Trump promises huge boost in military spending

[webfact]

Trump promises huge boost in military spending

By STEVE PEOPLES

 

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Republican Donald Trump vowed Wednesday to boost defense spending and deploy more active troops, fighter planes, Navy ships and submarines as he works to convince skeptics in both parties that he's ready to lead the world's most powerful military.

 

The New York businessman, who has struggled at times to demonstrate a command of foreign policy, also seemed to acknowledge he does not currently have a plan to address cyber security or the Islamic State group.

 

If elected, Trump said he would give military leaders 30 days to formulate a plan to defeat the group, commonly known as ISIS. He also said he would ask the joint chiefs of staff to conduct a review of the nation's cyber defenses to determine all vulnerabilities.

 

Trump's address came hours before his national security acumen is tested at a "commander in chief" forum on NBC.

 

"We want to deter, avoid and prevent conflict through our unquestioned military strength," Trump declared of his Democratic opponent in his Wednesday speech, delivered inside the exclusive Union League of Philadelphia, which first allowed women in 1986.

 

The appearances mark an intense, two-day focus on national security by Trump, who has offered tough rhetoric — but few details — on America's challenges abroad.

 

Trump's rival, Democrat Hillary Clinton, has tried to paint the billionaire businessman as erratic, making the case that his disposition would be a major liability on the world stage.

 

"They know they can count on me to be the kind of commander in chief who will protect our country and our troops, and they know they cannot count on Donald Trump," Clinton said Tuesday. "They view him as a danger and a risk."

 

Trump's team has worked aggressively in recent days to turn deflect such criticism back at Clinton.

 

"She's trigger-happy and very unstable," Trump said of his Democratic opponent, calling her use of a private email server while secretary of state "reckless."

 

While Clinton and Trump will be featured at the Wednesday night forum, they will appear at separate times and will not face each other on stage. The forum could serve as a warm-up to their highly anticipated first presidential debate, scheduled for Sept. 26 in New York.

 

Trump's Union League address also included his plans to eliminate deep spending cuts, known as the "sequester," enacted when Congress failed to reach a budget compromise in 2011. Republicans and Democrats voted for the automatic, across-the board cuts that affected both military and domestic programs.

 

Military leaders have said that they can live with an active duty Army of 490,000 — bolstered by nearly 500,000 soldiers in the National Guard and Reserves — as long as Congress provides enough funding to support that troop level. Gen. Mark Milley, the Army chief of staff, said last month that he is comfortable with a 1 million-soldier Army, and would welcome a larger force, only if Congress provides the money to maintain troop readiness.

 

Increasing the size without increase other support, he said, will decrease readiness and hollow out the force.

 

As for how he would pay for it, Trump insisted on Wednesday that he would fully offset the costs of his new spending through savings and new revenue. He said he would make the government "leaner," in part by using attrition to shrink the workforce, and said he'd bring in new money by asking countries like Germany, Japan and Saudi Arabia to pay more for the security the U.S. provides them.

 

Even before promising a huge boost in military spending, Trump's plans to cut taxes, expand infrastructure spending and leave untouched entitlement programs such as Social Security already threatened to add trillions of dollars to the federal deficit.

 

Trying to emphasize his military support, Trump's campaign released a letter on Tuesday from 88 retired generals and admirals citing an urgent need for a "course correction" in America's national security policy. It was aimed at rebutting Clinton's arguments that she would be best positioned to lead the military and reassuring Republicans who have openly worried that his provocative statements might undermine U.S. alliances.

 

Trump's proposal to lift the sequester limits on military spending won praise from Republicans on Capitol Hill even as some acknowledged the reality that Democratic opposition might render it difficult to achieve.

 

"Obviously it's not something that would get through this Congress, so that's something we'd have to look at the election next year. But I agree with him in terms of lifting the sequester on defense, he's absolutely correct about that," said GOP. Rep Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a high-level member of the Appropriations Committee.

 

But questions remain, even in his party.

 

Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, repeatedly refused to say directly whether he had confidence in Trump as commander in chief when questioned on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Wednesday.

 

"I do believe that Donald Trump is growing in his understanding of these issues and I think that he's beginning to get more and more people around him that have a depth of understanding as to the complexities and I'm watching this evolve," he said.

___

Associated Press writers Jill Colvin, Erica Werner and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-09-08

[Emster23]

They already have a plan to defeat ISIS militarily and it is working. Guess Trump didn't notice that. It's the "hearts and minds" segment that is worrisome. US military already bigger budget than next 6-12 countries combined (depends on which data one uses). Pay for it with savings and new revenue? Meanwhile pushes revoking "death tax" (tax on those with estates > $5 million), acts like that somehow benefits his working class backers... only helps less than 1% of tops.

"She's trigger-happy and very unstable," Trump said of his Democratic opponent, " Now there is a classic example of projection.

[smotherb]

It's obvious, Trump will need more military funding to back-up his big mouth.

[Grubster]

At least he is bringing more important issues to the table. I have grown so tired of the smoke screen issues of abortion and gun laws. Lets bring good paying jobs back to the people. I hope to hear more of that in the debates. 

[Pinot]

Trump can't wait to get in there and start another war, same ole shit from Republicans. Instead of cutting the military budget in times of peace, Trump wants to increase it, rattle sabres and try and provoke as much mayhem as possible as soon as possible.  

 

That's your clueless Republican nominee for POTUS, right there. THE worst of all time. 

 

Sixty days and counting till the Trump TV Network. I see it as TV for the extreme-right fringe of conservative America (Republican base), appealing to the white supremacist, misogynist and authoritarian wingnuts. All blond bimbos repeating wingnut lies 24/7 (very similar to Fox News now only more cleavage and lies). It's going to be YUGE.  

[williamgeorgeallen]

official figures were quoted at 600 billion/year spent by the US on the military. turns out it is actually 6.5 trillion. more than the next 7 biggest spenders combined.  surely trump should worry more about the growing poor class in america. 

[Rancid]

You do wonder though whether the US public will ever start to seriously question why they need such massive military budgets. No one would ever dare attack the nuclear armed US even with a more affordable military, where is all that money better spent, on infrastructure, jobs etc or to line the pockets of defense contractors?

 

Not needing to justify a huge military also means not having to continually find new bogie men.

[LALes]

And this guy calls himself the "outsider" candidate???

Same old crap Republicans have been spewing for 60+ years.

Throw some red meat to the masses.

[vaultdweller0013]

57 minutes ago, Rancid said:

You do wonder though whether the US public will ever start to seriously question why they need such massive military budgets. No one would ever dare attack the nuclear armed US even with a more affordable military, where is all that money better spent, on infrastructure, jobs etc or to line the pockets of defense contractors?

 

Not needing to justify a huge military also means not having to continually find new bogie men.

 

Nowadays, the US military budget is quite reasonable. It is on the large side, but its sitting at around 3.5% of GDP, which is very manageable.

 

The issue will be if someone pulls another Bush Jr. and dramatically increases the defense budget while lowering taxes at the same time. Sadly, this seems to be a consistent Republic platform element.

[dave_boo]

Can I just point out that the massive spending that the US has for the military ensures that other countries don't have to spend it?  Whilst not perfect (Ukraine and Georgia being cases in point), take just NATO for example.  The US constitutes 30% of the forces that makes up a great deterrent against aggression in the region.  The USN has taken over the reigns from the once mighty UK (seriously, read up on how far their navy has fallen) in ensuring relative tranquility of the oceans' shipping lanes.

 

Just imagine what would happen if America practiced their pre-WWI isolationism.  They would pull out all of their Eastern Hemisphere bases.  Each of those countries would then be obliged to provide for their own defence.  Those same countries would have to find a way to safeguard their shipments (much as the US had to do after gaining independence from Great Britain when their ships tried to sail the Mediterranean).

 

If you cheer that idea, good for you.  Note that your home country would most likely have to double their military spending to make up for the slack of the US pulling out.  

[iReason]

Oh look!

 

The Bloviator has "promised" something. 

 

Retired general calls Trump's 30-day ISIS order 'sophomoric'

 

"I had to ask myself, what the hell does he think we've been trying to do for the last 14 years in terms of al Qaeda?"

"At a rally in Greenville, North Carolina, Trump said that on day one of his presidency, he would convene his top generals and give what he called a "simple instruction" to in 30 days submit to the Oval Office "a plan for soundly and quickly defeating ISIS."

"It shows a complete lack of understanding of the threat and the ways to fight it," Hertling said. "It's a sophomoric approach to elements of national security policy because if he's just calling in the military, he's missing the point that there are several other elements of national security that will help defeat ISIS."

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/mark-hertling-trump-30-day-isis-plan/index.html

What a completely ignorant buffoonish clown the Bloviator is.

A true danger to the U.S. and to the world.

I weep for the Trumpeteers.

Who are conspicuously absent. Once again.

With no defense for this fool they follow like Lemmings...

Lovin' it.  

 

Dunning Kruger.

Edited September 8, 2016 by iReason

[vaultdweller0013]

28 minutes ago, dave_boo said:

Can I just point out that the massive spending that the US has for the military ensures that other countries don't have to spend it?  Whilst not perfect (Ukraine and Georgia being cases in point), take just NATO for example.  The US constitutes 30% of the forces that makes up a great deterrent against aggression in the region.  The USN has taken over the reigns from the once mighty UK (seriously, read up on how far their navy has fallen) in ensuring relative tranquility of the oceans' shipping lanes.

 

Just imagine what would happen if America practiced their pre-WWI isolationism.  They would pull out all of their Eastern Hemisphere bases.  Each of those countries would then be obliged to provide for their own defence.  Those same countries would have to find a way to safeguard their shipments (much as the US had to do after gaining independence from Great Britain when their ships tried to sail the Mediterranean).

 

If you cheer that idea, good for you.  Note that your home country would most likely have to double their military spending to make up for the slack of the US pulling out.  

 

I did a quick check on the numbers. To get close to the US spending rate, the UK and France, Australia, and South Korea would need to spend a little more than 1.5 times their current budgets. Germany and Japan would need to almost triple their budgets (the low spending is understandable given the history of WWII). Italy is in the middle and would need to spend about 2.5 times its current budget. This would all together be around 350 billion dollars. So, if this were split even between US and non-US, it could reduce the US budget by 175 billion, or about 1/3rd of the current deficit (not debt, deficit).

 

To put it in terms of "Brexits", the UK would need to increase their military budget by around 2 times times the UK's gross payments to the EU or about 4 times the net payments in order to have the same proportional level of military spending as the US.

 

I actually think the US could get by with lower spending from a pure domestic point of view. However, there are definite benefits politically and economically to being the big player.

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by vaultdweller0013

[dave_boo]

3 minutes ago, vaultdweller0013 said:

 

I did a quick check on the numbers. To get close to the US spending rate, the UK and France, Australia, and South Korea would need to spend a little more than 1.5 times their current budgets. Germany and Japan would need to almost triple their budgets (the low spending is understandable given the history of WWII). Italy is in the middle and would need to spend about 2.5 times its current budget. This would all together be around 350 billion dollars. So, if this were split even between US and non-US, it could reduce the US budget by 175 billion, or about 1/3rd of the current deficit (not debt, deficit).

 

To put it in terms of "Brexits", the UK would need to increase their military budget by around 2 times times the UK's gross payments to the EU or about 4 times the net payments in order to have the same proportional level of military spending as the US.

 

I actually think the US could get by with lower spending from a pure domestic point of view. However, the are definite benefits politically and economically to being the big player.

 

That money would go a long way if it was diverted to mental health care as IMHO the lack thereof is one of the contributing problems to social issues in the US.

[Krataiboy]

The US is a war junkie.

 

Quote: The core of this expanding (military industrial) complex is an axis of influence of corporations, lobbyists, and agencies that have created a massive, self-sustaining terror-based industry.

 

Get the gory details at:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/big-money-behind-war-military-industrial-complex-20141473026736533.html

[elgordo38]

6 hours ago, Pinot said:

Trump can't wait to get in there and start another war, same ole shit from Republicans. Instead of cutting the military budget in times of peace, Trump wants to increase it, rattle sabres and try and provoke as much mayhem as possible as soon as possible.  

 

That's your clueless Republican nominee for POTUS, right there. THE worst of all time. 

 

Sixty days and counting till the Trump TV Network. I see it as TV for the extreme-right fringe of conservative America (Republican base), appealing to the white supremacist, misogynist and authoritarian wingnuts. All blond bimbos repeating wingnut lies 24/7 (very similar to Fox News now only more cleavage and lies). It's going to be YUGE.  

Like most leaders he will pull the levers of war from a safe distance. In most battles the generals are in the very back so when it come to run they have an open field. 

[dave_boo]

5 hours ago, iReason said:

Oh look!

 

The Bloviator has "promised" something. 

 

Retired general calls Trump's 30-day ISIS order 'sophomoric'

 

"I had to ask myself, what the hell does he think we've been trying to do for the last 14 years in terms of al Qaeda?"

"At a rally in Greenville, North Carolina, Trump said that on day one of his presidency, he would convene his top generals and give what he called a "simple instruction" to in 30 days submit to the Oval Office "a plan for soundly and quickly defeating ISIS."

"It shows a complete lack of understanding of the threat and the ways to fight it," Hertling said. "It's a sophomoric approach to elements of national security policy because if he's just calling in the military, he's missing the point that there are several other elements of national security that will help defeat ISIS."

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/mark-hertling-trump-30-day-isis-plan/index.html

What a completely ignorant buffoonish clown the Bloviator is.

A true danger to the U.S. and to the world.

I weep for the Trumpeteers.

Who are conspicuously absent. Once again.

With no defense for this fool they follow like Lemmings...

Lovin' it.  

 

Dunning Kruger.

Perhaps rules of engagement can be relaxed?  Perhaps lessons could be learned from post-World War II Japan and Germany?  If a total war is undertaken and the population shares similar values, help rebuild.  If a deconstruction of a major component of the religion is required, do it.  Perhaps then these countries can rise to be global players rather than backwards failed nations who are defined by hatred of others rather than a desire to advance their countries, cities, and families.

 

As far as LTG Hertling's comments...he was one of the architects of "United and Strong" that worked so well in Tikrit.  Perhaps the kinder gentler approach isn't the best?

[Linzz]

Post# ID 5

"Trump can't wait to get in there and start another war, same ole shit from Republicans. "

Actually with the exception of GWB the Democrats have  entered more wars than the Republicans.

[LawrenceChee]

Great .....another idiot that is going to start another war

What's with the USA ? It seems they really enjoy wars and the military factories are all chanting trump trump trump now



Idiotic for the rest of the world which needs more peace and less bombings


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Usernames]

It's not how much you spend, it's what you spend it on.  In the US, a lot--a LOT--goes to the princelings in the Pentagon.  A LOT goes to pay for personnel that a other countries get much cheaper through a draft.  Not to mention the golf courses all across the globe, the vacation retreats, the multiple adjutants and servants for admirals and generals. Today's military is so different from the one that came ashore on D-Day that it's unrecognizable as anything but a gamer's gizmo thrill ride just waiting for the right enemy to learn how to hack it and stop it in its tracks.

[surangw]

he will be getting the vote from most that are depending on the munitions industry for their income  now

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

 

[jerojero]

At least he is bringing more important issues to the table. I have grown so tired of the smoke screen issues of abortion and gun laws. Lets bring good paying jobs back to the people. I hope to hear more of that in the debates. 

Yes, gun law reform is truly a legitimate low priority for America (while killings continue weekly in that country )

[alanrchase]

He will have to spend more so that the aircraft carrier USS Donald Trump can be built.

[puck2]

As Trump urgently needs money for his election campaign it seems he promises support the war industry if winning the job.