Congress Reaches 2017 Budget Deal - Increasing Military and Border Security Spending

[Barnabas]

Not this Republican. But I can do math. I mean, we're not going to from 48 attack subs to 70 by paying for it with good feelings. We currently spend ~$4 billion a year on two subs. To get to to that, considering we're retiring 1980s Los Angeles class subs faster than we're replacing them with Virginia-class, would require going to 3 subs a year, or ~$6 billion, while we're building the Ballistic Missile Submarine "Columbia-class" simultaneously, and that's a $8 billion per sub program.

I actually laughed IRL at Barnabas post. I don't normally do that, but here I do. He wrote a real nice fiction there... exactly the same kind of "let's do a $800 billion global defense strategy on $600 billion and let the military figure it out" fiction that got us into this readiness mess.

They haven't been able to build more than 1 sub per year by contract since 2013.

- - - Updated - - -

The man said he was going to build a dark ages style wall now you are saying it was just "virtual wall", contrary to conservative belief democrats are for border security just not stupid expensive ideas like a physical wall. Trump doesn't care about securing the border, he is not providing funding and manpower to the administrative parts of the machines (judges, clerks, lawyers). Although with Trump I can't say if it is out of stupidity or ignorance, the biggest problem with illegal immigration is that that department needs a lot more resources.

Now he will be build a virtual wall with all types of high tech equipment or he'll never build a wall at all. Sure we could use more judges to process people faster.

[Skroe]

They haven't been able to build more than 1 sub per year by contract since 2013.

Construction rate and funding levels are different. But the change is that they're also transitioning to a new block of Virginia's. The Block IIIs, which are the ones being built now (a few of which are in service) are about a 50% all new redesign over the earlier Block II and Block I. Block IV will be a modest improvement on block III. It's a class within a class in many respects. The forthcoming Virginal Payload Module in Block V, which will replace the Ohio-class SSGNs when they start to retire late next decade, will do it again, and create a third class-within-a-class.

But my point stands. We have to drop tens of billions more than we already to modernize the military just to pretty much maintain a holding pattern... and you're talking about a TAX CUT? Are you for real?

We either need to not modernize and adopt a much more modest (much much much more) national defense strategy, and get that tax cut. Or we need to pay what we need to pay in full. But no more fiction whereby we can fund our military at way less than whats required, while cutting taxes and hoping for the best.

[Therec]

I am perfectly fine with increasing funding for border security. It's Trump's symbolic penis wall that won't stop shit that is a hard "no" for me.

[minteK917]

I am perfectly fine with increasing funding for border security. It's Trump's symbolic penis wall that won't stop shit that is a hard "no" for me.

How do you increase funding and reduce taxes? When you build a fence around your house, do you also ask to be paid less at work? Buying more stuff and getting less money, is usually not a practical plan, even for the US.

[Draco-Onis]

How do you increase funding and reduce taxes? When you build a fence around your house, do you also ask to be paid less at work? Buying more stuff and getting less money, is usually not a practical plan, even for the US.

The republican motto has always been deficits only matter when democrats are in power.

[minteK917]

The republican motto has always been deficits only matter when democrats are in power.

The fact some of these frauds even consider themselves libertarian is an insult. And being libertarian is already an insult, so yeah.

[Barnabas]

Construction rate and funding levels are different. But the change is that they're also transitioning to a new block of Virginia's. The Block IIIs, which are the ones being built now (a few of which are in service) are about a 50% all new redesign over the earlier Block II and Block I. Block IV will be a modest improvement on block III. It's a class within a class in many respects. The forthcoming Virginal Payload Module in Block V, which will replace the Ohio-class SSGNs when they start to retire late next decade, will do it again, and create a third class-within-a-class.

But my point stands. We have to drop tens of billions more than we already to modernize the military just to pretty much maintain a holding pattern... and you're talking about a TAX CUT? Are you for real?

We either need to not modernize and adopt a much more modest (much much much more) national defense strategy, and get that tax cut. Or we need to pay what we need to pay in full. But no more fiction whereby we can fund our military at way less than whats required, while cutting taxes and hoping for the best.

No we need the tax cut to force congress to cut unproductive public expenditures. Then they need to create policy that creates growth. Then america is great again. Like it or not skroe they are coming. If this budget you see now is any indicator.

[Faloestin]

Right. The plan is, near as I can tell, let people privatize basically everything and give them a tax break for doing it. So, it will still cost the American taxpayer $1 trillion. They just won't be paying it by income tax.

Trouble is, the engineers say we really need more like $4.7 trillion to fix what's broken. Which won't get any less broken just because we decide to ignore it some more.

[Draco-Onis]

No we need the tax cut to force congress to cut unproductive public expenditures. Then they need to create policy that creates growth. Then america is great again.

So we need to do wasteful spending on large tax cuts for the rich and corporations to help congress cut wasteful spending? I am just checking if that is really what you are saying because that is some massive mental gymnastics there.

[Rukh]

Planned Parenthood got funded, border wall didn't. So much winning.

[Skroe]

No we need the tax cut to force congress to cut unproductive public expenditures. Then they need to create policy that creates growth. Then america is great again.

That's a slogan not an idea.

There is no conversation about public expenditures that doesn't begin and end with Medicare, Medicaid and to a lesser degree Social Security. And you do not have the balls to take on Grandma and her pills. Because that, not the EPA, is this country's fiscal menace.

You want to talk about other expenditures than those three? You're being non-serious. Between 2013-2016, Medicare grew by nearly $80 billion. That's three NASA's and ten EPAs worth of Federal Spending. In three years. You could wipe out enormous number of departments and not even come close to the dent that entitlement growth makes in our spending in just five years.

So please enlighten me about how your dumb scheme will do jack shit with regards to federal spending efficiency. It won't. The problem isn't in discretionary spending. It's in mandatory spending that you, like Trump, like Congress doesn't have the guts to go after.

- - - Updated - - -

Trouble is, the engineers say we really need more like $4.7 trillion to fix what's broken. Which won't get any less broken just because we decide to ignore it some more.

Ignoring our problems is the American Way though. See Barnabas above. He's such a perfect specimen of everything wrong with how this country thinks about spending and revenue that he should be put in a cage in a zoo for public consumption.

[Rukh]

That's a slogan not an idea.

There is no conversation about public expenditures that doesn't begin and end with Medicare, Medicaid and to a lesser degree Social Security. And you do not have the balls to take on Grandma and her pills. Because that, not the EPA, is this country's fiscal menace.

You want to talk about other expenditures than those three? You're being non-serious. Between 2013-2016, Medicare grew by nearly $80 billion. That's three NASA's and ten EPAs worth of Federal Spending. In three years. You could wipe out enormous number of departments and not even come close to the dent that entitlement growth makes in our spending in just five years.

So please enlighten me about how your dumb scheme will do jack shit with regards to federal spending efficiency. It won't. The problem isn't in discretionary spending. It's in mandatory spending that you, like Trump, like Congress doesn't have the guts to go after.

- - - Updated - - -



Ignoring our problems is the American Way though. See Barnabas above. He's such a perfect specimen of everything wrong with how this country thinks about spending and revenue that he should be put in a cage in a zoo for public consumption.

And, to put it simply, for any expenditure, there's someone that thinks its important. "Unproductive public expenditures" is a nice buzzword to rally the base, but that's about it.

[Breccia]

Trouble is, the engineers say we really need more like $4.7 trillion to fix what's broken.

It'd be so much easier to come up with $200 billion, $1 trillion, or $4.7 trillion if we didn't gut taxes.

Planned Parenthood got funded, border wall didn't.

The GOP was desperate. This is still good news, anything about bipartisan cooperation is good news. Also, the Wall was always going to be a separate spending issue anyhow.

[Skroe]

And, to put it simply, for any expenditure, there's someone that thinks its important. "Unproductive public expenditures" is a nice buzzword to rally the base, but that's about it.

Exactly.

I am not a farmer.
I would love to see farming subsidies cut. I think they're wasteful.

But I am also not a farmer. But I share this country with farmers.

So we give a little, get a little.

[Kujako]

Exactly.

I am not a farmer.
I would love to see farming subsidies cut. I think they're wasteful.

But I am also not a farmer. But I share this country with farmers.

So we give a little, get a little.

Thing is, most sane farmers also want subsidies cut. The subsidies force them to grow crops that no one wants. It's why there's corn syrup in everything, it's subsidiszed through the farm bill and they end up paying people to take the stuff.

[minteK917]

Exactly.

I am not a farmer.
I would love to see farming subsidies cut. I think they're wasteful.

But I am also not a farmer. But I share this country with farmers.

So we give a little, get a little.

But wat if we cut taxes, then you both get less and magic billionaires trickle it down into the economy dude. Its what donnie said

[Rukh]

Thing is, most sane farmers also want subsidies cut. The subsidies force them to grow crops that no one wants. It's why there's corn syrup in everything, it's subsidiszed through the farm bill and they end up paying people to take the stuff.

Nobody wants them until everyone wants them. We have farmers grow excess because you can't just switch to production overnight. If we lose sources, we need backups.

[Rusque]

Finally. We're safe. Nothing bad can happen now.

[minteK917]

Nobody wants them until everyone wants them. We have farmers grow excess because you can't just switch to production overnight. If we lose sources, we need backups.

In the case of corn, its not backup, its pretty much a scheme.

[Etselion]

Now its a "virtual wall"...

Tired of winning yet?