American Politics XV: Trump and '24 Already....

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

taiwan would just sell the B61's onto PRC

[Minoa]

UK tattoo removal studio is offering free removals of Kanye tattoos.

Yeezy come, Yeezy go.

And the Kanye Subreddit is now a memorial to the Holocaust.

Source: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/reddit-user ... -1.1854266

[Trollgaard]

You guys watching the rollout of the new B-21 Raider? That thing looks like a UFO!

Don't know how it relates to politics other than thanks politicians for approving the funding for it!

The money that went into their shiny new killing machine could have gone to the education system, public transport, infrastructure...

That's stuff is all lame though; and bombers are cool.

[Sordhau]

The money that went into their shiny new killing machine could have gone to the education system, public transport, infrastructure...

We can have a world class military AND have adequate social services at the same time, ya know?

We don't need a world class military in the first place.

But if we don't have the biggest, baddest toys around how will we protect ourselves from conscript Sergei and his rusting AKM and beat-up T-60?

Yeah well the people of Taiwan could do with a little protection.

Then why don't we give *them* the bombers? They clearly need this stuff more than we do.

[Sordhau]

UK tattoo removal studio is offering free removals of Kanye tattoos.

Yeezy come, Yeezy go.

And the Kanye Subreddit is now a memorial to the Holocaust.

Source: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/reddit-user ... -1.1854266

L + ratio + dumped by your own subreddit.

[Alcala-Cordel]

The money that went into their shiny new killing machine could have gone to the education system, public transport, infrastructure...

We can have a world class military AND have adequate social services at the same time, ya know?

The US can cut its military budget in half and still be the most heavily funded war machine on the face of the earth. Screw the military, though.

[Spirit of Hope]

We can have a world class military AND have adequate social services at the same time, ya know?

The US can cut its military budget in half and still be the most heavily funded war machine on the face of the earth. Screw the military, though.

Funding levels aren't a great way to compare militaries, a lot of military budget goes into human capital which is heavily effected by purchasing power parity differences between countries. Depending on country it can also be hard to truly separate what is and is not defense spending, which would further complicate a comparison between militaries.

The US doesn't really spend an absurdly high amount on defense, at 3% of GDP it is high but not absurdly so, especially from a historical perspective.

[Umeria]

The US can cut its military budget in half and still be the most heavily funded war machine on the face of the earth. Screw the military, though.

Funding levels aren't a great way to compare militaries, a lot of military budget goes into human capital which is heavily effected by purchasing power parity differences between countries. Depending on country it can also be hard to truly separate what is and is not defense spending, which would further complicate a comparison between militaries.

The US doesn't really spend an absurdly high amount on defense, at 3% of GDP it is high but not absurdly so, especially from a historical perspective.

I dunno, a department that has never passed an independent audit and builds tanks it knows it will never use seems like something that deserves a few budget cuts.

[New-Minneapolis]

We can have a world class military AND have adequate social services at the same time, ya know?

The US can cut its military budget in half and still be the most heavily funded war machine on the face of the earth. Screw the military, though.

Nah, let’s just raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

[Umeria]

The US can cut its military budget in half and still be the most heavily funded war machine on the face of the earth. Screw the military, though.

Nah, let’s just raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

Who do you think profits from defense contracts?

[Drongonia]

The US can cut its military budget in half and still be the most heavily funded war machine on the face of the earth. Screw the military, though.

Funding levels aren't a great way to compare militaries, a lot of military budget goes into human capital which is heavily effected by purchasing power parity differences between countries. Depending on country it can also be hard to truly separate what is and is not defense spending, which would further complicate a comparison between militaries.

The US doesn't really spend an absurdly high amount on defense, at 3% of GDP it is high but not absurdly so, especially from a historical perspective.

For 2021, defence spending made up almost as much discretionary spending as everything else ($742bn vs $895bn).

At 3.3% of GDP, it's the third highest individual category of mandatory or discretionary spending behind Social Security and "Nondefence Discretionary". It would be more truthful to describe defence as ">10% of all government spending in the United States" rather than "3% GDP".

[Spirit of Hope]

Funding levels aren't a great way to compare militaries, a lot of military budget goes into human capital which is heavily effected by purchasing power parity differences between countries. Depending on country it can also be hard to truly separate what is and is not defense spending, which would further complicate a comparison between militaries.

The US doesn't really spend an absurdly high amount on defense, at 3% of GDP it is high but not absurdly so, especially from a historical perspective.

I dunno, a department that has never passed an independent audit and builds tanks it knows it will never use seems like something that deserves a few budget cuts.

Both great talking points that deeply misunderstand what is actually going on.

For the audit portion, the requirement for audits is relatively recent and the DoD is the largest organization in the US, both in terms of budget and number of employees. You aren't going to jump into auditing such an organization from square one and get a complete and correct audit, it takes time and repetition. Notably the DoD audits have improved over time. It is also problematic to characterize them as one audit, when they are multiple different probes carried out by different organizations and then combined at the end. They also try and use more traditional techniques, which aren't well suited for an organization of its size. There was a recent War on the Rocks article talking about some of this.

For the tanks thing, that is generally a misunderstanding of how defense procurement works. First equipment procured by the DoD is continuously being upgraded, the latest M-1 tank is an entirely different beast from previous ones. Second keeping production lines running means you are still making spare parts, and thus don't have to resort to cannibalizing some vehicles to keep other vehicles running. Third you want to keep production lines running so that you can keep expertise around and prepared in a time of war. Forth you want a reserve of vehicles in case a war happens, it allows you to rapidly replace damaged vehicles and keep your fighting force fit. Finally newer built equipment is actually less expensive to maintain than older built equipment, its why the USAF keeps trying to get ride of older airframes, they cost more to keep flying than newer ones.

This applies even if you aren't the one fighting the war, but maybe a friendly power is. The only reason that the US was able to send the M777 it did to support Ukraine is because the USMC had recently cut its M777 numbers. M777 isn't being produced anymore, so the US can't send new production to support Ukraine and there isn't a large stockpile for the US in a wartime situation. The production line can't really be restarted because no one remains who knows how to run it and the equipment to do it may not exist.

Beyond that cutting equipment without cutting personnel isn't going to save you a lot of money, a majority of the DoDs budget goes to personnel expenses. Cutting personnel would cause you all kinds of headaches, the USN is already generally unable to keep up with maintenance and ship deployments because it is asked to do so much.

Funding levels aren't a great way to compare militaries, a lot of military budget goes into human capital which is heavily effected by purchasing power parity differences between countries. Depending on country it can also be hard to truly separate what is and is not defense spending, which would further complicate a comparison between militaries.

The US doesn't really spend an absurdly high amount on defense, at 3% of GDP it is high but not absurdly so, especially from a historical perspective.

For 2021, defence spending made up almost as much discretionary spending as everything else ($742bn vs $895bn).

At 3.3% of GDP, it's the third highest individual category of mandatory or discretionary spending behind Social Security and "Nondefence Discretionary". It would be more truthful to describe defence as ">10% of all government spending in the United States" rather than "3% GDP".

I am aware of how much the US government spends on defense. My point is the US government could spend more money on other things without having to spend less money on defense. The US has a rather low percentage of government spending vs GDP when compared to other developed countries. Outside of 2020 and 2021 when spending was increased by COVID aid the US spends about 35-38% of GDP. France spends between 50-60%, the UK 40%, Germany 45-50%, Japan about 40%, Italy 50-55%, etc.

[Drongonia]

I am aware of how much the US government spends on defense. My point is the US government could spend more money on other things without having to spend less money on defense. The US has a rather low percentage of government spending vs GDP when compared to other developed countries. Outside of 2020 and 2021 when spending was increased by COVID aid the US spends about 35-38% of GDP. France spends between 50-60%, the UK 40%, Germany 45-50%, Japan about 40%, Italy 50-55%, etc.

No, they couldn't. They're already spending outside of their means.

[Spirit of Hope]

I am aware of how much the US government spends on defense. My point is the US government could spend more money on other things without having to spend less money on defense. The US has a rather low percentage of government spending vs GDP when compared to other developed countries. Outside of 2020 and 2021 when spending was increased by COVID aid the US spends about 35-38% of GDP. France spends between 50-60%, the UK 40%, Germany 45-50%, Japan about 40%, Italy 50-55%, etc.

No, they couldn't. They're already spending outside of their means.

What is your evidence for this? As I pointed out, many other developed countries are spending significantly more when compared to their GDP and their economies have been continuing to operate quite fine.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I am aware of how much the US government spends on defense. My point is the US government could spend more money on other things without having to spend less money on defense. The US has a rather low percentage of government spending vs GDP when compared to other developed countries. Outside of 2020 and 2021 when spending was increased by COVID aid the US spends about 35-38% of GDP. France spends between 50-60%, the UK 40%, Germany 45-50%, Japan about 40%, Italy 50-55%, etc.

No, they couldn't. They're already spending outside of their means.

smh more of that neoliberal agitation propaganda

[Umeria]

I dunno, a department that has never passed an independent audit and builds tanks it knows it will never use seems like something that deserves a few budget cuts.

Both great talking points that deeply misunderstand what is actually going on.

For the audit portion, the requirement for audits is relatively recent and the DoD is the largest organization in the US, both in terms of budget and number of employees. You aren't going to jump into auditing such an organization from square one and get a complete and correct audit, it takes time and repetition. Notably the DoD audits have improved over time. It is also problematic to characterize them as one audit, when they are multiple different probes carried out by different organizations and then combined at the end. They also try and use more traditional techniques, which aren't well suited for an organization of its size. There was a recent War on the Rocks article talking about some of this.

For the tanks thing, that is generally a misunderstanding of how defense procurement works. First equipment procured by the DoD is continuously being upgraded, the latest M-1 tank is an entirely different beast from previous ones. Second keeping production lines running means you are still making spare parts, and thus don't have to resort to cannibalizing some vehicles to keep other vehicles running. Third you want to keep production lines running so that you can keep expertise around and prepared in a time of war. Forth you want a reserve of vehicles in case a war happens, it allows you to rapidly replace damaged vehicles and keep your fighting force fit. Finally newer built equipment is actually less expensive to maintain than older built equipment, its why the USAF keeps trying to get ride of older airframes, they cost more to keep flying than newer ones.

This applies even if you aren't the one fighting the war, but maybe a friendly power is. The only reason that the US was able to send the M777 it did to support Ukraine is because the USMC had recently cut its M777 numbers. M777 isn't being produced anymore, so the US can't send new production to support Ukraine and there isn't a large stockpile for the US in a wartime situation. The production line can't really be restarted because no one remains who knows how to run it and the equipment to do it may not exist.

Beyond that cutting equipment without cutting personnel isn't going to save you a lot of money, a majority of the DoDs budget goes to personnel expenses. Cutting personnel would cause you all kinds of headaches, the USN is already generally unable to keep up with maintenance and ship deployments because it is asked to do so much.

You'll probably call me a conspiracy theorist for this but I doubt they're screwing up the audit process by accident. They're afraid of what would be uncovered if they modernized it and did it properly.

This is what I'm referring to re: tanks. The Army itself appears to disagree with your analysis.

By all means keep the production lines running. Get them to work repairing bridges, building schools, fixing water pipes. We desperately need it. Then when a rival superpower appears out of the ether they can go back to making weapons.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

By all means keep the production lines running. Get them to work repairing bridges, building schools, fixing water pipes. We desperately need it. Then when a rival superpower appears out of the ether they can go back to making weapons.

Making a fucking bridge doesn't equal making a modern main battle tank oh my god

[Umeria]

By all means keep the production lines running. Get them to work repairing bridges, building schools, fixing water pipes. We desperately need it. Then when a rival superpower appears out of the ether they can go back to making weapons.

Making a fucking bridge doesn't equal making a modern main battle tank oh my god

Yes one of them is useful to society

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Making a fucking bridge doesn't equal making a modern main battle tank oh my god

Yes one of them is useful to society

i wonder what ukrainians think about this vapid statement

[Umeria]

Yes one of them is useful to society

i wonder what ukrainians think about this vapid statement

I doubt they enjoy being killed by tanks either

[Picairn]

By all means keep the production lines running. Get them to work repairing bridges, building schools, fixing water pipes. We desperately need it. Then when a rival superpower appears out of the ether they can go back to making weapons.

Do you think workers can manufacture tanks in the morning and build bridges in the afternoon? Edit: Or that they can easily transition from making tanks to building bridges in a short timeframe?

[Umeria]

By all means keep the production lines running. Get them to work repairing bridges, building schools, fixing water pipes. We desperately need it. Then when a rival superpower appears out of the ether they can go back to making weapons.

Do you think workers can manufacture tanks in the morning and build bridges in the afternoon? Edit: Or that they can easily transition from making tanks ti building bridges in a short timeframe?

No. Retraining among other things is necessary. Timeframe does not need to be short.

[Grenartia]

Making a fucking bridge doesn't equal making a modern main battle tank oh my god

Yes one of them is useful to society

That's not relevant to the point:

Building tanks and other weapons (which actually ARE useful to society in order to deter attacks from hostile forces, and to actually counter hostile forces if they're stupid enough to be undeterred) are non-transferrable skills with regards to building and repairing infrastructure, in much the same way that its a fundamentally bad idea for you to rely on a plumber to do your open heart surgery.

[Umeria]

Yes one of them is useful to society

That's not relevant to the point:

Building tanks and other weapons (which actually ARE useful to society in order to deter attacks from hostile forces, and to actually counter hostile forces if they're stupid enough to be undeterred) are non-transferrable skills with regards to building and repairing infrastructure, in much the same way that its a fundamentally bad idea for you to rely on a plumber to do your open heart surgery.

Non transferable skills? How do you think we built the worlds most powerful military in the first place?

[Spirit of Hope]

Both great talking points that deeply misunderstand what is actually going on.

For the audit portion, the requirement for audits is relatively recent and the DoD is the largest organization in the US, both in terms of budget and number of employees. You aren't going to jump into auditing such an organization from square one and get a complete and correct audit, it takes time and repetition. Notably the DoD audits have improved over time. It is also problematic to characterize them as one audit, when they are multiple different probes carried out by different organizations and then combined at the end. They also try and use more traditional techniques, which aren't well suited for an organization of its size. There was a recent War on the Rocks article talking about some of this.

For the tanks thing, that is generally a misunderstanding of how defense procurement works. First equipment procured by the DoD is continuously being upgraded, the latest M-1 tank is an entirely different beast from previous ones. Second keeping production lines running means you are still making spare parts, and thus don't have to resort to cannibalizing some vehicles to keep other vehicles running. Third you want to keep production lines running so that you can keep expertise around and prepared in a time of war. Forth you want a reserve of vehicles in case a war happens, it allows you to rapidly replace damaged vehicles and keep your fighting force fit. Finally newer built equipment is actually less expensive to maintain than older built equipment, its why the USAF keeps trying to get ride of older airframes, they cost more to keep flying than newer ones.

This applies even if you aren't the one fighting the war, but maybe a friendly power is. The only reason that the US was able to send the M777 it did to support Ukraine is because the USMC had recently cut its M777 numbers. M777 isn't being produced anymore, so the US can't send new production to support Ukraine and there isn't a large stockpile for the US in a wartime situation. The production line can't really be restarted because no one remains who knows how to run it and the equipment to do it may not exist.

Beyond that cutting equipment without cutting personnel isn't going to save you a lot of money, a majority of the DoDs budget goes to personnel expenses. Cutting personnel would cause you all kinds of headaches, the USN is already generally unable to keep up with maintenance and ship deployments because it is asked to do so much.

You'll probably call me a conspiracy theorist for this but I doubt they're screwing up the audit process by accident. They're afraid of what would be uncovered if they modernized it and did it properly.

Absent any evidence of that being the case, yes that would qualify as a conspiracy theory.

This is what I'm referring to re: tanks. The Army itself appears to disagree with your analysis.

Note that was a one time situation covering three years and is exactly one of the scenarios I talked about, keeping a production line running at minimal capacity in order to retain trained staff capable of making the equipment in the future. The Army pointed out that Congress could save money by not doing that, Congress decided that the short term money savings probably wouldn't be worth it compared to potential issues restarting the production line later. Plus it doesn't hurt a congress person to keep jobs in their district.

By all means keep the production lines running. Get them to work repairing bridges, building schools, fixing water pipes. We desperately need it. Then when a rival superpower appears out of the ether they can go back to making weapons.

That isn't how production lines work, and there are plenty of regional and international rivals that the US is contending with. North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, international terrorist and criminal organizations all jump to mind.