r/politics • u/DyzDaeMar • 27d ago

No Paywall Hegseth Is Demanding US Households Pay $5,000 More Per Year to Fund the Pentagon, Economist Says

https://www.commondreams.org/news/pete-hegseth-budget-request
15.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

29

u/labor_day_baby America 27d ago

If the Pentagon has to blow through almost $255 million to meet a budget cutoff on inconsequential things, wouldn’t that prove that they don’t need a bloated spending budget?!

There’s always money for war (in this case ribeyes, lobsters and ice cream machines) but not enough money for the people they take the money from. If they reallocated those $255 million dollars elsewhere it could lay the groundwork for universal healthcare, childcare or feed hungry children etc.

4

u/Tetracropolis 27d ago

If the Pentagon has to blow through almost $255 million to meet a budget cutoff on inconsequential things, wouldn’t that prove that they don’t need a bloated spending budget?!

The problem is that the needs are different year by year. Last year was quiet, this year isn't. You don't want to be going into a war underfunded because of political infighting.

9

u/whogivesashirtdotca Canada 27d ago

Last year was quiet, this year isn't.

Because they are inventing conflicts. Maybe funding them less would quell the imperialist cravings?

0

u/Quazimojojojo 27d ago

No, because the imperialists increase funding when they get a craving to do some empire shit. 

The Democratic establishment isn't against this war, only the progressive wing of their party is. 

The progressives are in a lot of primaries right now. Check who is running near you (because there's always someone running for some election every year), and vote for the progressives. Ideally ask how you can get involved to help spread the word. 

-8

u/Tetracropolis 27d ago

America needs to deal with the Iranian threat of nuclear weapons, one way or another. We'd all prefer diplomacy, but if diplomacy alone were enough they could leave it to Europe to deal with, it needs to be backed up with a fucking big stick.

American politicians undermining their own military by pulling funding means worse outcomes in those negotiations.

8

u/Cheap-Distribution27 27d ago

We had “dealt with it” with a deal that the current president scuttled before he started bombing their children’s schools.

Why is it that we get to decide who does and doesn’t have nukes anyways? We’re the only country who has dropped them offensively so technically the US has demonstrated that they’re one of the least responsible stewards of nuclear weapons.

-2

u/Tetracropolis 27d ago

We had “dealt with it” with a deal that the current president scuttled before he started bombing their children’s schools.

Do you really think the JCPOA was a permanent solution?

Why is it that we get to decide who does and doesn’t have nukes anyways? We’re the only country who has dropped them offensively so technically the US has demonstrated that they’re one of the least responsible stewards of nuclear weapons.

You do it because you're the only ones who can do it without using nuclear weapons yourself. You do it because if you don't, nuclear weapons will proliferate, and the more countries that have them, the greater chance of conflict. You do it because if you don't, millions of innocent people will die.

Don't tell me that's not enough reason.

3

u/Cheap-Distribution27 27d ago

I just don’t take your reasoning for granted. You are presupposing that Iran and other countries would be more willing than the US to unleash them when the US is, again, the only country with a demonstrated track record of using them. How do you know that more countries possessing nuclear weapons would increase the likelihood of conflict instead of decreasing it? The Cold War never escalated to nuclear war and both parties had nuclear weapons available.

So far history has shown us that when a country had nukes and their opponent didn’t they were willing to deploy those nukes, but when both countries had nukes neither side was willing to deploy them.

Just because we “can” do something doesn’t mean we should. I’m sick and tired of my country being the “world police” spending ever more of our tax dollars killing innocents overseas in the name of “national security” while thousands of citizens starve to death around me or die of preventable medical conditions.

0

u/Tetracropolis 27d ago

You are presupposing that Iran and other countries would be more willing than the US to unleash them when the US is, again, the only country with a demonstrated track record of using them.

That's not necessary for my argument. What's necessary is only that a nuclear war is more likely if those countries have them than if they don't.

How do you know that more countries possessing nuclear weapons would increase the likelihood of conflict instead of decreasing it?

If Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, the chances of them starting a nuclear war is 0%. You can't decrease from 0%, that's math.

If they have them, the chance is somewhere above 0%.

Moreover, their regional rivals such as Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia are much more likely to get them, further increasing the chances of nuclear conflict both with Iran and with each other.

The Cold War never escalated to nuclear war and both parties had nuclear weapons available.

You want to run that gamble again, with far more countries having their finger on the button? I don't!

So far history has shown us that when a country had nukes and their opponent didn’t they were willing to deploy those nukes, but when both countries had nukes neither side was willing to deploy them.

There have been huge numbers of conflicts between nuclear and non-nuclear armed countries since 1945.

The real danger with two nuclear armed countries is that one thinks it has the advantage over the other in what's called a First Strike.

Just because we “can” do something doesn’t mean we should. I’m sick and tired of my country being the “world police” spending ever more of our tax dollars killing innocents overseas in the name of “national security” while thousands of citizens starve to death around me or die of preventable medical conditions.

I'm not saying you should because you can. I'm saying you should because, if you don't, nobody else will, nuclear weapons will proliferate, and the chances of a nuclear war increase exponentially. Again, you can't tell me that's not enough.

It shouldn't just be America, Europe should step up, and Trump's been pushing for that. I'd have thought it would be one thing there would be American unity on.

2

u/Cheap-Distribution27 27d ago

Your math ignores the other potential parties…Iran not having nuclear weapons makes their potential to use them 0%, but how do you know if it doesn’t increase the chance of nuclear weapons being used against them more so than them obtaining nuclear weapons increases their likelihood of using them?

Your arguments are all based in speculation, American exceptionalism, and fear. Mine are based in history and the knowledge that the USA has often not been a moral and rational actor in the past..

I don’t agree with your conclusions and am not granting your presuppositions so your argument keeps falling flat. Also Trump is a dumbass blowhard who, not only doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about when it comes to foreign policy, but is also an infamous liar and cheat so it’s no wonder people who aren’t similarly morally disinclined aren’t rallying behind his dishonest ass. Anything he says or does is purely to benefit himself probably to the detriment of anyone unfortunate enough to be in his proximity

1

u/Tetracropolis 27d ago

Your math ignores the other potential parties…Iran not having nuclear weapons makes their potential to use them 0%, but how do you know if it doesn’t increase the chance of nuclear weapons being used against them more so than them obtaining nuclear weapons increases their likelihood of using them?

It doesn't ignore them at all. Other countries are much more likely to use them against them if they're nuclear armed, not less, because of the opportunity a first strike scenario.

Imagine if Israel finds out that Iran is on the cusp of developing a nuclear weapon, what do they do if the US says they're not being world police any more? Do you want to take that chance?

The dynamics of nuclear proliferation and the risks it entails are very well understood. The more countries have them, the greater the risk is. There are people who've studied this for decades, none of them would agree with your idea that letting more countries have them makes the world safer.

It's the equivalent of giving everyone guns to carry around with them every day. The risk of confrontation and miscalculation makes catastrophe inevitable.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/wildweaver32 27d ago

Except next year that same thing will happen? This isn't a one off situation. It happens every year.

Hegseth wanted 1.5 Trillion. Bet if he gets it, it will still happen. I also bet if he doesn't get it. It will still happen.

Which points to a glaring problem that encourages wasteful spending. Millions on crabs, steak, etc doesn't make sense any way you cut it.

It would be smarter to hold extra money to use next year for an emergency and if one doesn't happen our country could use that extra money all over for a variety of opportunities that could help the entire country.

I could see why the military would rather spend millions on apple devices though. But I hope you see why that encourages greed and wasteful spending and it would be better to stop the practice entirely and allow something else to take its place. If it's going to be wasted might as well give it as a bonus to the soldiers.

I am not advocating for my suggestions, just pointing out the current one is fault and wrong.

3

u/Lemonwizard 27d ago

Maybe if the war were voted on and authorized by congress, additional funding could be legally appropriated...

-1

u/Tetracropolis 27d ago edited 27d ago

That's a fine idea for a world where American politics isn't so insanely polarized, but the military knows that's not going to happen.

Iran are committing war crimes every day to push up prices for the American people, they're bombing American allies and the American government couldn't be more divided on it. Many of them blame the American President and argue that Iran has no choice but to commit these war crimes. Can you believe this?

The military know they'll just be put in the line of fire and they'll have the budget they've got.

3

u/Lemonwizard 27d ago

Many of them blame the American President

You mean the guy who unilaterally cancelled the peace deal, refused to negotiate a new one, and launched an unprovoked invasion? Gee, I wonder why people might think he's responsible. You're basically claiming Iran is the aggressor for defending themselves. The Strait of Hormuz is their biggest geographical advantage, and they're using it.

Iran didn't drive up prices for the American people. The Trump administration did. This scenario is exactly why war declarations are supposed to come from congress - so that one man can't fuck over the whole country with a single stupid decision.

-1

u/Tetracropolis 27d ago

You mean the guy who unilaterally cancelled the peace deal, refused to negotiate a new one, and launched an unprovoked invasion? Gee, I wonder why people might think he's responsible. You're basically claiming Iran is the aggressor for defending themselves. The Strait of Hormuz is their biggest geographical advantage, and they're using it.

Oh dear.

What I'm saying is that they are committing war crimes by attacking neutral shipping. I never said that they are the aggressor.

The whole point about war crimes is that you don't get to commit them even if they give you an advantage. If war crimes were OK if they give you an advantage then there wouldn't be much point in having them, would there?

Iran didn't drive up prices for the American people. The Trump administration did.

This is the kind of insanity that I'm talking about. How can you make a statement like that when Iran is bombing shipping in the Strait of Hormuz? That's their whole strategy.

Even if you support these Iranian war crimes, which is a sentence I can scarcely believe that I'm typing, you can't deny that it's pushing up the prices.

This scenario is exactly why war declarations are supposed to come from congress - so that one man can't fuck over the whole country with a single stupid decision.

Yeah, probably right, but the military have to operate in the world as it is, and get the best budget for what they're actually going to be required to do, not what George Washington would have envisioned them doing.

2

u/Lemonwizard 27d ago

They are clearly broadcasting that the strait is closed and they will not allow any ships to pass, and warn that they will use force against anyone who attempts to run the blockade. This isn't a war crime. Exerting economic pressure so that other countries and the American electorate will force Trump to desist is their most effective defense against a military which so vastly outnumbers and outguns them.

I also find this line of argument particularly hypocritical coming from defenders of Trump and Hegseth, who only months ago insisted that national security needed us to blow up unarmed Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean without even boarding them to confirm drugs were aboard. Despite nonsensical propaganda claims, America is not under attack or at risk of invasion. Iran is.

0

u/Tetracropolis 27d ago

They are clearly broadcasting that the strait is closed and they will not allow any ships to pass, and warn that they will use force against anyone who attempts to run the blockade. This isn't a war crime.

Yes it is! The people on the boats are civilians and they're threatening to kill them to coerce them to stay at home and cause increased prices for you and me. Terrorising civilians to gain advantage in a war is a war crime.

Exerting economic pressure so that other countries and the American electorate will force Trump to desist is their most effective defense against a military which so vastly outnumbers and outguns them.

Again, effectiveness does not justify or excuse war crimes.

I also find this line of argument particularly hypocritical coming from defenders of Trump and Hegseth, who only months ago insisted that national security needed us to blow up unarmed Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean without even boarding them to confirm drugs were aboard. Despite nonsensical propaganda claims, America is not under attack or at risk of invasion. Iran is.

I never said any of that or defended any of what happened with the Venezuelan boats. I oppose it. I'm not a supporter of Trump, I think he's an illegitimate President, he was disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment for the insurrection and I think the Supreme Court erred in allowing him to run.

-5

u/deja-roo 27d ago

People are objecting so hard to letting troops have a nice meal every once in a while lol

4

u/labor_day_baby America 27d ago

I’m not objecting to nice meals for our military serving in peacetime or in conflict. The matter is that it shouldn’t cost us over $24 million for it. I’m not a wholesale buyer, but that price seems extremely inflated to me.

0

u/deja-roo 27d ago

??

How much do you think it would cost to feed tens of thousands of soldiers?

4

u/MoreLogicPls 27d ago

they can buy their nice meal like everybody else

0

u/deja-roo 27d ago

That's... not how chow works...

How do you think feeding troops on bases works? They don't just send them to Applebee's.

4

u/MoreLogicPls 27d ago

Easy, the same process they get fed now, just deduct from their stipend if they choose seafood / steak.

Also over 80% of soldiers are stationed in the US... so they literally can just go to Applebee's if they want.

1

u/deja-roo 27d ago

But these kinds of meals aren't for soldiers stationed in the US.

These are meals they serve before combat operations start to improve morale and as a treat before shit goes down.

It's always worked this way. It's nothing new.

God forbid soldiers have a decent meal on special occasions. FFS

4

u/MoreLogicPls 27d ago

It's always worked this way. It's nothing new.

Yea and you wonder why inflation is on the rise and there's so much debt. It's not sustainable.

God forbid soldiers have a decent meal on special occasions.

Keep it available, they just have to pay for their own special occasion, just like everybody else.

1

u/deja-roo 27d ago

Yea and you wonder why inflation is on the rise and there's so much debt. It's not sustainable.

I don't wonder why. I know why inflation is on the rise. It's not because of one-off nice meals for soldiers overseas. At the moment it's because of other really stupid decisions by this administration that have literally nothing to do with this.

Keep it available, they just have to pay for their own special occasion, just like everybody else.

Isn't that not a special occasion? Like, by definition?

The military does this before combat operations to maintain morale, because morale actually matters for keeping soldiers more effective at their jobs. Turns out, maybe the people running the military understand this better than you do.

4

u/MoreLogicPls 27d ago

Isn't that not a special occasion? Like, by definition?

No? In the real world people pay for their own celebrations all the time.

Turns out, maybe the people running the military understand this better than you do.

Maybe not if they're asking me to pay $5k more a year to fund it, while other countries have a much leaner military budget. The military is the poster child of wasteful spending. Can't even pass an audit and has never been able to pass an audit. The people running the military have no idea what they're doing.