Deficits only matter when Democrats are in the White House, and they count double if a black Democrat is president. Republicans campaign on promising not only to eliminate the deficit but pay off the debt, and somehow manage to avoid being smitten by lightning and the Bible doesn’t spontaneously combust when they are sworn in.
The Tea Party has just been consumed by the White Nationalists just as Republicans were taken over by Fascists. Tea Partiers never gave a flying fuck about deficits, they just couldn’t stomach the idea of a black president.
In the context of the thread, this is rather pointless nitpicking.
First of all, Will Farnaby said that the Dems agreed to give the Pentagon every cent they asked for, which is actually pretty much what happened. As this story notes, officials at the Pentagon had been planning for the $733B figure, and talks of more than this were actually “a welcome surprise to military planners.”
So the figure that Dems have agreed to is basically the figure that military officials were counting on, and your correction of Will Farnaby is, at best, a rather semantic one, and depends on exactly whom you define as “Trump’s Pentagon.” If it’s the military planners themselves, he is correct; if it’s Mick Mulvaney, then you are. Tomato, tomahto.
But much more importantly, his central point stands: in the face of growing deficits and a massive national debt, the best that Democrats and Republicans can do is tinker around the edges, bickering about exactly how many more billions the Pentagon should be getting, when what they should be talking about is significantly scaling back military spending.
This is not just about what parties do; it’s about the connection (or otherwise) between what they say and what they do. Refresh my memory, which party is the one that makes fiscal conservatism and reduced government spending a centerpiece of its platform? And refresh my memory also on which party held both houses and Congress AND the White House for the two years starting in January 2017.
This is hilarious, and I would actually be surprised at the disingenousness of this argument if I didn’t have almost two decades of experience with your obfuscatory debating tactics. It’s a perfect storm of Shodan false equivalency.
Obama promised to halve the deficit in his first term in office, and according to your linked story, he “only” managed to REDUCE the deficit by about $500 billion. Trump promised to reduce the deficit, and he mas managed to ADD over $300 billion to the deficit in three years, with the promise of even greater deficits in the years ahead.
In your mind, these two things are apparently equal. LOL.
I should also like to add the fact that Obama inherited a costly war and a tattered economy that was in dire straights, while Trump inherited a basically ramped down war and a strong economy.
Huh? mhendo’s cite, which you thanked him for, says the Pentagon requested $750 billion: “Trump seeks $750 billion.”
You can’t say DoD requested $733 billion when you literally just read that they did not. (Mind you, $733 billion is still too much, to say nothing of $738 billion, but that’s the nature of compromise.)
Like I said in my post, it depends how you define “Trump’s Pentagon.”
As my story notes, the military leaders in the Pentagon were all set at $733 billion, but Mulvaney (presumably after some DoD types got in his ear) convinced Trump that it should be $750 billion.
But your last parenthetical sentence is the more important one, and it’s why I accused DinoR of pointless nitpicking. The most important thing, in the context of this discussion, is that Dems seem basically just as willing as the GOP to hand the military pretty much all the money it wants, and to continue increasing military appropriations at a time when those appropriations should be reduced.
I don’t agree with that. We’ve seen what Republicans do when they control Congress and the Presidency. Let’s come back to this thread the next time Democrats are in the same position and see what they do with respect to the deficit. Personally, I think they’d be a damn sight more responsible than the Republicans.
If the debt and deficit aren’t really the big issues that people are focusing on, and if people care much more about all of the other things you’ve listed, then surely it should be pretty easy to pass a budget that reduces the deficit. If everyone is paying attention to the other stuff, and you hold both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency, and if you’ve run on a campaign of reducing the deficit and the debt, why not just pass a responsible budget? If the issue is “not a big deal” and is “utterly drowned out by other noise,” as you suggest, then there will no political downside to cutting the deficit, right?
But the Pentagon doesn’t just decide on its own what size budget it wants to plan for. That’s decided by the Office of Management and Budget in the White House. So what actually happened was:
In 2018, OMB told DoD to plan for $733 billion.
Around fall 2018, Trump tweeted that we spend too much on the military and the budget should be $700 billion. (I’m not making this up.)
OMB shit their pants and told DoD to now plan for $700 billion. Other trousers were then soiled.
A few months went by, and minds changed again, and this time the number was decreed to be $750 billion.
At no point does DoD decide how much money it is going to ask for - this is all determined by OMB (and half the time directed by law.)
Never said they did. But this doesn’t mean that they don’t have an ear to the ground when the process is happening, or that they don’t have a sense of how much money they would like and how much they’re likely to get.
I didn’t say that the Pentagon requested any specific amount. What I said was, and what my linked story said was, that the leaders in the Pentagon were expecting 733, they were making their plans based on 733, and were mostly fine with 733.
And again, all of this is almost completely irrelevant to the central point, which is the bipartisan spending spree that the two parties lavish on the military.
I’m not mhendo, but I would say this is the time because the deficit is inexcusably high.
Sure, it can be done. All we need is a Congress committed to doing it, from either party or both parties.
Neither party is. It’s a big deal when the other side is in power, and different when my side is in power.
As you mention, the last time the budget was balanced was when a Democrat was in the White House and the GOP controlled Congress. Will that happen if Biden or Sanders or Harris or one of the others is in the Oval Office and the GOP controls the Senate and House? Will it happen if Trump is re-elected and the Dems take over the Senate?
I tend to doubt it.
This is like global warming. It is better as a campaign issue, because the actual policies to address it are going to very unpopular and painful.
The Green New Deal lost in the Senate 0-57. The Bush era tax cuts could have been left to expire if the Dems simply did nothing, but they were extended. Even the Dems in the Senate knew which side their bread was buttered on.
Framing it as “well, I guess all the parties just do it the same, those crazy politicians” is the last refuge of people who are unwilling to take a hard stand against the obvious Republican lie.
I probably could have phrased that better. It’s not that something has suddenly happened now. I’m not arguing that there’s something unique about 2019, or the Trump presidency, that makes reducing military spending a good idea.
It’s simply that the United States has spent far too much on its military for years–decades–and it’s one of the areas where spending could be reduced without in any meaningful way reducing the practical safety of the United States and its people. We could have saved about $10 billion a month over an extended period simply by not engaging in a dishonest and idiotic invasion of Iraq.