Fuck the cops, defund the whole military!!

[roundthebuoys 1,004]

Trump will defund the military if some internet statute isn't abolished.  Today has been funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/528301-trump-threatens-to-veto-defense-bill-over-tech-liability-shield 

Edit: which by the way is veto proof.  LOLOLOL

[Olsonist 3,545]

It was passed with bipartisan veto proof majorities in both houses but then Republicans who voted for the defense bill will actually have to vote to override Shitstain's veto which means that Moscow Mitch + Senate Republican elk will have to vote to override Shitstain's veto which means ...

[AJ Oliver 1,926]

Vets For Peace pleads with you . .   

please don't don't don't 

throw us in the briar patch !! 

[Gouvernail 3,942]

Lame Duck follies continue. 

[Pertinacious Tom 1,931]

3 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:

Trump will defund the military if some internet statute isn't abolished.

That would be the "internet statute" that says The Ed isn't responsible for what we post in PA, which is why we have so much freedom to post in PA.

Sneaking Section 230 Reform Into the Defense Bill Is a Terrible Idea
 

Quote

 

Republicans aim to sneak anti-Section 230 regulation into defense spending bill. The chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee may insert this measure into a new defense bill, as part of a compromise with President Donald Trump. If Democrats go with it, Trump will reportedly overlook the bill's move to rename military bases honoring Confederate leaders.

Section 230 of federal communications law—the "internet's First Amendment"—is a federal law that helps ensure free speech online while also protecting the right of private entities to moderate content as they see fit.

It's become a bipartisan target since it makes it harder for elected officials and other government authorities to shut down speech they don't like or threaten private businesses if they refuse to give in to political whims when it comes to deciding what content to allow or promote. (It also has a lot of foes in failing industries who want a government-mandated leg up on their competitors.) Legislation to limit or abolish Section 230 has become popular in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties have introduced such measures. But with the exception of the 2018 sex-ad law FOSTA, most of these have gone nowhere.

...

 

 

[Pertinacious Tom 1,931]

On 12/2/2020 at 4:05 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

Sneaking Section 230 Reform Into the Defense Bill Is a Terrible Idea

And one that apparently won't happen, thankfully.

[Sol Rosenberg 10,189]

On 12/2/2020 at 1:19 AM, Olsonist said:

It was passed with bipartisan veto proof majorities in both houses but then Republicans who voted for the defense bill will actually have to vote to override Shitstain's veto which means that Moscow Mitch + Senate Republican elk will have to vote to override Shitstain's veto which means ...

There's only one thing that scares the Senate GOP more than mean tweets from the Pride of the GOP. The defense lobby. 

[Not for nothing 496]

1          United States	684.6
2	China	181.1
3	Saudi Arabia	78.4
4	Russia	61.6
5	India	60.5
6	United Kingdom	54.8
7	France	52.3
8	Japan	48.6
9	Germany	48.5
10	South Korea	39.8
11	Brazil	27.5
12	Italy	27.1
13	Australia	25.5
14	Israel	22.6
15	Iraq	20.5

 

 

[Raz'r 5,195]

How about we set a cap at the amount of the next 5 spenders, combined?

[Olsonist 3,545]

30 minutes ago, Not for nothing said:

 

Berkeley CA city budget. Your city is probably similar.

[benwynn 3,593]

56 minutes ago, Quotidian Tom said:

And one that apparently won't happen, thankfully.

From the article: "Still, Republicans on Wednesday showed some signs of exasperation with the president’s latest effort. As one GOP lawmaker put it: “Republicans are sick of this shit.”

It's about time.

[basketcase 801]

9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

How about we set a cap at the amount of the next 5 spenders, combined?

and use the rest for something like health care, social servicesand education?

[Ishmael 10,636]

19 minutes ago, basketcase said:

and use the rest for something like health care, social servicesand education?

That's pretty radical.

[Pertinacious Tom 1,931]

33 minutes ago, basketcase said:

44 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

How about we set a cap at the amount of the next 5 spenders, combined?

and use the rest for something like health care, social servicesand education?

To Raz'r's suggestion, we should set an example for NATO and spend 2% of GDP.

To yours, there is no "the rest" to spend, which is why we're borrowing like mad.

[Not for nothing 496]

lets keep the Saudi's and Exxon profitable., with Tax payers $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'s

 POINTS

• The United States spends about $81 billion a year to protect oil supplies around the world, according to an estimate by Securing America’s Future Energy.
• SAFE released its study the same day President Donald Trump claimed Middle Eastern countries are hiking oil prices while benefiting from U.S. protection.
• Retired military commanders associated with SAFE say the focus on defending oil supplies is diverting budget dollars from other priorities.
• full article :US spends $81 billion a year to protect oil supplies, report estimates (cnbc.com)
•  

[Raz'r 5,195]

36 minutes ago, Quotidian Tom said:

To Raz'r's suggestion, we should set an example for NATO and spend 2% of GDP.

To yours, there is no "the rest" to spend, which is why we're borrowing like mad.

That's fine.

[mikewof 1,247]

1 hour ago, Venom said:

No actually let's completely replace war spending with health care, social services and "reform" education! 

Obviously we'll never significantly defund the military.

But given that we've left the Cold War and entered this new era of the Economic War, it's ridiculous that we continue to spend so much money on bombs, attack planes and littoral ships when we're currently being attacked in our industrial infrastructure and we have no means to respond, since nobody told the Pentagon yet that it's no longer 1957.

We can't defund our military.

But we can task our military with the real problems of the contemporary Economic War ... Instead of paying them mainly to train and attack brown people in deserts, we need to task them to actual tasks for which they are paid in our tax dollars that formerly went into training and attacking brown people in deserts.

Rebuilding broken bridges, broken highways, replacing broken ports, building cybersecurity, building titanium processing, building rare earth element infrastructure, etc..

They can't keep spending our tax dollars fighting a war that no longer exists, because it's weakening our economy, and we're effectively subsidizing the defense industry sales outside of the USA, privatizing public funds. We need to spend our tax dollars strengthening our economy by upgrading industrial and communications infrastructures using the defense budget as that tool.

Anyone here who thinks that we can lock the defense into a reduced input fixed to our GDP or GNP is so out of touch with the realities of our U.S. military-industry economy that they cannot make an effective contribution to this discussion.

[AJ Oliver 1,926]

Come on people, get with the program . . 

I have already shown previously that the figure below ($ 648.8 billion) is totally phony. 

It excludes NSA, CIA, nuke R & D, and even the cost of wars !! 

As the joke in the Pentagon goes, "That $649 billion is just to have a military; if you want to actually use it, it will cost you more." 

The true figure for the US is around double the propagandistic number.  

(I am less sure about other countries' actual spending - some of them may be understated as well.) 

 

[Saorsa 48]

On 12/2/2020 at 12:55 AM, roundthebuoys said:

Trump will defund the military if some internet statute isn't abolished.  Today has been funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/528301-trump-threatens-to-veto-defense-bill-over-tech-liability-shield 

Edit: which by the way is veto proof.  LOLOLOL

How is it veto proof?

 

[pusslicker 664]

3 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

How is it veto proof?

 

Didn't it pass with 90 something votes?

[Saorsa 48]

55 minutes ago, pusslicker said:

Didn't it pass with 90 something votes?

Which chamber of congress?

It takes both to override a veto.

 

[Olsonist 3,545]

It passed both houses of Congress with veto proof majorities in each. You can look it up. However, Republicans actually have to override your boy Shitstain’s (should he veto) to make that fact relevant.

[AJ Oliver 1,926]

6 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

It takes both to override a veto.

A 2/3rds vote in both chambers; 

taken AFTER THE VETO. 

There is no meaningful "vote to over-ride" before the veto is made. 

Can't take y'all anywhere. 

[roundthebuoys 1,004]

It was passed with a veto proof majority in both houses.  I get that they have to actually have the balls to do it.

[Not for nothing 496]

32 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

It was passed with a veto proof majority in both houses.  I get that they have to actually have the balls to do it.

It would be funny for Donnie's send off , with a bipartisan over ride , did he really unite the country against him

[Olsonist 3,545]

I don’t think they do. MAGAs are big on the 2A.

[Lark 1,921]

7 hours ago, mikewof said:

Obviously we'll never significantly defund the military.

But given that we've left the Cold War and entered this new era of the Economic War, it's ridiculous that we continue to spend so much money on bombs, attack planes and littoral ships when we're currently being attacked in our industrial infrastructure and we have no means to respond, since nobody told the Pentagon yet that it's no longer 1957.

We can't defund our military.

But we can task our military with the real problems of the contemporary Economic War ... Instead of paying them mainly to train and attack brown people in deserts, we need to task them to actual tasks for which they are paid in our tax dollars that formerly went into training and attacking brown people in deserts.

Rebuilding broken bridges, broken highways, replacing broken ports, building cybersecurity, building titanium processing, building rare earth element infrastructure, etc..

They can't keep spending our tax dollars fighting a war that no longer exists, because it's weakening our economy, and we're effectively subsidizing the defense industry sales outside of the USA, privatizing public funds. We need to spend our tax dollars strengthening our economy by upgrading industrial and communications infrastructures using the defense budget as that tool.

Anyone here who thinks that we can lock the defense into a reduced input fixed to our GDP or GNP is so out of touch with the realities of our U.S. military-industry economy that they cannot make an effective contribution to this discussion.

We need to figure out how to enrich the fat cats with spending that has a return on investment, such as infrastructure.    As long as the right people get rich, they won’t care if it’s hoarding bombs, killing brown people or making a future for the next generation.    The problem is non classified projects require results, thinning margins.    Nobody will ever know if a super weapon actually works, as long as we don’t get in a fight where the other guy as advanced weapons that do work,

[LB 15 6,524]

8 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

To Raz'r's suggestion, we should set an example for NATO and spend 2% of GDP.

The other members of NATO don't have the luxury of a country full of well regulated tooled up patriots, trained and ready to defend the state from invasion. They have to fund a military and their guys won't buy their own guns, pickup trucks and Bud lite.

[Burning Man 1,728]

10 hours ago, Not for nothing said:

1          United States	684.6
2	China	181.1
3	Saudi Arabia	78.4
4	Russia	61.6
5	India	60.5
6	United Kingdom	54.8
7	France	52.3
8	Japan	48.6
9	Germany	48.5
10	South Korea	39.8
11	Brazil	27.5
12	Italy	27.1
13	Australia	25.5
14	Israel	22.6
15	Iraq	20.5

 

 

Yeah..... and?

[Ishmael 10,636]

7 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Yeah..... and?

 

With that budget, the US should own the world.

[mikewof 1,247]

1 hour ago, Lark said:

We need to figure out how to enrich the fat cats with spending that has a return on investment, such as infrastructure.    As long as the right people get rich, they won’t care if it’s hoarding bombs, killing brown people or making a future for the next generation.    The problem is non classified projects require results, thinning margins.    Nobody will ever know if a super weapon actually works, as long as we don’t get in a fight where the other guy as advanced weapons that do work,

We could undoubtedly build nuclear powered biplanes and remote controlled attack dirigibles, but we are sufficiently worldly now to recognize that these are now useless weapons in the kind of war we now see.

If we could wake up to the reality of contemporary economic war, we would also see how ridiculous it is to still build super-bombs, super-fighters and attack satellites. And then instead of bombing brown people hoping to hit some terrorists, we can instead spend 1/10 of that in economic development of the stones in our boots, another 1/10 in economic development of our friends, and 8/10 in domestic development.

The super weapons are beginning to take on the yellowed aura of shag carpeting, disco balls and Jello casseroles. We don't really need too test them anymore to know that they are increasingly pointless.

[Zonker 5,247]

13 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Berkeley CA city budget. Your city is probably similar.

51% for cops and fire (I assume fire is also public safety)? Tough city.

Vancouver has a higher % of homeless than most places in Canada so our policing costs tend to be slightly higher than average. And they are really well paid, even before overtime.

• 1st Class Constable (after 4 years) – $100,220
• two weeks paid holidays to start, three weeks starting the second year, and four weeks starting the eighth year (For Americans - who are used to getting 2 weeks holidays and only a few statutory holidays this is not atypical)

 

[Ishmael 10,636]

34 minutes ago, Zonker said:

51% for cops and fire (I assume fire is also public safety)? Tough city.

Vancouver has a higher % of homeless than most places in Canada so our policing costs tend to be slightly higher than average. And they are really well paid, even before overtime.

• 1st Class Constable (after 4 years) – $100,220
• two weeks paid holidays to start, three weeks starting the second year, and four weeks starting the eighth year (For Americans - who are used to getting 2 weeks holidays and only a few statutory holidays this is not atypical)

 

And they don't get shot at nearly as much.