The Biden Presidency

[Belz...]

If it were me, I would have cut the budget by exactly how much Trump took when he declared the state of emergency to allow him to siphon off money for his border wall.

That, or ask for a big increase in military budgets now, but declare a new state of emergency (over something like global warming) in order to divert the money (to something like green energy projects).

You could cut the military budget in half and still be powerful enough to project American hegemony everywhere in the world with little or no opposition.

Imagine what you could do every year with that kind of money for infrastructure, etc.

 

[Aridas]

You could cut the military budget in half and still be powerful enough to project American hegemony everywhere in the world with little or no opposition.

Imagine what you could do every year with that kind of money for infrastructure, etc.

For that matter, "soft" power is frequently more useful for obtaining good results than military power. Significantly higher investment into the military than the US already invests honestly isn't all that likely to change much of anything if it comes to a military conflict - and a notably lower investment honestly probably wouldn't move that bar much either. More soft power at this point makes military conflict much less likely and both opens and strengthens our ability to engage in alternative approaches.

 

[Belz...]

For that matter, "soft" power is frequently more useful for obtaining good results than military power. Significantly higher investment into the military than the US already invests honestly isn't all that likely to change much of anything if it comes to a military conflict - and a notably lower investment honestly probably wouldn't move that bar much either. More soft power at this point makes military conflict much less likely and both opens and strengthens our ability to engage in alternative approaches.

Yeah but that doesn't go pew pew pow pow so it's not as fun.

 

[Armitage72]

For that matter, "soft" power is frequently more useful for obtaining good results than military power. Significantly higher investment into the military than the US already invests honestly isn't all that likely to change much of anything if it comes to a military conflict - and a notably lower investment honestly probably wouldn't move that bar much either. More soft power at this point makes military conflict much less likely and both opens and strengthens our ability to engage in alternative approaches.

I once explained the benefits of non-military foreign aid to my parents in terms of someone saying "Blow them up? No. They helped me a lot when I was growing up." That's more efficient in the long run than shooting them when they're older. It's better to be loved than feared.

 

[ahhell]

You could cut the military budget in half and still be powerful enough to project American hegemony everywhere in the world with little or no opposition.

Imagine what you could do every year with that kind of money for infrastructure, etc.

Not in Asia. Something that is often forgotten, is that the US has treaties that obligate us to defend half the world. Well, actually a third.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/us-defend-these-67-countries/

It may be better to be loved than feared but the big guy on the block will never really be loved. Especially when he's been a bully for the last 50 years.

 

[Belz...]

Not in Asia. Something that is often forgotten, is that the US has treaties that obligate us to defend half the world. Well, actually a third.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/us-defend-these-67-countries/

It may be better to be loved than feared but the big guy on the block will never really be loved. Especially when he's been a bully for the last 50 years.

That doesn't really counter what I said. The question is how much money is needed to do all that with some margin. I'm pretty sure the answer is "a lot less than is spent now."

 

[ahhell]

That doesn't really counter what I said. The question is how much money is needed to do all that with some margin. I'm pretty sure the answer is "a lot less than is spent now."

I doubt you are correct but that is debatable. My point about Asia is that with the way Russia and China are acting if we didn't spend so much, there is little doubt that both would expand almost immediately. China is getting ready to take back Taiwan at the least.

 

[Belz...]

I doubt you are correct but that is debatable. My point about Asia is that with the way Russia and China are acting if we didn't spend so much, there is little doubt that both would expand almost immediately. China is getting ready to take back Taiwan at the least.

It'd rub them the wrong way if Taiwan became part of Japan. Hell, it might be worth doing that just to tee them off.

 

[Aridas]

I doubt you are correct but that is debatable. My point about Asia is that with the way Russia and China are acting if we didn't spend so much, there is little doubt that both would expand almost immediately. China is getting ready to take back Taiwan at the least.

And if China seriously tries to do so, there's a distinctly limited amount that the US can honestly do, militarily, even if the military budget was notably ramped up. They have a bunch of huge natural advantages in that conflict. The question at that point more becomes how we can make it not worth their while, which, in many ways, is better done with soft power.

 

[ahhell]

And if China seriously tries to do so, there's a distinctly limited amount that the US can honestly do, militarily, even if the military budget was notably ramped up. They have a bunch of huge natural advantages in that conflict.

You are correct there.

The question at that point more becomes how we can make it not worth their while, which, in many ways, is better done with soft power.

I disagree here, again, debatable, but I don't see any evidence the Communist Party gives a **** about US soft power.

 

[RolandRat]

"White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Monday defended President Joe Biden's communication style after a Republican senator used a Politico article about the president's limited social media usage to question Biden's leadership ability.

"I can confirm that the president of the United States does not spend his time tweeting conspiracy theories," Psaki told reporters during a news conference, in an apparent jab at former President Donald Trump's Twitter habits before the social media platform permanently suspended his account after the Capitol riot on January 6.

Psaki's comments were a response to GOP Sen. John Cornyn's tweeted excerpts from a Politico article that called Biden's tweets "unimaginably conventional."

"The president is not doing cable news interviews," Cornyn tweeted, quoting the Politico article. "Tweets from his account are limited and, when they come, unimaginably conventional. The public comments are largely scripted. Biden has opted for fewer sit down interviews with mainstream outlets and reporters."

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/psaki-says-biden-does-not-175633248.html

 

[Belz...]

"White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Monday defended President Joe Biden's communication style after a Republican senator used a Politico article about the president's limited social media usage to question Biden's leadership ability.

"I can confirm that the president of the United States does not spend his time tweeting conspiracy theories,"

That's almost word-for-word what came to mind when I read the first paragraph. Great minds, and all.

 

[dudalb]

The ideologues on both the left and the right don't like Biden's defense budget, which tells me he probably got it right.

 

[dudalb]

That doesn't really counter what I said. The question is how much money is needed to do all that with some margin. I'm pretty sure the answer is "a lot less than is spent now."

It's easy to say that with general and vague terms ; I want to see what exactly you would cut in the military budget. Be Specific.
I am all in favor of cutting waste in the military, but it has to be done carefully. I don't want a repeat of what happened in the Carter Adminstration, where the cuts so so steep and so fact that the US had a "Hollow Military" which the Soviets say and took advantage of. Even Carter realized the cuts had been too deep .

 

[Belz...]

It's easy to say that with general and vague terms ; I want to see what exactly you would cut in the military budget. Be Specific.

I'm not going to be specific because I have insufficient knowledge in how the budget is distributed. I'm simply saying that the US spends probably way too much for the intended purpose. Yes, it should be done carefully, but that doesn't mean you can't make important cuts.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Various right wing talking heads are trying their goddamn damnest to make criticizing Biden for being "boring" stick, as if having a President who isn't doing stuff so either stupid, crazy, stupid crazy, or crazy stupid that no sane person can ignore it is a bad thing.

 

[acbytesla]

It's easy to say that with general and vague terms ; I want to see what exactly you would cut in the military budget. Be Specific.
I am all in favor of cutting waste in the military, but it has to be done carefully. I don't want a repeat of what happened in the Carter Adminstration, where the cuts so so steep and so fact that the US had a "Hollow Military" which the Soviets say and took advantage of. Even Carter realized the cuts had been too deep .

I couldn't disagree more. The United States spends more than the top ten nations combined. And yet somehow we always need to spend more and never have enough for healthcare. We spent close to that ratio during the Carter administration. It's long been recognized that the Soviet Union during that period was a paper tiger.

One of the big cons during the cold war was the number of tanks the Russians had particularly in the European theater. The US military never failed to point this out. All the while not really caring since the US plan was to counter with helicopters and A-10s.

We've never gone "too deep" and Carter being a Naval Officer didn't.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The United States doesn't spend to much on its military.

It spends way to much on its military industrial complex.

The military doesn't want 90% of this crap.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The United States doesn't spend to much on its military.

It spends way to much on its military industrial complex.

The military doesn't want 90% of this crap.

What 'crap' does it not want exactly?
Which 90% do they want rid of?

 

[ahhell]

90% almost certainly overstates it but it is true that congress has force the DoD to buy stuff they don't want. Defense contractors have gotten very good at making sure pars of there airplanes are source from as many districts as possible.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charle...t-1-8-trillion-spending-bill/?sh=1a70ddab68cd

We could easily start by getting rid of the ground based and air craft base nuclear arsenal.