Highlights of the Bill

@wildgrass said
Of course security can be quantified. But you cannot track the spending. You cannot make any reasonable argument that the $150 billion in extra spending on defense led to increased security. This is not the case for other government agencies where the deliverables are transparent and quantified (and a lot cheaper).

Conversely, it has been argued for decades by fiscal con ...[text shortened]... vatives that cuts to defense spending would have no impact on military readiness or civilian safety.

I'm not against cutting defense spending from where it is now. If I ever controlled the US economy, I'd balance the budget, come Hell or High Water. No spending program would go unscathed (and I'd raise taxes too).

@sh76 said
There's grift and pork and incompetence in every government program, which is why, by and large, government sucks at doing stuff. It's not that the administrators are bad people, but lack of economic incentives will do that to a program. Nobody fundamentally gives a damn when the DoD pays $435 for a hammer. So it happens.

Still, as government programs go, at least military sp ...[text shortened]... f the government). But as government wastefulness goes, military spending is not the worst offender.

Ryan MacBeth short video about government paying $435 for hammers

YouTube

@AverageJoe1 said
There's so much in the Bill.. I'm so tired of Democrats saying this is a tax for millionaires. Every single family in America that pay taxes on average gets about a $2000 reduction in their taxes, and then every small business man and woman,.... as you know small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Major employers will see about a 20% reduction in their taxes. If ...[text shortened]... future elections.
I believe many posters are democrats. Y'all have found your new messenger.

"Joe, you ignorant slut!" 😉 -- really just using that SNL ref out of nostalgia for free speech.

This is how I see things, as a man of 65+ who remembers The Tofflers' "Future Shock" and Naisbitt's "Megatrends" (among others):

The USA at the moment has one of the most immature, cowardly, corrupt, and ignorant governments in our history.

Sure, on the face of it, it is correct to expect able-bodied Medicaid recipients to contribute something to society by working 20 hrs a week.

Something you might be aware of, if you are or have been a member of the legal profession in the USA: similar to IT jobs, legal jobs are becoming harder to come by, especially for older people with more experience.

I hope you have been truthful about presenting yourself as a career lawyer, and also one from the central USA (as opposed to a member of a Chinese Op Team, for instance ( 大家好，请尽量善待我们。)

That's really just background for my observation that our current politicians seem to be ignorant of the tech tidal-wave already crossing our metaphorical shores, which is already affecting us culturally and will soon affect everyone economically.

Or maybe they don't want to cause a panic and are just secretly aware that if AI doesn't snuff us for being obviously psychotic, it might kindly fire us all from our old-world jobs and take good care of us after that?

@wildgrass said
There's also a lot of research and development (sometimes a decade or more) before phase 1 trials. In aggregate these dollars can exceed trials, especially including the failed ideas. Most of that is supported by NIH and DoD not pharma.

I agree with you it's a con. Still don't think single payer will fix it. Unless maybe you're aiming to roll big pharma into government?

Europeans have these crazy ideas like, if your "innovative, new" drug is no better than standard of care? Then the reimbursement you get is - you guessed it - standard of care (usually some cheap, decades old drug)!

To be compensated for innovation? You actually have to be INNOVATIVE! You have to do BETTER!

Crazy, huh? Single payer is actually more of a "drug meritocracy" than we have now in our supposed "free market" (which isn't that - not even close!) 😆

@sh76 said
I'm not against cutting defense spending from where it is now. If I ever controlled the US economy, I'd balance the budget, come Hell or High Water. No spending program would go unscathed (and I'd raise taxes too).

Right, well, you pitched military spending as a good thing earlier in the thread. But the cost???

The new analysis shows that the Trump administration’s budget plan, if adopted, “would essentially end America’s longstanding role as the world leader in science and innovation,” said Toby Smith, senior vice president for government relations and public policy at the Association of American Universities

They only really "saved" about $10 billion in doing that. But the $150 billion more in the defense budget is good because middle class families or whatever.

@sh76 said
An analysis would make an interesting paper.

I skimmed this one, but I'm not an advanced math guy, so I didn't really understand it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268025000564

I've bookmarked this one to read later.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/focusing-on-quality-over-quantity-in-the-us-military-budget/

Many studies focus on the eco ...[text shortened]... ding, but I'd like to see one that quantifies security completely aside from measurable GDP effects.

Those articles are discussing economic benefits albeit indirect ones. That was not my point.

Bigger and better hammers in military spending just make every problem look more and more like a smaller nail. I question whether this country's indiscriminate and almost gleeful use of force over my lifetime has increased our security at all.

@no1marauder said
I question whether this country's indiscriminate and almost gleeful use of force over my lifetime has increased our security at all.

Easy to figure out, just imagine what the world would be like if OUR country didn't use force when needed, starting with WW2. ...(not "this" country, unless you are from somewhere else or you are ashamed of our country)

@Cliff-Mashburn said
Easy to figure out, just imagine what the world would be like if OUR country didn't use force when needed, starting with WW2. ...(not "this" country, unless you are from somewhere else or you are ashamed of our country)

Yes, imagine no Vietnam or prolonged occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan or our other foreign meddlings.

@no1marauder said
Yes, imagine no Vietnam or prolonged occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan or our other foreign meddlings.

Well, there you have me. Vietnam was the start of America turning to the Dark Side of the Force and not being considered The Good Guys after that.
Who was in charge during the start of the war and who escalated it to insane levels?
Oh...yeah...the Democrap Administration.
Who ended it?
Oh..yeah...the Republicans....

@Cliff-Mashburn said
Well, there you have me. Vietnam was the start of America turning to the Dark Side of the Force and not being considered The Good Guys after that.
Who was in charge during the start of the war and who escalated it to insane levels?
Oh...yeah...the Democrap Administration.
Who ended it?
Oh..yeah...the Republicans....

LMAO! Eisenhower torpedoed the 1954 Geneva Accords which would have created a unified Vietnam and avoided the whole mess; he gave military support for the dictators in South Vietnam throughout his administration. Goldwater campaigned in 1964 for massive escalation including the possible use of nuclear weapons against the Vietnamese. Nixon invaded Cambodia and hyped up the bombing campaign so much he brought the US to the brink of war with the USSR and China.

I know telling real history to rabid right wingers is a useless exercise, but the Republican party's predominant position throughout the Vietnam War was a call for more violence not less.

Anyway, that's a bit off-topic; both big money parties share in the blame for the massive expansion of US military spending and for reckless and ultimately futile foreign adventures.

@no1marauder said
LMAO! Eisenhower torpedoed the 1954 Geneva Accords which would have created a unified Vietnam and avoided the whole mess; he gave military support for the dictators in South Vietnam throughout his administration. Goldwater campaigned in 1964 for massive escalation including the possible use of nuclear weapons against the Vietnamese. Nixon invaded Cambodia and hyped up the ...[text shortened]... massive expansion of US military spending and for reckless and ultimately futile foreign adventures.

It's not a both parties thing. Democrats are the ones who reduce deficit spending. Every single time.

The Clinton administration cut spending at the Pentagon as a priority item to reduce deficits. They reduced standing army troop numbers and doubled the NIH budget at the same time, refocusing on national priorities and causing an explosion of economic growth.

@wildgrass said
It's not a both parties thing. Democrats are the ones who reduce deficit spending. Every single time.

The Clinton administration cut spending at the Pentagon as a priority item to reduce deficits. They reduced standing army troop numbers and doubled the NIH budget at the same time, refocusing on national priorities and causing an explosion of economic growth.

No, defense spending fell every year from 1987 to 1998 due to the collapse of the USSR. By 2000, defense spending was as high under Clinton than it had been under Bush Sr.https://www.americanprogress.org/article/a-historical-perspective-on-defense-budgets/

And, of course, Clinton engaged in military adventures like Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia, Iraq, etc. etc. etc.

@no1marauder said
No, defense spending fell every year from 1987 to 1998 due to the collapse of the USSR. By 2000, defense spending was as high under Clinton than it had been under Bush Sr.https://www.americanprogress.org/article/a-historical-perspective-on-defense-budgets/

And, of course, Clinton engaged in military adventures like Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia, Iraq, etc. etc. etc.

Clnton engaged in military adventures but he did it while reducing the budget. So I'm ok with it.

@wildgrass said
Clnton engaged in military adventures but he did it while reducing the budget. So I'm ok with it.

Then I'd say your priorities are [expletive deleted] up.

@no1marauder said
Then I'd say your priorities are [expletive deleted] up.

Deficits last year were $2 trillion and this year we are already $200 billion over that.