Democrats Don't Fight Massive Defense Budget Increase at ALL

[The Industrial Atheist]

[Minimalist]

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

Pretty soon this country won't be worth defending.

[Rev. Rye]

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.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

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.

[Minimalist]

[Wyrd of Gawd]

[Minimalist]

[Fireball]

[AFTT47]

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.

[Rev. Rye]

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.