Our military is impoverished

>Our military is impoverished.
>Slash the EPA budget and the State department budget and increase the military budget by 10%.

Sup Forums logic

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com/search?q=broken window fallacy
businessinsider.com/real-employment-rate-47-percent-2011-1
google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/12/13/trumps-carrier-deal/?source=dam
nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Military/Expenditures/Percent-of-GDP
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Spending on the military creates jobs.
Spending on the EPA hurts jobs.

Logic kills the liberal.

deregulation is penny smart dollar stupid. Pollution is killing us slowly and it will only get worse

Pollution kills the planet, and the dumb fucks living on it like you.

Just a reminder that the defense budget is only the third largest expenditure in the US.

>deregulation is penny smart dollar stupid
not an argument
>all jobs pollute
>that's why we need ineffective bureaucracy to prevent job creation
K. He's removing bad policies, not disbanding the EPA.

>Spending on the military kills people
>Spending on the EPA promotes people's health
FTFY

See also: google.com/search?q=broken window fallacy


>Logic kills the liberal.
>implying there's any logic to your argument

>military budget by 10%.

Sorry, that was McCain's plan.

Trump only increased it 3%.

Republicans criticized him for this.

the entire reason europe, which was at war since the dawn of history, is u.s. military spending.

the reason turks dont seize the cyprus and make moves on greece, the reason russia dont just grab ukraine or estonia or scandanavia or whatever it feels it deserves, the reason the japs stopped killing the chinks, the reason the chinks dont just grab taiwan or hing kong.

the question is not why is there so much fighting in the world?

the question is why is there so little?

it is because we are the biggest bully in the yard and we fucking kill and eat any bully that starts shoving the other kids around.

u.s. military spending is why the only white people killing each other right now are slavic-mongol subhumans.

it is also the reason all this trade and prosperity occurs in the first place. law and order is the first order of business in building a civilization. not commerce, not liberty, not wealth redistribution. law and order.

we provide the stability that built the 20th century

you are fucking welcome.

quit bitching you disarmament advocating hippie scum.

>Neconservative logic

Ftfy

As for the EPA I'm not 100% behind the cut however I can say they tend to go overboard on regulations jacking the price of vehicles and services on them through the roof consistently and regularly.

>every single regulation is good and does something

t. living at home about to begin starbucks shift

>He's removing bad policies
No, just like the Carrier deal, he wants to make America "competitive" by being cheaper and dirtier than Mexico and India.
If he's successful, we'll have low unemployment, but a lower standard of living than places where most people can't afford indoor plumbing.
...and let's not forget we already HAVE low unemployment.
(unless you drink the kool-aid, and believe that for every three people that have jobs, there are two people that can't find a job)

>Spending on the military kills people
No friend. Spending on military prevents war. If you want peace you need to put yourself in a position where nobody wants to attack you. Industrialized nations no longer wage war not because of "muh feelings" but because it would lead to mutually assured destruction.
>Spending on the EPA promotes people's health
It doesn't. It's wasteful spending. As an example, explain to me how a law blocking the Dakota access pipelines saved lives. Do you think buying oil instead of refining it ourselves improves the environment in any way? Most EPA regulation isn't about saving the environment, it's about creating inefficient bureaucracy.
>No, just like the Carrier deal
Not part of his policy with the EPA. The carrier deal was this:
you remove jobs from the US, you lose your contracts with the government that requires manufacturing to be done in the US. That's good negotiating.

>epa promotes health

Ok bud

Jesus christ, Why are Americans so damn stupid when it comes to it's own economic power?

>where most people can't afford indoor plumbing.

Are you saying people are going to be homeless? This isn't Africa, in-door plumbing is standard

i never made an argument on economic grounds. try actually reading before you bitch about something.

Gotta cut somewhere. 66% of the budget is spent on some form of welfare or another, and both sides are going to flip the fuck out if that gets touched.

I dont really think trump should spend more on the military, cut illegals welfare and save the extra cash to pay down debt

>If you want peace you need to put yourself in a position where nobody wants to attack you.
A position we surpassed $200-300 billion ago.
We put up 45% of the world's military budget, and adding more isn't going to mean LESS war, especially sine "we" "elected" a guy that wants to stop sanctioning Russia despite their continuing military adventures in Europe, and wants to use our military to support Assad in Syria which will ultimately help Russia secure control of Europe's oil supply.
We're already spending too much for your argument to make sense.
Increasing the budget will only make you less right.

>The carrier deal was this:
>We'll subsidize you with massive tax breaks if you keep about a third of those jobs you were going to export in the US.
FTFY
It amounts to underbidding Mexico for labor.
If we lose enough EPA regulations, we can wind up with our very own Bhopal..

>7 million is tax breaks
>massive

>This isn't Africa, in-door plumbing is standard
...because we demand high enough wages.
Try to keep up.

>If you want peace you need to put yourself in a position where nobody wants to attack you.
That's funny, when we do it it's called "agressive behavior" and paranoid delusions.

It's 7 to 16 million per year, to keep about 700 jobs that pay an average of $23k/yr.
It almost makes sense if you pretend those people will just never find work ever again, and the government would be obligated to put that much money straight into their pockets.
But even that nonsense ignores that fact that every rust-belt job that move to Mexico is one less Mexican family climbing Trump's wall.
It's gibs money, but you don't mind because it's going to (mostly) white people.

"At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”

Don't buy guns just so somebody has a job making guns. That's the kind of simple minded economics they have in North Korea. Might as well pay the dude to dig holes, or stay home, or even better, be directly useful to the economy.

This is true, my Russian brother.

I am sad so many people hate you. In my view, Russia is really the only shot we have for a strong ally in the fight of this liberal bullshit and Islam. I know that the Ukraine thing was also Russia sanctioning off their gas and them saying nah fuck your authority. We will take your gas anyway. You stop them. Total condemnation.

Your Military is bloated and ineffective; America is a superpower because of it's large economic shadow.

America's biggest weapon is it's economy. You think Planes or Boats could stop China or Russia as fast as the Economy?

Maybe they're both wrong?? Maybe this is one thing Republicans are being dumb on just because they don't want to EVER agree with democrats.

Can someone with more knowledge of history make a list of things that our military has made or has been invented because of warfare? As well as made widespread because of it. So far I have...

>radio
>computers
>internet
>submersibles
>ballistics
>particle physics
>penicillin
>many parts of engineering/infrastructure (roads, walls, large structures for defense)

I'm sure I could go on but I really don't want to look all that junk up since there has got to be a ton but the point is that the military and warfare has been a huge part of pushing our society forward with innovations so liberals complaining about the EPA and state department can suck a fat dick.

>A position we surpassed $200-300 billion ago.
By what estimate? We need to expand our defense into cyberspace or risk more incidents like the OPM hack.
>We put up 45% of the world's military budget, and adding more isn't going to mean LESS war
That's precisely what it allows for. Do you want more Crimean incidents? Do you want the Chinese taking the Senkaku island by force? Giving up hegemony in the world because you don't want to uphold peaceful policy will cause war not prevent it.
Removing troops from Israel and Egypt will cause war to break out in Israel and Egypt again, not prevent it. In no way is reducing our budgets preventing war, but in all events it creates it.
>FTFY
You didn't fix anything fake news. Carrier will lose its contracts with the government if it does not produce its airconditioners domestically. Adding words I didn't say doesn't refute this fact.

Find me a house in america that will be built without plumbing. It won't even pass inspection

>a country the size of a continent
leftist logic

Where's all the barb wire?

>posting pictures from reddit's homepage

theres gonna be a million more jobs when we nuke china and the rest of the world except russia because that would cause ww3.

that is literally an arguement. pol and meme social comentators has fried your brain

>image upvoted by actual shills
>shills accounts all supporting only shilled topics
>shills shilling shills to shill

You are expanding your borders by invading neighboring countries. I have nothing against this, but it is not inaccurate to call this aggressive behavior.
See:You seem to think military spending is just "buying guns" and not peacekeeping projects and projecting US policy.

"Penny smart and dollar stupid" is in no way an argument. It is useless rhetoric and it can and will be dismissed with "not an argument".

R&D in the Military has never been the most costly part of the military.

It's funding large outdated battleships and scores of inbred hick jarheads that costs the country so much money.

Updating the American Military would save money.

that expression means someone is careful with small denominations and risky with larger amounts of money

I fail to see how that is an argument against deregulation

Cutting taxes also creates jobs and more efficiently. You're basically using the army as welfare. Soldiers are paid, fed, housed, and employed on the government's dime and often aren't doing anything useful. This is effectively the same as communism's make-work employment.

Better to cut the military budget by a third and hand it over to education. We'd still have enough to steamroll any other country while building the world's most advanced workforce.

>Maybe they're both wrong??

Maybe, but I don't think it's a bad thing to have a strong military. War is one of the biggest drivers of new technologies.

Funding the military means funding new technology as well.

trump should fire the military. They are nothing but dumb socialist welfare niggers who couldnt get a real job so they go play butt buddy in the dessert with the rest of their fairy faggot friends. Seriously, they were too dumb to even think to do a sneak attack on isis like trump is gonna do. Time to fire them all and make a new deal.

So you mean a boatload of jobs (literally) to create all the parts, all the steel, all the material, all the design, all the labor, and all the crew?

we've spent untold amounts of money on education and got the same results

in any case if people are suddenly concerned about government spending they ought to take a look at entitlements.

Oh no,how will we live without the shitty EPA niggers fucking shit up constantly!??

>not an argument

Then let me expand on his(her?) behalf. Long term damage from improperly disposed of waste products can lead to public health issues that can plague an entire population.

There's a reason why we use unleaded fuel these days.

businessinsider.com/real-employment-rate-47-percent-2011-1

Nice strawman based off nothing but feelings and hyperbolic cataclysmic predictions

>useless rhetoric
rhetoric is by definition convincing speech ergo an arguement.
Figures of speech are a rhetorical device and by extension an arguement.
you can spam molymeme quotes all you like it wont make you any less retarded

...

Increasing the military budget is the only thing Trump has done so far that I haven't liked. I'm so tired of government spending.

...

>It's funding large outdated battleships
The US has a grand total of 0 battleships in service. R&D funds are being used for things such as prosthetic limbs and more fuel-efficient travel. These things benefit civilians and our military servicemen.

You are arguing semantics instead of substance.

its a figure of speech which points towards the fact that deregulation is smart for short term gains but over a long period of time is counterintuitive

>23k/yr
Sorry, but you're mentally handicapped
google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/12/13/trumps-carrier-deal/?source=dam
Literally double that number and add taxes on and - oh shit, that $7m is recouped

and youre backpeddling to divert from your factually incorrect statement. Just admit you were wrong user, theres no stakes here :)

see you say that but the EPA has been around since Nixon, and pollution is just as bad as ever.

most of the reductions we've seen in environmental damage were a result of technological advancement rather than government policy.

The US has such a big military budget to make sure nobody asks for our debt back and to keep oil to be traded in dollars.

Are you confusing what I am saying.

I'm saying cutting petty projects and useless cannon fodder for more effective warfare solutions is the best way forward for ALL modern Militaries.

I used Battleship as a catchall for all Warships, I know the Last battleships were decommissioned in like 2006.

We're at a stage in war where even the big Carriers are no longer needed.

Look at the budget per capita.
we aren't the top spender
/thread

>There's a reason why we use unleaded fuel these days.
Trump is not repealing lead-removal regulations from gasoline.

faggot cuck.

And it's $7m over 10 years, dipshit.

Read.
google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/12/13/trumps-carrier-deal/?source=dam
>Comments that the $700,000 yearly benefit they have been given is a sweetheart deal does not appear to be the case

I'd rather my money be wasted on a needless defense budget over more nigger support programs

>asks for our debt back

The US has apart from one or two technical problems over the decades never missed a Treasury bond repayment. You are posting complete shit.

that may be true, but lets not pretend that this deregulation will not be latched on by companies which will increase profits by polluting environments. I think a de-emphasis on the importance of nature and the environment is contributing to this fucked up culture.
Im not some faggot liberal who spouts global warming nonsense. Im a hunter and a conservationalist from the midwest and have seen first hand what pollution has done to local wildlife populations and waterways. Im all for giving america its manufacturing teeth back but not at the cost of the environment, again its a shortsighted goal

>Spending on the EPA promotes health
You're right, it doesn't. But the EPA is there to hold accountable any entity that destroys the environment, willingly or not. Because I don't want to live in some shit hole that is also dangerous to our health.

You're still arguing semantics instead of the topic. Unless you're going to start arguing the topic and debating the topic instead of semantics, understand that I'm going to just hide your posts.
>Are you confusing what I am saying.
If you feel I misrepresented you, feel free to clarify what you meant.
>I'm saying cutting petty projects and useless cannon fodder for more effective warfare solutions is the best way forward for ALL modern Militaries
You're namecalling instead trying to refute an argument. They're not cannon fodder. They're people. They serve a purpose.
Which projects do you consider petty and should be cut? How will cutting carriers preserve force projection, and allow for 1 hour response times to hostile aggression? Keep in mind, the threat of this aggression is what prevents war.
>but the EPA is there to hold accountable any entity that destroys the environment
And that's fine when they do that, which is why the EPA isn't being scrapped. But there is some bureaucratic regulation that is not doing this, and is hurting job creation.

I get what you're saying user, but believe it or not trashing the environment doesn't make very much money in the long run.

it gets you a stigma in the public opinion, which is worse than anything the EPA can slap on you. there's an evul coal plant not too far from my office at lockmart with incredibly low emissions. we've got killer technology that reduces our impact on the planet.

let's assume for a moment Trump is successful in repatriating industry, while displacing or outcompeting our rival's industry. not only are we doing better at home, but we treat our land a lot better than the Chinese do.

>And that's fine when they do that, which is why the EPA isn't being scrapped
It might as well be. We don't even spend 1% of our budget on it and he's proposing cutting that further. This planet is doomed

>we provide the stability that built the 20th century

American education

>Let's keep making enemies across the planet and keep increasing defense spending to fight the enemies we created.
>The EPA took er jubz

We kind of need our planet and climate to be intact if you want your white children to have a future.

Also if our allies want us to keep being the worlds police force they need to pay for it instead of letting us go fucking broke to preserve them.

Gotta get the Bullets for the Chinks SOMEHOW
Theres 1.5 Billion of them, every rocket counts

The epa sucks ass. They are forcing me to switch the refrigerant in chiller systems with r513a, which is basically propane.

No danger here, goy!

Filtered your Army so you don't get the High School drop outs and inbred hicks so you have a professional army for one.

Replacing your clunky Carriers With smaller more efficient vehicles for modern Warfare would be another.

it's 2017. If you think the Russians and chinese are even half as ready to face even a tenth of the American army, you're just Ruskie scared. Like when the BBC had articles of our Military being scared of the Russians until we saw their shitty aircraft carrier limp down the channel.

>Mrkrabsworldsmallestviolin.gif

>Taking Crimea instead of offering hastened citizenship and housing programs within Russian borders to all ethnic Russians in Crimea.

You're not supposed to seize land, you're supposed to make the other countries pay you for your aid. If they don't, then take your stuff back and watch them fall.

The EPA translates policies into laws. They're not preventing pollution nearly as much as they are creating bureaucracy. I understand they're upset their cushy pork jobs are being cut, but unless what they actually fulfill what they were intended to do, they'll get axed.
>We kind of need our planet and climate to be intact if you want your white children to have a future.
Trump isn't eliminating the EPA. He's cutting policies that has stymied job growth without fulfilling their intended goals. Environmental protection is good, but this virtue is being used to project policy that doesn't effectively do this, and is keeping people unemployed.
>Filtered your Army so you don't get the High School drop outs
You need at minimum a high school diploma already.
>Replacing your clunky Carriers With smaller more efficient vehicles
Need 1 hour response times to aggression. Nuclear powered ships are reasonably efficient.
>it's 2017
CURRENT YEAR
>If you think the Russians and chinese are even half as ready to face even a tenth of the American army, you're just Ruskie scared
That's my point. If you retract our military from these regions they will have nothing to be scared of.

For me I dont feel like people pay attention to who is trashing the environment. The agricultural industry is absolutly fucking horrible and I feel like a majority of people dont know that. I agree with you that companies caught with polution catch a social stigma but its limited to cases when the media runs a story on it, otherwise people could give a fuck. thats a seperate issue
I understand your point about beating the chinese but I dont think we should compare ourselves to them, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
user you keep arguing semantics Im waiting for you to make a point besides "hurr durr stop arguing semantics not an arugement" for someone who critiques rhetoric you certainly know fuck all about it

>Bureaucracy is involved
>They must not be protecting the environment
>Cut their funding
Just fuck my rivers up senpai

if you want to be first country in the world you must be stronger than all together. And otherwise you will finish as Germancucks

It's not just the EPA that needs to be cut. Even in the military there are things that should be cut. I have faith that Trump will cut pork in the military too like he somewhat successful did with the F-35.

>slash EPA
>increase military budger
I really dont see how its the govt's obligation to keep Lockheed Martin profitable

The British brought instability into the world and left countries like America to deal with it.

Fuck off britfag. And take Milo with you.

next time you see a britfag remember to thank them for Israel

>I really dont see how its the govt's obligation to keep Lockheed Martin profitable
It's not. This is an example of a strawman argument. The government is responsible for defense. Maintaining our military is part of upholding that obligation. Our airforce is an essential part of our millitary, but doing business with this particular supplier of aircraft isn't.

If there is a reasonably alternative that is American made, I'm all for it.
He's not wrong though. There are instances where the US has intervened and left regions worse off.

>implying Trump has done anything regarding the F-35

What timeline am I in?

Lead is simply the most obvious regulation and trump actually hasn't said what regulations he's doing away with. These regulations can be anything from environmental to basic safety. Car exhaust regulations, for example, are to help prevent another Smog of '52. OSHA regulations in the Dakota are regularly ignored by oil companies and often lead to death or injury. Business regulations exist to not only stop monopolies from forming but also shenanigans like the South Seas Company.

Simply doing away with regulations would make business more dangerous.

Kek, you'll really be sad when you see a 70 story tall skyscraper burning down because the epa didn't take into account all the necessary preperation and safety concerns of switching to a flammable refrigerant.

And all this to make the refrigerant manufacturer's more money by legally FORCING company's to switch over, and to force an arbitriary rushed dead line on the industry with no concern given to the financial burdon customers will face, to make the epa look good by implementing new "greener" technology.

The epa will eternally be one step forward, two steps back.

>t's not. This is an example of a strawman argument. The government is responsible for defense. Maintaining our military is part of upholding that obligation. Our airforce is an essential part of our millitary, but doing business with this particular supplier of aircraft isn't.

If this is the case then our current military budget is far too big. I can see an argument for a budget that matches the next five countries combined but as it stands we can take on the next TEN nations combined. Who are we planning to fight? the UN?

Its a reductive arguement but enough with semantics. Our airforce is an essential part of that system but I think we need a great deal more scrutiny when examining the deals theyve been doing, we have the 2 largest airforces in the world, for how much we spend I would expect more for what weve been spending. I think we also need to asknowlege the relationship between lockheed and the airforce where contracts from one keeps a large american company profitable, lets not pretend that lobbying and special interests isnt a factor. Perhaps the solution is to take a break from upgrading planes recklessly simply to keep up with muh russins.

thats just mean

Pollution is far better now than when the EPA came into effect

If it was still 1966 and rivers were catching on fire I'd agree but we have made great strides pollution is not a major issue like it was

DoD as it is now is a bureaucratic mess. It's a black hole where YOUR tax dollars disappears. My friends within DoD say this.

Fix that mess first. Only then will the money meaningfully trickle down & create jobs.

Delusion the post

Look up those numbers by proportion of GDP.

Hold My Hand:

nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Military/Expenditures/Percent-of-GDP

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

THis is my biggest issue with trump supporters, he really hasnt done all that much as far as REAL changes go and its far to early to contend he has made any meaningful change besides the rising DOW (lets see how long that lasts before we draw any conclusions, not saying it will drop or its his fault if it does but lets wait and see)
he signed a legally retarded travel ban which lasted almost a day before successful legal challenges were filed against it. The f-35 thing is the most confusing one, he didnt cut the program he just tweeted it as an example of spending going to far.
Im completly open to the possibility of trump being an effective president but he takes credit for things that arent necessairily his doing and his supporters are all to quick to hand it to him. The other side is just as bad but in the opposite direction.

The US military is severely outdated and designed for a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union. It must be updated to an easily deployable expeditionary force to enforce the petrodollar more efficiently.