President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

BoatMad

If it wasn't so serious , I d say the whole thing is hilariously funny. Personally I watch John Oliver for serious political opinion

Manic Moran

vetinari wrote: »

At this point, I think there is no convincing Trump supporters. He's just released a budget proposal that's only good for weapons manufacturers. I've no doubt that Trump supporters will still see nothing wrong with it.

The US has the most dominant army in the history of the world. yet you can still convince people that you need to spend more money on the military.

After over a decade of constant use, the systems are beginning to fall apart.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/us-navy-planes-grounded/
Nearly two-thirds of the US Navy's F/A 18 strike fighter jets are currently unable to fly, grounded due to repair delays or because they are awaiting spare parts.

With more than half of all Navy aircraft out of service and no budget agreement in place to increase defense spending levels, the top brass says its usable planes are being pushed to the limit.

"For a variety of reasons, our shipyards and aviation depots are struggling to get our ships and airplanes through maintenance periods on time," Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. William Moran told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee earlier this week.

The number of non-operational F/A 18 Hornets is "double where we should be," he said, confirming reports that 62% of the Navy's F/A 18s are unable to fly and 53% of the Navy's total air fleet is grounded.

Igotadose

Manic Moran wrote: »

After over a decade of constant use, the systems are beginning to fall apart.

Thanks for the quote, but the US Military shall we say is really less than forthcoming about the state of things - anything that gets more $$, the better.

Once they actually build something new that isn't obsolete on day one - like that Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, yep, need yet another multi-billion dollar white elephant - maybe they'll earn some cred. Until then, they've way too much money and too little to do with it. Cut 'em. Close landlock submarine bases. Stop paying thousands for hammers and chairs. Where's William Proxmire when you need him?

26000 Elephants

Manic Moran wrote: »

After over a decade of constant use, the systems are beginning to fall apart.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/us-navy-planes-grounded/
Nearly two-thirds of the US Navy's F/A 18 strike fighter jets are currently unable to fly, grounded due to repair delays or because they are awaiting spare parts.

With more than half of all Navy aircraft out of service and no budget agreement in place to increase defense spending levels, the top brass says its usable planes are being pushed to the limit.

"For a variety of reasons, our shipyards and aviation depots are struggling to get our ships and airplanes through maintenance periods on time," Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. William Moran told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee earlier this week.

The number of non-operational F/A 18 Hornets is "double where we should be," he said, confirming reports that 62% of the Navy's F/A 18s are unable to fly and 53% of the Navy's total air fleet is grounded.

Perhaps if they spent less time deliberately finding poor people to point those weapons at they might find that they don't need so many?

If you keep buying hammers, then the things around you start to look like nails.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

After over a decade of constant use, the systems are beginning to fall apart.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/us-navy-planes-grounded/
Nearly two-thirds of the US Navy's F/A 18 strike fighter jets are currently unable to fly, grounded due to repair delays or because they are awaiting spare parts.

With more than half of all Navy aircraft out of service and no budget agreement in place to increase defense spending levels, the top brass says its usable planes are being pushed to the limit.

"For a variety of reasons, our shipyards and aviation depots are struggling to get our ships and airplanes through maintenance periods on time," Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. William Moran told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee earlier this week.

The number of non-operational F/A 18 Hornets is "double where we should be," he said, confirming reports that 62% of the Navy's F/A 18s are unable to fly and 53% of the Navy's total air fleet is grounded.

It simply amazes me that the american people, and Trump, seem to think that after such a disastrous past decade, or more, when the military has not been able to win anything, that they think that spending more money on the problem will solve it.

Trump stated, even before his inauguration, that the costs were far too high on the new air planes etc. That seemed quite believable but he followed that up by granting the military an additional $54bn to spend. There doesn't appear to be any system savings built into that. Where is the review into the past errors, the past overspends, the failure of the military to be effective against the new type of threat such as that of 9/11 and ISIS?

Has nothing been learned from 9/11? What use was the worlds greatest military against a few men with box cutters? Its all about intelligence, relationships, social media and cyber warfare. The coming 'wars' will be fought out over the web, from fake news and social media manipulation to cyber terrorism and hacking. And what does Trump intend to do? Spend more money on aircraft carriers and reduce spending on education! Sending an aircraft carrier towards Syria is going to achieve what exactly?

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

It simply amazes me that the american people, and Trump, seem to think that after such a disastrous past decade, or more, when the military has not been able to win anything, that they think that spending more money on the problem will solve it.

Trump stated, even before his inauguration, that the costs were far too high on the new air planes etc. That seemed quite believable but he followed that up by granting the military an additional $54bn to spend. There doesn't appear to be any system savings built into that. Where is the review into the past errors, the past overspends, the failure of the military to be effective against the new type of threat such as that of 9/11 and ISIS?

Has nothing been learned from 9/11? What use was the worlds greatest military against a few men with box cutters? Its all about intelligence, relationships, social media and cyber warfare. The coming 'wars' will be fought out over the web, from fake news and social media manipulation to cyber terrorism and hacking. And what does Trump intend to do? Spend more money on aircraft carriers and reduce spending on education! Sending an aircraft carrier towards Syria is going to achieve what exactly?

Get hard core republicans hard. And the gun toters love an oil weapons over spend

Wanderer78

Leroy42 wrote:

Has nothing been learned from 9/11? What use was the worlds greatest military against a few men with box cutters? Its all about intelligence, relationships, social media and cyber warfare. The coming 'wars' will be fought out over the web, from fake news and social media manipulation to cyber terrorism and hacking. And what does Trump intend to do? Spend more money on aircraft carriers and reduce spending on education! Sending an aircraft carrier towards Syria is going to achieve what exactly?

At least they 'll be the 'good guys' with guns!

Water John

The extra military spend is on hardware for his weapon manufacturing friends. The professionals in the military don't actually want it and wanting funding to remain in soft diplomacy.

Mr.Micro

Water John wrote: »

The extra military spend is on hardware for his weapon manufacturing friends. The professionals in the military don't actually want it and wanting funding to remain in soft diplomacy.

Nothing new there, it's the way of Republican politics. Cheney and Bush era gave contracts to Halliburton. Corruption the root of capitalism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/us/a-closer-look-at-cheney-and-halliburton.html?_r=0

Kitsunegari

I think what's most interesting than his Miliitary splurge is his plan to invest $1 Trillion into US infrastructure which is badly in need of investment. It will be interesting to see how his plan unfolds as he's promised $40 of private funds for every $1 the government spends. This is likely to boost the economy and highly interest the commodity and material investors.

It's probably his first positive plan so far.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I think what's most interesting than his Miliitary splurge is his plan to invest $1 Trillion into US infrastructure which is badly in need of investment. It will be interesting to see how his plan unfolds as he's promised $40 of private funds for every $1 the government spends. This is likely to boost the economy and highly interest the commodity and material investors.

It's probably his first positive plan so far.

There's your problem right there.

Nody

Here's a fun fact for everyone; if Trump keeps up his weekly trips to Florida for golfing (which he complained loudly about Obama taking any vacation and that "he'd be to busy for that") he'll end up costing the state about $520MM. That's roughly 5 F35s in cost for comparison. Does any our resident republicans care to justify why Trump should cost the Military 5 F35s simply to go golfing on weekends for 4 years?

Akrasia

Nody wrote: »

Here's a fun fact for everyone; if Trump keeps up his weekly trips to Florida for golfing (which he complained loudly about Obama taking any vacation and that "he'd be to busy for that") he'll end up costing the state about $520MM. That's roughly 5 F35s in cost for comparison. Does any our resident republicans care to justify why Trump should cost the Military 5 F35s simply to go golfing on weekends for 4 years?

He'll also bankrupt loads of small businesses who are shut down every time he travels because of the security restrictions in the area.

One business will boom however...

MadYaker

When he's in Mar A Lago does he just sit by the pool all day or does he actually take calls and keep on top of things? I agree that the extra cost for security is wasteful but if he's actually working while he's there then it's less of an issue. It's odd that he's spending weekends in Florda though while his wife and child are in NY. Or maybe they fly down too who knows.

26000 Elephants

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I think what's most interesting than his Miliitary splurge is his plan to invest $1 Trillion into US infrastructure which is badly in need of investment. It will be interesting to see how his plan unfolds as he's promised $40 of private funds for every $1 the government spends. This is likely to boost the economy and highly interest the commodity and material investors.

It's probably his first positive plan so far.

I had to crack up laughing at Chao's Freudian slip when she called it "Foreign investment" instead of private investment...

26000 Elephants

Some reports are suggesting that David Nunes ( the guy investigating the Russian links) may have been the one who leaked details of the FISA warrant to Fox news.

Time to put a fresh batch of Popcorn on.....

Christy42

MadYaker wrote: »

When he's in Mar A Lago does he just sit by the pool all day or does he actually take calls and keep on top of things? I agree that the extra cost for security is wasteful but if he's actually working while he's there then it's less of an issue. It's odd that he's spending weekends in Florda though while his wife and child are in NY. Or maybe they fly down too who knows.

Some work, some golf. I mean he did have the conversation about North Korea in the lobby and took the Japanese prime minister there. He goes there instead of NYC as he wants to play golf and advertise his resort which had a recent price hike. I am unsure as to what extent he works there in comparison to a normal white house weekend.

More the hypocritical nature of a man who gave out about Obama's golfing habit and his spending on personal trips when in fact he is far worse for it. Hardly his biggest sin but something many on the right criticised Obama for. Notice that most of the complaints are not directed at Trump but put in comparison to Obama.

RobertKK

Water John wrote: »

The extra military spend is on hardware for his weapon manufacturing friends. The professionals in the military don't actually want it and wanting funding to remain in soft diplomacy.

Of course not, they were showing on American news how the US military had to use parts from a military plane on display given how old some of the planes are and are no longer manufactured.
Other fighter jets in for service had parts taken off them to be used on other planes in service.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2016/06/23/marines-pull-aircraft-boneyard-get-used-navy-jets-amid-aviation-crisis/86301086/

vetinari

Trying to pretend the US military is some chronic state of disrepair is false.
They're still the preeminent military force in the world. There is absolutely no need to spend an extra 50 billion on the military. Pure insanity.

RobertKK

vetinari wrote: »

Trying to pretend the US military is some chronic state of disrepair is false.
They're still the preeminent military force in the world. There is absolutely no need to spend an extra 50 billion on the military. Pure insanity.

It does not mean it does not need to be updated.

oscarBravo

Kitsunegari wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how his plan unfolds as he's promised $40 of private funds for every $1 the government spends.

Think that one through: what possible motive could the private sector have for spending money on roads and bridges?

BabyCheeses

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I think what's most interesting than his Miliitary splurge is his plan to invest $1 Trillion into US infrastructure which is badly in need of investment. It will be interesting to see how his plan unfolds as he's promised $40 of private funds for every $1 the government spends. This is likely to boost the economy and highly interest the commodity and material investors.

It's probably his first positive plan so far.

Wasn't there an attempt to do this before that was shot down by congress?

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

It simply amazes me that the american people, and Trump, seem to think that after such a disastrous past decade, or more, when the military has not been able to win anything, that they think that spending more money on the problem will solve it?

It's not a matter of solving anything. Even if we don't sent a single sortie more over Syria, the aircraft and vehicles are still broken and need to be fixed. We've started re-focusing on new threats. You may have noticed, for example, that our friends in Eastern Europe have recently started becoming quite antsy, and the US military has just started basing forces in Poland.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/14/europe/poland-us-troops-nato-welcome/
The opposition they're facing isn't ISIS.

The extra military spend is on hardware for his weapon manufacturing friends. The professionals in the military don't actually want it and wanting funding to remain in soft diplomacy

Honestly, they want both. They disapprove of the reduction in soft power, but they still want their equipment to be capable against a conventional threat who doesn't care about soft power. Opponents like Russia, China and DPRK.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not a matter of solving anything. Even if we don't sent a single sortie more over Syria, the aircraft and vehicles are still broken and need to be fixed. We've started re-focusing on new threats. You may have noticed, for example, that our friends in Eastern Europe have recently started becoming quite antsy, and the US military has just started basing forces in Poland.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/14/europe/poland-us-troops-nato-welcome/
The opposition they're facing isn't ISIS.

But US already spends vastly more on military than other countries. Don't have the report to hand but if I recall correctly it is something like US spends more on the military than the other top 8 countries combined.

So amount of money spent is not the problem. So it must therefore be either how it is spent or what it is being used on.

I just find it odd that this great businessman seems to think that simply pouring more money into a system that is clearly not up to the task is the answer. People have stated that half the aircraft are out of service due to lack of spare parts etc. Surely any contract from such a significant purchase would include minimum stipulations regarding the availability of spares etc.?

And how to you square the idea that the US faces bigger threats when at the same time Trump is going out of his way to create problems with his current allies?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Honestly, they want both. They disapprove of the reduction in soft power, but they still want their equipment to be capable against a conventional threat who doesn't care about soft power. Opponents like Russia, China and DPRK.

Honestly? Based on what? How do you know this? They have said that they would rather spend the money on diplomacy, any general worth his salt will tell you that the most effective use of military is not to have to use the military.

ECO_Mental

oscarBravo wrote: »

Think that one through: what possible motive could the private sector have for spending money on roads and bridges?

Toll roads and bridges......lets privatise the whole lot. Sure the M50 toll was a great success. For NTR anyway

ThisRegard

seamus wrote: »

U.S. border control has for decades been an ordeal for inbound travellers, but people suffered it as a minor irritating delay to get into the US. People's patience only goes so far though and if you make it hard, demeaning or risky to make a casual trip to your country, then people will stop coming.

I used to have a H1B visa on my old passport and although it had expired when I visited on a number of subsequent occasions, I found it used to catch their attention and have get a welcome back type of conversation with them and had an easy entry. I was sorry when my passport expired and no longer had it in it.

demfad

oscarBravo wrote: »

Think that one through: what possible motive could the private sector have for spending money on roads and bridges?

For Money, just like Trump's motivation.

demfad wrote: »

Definition of kleptocracy:



https://therealdeal.com/2011/06/17/vornado-realty-trust-seeks-piece-of-kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue/

Steven Roth bails Kushner out (for 420 million) of his height of boom 1.8 billion purchase of 666 Fifth avenue (most expensive building in the world) with a 1.2 billion loan cutoff approaching.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160420/BLOGS02/160429992/why-vornados-steven-roth-was-at-donald-trumps-victory-speech-last-night

Steven Roth bails Trump out of his 'White elephant' Trump city to avert disaster. Roth has a controlling holding of 30% in 2 of the 3 properties that Trump actually owns. Trump still owes 500 million on these properties.


Guess who, like Trump and Kushner is in huge debt to China.


And wait for it.....

http://www.curbed.com/2017/1/17/14301754/trump-infrastructure-nyc-lefrak-vornado



Oh Look!

Guess who Trump awards the 1.1 TRILLION $$ contract to for his great infrastructure project?....You guessed it...Steven Roth.

Don't question the fact that Roth has no intrastructure construction experience, only luxury high rise condos....and if you question why no transportation planners, policy analysts, urban designers, social workers seem to be on Roths list of contractors...well youre missing the point?

Igotadose

Fareed Zakaria nails Trump. Analysis is spot on: Trump's a B.S.A.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/cnns-fareed-zakaria-trump-has-succeeded-by-bull****ting/

oscarBravo

Igotadose wrote: »

Fareed Zakaria nails Trump. Analysis is spot on: Trump's a B.S.A.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/cnns-fareed-zakaria-trump-has-succeeded-by-bull****ting/

Swear filter strikes again. Short url to circumvent: https://goo.gl/KTPCj2

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

Honestly? Based on what? How do you know this? They have said that they would rather spend the money on diplomacy, any general worth his salt will tell you that the most effective use of military is not to have to use the military.

They have also said that their systems are in dire need of repair and upgrade.

"Walk softly, but carry a big stick", as Teddy said. Or if you wish to go back further, "Si vic pacem, para bellum". Maintaining a functional, credible threat that you are able and willing to us it is part of not having to use the military. That is why we are spending the money going to places like Poland and the Baltic States.

The instruments of national power are "DIME". Diplomatic, Informational, Military, Economic. It's Chapter 1 of US doctrine. (Seriously, JP-1, Paragraph 9). They are considered to be all equally important. You cannot always bribe your way to peace, the stick is as important as the carrot.

So amount of money spent is not the problem. So it must therefore be either how it is spent or what it is being used on

Both, really. I have already posted laments on the procurement process we have in place. And we've been involved in low-scale, high-tempo operations for the last few years, which are quite expensive. The equipment is old, it needs upgrading, and we do need to come up with a cheaper way of doing things.