I didn't advocate for defense spending FDR and LBJ style. I suspect you're aware what that implies. Do you bring up their defense spending just to win an argument or do you not really feel like those liberal social programs are worthwhile?
 
What's everybody's favorite W.C. Fields movie? I dither between You Can't Cheat an Honest Man and Never Give a Sucker an Even Break.
 
For a few years, actually.. I brought up their defense spending because you strongly implied that their social programs were at the expense of defense spending.

I don't think anyone goes to any particular effort to "win" an argument against you.
 
Ramrouser said:
I imagine a lot of us Trumpers are going to have a "Trump Christmas" with all the products he's selling. My guess is that I'm going to get a Trump watch, Golden sneakers, cologne and cuff links for my Christmas. My kids will think it's hilarious.
Click to expand...
Trump cologne smells like onions and bankruptcy.
 
finesse said:
For a few years, actually.. I brought up their defense spending because you strongly implied that their social programs were at the expense of defense spending.

I don't think anyone goes to any particular effort to "win" an argument against you.
Click to expand...

But when I say I want to "stop spending that money to protect the Estonias of the world and start spending it on Americans FDR and LBJ style" I'm implying that I want to spend it on social welfare for Americans. But if you think that somehow strongly implies that I want to increase defense spending like FDR and LBJ, I'm glad I could correct your misinterpretation.

So if you're done with your straw men, what choice do you think we should make? Do you want to decrease defense spending so that we could spend that money on other priorities, and if you do, where do you want to cut?
 
Ramrouser said:
I imagine a lot of us Trumpers are going to have a "Trump Christmas" with all the products he's selling. My guess is that I'm going to get a Trump watch, Golden sneakers, cologne and cuff links for my Christmas. My kids will think it's hilarious.
Click to expand...
I hope you enjoy the gifts and have a Merry Christmas.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
But when I say I want to "stop spending that money to protect the Estonias of the world and start spending it on Americans FDR and LBJ style" I'm implying that I want to spend it on social welfare for Americans. But if you think that somehow strongly implies that I want to increase defense spending like FDR and LBJ, I'm glad I could correct your misinterpretation.

So if you're done with your straw men, what choice do you think we should make? Do you want to decrease defense spending so that we could spend that money on other priorities, and if you do, where do you want to cut?
Click to expand...
The defense spending we most need to cut are damned near untouchable. That's those weapons systems and stuff that Congress designates to their constituents to justify their donations from defense contractors in their states. The international stuff? Most of it is a good investment. Israel? Not so much but damned near a political fact of life.

What really needs to be addressed is farm subsidies, corporate welfare and tax breaks for oil companies. There's a lot of bloat there that is not in the best interests of the nation.
 
Ramrouser said:
I imagine a lot of us Trumpers are going to have a "Trump Christmas" with all the products he's selling. My guess is that I'm going to get a Trump watch, Golden sneakers, cologne and cuff links for my Christmas. My kids will think it's hilarious.
Click to expand...
Cool—the billionaire needs your money.

Glad to hear your fam’s all doing well enough financially to spend lavishly on hilarious gifts—that damned Biden economy must be treating you all well. Joy to the world.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
To be clear, I'm not for leaving NATO. I am for shrinking our NATO commitments to the most important allies.

If Russian aggression threatens a place like Lithuania, an Ukraine style conflict funded by us and our allies serves our interests better than a commitment to put forces into combat.
Click to expand...
So (1) you would advocate essentially the same approach that the Biden Admin took with Ukraine but that most republicans including Trump criticized Biden for taking and (ii) Trump would not do this; he wouldn’t understand why Lithuania would be important to US interests.

Also, Ukraine is far more important than Lithuania and all other Eastern Europe states except for Poland. As a natural buffer state, and given its size and population, it is a clear and logical site for fighting Russian aggression.
 


Robert F. Kennedy Jr. believes the CIA had a role in assassinating his uncle, President John F. Kennedy — part of RFK Jr.'s motivation for pushing his daughter-in-law, Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, for deputy CIA director, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: President-elect Trump feels indebted to RFK Jr., his pick for secretary of Health and Human Services, for his help in the election, and is eager to please him. But there's real drama behind the scenes about whether Fox Kennedy is the right choice for the CIA's No. 2 job.

  • RFK Jr. has been telling people that Fox Kennedy — his presidential campaign manager, who is married to his son Bobby Kennedy III — would help get to the bottom of the JFK assassination, two Republican sources told Axios.
 
Mundial said:
So (1) you would advocate essentially the same approach that the Biden Admin took with Ukraine but that most republicans including Trump criticized Biden for taking and (ii) Trump would not do this; he wouldn’t understand why Lithuania would be important to US interests.

Also, Ukraine is far more important than Lithuania and all other Eastern Europe states except for Poland. As a natural buffer state, and given its size and population, it is a clear and logical site for fighting Russian aggression.
Click to expand...
Yes. Absolutely. The Biden approach of funding other people to fight our largest enemies is the way to go.

The approach of pretty much all presidents since Clinton which is to expand our NATO commitments is not the approach I would take although I would keep Poland in NATO. That's a good Ally to have as opposed to some of the ones that we have brought in.
 
finesse said:
The defense spending we most need to cut are damned near untouchable. That's those weapons systems and stuff that Congress designates to their constituents to justify their donations from defense contractors in their states. The international stuff? Most of it is a good investment. Israel? Not so much but damned near a political fact of life.

What really needs to be addressed is farm subsidies, corporate welfare and tax breaks for oil companies. There's a lot of bloat there that is not in the best interests of the nation.
Click to expand...

I'd be all for cutting corporate welfare but it's not going to get you anywhere near where you need. Corporate welfare is about $100 billion per year depending on how you define it. Tax breaks for oil companies are about $2 billion and farm subsidies are about $20 billion and there's some overlap with the corporate welfare number.

Defense spending is more than eight times that at $850b per year. Reduce that from the 3.5% of GDP that we currently spend to the around 2% that our better NATO allies in Europe spend and you're making real progress.

So if we're going to start making some hard decisions, we can't just say cut government waste or corporate welfare or NASA or whatever other peanuts approach people advocate and never get done. We have to cut defence, cut entitlements, raise taxes or keep running up the credit card. Now which one do you want to do?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I'd be all for cutting corporate welfare but it's not going to get you anywhere near where you need. Corporate welfare is about $100 billion per year depending on how you define it. Tax breaks for oil companies are about $2 billion and farm subsidies are about $20 billion and there's some overlap with the corporate welfare number.

Defense spending is more than eight times that at $850b per year. Reduce that from the 3.5% of GDP that we currently spend to the around 2% that our better NATO allies in Europe spend and you're making real progress.

So if we're going to start making some hard decisions, we can't just say cut government waste or corporate welfare or NASA or whatever other peanuts approach people advocate and never get done. We have to cut defence, cut entitlements, raise taxes or keep running up the credit card. Now which one do you want to do?
Click to expand...
Other than you're equating NATO spending with their entire defense spending and that you're ignoring how much more of the world we're spending that money on than NATO is, and you're making real sense. I expect we're getting good value for that money when it comes to the Ukraine and NATO.

The problem is that it's the money to private contractors, sweetheart deals for constituents and things that most need to be cut that are the most likely to be hands off.
 
finesse said:
Other than you're equating NATO spending with their entire defense spending and that you're ignoring how much more of the world we're spending that money on than NATO is, and you're making real sense. I expect we're getting good value for that money when it comes to the Ukraine and NATO.

The problem is that it's the money to private contractors, sweetheart deals for constituents and things that most need to be cut that are the most likely to be hands off.
Click to expand...
I certainly mentioned that our defense spending includes non-nato commitments before in this thread so not sure how I'm ignoring it.

I'm sure there are plenty of sweetheart deals but if we're talking cutting hundreds of billions from the defense budget, it's going to be more than those little set-asides. We have to make the decision to roll back our defense commitments or we're going to keep spending at this level.

But no one, including you, wants to make those hard choices. It's all about cutting waste and there's just not enough of that.

So make a hard choice. Show some guts instead of the politician 's favorite strategy of claiming we're going to cut waste or administrative bloat when it won't make too much difference. If it's cuts for defense spending, cuts in entitlements, more taxes or more debt, which are you going to go with? And if it is defense spending, what commitments are you willing to lapse to allow us to reduce that spending?
 
I'd start with mothballing half the carrier groups, stopping any future contracts on more, put more focus on smaller craft and phasing out future development of manned combat aircraft. and get rid of the older ones as fast as is expedient.

I'd also cut aid to Israel, Saudi Arabia and a few other non NATO countries. I'm not sure why we are spending the money we are in Ethiopia. Then we can evaluate how top heavy we are with officers.
 
finesse said:
I'd start with mothballing half the carrier groups, stopping any future contracts on more, put more focus on smaller craft and phasing out future development of manned combat aircraft. and get rid of the older ones as fast as is expedient.

I'd also cut aid to Israel, Saudi Arabia and a few other non NATO countries. I'm not sure why we are spending the money we are in Ethiopia. Then we can evaluate how top heavy we are with officers.
Click to expand...
Okay. That takes some guts. Carriers have a maintenance cost of about 3 billion per year per carrier. Mothball half of them and you might get to $18 billion in cost savings.

Us foreign aid to Israel is a little less than 4 billion but us foreign aid to Saudi Arabia is nominal at about 3 million per year although that carrier near the Persian Gulf cost a few billion a year to operate. Not sure if that's included in your mothballed fleets.

The US has 1.3 million active duty soldiers and 18% of them are officers. Their average salary is $62,000 per year but call it $100,000 per year with benefits. That's 23.4 billion in personnel cost for officers. You didn't say how many you'd want to cut but say it's 25% and you just saved yourself about 8 billion.

So you've just cut about $30 billion per year. You've got a ways to go but you have to start somewhere. We're going to find out if we need those carriers and officers, but I think you've made a good start. What else are you going to do?
 
Last edited:
Preferably leave it to someone who understands this. It's not something I've studied. I can see some obvious trends and understand a little about how much pork barrel spending there is but if you want more you need somebody who knows more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top