The Sewer That Is The GOP: With All The White Supremacists, Conspiracy Nutters, And Other Malicious Whacko Subgroups, How Does It Get Fixed?

[Captain Wiggles]

Quote

I love how they just start laughing at him.

 

"I'm not interested in reality."

 

Future Republican campaign slogan. 🤣

[Jabbyrwock]

4 hours ago, tshile said:

 

my contention, and I think his, was the comparison to the other 9 countries. Which is a common talking point. 

 

I always wonder why the comparison to the other 9 countries isnt done as percent GDP rather than absolute dollars.  Defense is a necessary expense for any countries survival, and its natural the price of that would scale, at least in part, as the economy scales. When normalized by GDP, we spend 3.5%, by public figures, which isn't wildly out of allignment.  Once you factor that, along with the role we play in the world and the fact we maintain a nuclear arsenal, some of the most advanced equipment and well trained soldiers in the world...honestly its a pretty good bargain.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[tshile]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

think the point is that China is the closest thing we have to a rival, but we spend TRIPLE what they do on defense, and have been spending at that level for far longer.  So "rival" is  far too strong of a word.  

I think this is a good thing. My understanding is that 1 on 1 we’re not really worried about them except for their cyber capabilities. Trying to invade or dealing with SE Asia issues would be difficult, and I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone that’s not a lunatic suggest invading. But one on one, it’s not the concern. 
 

(the rest of this is just general to the topic not aimed at your post)

 

part of the problem is so much of it is secret. And you don’t really see things until the need arises - and even then many things don’t become public. But just working with recent memory, using stuff posted on this site:

- earlier this year a very long and detailed article about the lead up to Russia invading Ukraine was posted. The gist was that we knew, and knew for a while, they this was gearing up. We tried very hard to get the western world informed and together, months before the invasion happened. No one believed us. They didn’t really start to think we were right until the days and week or two leading up to the invasion. 
 

- Russia is currently (or was?) investigating the scientists behind the hyper sonic missiles for treason because Ukraine used our systems for shoot down missiles that up until they point were considered unstoppable

 

these are two things that, I think, explain very clearly the difference between spending more than the following 9 countries combined, and being like them. 
 

it seems to me every time we’ve deployed our military since the 90’s, the overall thought was to be impressed with what they did or were capable of (to say nothing about the reason why were involved) 

 

there’s waste. we arm people in situations where the public information sphere makes you question why. There surely are mistakes made. 
 

but until we start seeing incompetence in our capabilities, and we exhaust tax hike options to the point any more would be damaging to the economy, I’m not really big on the whole argument about what we spend compared to others. 
 

as far as I can tell we’re mopping the floor with everyone else when it comes to capabilities and I prefer we continue to do that. 
 

strategic cuts that are able to target waste is something I’ll always be on board with. Generic commentary about dollars spent, with occasional examples of bad decision making - doesn’t seem like quality opinions. 

[PleaseBlitz]

4 hours ago, Bang said:

We are behind in the cyber warfare aspects of things…….

[PleaseBlitz]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

I think this is a good thing. My understanding is that 1 on 1 we’re not really worried about them except for their cyber capabilities. Trying to invade or dealing with SE Asia issues would be difficult, and I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone that’s not a lunatic suggest invading. But one on one, it’s not the concern. 

Understood. I think the point is that maintaining our defense spending at 3/4 of a trillion dollars per year should not be a sacrosanct part of the budget that is entirely immune from including in budget negotiations. Like, we could totally reduce it by fifty billion dollars, fund schools and hospitals and roads and ****, and that would be ok, we wouldn’t be at risk of like being invaded by North Korea. 

Edited June 2, 2023 by PleaseBlitz

[Captain Wiggles]

If they cut the defense budget by $100 billion and got rid of subsidies to farmers and oil companies that'd save $150 billionish a year. Yet the Republicans say it's entitlement spending and tax revenue what must be cut. It's total bull****. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

7 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

If they cut the defense budget by $100 billion and got rid of subsidies to farmers and oil companies that'd save $150 billionish a year. Yet the Republicans say it's entitlement spending and tax revenue what must be cut. It's total bull****. 

 

Where would you propose cutting the $100 billion from?

[Momma There Goes That Man]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Where would you propose cutting the $100 billion from?

you can live on a little less…

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, Momma There Goes That Man said:

you can live on a little less…

 

So you're cutting my military retirement?  Or my VA disability payment?  

[Captain Wiggles]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Where would you propose cutting the $100 billion from?

 

All the money that's being spent on wokeism. 🤣

[Momma There Goes That Man]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

So you're cutting my military retirement?  Or my VA disability payment?  

yes 

[Captain Wiggles]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

So you're cutting my military retirement?  Or my VA disability payment?  

 

 

I'd have no problems adding more money to veterans benefits from the theoretical $150 billion saved from corporate and military subsides. 🤷‍♂️

[Jabbyrwock]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

So you're cutting my military retirement?  Or my VA disability payment?  

 Gonna have to start mowing lawns.

 

On the bright side, you seem to have an affinity for grass.

[PleaseBlitz]

14 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Where would you propose cutting the $100 billion from?

 

The F-35 procurement. Alone. 
 

We should pay soldiers, sailors, airmen more. We should pay Lockheed, Grumman, General Dynamics way less for their failed unworkable projects. 

Edited June 2, 2023 by PleaseBlitz

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The F-35 procurement. Alone. 

 

Totally agree it was a train wreck that it was but a vast sum of that money would still have been spent if the project and theory worked as planned.  So not so much of a saving as a better spending.

10 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

yes 

 

At least you're honest.  Care to justify your reasoning?  I'm curious if you understand the system or not also.

[PleaseBlitz]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Totally agree it was a train wreck that it was but a vast sum of that money would still have been spent if the project and theory worked as planned.  So not so much of a saving as a better spending.

It’s been going on and on and on and is a total ****show. Just pull the plug and we’d save 300 billion dollars at least. But that doesn’t happen because the DoD procurement process is entirely corrupt. Saying “it could have worked in theory” is entirely irrelevant. 
 

But you asked simply where to cut $100 billion. I could give you at least 8 more answers, none of which involve your benefits or individual soldier’s pay. 

Edited June 2, 2023 by PleaseBlitz

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

It’s been going on and on and on and is a total ****show. Just pull the plug and we’d save 300 billion dollars at least. But that doesn’t happen because the DoD procurement process is entirely corrupt. Saying “it could have worked in theory” is entirely irrelevant. 
 

But you asked simply where to cut $100 billion. I could give you at least 8 more answers, none of which involve your benefits or individual soldier’s pay. 

 

Valid points and at least you're bringing details.  Not just a lame tag line.  I think there needs to be a whole systemic change in our military but that really should expand to the whole government (and further to society).  Plenty of examples similar to yours when looking at money pits.  But in a fake world where this has a chance of happening, you must also remember the second hand effects.

 

Just to keep it simple, let's say we did a 20% cut across DoD.  And that causes all programs, manning, etc to drop by 20%.  How many restaurants (and strip clubs) right off base just went out of business?  What just happened to the housing markets there?  What jobs are all those people getting now?  Etc, etc.......

 

Do I think we could accomplish the same mission with a 20% cost reduction if we had a magic wand to get rid of the waste and bloat?  Absolutely!  But without the magic wand, what is a realistic plan to making the change?

 

Reminds me of Ted Cruz and his index card tax return idea (did he ever publish that), what happens to the tax prep and accounting industries tomorrow?

 

Last thing before I'm off to bed is that, of all the threats to democracy at the moment, the $xx billion of bloat we spend at DoD is not even on my radar of the shot we should be focusing on.

[PleaseBlitz]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Just to keep it simple, let's say we did a 20% cut across DoD.  And that causes all programs, manning, etc to drop by 20%.  How many restaurants (and strip clubs) right off base just went out of business?  What just happened to the housing markets there?  What jobs are all those people getting now?  Etc, etc.......

Ive very clearly not advocated across the board cuts (and specifically said we should pay soldiers/sailors/airmen more) so why even go here?  C’mon man. 

30 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The F-35 procurement. Alone. 
 

We should pay soldiers, sailors, airmen more. We should pay Lockheed, Grumman, General Dynamics way less for their failed unworkable projects. 

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by PleaseBlitz

[Jabbyrwock]

12 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Just to keep it simple, let's say we did a 20% cut across DoD.  And that causes all programs, manning, etc to drop by 20%.  How many restaurants (and strip clubs) right off base just went out of business? 

 

So what your sayin' is there'll be a lot of desperate out of work strippers....

 

...scuse me gentlemen.

[tshile]

3 hours ago, Captain Wiggles said:

If they cut the defense budget by $100 billion and got rid of subsidies to farmers and oil companies that'd save $150 billionish a year. Yet the Republicans say it's entitlement spending and tax revenue what must be cut. It's total bull****. 

Im not trying to say you’re wrong - but there’s a whole thing in economics about how those subsidies you mention affect prices consumers see and how it drives behavior. 
 

im not smart enough to go any further than to point out it’s a thing. 
 

I think milk is also on that list. (Although I suppose milk falls under “farmers”)

Edited June 2, 2023 by tshile

[tshile]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Ive very clearly not advocated across the board cuts (and specifically said we should pay soldiers/sailors/airmen more) so why even go here?  C’mon man. 

I didn’t read it that way. 
 

I read his posts as acknowledging what you said, then speaking the broader issue of cuts. I read it as him adding to the conversation in general, not trying to call out your posts. 
 

 

[Captain Wiggles]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

Im not trying to say you’re wrong - but there’s a whole thing in economics about how those subsidies you mention affect prices consumers see and how it drives behavior. 
 

im not smart enough to go any further than to point out it’s a thing. 

I think milk is also on that list. (Although I suppose milk falls under “farmers”)

 

Combined the oil and agriculture industries generate something like $350 billion dollars in profit a year. They don't need any subsidies. Those subsidies go to stock buybacks salary bonuses for CEOs. 🤷‍♂️

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

So what your sayin' is there'll be a lot of desperate out of work strippers....

 

...scuse me gentlemen

Yeah enjoy rounding up all the strippers that didn’t make the cut 

1 minute ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Combined the oil and agriculture industries generate something like $350 billion dollars in profit a year. They don't need any subsidies. Those subsidies go to stock buybacks salary bonuses for CEOs. 🤷‍♂️

*sigh*
you should look into the economic side of what I’m talking about. These subsidies were put in place because of consumer confidence and what it all means about the bigger economy. 
 

people smarter than me argue they’re out dated and no long needed, and other people smarter than me argue they’re important. 
 

it’s an interesting topic to look into. That’s all I’m saying. And the way your framing it is missing some important parts. 
 

not arguing for/against your idea just sharing info. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

3 hours ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 Gonna have to start mowing lawns.

 

On the bright side, you seem to have an affinity for grass.

 

 

 

[Fergasun]

As a percent of GDP... the US defense budget is currently at the lower end of that number. 

 

Source: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget

 

Different ways to look at these charts. Looking at the gross numbers (with adjustment for inflation)

$304B in 1987 is $811B today... 

$287B in 1997 is $555B today... 

$738B in 2010 is $1026B today... 

 

Going back to Vietnam... 

$84B in 1968 is $732B today...

 

 

I think defense is $880B in FY24 and $816B in FY23. My personal opinion is that we could probably make due with a $700B to $750B military budget... but as a percentage of GDP, we can't say we are overspending. So it could probably flatten out.