The Democrats Keep Capitulating on Defense Spending
On domestic policy, the party is moving left. On foreign and defense policy, the party barely exists.
PETER BEINART
FEB 18, 2018
[size=undefined]


Fair enough. But what about the Democrats? If Republicans are supposed to worry about the United States bankrupting itself with social-welfare spending, aren’t Democrats supposed to worry about the United States bankrupting itself with military spending? Not anymore. In the run-up to the deal, Nancy Pelosi’s office fired off an email to House Democrats proclaiming that, “In our negotiations, Congressional Democrats have been fighting for increases in funding for defense.” Chuck Schumer’s office announced that, “We fully support President Trump’s Defense Department’s request.” Not all congressional Democrats voted for the budget agreement: Thirty-eight percent of Democrats backed it in the House and 76 percent did in the Senate. But even those who voted no mostly did so because they were upset about its lack of protection for immigrant “dreamers”—not because they oppose a higher defense budget. Last year, in fact, when Democrats were offered a standalone vote on big increases in military spending—in the form of House and defense authorization bills—large majorities in both bodies voted yes.


https://www.theatlantic.com/internationa...ng/553670/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/size]
All we've been hearing from the Dems is how unhinged Trump is. So naturally they gave him  $716,000,000,000 to spend on war.

'Murricans want shiny new toys to blow things up no matter how much they cost.

Pretty soon this country won't be worth defending.

I think I've mentioned before, but the way I understand it, the Military Industrial Complex is pervasive enough that literally every congressperson has a stake in keeping it up. I think I remember a scene in Why We Fight where (and since it's been years since I've seen it, I may be misremembering it) they talk about how some military projects have to source parts from factories in so many constituencies that voting against it turn into massive layoffs, which can be a political mass suicide if the voters put two and two together.

Well, the good news is that we should be well-armed against the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Hispanics, and assorted muslims as well as domestic malcontents. We need weapon systems for WWIII.

Indeed. 

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016...tanks.html

Quote:Ohio Wins Again in Army's Budget for More M1 Abrams Tanks

Quote:The U.S. Army has 6,000 M1 Abrams tanks and for years has been saying that it doesn't need any more, but the service is requesting $558 million for more tanks in the latest budget.

"There's an industrial base piece to all of that," Maj. Gen. Neil Thurgood, the Army's deputy for acquisition and systems management, said Wednesday of the funding that will go to the General Dynamics Corps. plant in Lima, Ohio, the only tank manufacturer in the U.S.

(June 23, 2018 at 10:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Indeed. 

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016...tanks.html

Quote:Ohio Wins Again in Army's Budget for More M1 Abrams Tanks

Quote:The U.S. Army has 6,000 M1 Abrams tanks and for years has been saying that it doesn't need any more, but the service is requesting $558 million for more tanks in the latest budget.

"There's an industrial base piece to all of that," Maj. Gen. Neil Thurgood, the Army's deputy for acquisition and systems management, said Wednesday of the funding that will go to the General Dynamics Corps. plant in Lima, Ohio, the only tank manufacturer in the U.S.

Instead of building more obsolete M1s they should be making more advanced ones to counter the Russian tank.

Who says they aren't?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buz...-way-22650

Quote:The U.S. Army Is Building a New Tank in a Very Sneaky Way

Besides, the Orange Shitgibbon will never fight his pal Vladdy.

(June 23, 2018 at 10:30 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Who says they aren't?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buz...-way-22650

Quote:The U.S. Army Is Building a New Tank in a Very Sneaky Way

Besides, the Orange Shitgibbon will never fight his pal Vladdy.

Gargle his piss, that's more likely.

(June 23, 2018 at 9:38 pm)The Industrial Atheist Wrote: If Republicans are supposed to worry about the United States bankrupting itself with social-welfare spending, aren’t Democrats supposed to worry about the United States bankrupting itself with military spending?

That kind of thinking kept me in the Republican camp from the time I was old enough to vote (1977) until 1992 when the threat of the Soviet Union had vanished and the Democrats finally put up a candidate with backbone (Bill Clinton).

I will concede that at present, the US already has military might that no other nation can match. I will argue though that that is precisely why Russia and China are relatively well-behaved. Both recognize that a military conflict with the US would be disastrous. It is in their best interests to compete in other ways. I would like to see that situation persist because if it were not the case, both would be all over us in a heartbeat.

With economic reality making manufacturing in the US uncompetitive, we need something to spur technological innovation. I would MUCH prefer that that be driven by the need to create technologies based on clean energy and/or building a space-based infrastructure but lacking that, I'll take technological innovation based on the need to field the world's baddest military force.

Technological leadership is absolutely vital. You have to have that to stay on top. Military ambitions are one way to drive the R & D to maintain that. I would prefer other drivers but failing that, I'll take the military option.

(June 24, 2018 at 12:32 am)AFTT47 Wrote:

(June 23, 2018 at 9:38 pm)The Industrial Atheist Wrote: If Republicans are supposed to worry about the United States bankrupting itself with social-welfare spending, aren’t Democrats supposed to worry about the United States bankrupting itself with military spending?

That kind of thinking kept me in the Republican camp from the time I was old enough to vote (1977) until 1992 when the threat of the Soviet Union had vanished and the Democrats finally put up a candidate with backbone (Bill Clinton).

I will concede that at present, the US already has military might that no other nation can match. I will argue though that that is precisely why Russia and China are relatively well-behaved. Both recognize that a military conflict with the US would be disastrous. It is in their best interests to compete in other ways. I would like to see that situation persist because if it were not the case, both would be all over us in a heartbeat.

It's worth noting that the US could cut our military expenditures in half and still spend more than both Russia and China COMBINED. By exactly how much isn't entirely clear, though.