Mnuchin: Trump will 'demand' increase in military spending

[Breccia]

I don't see a realistic situation where a budget gets to Trump's desk without an increase in defense spending, simply because of the GOP.

That said, Mnuchin appears to be tying increased defense spending to the debt ceiling. Maybe because of everything being wrapped all up together with Harvey funding this one time, but still, you'd think someone in his role would know the difference.

[Skroe]

I don't see a realistic situation where a budget gets to Trump's desk without an increase in defense spending, simply because of the GOP.

♫♩♫♪♬ Because of Democrats too, who wanted to increase defend spending every bit as Republicans, despite the fact that Obama prevented it for years. ♫♩♫♪♬

Some kind of Republicans = military spending, Democrats = social spending hugely obscures important facts regarding the defense budget. Half the largest states for Defense expenditures are Blue States. I mean, one of the most important states for Defense is California. What is California's enormous Congressional delegation going to do? Vote AGAINST more taxpayer dollars going to their State?

During the Obama years there many high profile things were Democrats vs Republican. But when it came to dollars spent and many medium and lower profile things, it wasn't Democrats vs Republican - it was Legislative branch vs executive branch.

My favorite example is of course, the NASA budget... one of the few areas of discretionary spending that grew rather consistently over the Obama years... despite Obama's annual attempts to cut it hard. That is until Congress basically laughed at his plan, gave Obama the finger, and forced then NASA Administrator and Obama lackey Charlie Bolden to issue reports on programmatic status, in person, every 3 months, just because they didn't trust him.

The defense budget is exactly the same. Much of the defense industrial base is in Democratic districts or States. Hell defense contractor Raytheon is one of Massachusetts (land of Elizabeth Warren) largest employers.

This is, of course, not an accident. The defense industry has spent decade spreading around facilities and investments in order to protect programs.

[PC2]

You support Trump.

I don't support Trump, his policy choices have been weak recently. I reject non-policy personal support.

Five years ago they were in the tens of millions range for the big projects. Today they're in the hundreds of billions. Five years from now, we'll see the US engage in a few-billion dollar AI program. Fifteen years from now, buckle up: China will be spending more on AI per year than we spend building warships, and we'll have to be doing the same just to keep up.

Is this for government spending on AI projects? Top-down approaches are not a great way to measure AI success. Organizations implementing value adding AI and creating orbiting open source eco-systems from the ground up is how I would try to measure it.

The American delusion is that we get to choose our battles. Increasingly, we most certainly do not. And you should be terrified of losing those battles. Case in point, America, Japan and South Korea share a pre-eminence in Robotics right now. But people in my field are aggressively poached by China, which is trying to close the gap. This was in fact, one of the first things here I said after the election. Many people I work with are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Trump's nativism has and is continuing to scare these people off. The second America is percieved as being "no better than China" in terms of the opportunities making a life there versus here is offered, we'll start losing... badly. The immigrants will leave. They'll go there. This is _exactly_ what happened in Europe before and after World War II. It took Europe 50 years to catch back up in some fields. In others it never did.

Any of these people scared off by Trump's policy are going to be much more scared off by the massive illiberalism of China. A person would have to be delusional to think China is nearing a no borders liberal democracy era.

[CostinR]

I don't see a realistic situation where a budget gets to Trump's desk without an increase in defense spending, simply because of the GOP.

How about you ask Senator Bernard Sanders as ranking member of the budget committee and former mayor of Burlingon how much money his state gets from the DOD early. Perhaps ask Elizabeth Warren what's the biggest employer in her state or Tim Kaine.

So no it's not because of the GOP. The Dems want it as well, for all the crap the media likes to play that garbage that they don't.

That said, Mnuchin appears to be tying increased defense spending to the debt ceiling. Maybe because of everything being wrapped all up together with Harvey funding this one time, but still, you'd think someone in his role would know the difference.

Oh Mnuchin knows very well. But he's a man seeking a solution, ANY solution, to the shit show he will have to deal with if there's no debt deal until December.

See the US will reach it's debt ceiling in December but it will be able to continue paying it's bills until March through "extraordinary measures". Manning Mnuchin can buy them some time by pulling rabbits out of the hat, but he really doesn't want to have to deal with that nonsense.

[Breccia]

The Dems want it as well

Irrelevant. Their focus is elsewhere, namely, reasons to vote against a budget. Defense spending won't be it -- there's plenty of other issues like Wall funding to focus on.

[CostinR]

Irrelevant. Their focus is elsewhere, namely, reasons to vote against a budget. Defense spending won't be it -- there's plenty of other issues like Wall funding to focus on.

To quote my favorite orange haired dude: WRONG.

The focus of democrats will be to lift the budget control act caps, because without that all this defense spending the House has put in, and the Senate will throw in, is completely and utterly meaningless.

For that you need democratic votes. Many republicans will certainly refuse to accept lifting the caps, if only because of domestic spending.

[Heladys]

How well has demanding things worked out for him so far?

Mexico pay for that wall yet? Obamacare repealed and replaced yet? North Korea brought to heel yet? Coal industry revitalized yet?

[Deleted]

I'm starting to wonder if @Tennisace is either an activist or a paid forum poster given the threads he/she typically produces that are designed to provoke or post a far left perspective. Though it's hilarous watching him/her complain about US defense spending what this very same person praised Trudeau for spending more on defense.

You expected concistency?

[BuckSparkles]

Despite how much I think Skroe is goofy and has an unhealthy obsession with Trump, I actually do like Skroes thoughts on military spending.

[CostinR]

You expected concistency?

Neah of course not. This is the age of Trump after all.

Still I'll gladly point it out.

[Deleted]

Despite how much I think Skroe is goofy and has an unhealthy obsession with Trump, I actually do like Skroes thoughts on military spending.

Every squirrel finds a nut, occasionally.

[Tennis]

I'm starting to wonder if @Tennisace is either an activist or a paid forum poster given the threads he/she typically produces that are designed to provoke or post a far left perspective. Though it's hilarous watching him/her complain about US defense spending what this very same person praised Trudeau for spending more on defense.

I want us to cut our defense spending. That post was a one time thing.

[Skroe]

I want us to cut our defense spending. That post was a one time thing.

What's this "us" stuff? You're not American. But prepare to be dissapoined. Open wide, Tennisace.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.6e6feca682a8

Senate passes defense bill, leaving several controversial policies unresolved

The Senate passed its version of a massive defense bill on Monday, setting up negotiations with the House but leaving the most controversial policy issues that lawmakers hoped to address unresolved.

Senators voted 89 to 8 to pass the nearly $700 billion bill, which authorizes support for Pentagon programs and combat operations at home and abroad. Five Democrats and three Republicans — including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) — refused to back the measure, while defense hawks Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) did not vote.

By sheer size, the bill is the most comprehensive piece of legislation Congress grapples with in any given year, apart from dealing with the budget. This year, it has enjoyed unique bipartisan support in the Senate.

But part of that harmony is due to the fact that this year’s Senate bill was unfettered by several of the policy fights senators had hoped to wage against the Trump administration, on matters including transgender troops and North Korea.

I said
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post47345786

The is the chronicle of the death foretold of the straight jacket the Obama Administration put the Pentagon in. I said it over a year ago. Hillary Could win. Trump could win. A sock puppet could win, I think my words were, and Defense spending was going up because (a) it is needed and (b) the one guy blocking it was on his way out the door and saying "everybody else wanted it" is not much of an exaggeration. It might actually be "everybody else, minus six".

I was in fact, wrong. it was "everybody else, minus eight". And three of those eight didn't vote because they wanted a larger increase. That means five were against as a matter of principle (three guesses as to who two of those opponents are... you won't need three guesses).

So do we have an understand now, liberals and conservatives alike, about how sausage is made? Did we learn something from this? When it comes to some high profile things, it absolutely is D versus R. But on the issue of the things we spend most of our money on, which is the core annual requirement for Congress to execute (passing a budget to at spends taxpayer dollars), it's more often than not, states vs states or executive vs legislative.

This is a good start. Next years' increase should be $50 billion on top of this. And then $50 billion the year after. Getting the armed forces to the numbers I laid out, which meets about 100% of the missions we civilians assign the military, will take a decade.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't support Trump, his policy choices have been weak recently. I reject non-policy personal support.

Uh-huh. Sorry. Your last chance to leave the Trump train was months ago. It's too late.

Is this for government spending on AI projects? Top-down approaches are not a great way to measure AI success. Organizations implementing value adding AI and creating orbiting open source eco-systems from the ground up is how I would try to measure it.

It's government programs and government grants. There is simply no replacement, in the world, for the sheer amount of money from government (any and all governments) to scientific research. Investments from private firms are dwarfed by the magnitude of taxpayer dollars.

My company receives federal grants, federal contracts and our parent company gives us research money (and has a grant system too). Federal dollars are by far the largest source.

American public investment into science, through universities and public-private partnerships are one of our most important competitive advantages. Don't mess with it. Send more money. The AI field, as I said, will need tens of billions for thousands of projects.

Any of these people scared off by Trump's policy are going to be much more scared off by the massive illiberalism of China. A person would have to be delusional to think China is nearing a no borders liberal democracy era.

You don't understand (or you don't care to understand). It's not about a "no borders liberal democracy" era or high-concept political principles. It's about feeling welcome in a country that offers safety and opportunity.

I'm going to be blunt: there is no way you can rationalize Trump as anything but a disaster for this effort, so don't try. It is, period. He and his policies are bad for America's future competitiveness in this way, because to be blunt, an immigrant from Iran who can program is more valuable to that prosperity than a 50 year old laid off mill worker. My field has long been poached by foreign competitors. Half the people I went to undergraduate and grad school with work in Asia, many in China. The cost of living is cheap, the money is fantastic. They reason people stay here is because of family and opportunity.

China, in particular, knows this. They're not stupid people. They are marketing against Trump, and Trump is easy as shit to market against. They're not being terribly more successful yet, but America's standing has fallen badly in just a year and change. Some people at my company I'm sure will leave, first to Canada, then to somewhere else, because if they don't feel safe here, or can't bring their loved ones here, they'll go to some place that rolls out the red carpet.

And you know who will lose? America. And it will be badly, because those White Flyover State Communities won't produce enough Computer Scientists and Engineers in a century fill our domestic need for five years.

If the Trump White House had an ounce of brains, it would allow anyone with any technical skills whatever to come here, throw a bag of money ahead of them, and even arrange housing. The arms-race of the future is in scientists and engineers. America remains in the lead there. For now. But we're close to losing it than we have been since the 1950s. Because people like you take our technological superiority for granted, as some kind of God-given entitlement, nevermind the fact the United States spent much of the Cold War technologically inferior to the USSR.

[Skroe]

I prefer to spend on technology, advances and infrastructure. Money thrown at "the war on poverty" has been just as effective as that money thrown at "the war on drugs." As far as medical care goes, I am fine with the government helping control out of bounds cost and even creating a single payer system...but I still expect most people to pay their fair share.

The Military budget spends more on technology and science than the civilian budget. Just the way it is.

Let's recall: NASA HATED the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (Atlas V, Delta IV) that the Air Force commissioned Boeing and Lockheed to build in the wake of the Challenger disaster. NASA viewed them, designed to loft shuttle-sized payloads, as a competitor or replacement (which it was). It tried to fight them. And yet, sure enough, within a decade, NASA became deeply reliant on the EELVs as, rightly so the idea of sending 7 people into space on a $600 million launcher just to put a sattelite in orbit was rightly reckoned to be insanity.

Or hell, the basic technology of the SpaceX Falcon 9... the Merlin engine design came right out of the designs for the TR-106 and TR-107 engine design built as part of the 2000s-era Space Launch Initiative (a joint DOD/NASA program). When the SLI was changed, the TR-106 team left and were picked up by Elon Musk. The landing technology was first envisioned by the Air Force in 1992 as part of the EELV program (but considered impractical at the time). SpaceX seized on that too.

[CostinR]

I want us to cut our defense spending. That post was a one time thing.

So you just like to post stuff just for the lulz then expect to be taken seriously later on?

I was in fact, wrong. it was "everybody else, minus eight". And three of those eight didn't vote because they wanted a larger increase. That means five were against as a matter of principle (three guesses as to who two of those opponents are... you won't need three guesses).

Rand Paul and Mike Lee.

Of course.

[Machismo]

So much for fiscal conservatism in this country...

[Deleted]

I want us to cut our defense spending. That post was a one time thing.

So you lack conviction too... Also you're not a US citizen so the correct word is you and your NOT us and our

[Tennis]

So you lack conviction too... Also you're not a US citizen so the correct word is you and your NOT us and our

I'm a North American am I not?

[Deleted]

I'm a North American am I not?

Are Canadians US citizens?