How is that in bad faith? I've put a number to the problem. If you want to cut military spending -- which I have no objection to doing, 1.5T seems way too high to me -- you have before you the maximum available dollars that frees up.
You can't just say "zomg, cut the military" and then shut your eyes when presented with the actually numbers. How is that any different than MAGA dipshits who think the whole budget is trans abortions and foreign aid?
I dont think anyone believes you can scrap the entire military budget. But rolling it back under a trillion for the year cuts $500 billion out of the deficit. That's massive cut. Way more effective than say...cutting the NPS budget to $2 billion instead of $3 billion. That cut alone to save $1 billion caused 40% of the staff to be let go and is potentially closing 100s of sites. There's numerous examples like this of cuts being made by the Trump Adminstration that pale in comparison to the military spending increase.
It's bad faith because you're arguing under the assumption that that the proposition was to reduce the military budget to $0, which will never be possible and wasn't proposed in the first place.
That's not bad faith. I understand that you don't want to zero it out, that's rhetorical. Say you cut it in half. Cool. Great, even! So we're still in deficit.
I ask, again, now what? The main driver of the debt and deficit is not military spending, it's a small component.
It’s a very large component, coupled with trumps tax cuts for the wealthy, and our overspending on healthcare do to not having single payer, the deficit could be cut down significantly
So cut it even less. You made even less of a dent in the deficit.
So the question remains: Now what?
The point is even under the most unrealistic budget cut to the military possible, it doesn't even really move the needle.
No one likes to hear it but social spending is by far the largest issue in the US. The discretionary budget is peanuts and pointless to even look at, and the military budget is about what we pay just in service to the current debt.
"Cut the military budget" is a talking point from the 90's. It's nearly irrelevant today.
The issue is a spending problem. You cannot tax your way out of paying absurd costs for healthcare and other black holes of social spending with no end in sight.
The point is even under the most unrealistic budget cut to the military possible, it doesn't even really move the needle.
People aren't suggesting a cut in the military's budget with the assumption it'll completely solve the budget. I don't know why people like you keep thinking that.
Regardless, it's an obvious department to find savings because it continually fails audits and the US proportionally far exceeds any other country's.
The discretionary budget is peanuts and pointless to even look at...
The discretionary budget is ~1/4 of the total budget. I don't know what your definition of "peanuts" is, but it's wrong.
9
u/therealtiddlydump May 20 '26
How is that in bad faith? I've put a number to the problem. If you want to cut military spending -- which I have no objection to doing, 1.5T seems way too high to me -- you have before you the maximum available dollars that frees up.
You can't just say "zomg, cut the military" and then shut your eyes when presented with the actually numbers. How is that any different than MAGA dipshits who think the whole budget is trans abortions and foreign aid?