CBO releases Build Back Better score without sunset gimmicks, Cost Estimate is $4.9 Trillion

[zantax]

@Liberty323

@Tom_Ch

Now that we are out of war , can we cut pentagon budget by 1/3?

And bring the troops home. I don’t see why we couldn’t cut it by 1/3. Nobody can touch us in terms of conventional weaponry, and if the nukes get us it won’t matter anyway.

Just ignore the Chinese hypersonic missiles and navy expansion

[FloridaYankee]

@e7alr

Sure, if you want to end up in a war because someone thinks you military is hollow.

Cutting it by one third as was suggested would leave us with, well, hmmmm, the most powerful military in the world.

[e7alr]

We are facing an expanding China, engaged in a massive military build up. They pretty much build all of their own equipment now, at their lower cost rate than ours. Their GDP is about half of ours, but their costs are maybe a sixth, or less than ours. We just passed a $768 Billion USD defense budget. They are spending about $250 Billion USD annually, but getting 5+ times the amount of defense items for the amount spent.

[Axxowiz]

Trillions the new billions They can’t keep it up regardless of party, no party survives any election if they are the ones in charge with runaway with inflation.

[STODR]

Very true, but what needs to be cut that does not provide any combat capability most libs would be against.

[Tom_Ch]

@zantax

@Liberty323

@Tom_Ch

Now that we are out of war , can we cut pentagon budget by 1/3?

And bring the troops home. I don’t see why we couldn’t cut it by 1/3. Nobody can touch us in terms of conventional weaponry, and if the nukes get us it won’t matter anyway.

Just ignore the Chinese hypersonic missiles and navy expansion

What is a good number? Outspend China on military by 3 to 1? 10 to 1? 50 to 1?

[Tom_Ch]

@STODR

Very true, but what needs to be cut that does not provide any combat capability most libs would be against.

Cut the budget first and pentagon can decide where to allocate the money.

[e7alr]

The answer is to make defense spending battle focused against the greatest threat.

[e7alr]

Except congress, not DOD decides where the money is spent.

[SixFoot]

Pork! Get ya pork!

[WuWei]

@FloridaYankee

@e7alr

Sure, if you want to end up in a war because someone thinks you military is hollow.

Cutting it by one third as was suggested would leave us with, well, hmmmm, the most powerful military in the world.

We don’t have the “most powerful military in the world” now.

[Hexenbiest]

What happened to that Simpson and Bowles committee that Obama appointed to study ways of reducing the national debt? I am assuming they are sharing a cell at Guantanamo Bay.

[DougBH]

@Tom_Ch

@STODR

Very true, but what needs to be cut that does not provide any combat capability most libs would be against.

Cut the budget first and pentagon can decide where to allocate the money.

Or…we could cut the military and NOT add trillions in new social welfare systems. Cutting trillions in one place doesn’t mean throwing it away elsewhere.

[Liberty323]

I think we would be ok with 2/3 of the current defense spending. Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, etc might get a little pissed off, but oh well. I’m for cutting pork everywhere.

[Tom_Ch]

@e7alr

The answer is to make defense spending battle focused against the greatest threat.

I’d like to make budget American citizens focused.

[e7alr]

From the preamble of the constitution " Provide for the Common Defense." The purpose of the defense budget is to provide for that common defense for all American Citizens. We do that through deterrence, if possible, and if not, by closing with, and destroying, on any battlefield, anywhere, the forces of our enemies. The key to both of these is combat readiness and capability, in other words, battle focused.

Without an effective common defense, there will be nothing else. No United States, no American citizens, no budget.

[Tom_Ch]

@e7alr

From the preamble of the constitution " Provide for the Common Defense." The purpose of the defense budget is to provide for that common defense for all American Citizens. We do that through deterrence, if possible, and if not, by closing with, and destroying, on any battlefield, anywhere, the forces of our enemies. The key to both of these is combat readiness and capability, in other words, battle focused.

Without an effective common defense, there will be nothing else. No United States, no American citizens, no budget.

We are not disagreeing on need for defense. We are disagreeing on the amount we should spend.

God forbid we cut any military budget of 750 billion dollars. Are we going to coming weak if we spend 700 billion?

[e7alr]

I’m saying make the portion of the budge dedicated to defense only about defense and tie it to capability to deter, and if necessary defeat, our most dangerous potential opponent. Defense dollars should go on nothing other than this, and only in amounts reasonably expected to accomplish this.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

And the truth begins to come out…

Lindsey Graham offers case study in how not to have a policy debate

Lindsey Graham offers case study in how not to have a policy debate

[STODR]

I disagree. He had them score it on what we all know what will happen. Those sunset clauses will not happen, it is smoke and mirrors. The dishonest part is the Dems putting in thoses clauses knowing they will fight for their extention later.