Trump’s new budget to propose defense spending increase, cuts to safety net programs

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

Interesting move in an election year. He’s gotta know he’s opening up a lane of attack by choosing to cut safety net programs while running as a populist.

[marioandsonic]

And yet his base will lap it up without thought.

[CitizenVectron]

This only affects lazy people, and his supporters aren't lazy!

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

Honestly, it actually makes sense to start reducing spending when you're at or below full employment and growth has been consistently decent for awhile--but this could have been done more gradually starting earlier in his term.  Save the tax cut and the deficit-running for when the next recession hits, which could be very soon.  And we simply don't need more military spending.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

How about we slash the "defense" budget to ribbons and not worry about food stamps or Medicaid (but eventually abolishing it for M4A)

[Ricofoley]

Maybe if we throw a few more hundred billion dollars at the F-35 program we can get some planes that work

[CayceG]

5 minutes ago, Ricofoley said:

Maybe if we throw a few more hundred billion dollars at the F-35 program we can get some planes that work

 

(The planes work just fine)

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[osxmatt]

[Dodger]

The military is one giant welfare project. I'm literally across the street from the huge new Northrup Grumman campus that employs thousands. Not that that is a reason to keep military spending so high, but plenty of that money goes to keeping people employed. 

[MarSolo]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

I don’t like to use the r word, but Trump is a fucking retard.

[Anathema-]

3 hours ago, Dodger said:

The military is one giant welfare project. I'm literally across the street from the huge new Northrup Grumman campus that employs thousands. Not that that is a reason to keep military spending so high, but plenty of that money goes to keeping people employed. 

 

In fact I think we would do well to say this but instead of lacing it with cynicism - say it earnestly and lean into it as a good thing.

 

We already have a federal program where you can volunteer, get paid, learn a skill, and have your healthcare taken care of; the armed services. We should expand this so the mission is more than warfighting. Fixing infrastructure, for one. A federal civilian services corps. 

[Dodger]

5 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

 

In fact I think we would do well to say this but instead of lacing it with cynicism - say it earnestly and lean into it as a good thing.

 

We already have a federal program where you can volunteer, get paid, learn a skill, and have your healthcare taken care of; the armed services. We should expand this so the mission is more than warfighting. Fixing infrastructure, for one. A federal civilian services corps. 

 

 

The money could definitely be better spent, but it's wrong to look at military spending as some giant waste of money to build some shitty airplanes. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people are employed directly or indirectly because of the military budget, and no one really thinks about it. So whenever someone says we should slash military spending to pay for x, that's all well and good but literally thousands or tens of thousands would lose their jobs. Including at least a handful of people on this board

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

13 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

 

In fact I think we would do well to say this but instead of lacing it with cynicism - say it earnestly and lean into it as a good thing.

 

We already have a federal program where you can volunteer, get paid, learn a skill, and have your healthcare taken care of; the armed services. We should expand this so the mission is more than warfighting. Fixing infrastructure, for one. A federal civilian services corps. 

Abolish the war fighting mission but do the other things

[baconbits]

1 minute ago, Dodger said:

 

 

The money could definitely be better spent, but it's wrong to look at military spending as some giant waste of money to build some shitty airplanes. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people are employed directly or indirectly because of the military budget, and no one really thinks about it. So whenever someone says we should slash military spending to pay for x, that's all well and good but literally thousands or tens of thousands would lose their jobs. Including at least a handful of people on this board

This idea that we save jobs because they are there...*laughs in history*

[Dodger]

1 minute ago, baconbits said:

This idea that we save jobs because they are there...*laughs in history*

 

 

We're not exactly talking about employing horse buggy repair people for no reason. 

[baconbits]

17 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

 

We're not exactly talking about employing horse buggy repair people for no reason. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/amysterling/2019/06/15/automated-future/

 

Anybody want to save the manufacturer jobs that have been taken over by machines for the past, I don't know...100 years?  You think it takes the same amount of people to manufacture a car now as it did in 1920?

[Dodger]

11 minutes ago, baconbits said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/amysterling/2019/06/15/automated-future/

 

Anybody want to save the manufacturer jobs that have been taken over by machines for the past, I don't know...100 years?  You think it takes the same amount of people to manufacture a car now as it did in 1920?

 

 

The military does a lot more than build planes to bomb brown people with. 

[SimpleG]

35 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

 

The money could definitely be better spent, but it's wrong to look at military spending as some giant waste of money to build some shitty airplanes. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people are employed directly or indirectly because of the military budget, and no one really thinks about it. So whenever someone says we should slash military spending to pay for x, that's all well and good but literally thousands or tens of thousands would lose their jobs. Including at least a handful of people on this board

While I can appreciate your sympathy towards your fellow man spending money on an already massive defensive budget is wasteful. I am not opposed to taking that money saved and using on re education so those workers can move one to a newer industry. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

As someone who would more than likely lose his job due to a drastically reduced defense budget, I say:

 

 

[baconbits]

10 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

 

The military does a lot more than build planes to bomb brown people with. 

...but what is your point then?  You're saying it's wrong to think that the military is some giant waste of money because people are employed & these are jobs at stake.  You can make that argument for so many industries for the past...forever. I bet there's even a shit ton of military jobs that were destroyed because of automation/machines dating back the last 100 years & nobody ever gave a shit about those job losses.

[TwinIon]

I imagine the total number of jobs propped up by the defense budget is huge, but I would also imagine that it's an incredibly wasteful way to employ those people. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

15 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

As someone who would more than likely lose his job due to a drastically reduced defense budget, I say:

 

 

Same here, but for M4A

[finaljedi]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Same here, but for M4A

 

I work building benefits feeds for companies and M4A would pretty much take bat to my career so far, I could probably go be a janitor or something.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

2 hours ago, TwinIon said:

I imagine the total number of jobs propped up by the defense budget is huge, but I would also imagine that it's an incredibly wasteful way to employ those people. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Dodger said:

 

 

The military does a lot more than build planes to bomb brown people with. 

Thence why it makes more sense to make gradual cuts once the economy’s hit full employment for awhile, rather than waiting (or increasing spending) and then abruptly making huge cuts all at once.  In a full employment situation, Any jobs shed from a shrinking government sector—including the military—are usually absorbed into the growing broader private sector.  (especially when the austerity isn’t drastically implemented ). Meanwhile, the cuts reduce the debt-to-gdp ratio, so it’s easier to enact expansionary fiscal policy when the private sector contracts.

 

I know people hate gradualism nowadays, but it can really cause less headaches for everyone sometimes...

[TwinIon]

16 hours ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Thence why it makes more sense to make gradual cuts once the economy’s hit full employment for awhile, rather than waiting (or increasing spending) and then abruptly making huge cuts all at once.  In a full employment situation, Any jobs shed from a shrinking government sector—including the military—are usually absorbed into the growing broader private sector.  (especially when the austerity isn’t drastically implemented ). Meanwhile, the cuts reduce the debt-to-gdp ratio, so it’s easier to enact expansionary fiscal policy when the private sector contracts.

 

I know people hate gradualism nowadays, but it can really cause less headaches for everyone sometimes...

I think I mostly agree with you, but the military does things at such a scale that even gradual cuts feel enormous. Reduce the number of warships you build, and that might mean a few billion comes off the budget. Kill off a next gen bomber program or something and you might be talking about a few hundred billion over the next decade.

 

That doesn't even account for the war budget, where really large cuts could be made very quickly.

 

So yeah, I think I'm with you that you don't want to blow things up by making such severe cuts that you put whole industries out of business, but even very reasonable cuts to something as enormous as our defense spending could look significant.