4 ms·

Don't worry we're increasing defense spending by 13% [1]. I suggest everyone read the linked source, its absolutely chilling. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/w

by tmpz22 1y ago

Don't worry we're increasing defense spending by 13% [1]. I suggest everyone read the linked source, its absolutely chilling. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal-Year-2026-Discretionary-Budget-Request.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal...

explodes 1y ago
> For Defense spending, the President proposes an increase of 13 percent to $1.01 trillion for FY 2026; for Homeland Security, the Budget commits a historic $175 billion investment to, at long last, fully secure our border.
rpmisms 1y ago
More chilling that the white house still uses WordPress.
- defrost 1y ago
  WordPress seems advanced for a government body whose head of health actively promotes for himself and his grandchildren swimming downstream from sewerage to boost the immune system.
- tmpz22 1y ago
  No. Chilling that despite making massive cuts everywhere (read the source) they put most of the savings into the military budget.
- igor47 1y ago
  That's really not more chilling. I recommend actually reading the document. There are multi billion dollar cuts to IT programs and CISA/cyber security infrastructure, along with massive cuts to basic research, EPA protections and toxic site cleanup, and basic social services, the list goes on. Instead we're plowing extra money into military spending, but because the defense budget is already so bloated it amounts to a small percentage increase there, and huge percentage decreases in everything else.
  - Auracle 1y ago
    If we’re investing in securing the border with a significant chunk of that defense spending that’ll save us a lot more over time, presuming the democratic presidents of the future don’t proverbially throw the gates open.
    - igor47 1y ago
      This is false. A prediction of "securing our border will save money" is false. It really, really is. Check your sources and approach this as a scientist trying to verify your idea, not as a partisan and trying to defend it. You will quickly see that even illegal immigration is not a cost, especially to the federal government. Hell just ask an llm. https://chatgpt.com/share/682b50c5-27ac-8004-b217-dc3748bf1130 https://chatgpt.com/share/682b50c5-27ac-8004-b217-dc3748bf11...
      - an_guy 1y ago
        llm, as source, makes your point moot.
landl0rd 1y ago
I voted for Trump. I think the Harvard funding thing is stupid. I don't really want money going to Israel. However, I don't think this is chilling. I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China. And I would prefer to cut most social spending from the federal level and relegate it to the local level. This is pretty consistent with most people on the right. This is not a feature of the magas. Please don't act like it's strange or alien. Obviously social spending cuts will never happen sadly. All we'll get is more spending. The right will raise the defense budget and fail to stop recapture and overcharging by defense primes through the broken cost-plus model. The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  >The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt. But >I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China
  - landl0rd 1y ago
    Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. Raise defense spending a little. Work hard on bringing down defense costs because we are throwing money at the primes for what.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      >Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. It's not a contradiction to believe in cutting spending due to a fear of the deficit EXCEPT you make exceptions, like defense, which you provided an explanation to. However that means you can't use the general rule alone as the reason for cutting social programs (or better asked as) "Why not make an exception for social programs?" ______ I don't know what primes are
      - landl0rd 1y ago
        Defense is existential and welfare is not. Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Defense must be handled at the national welfare and welfare need not be. My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do. It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Primes are the prime contractors: boeing, northrop, lockheed, rtx. The guys who do a lot of stuff on cost-plus. The guys who systems-integrate most of the smaller manufacturers' stuff.

by tmpz22 1y ago

explodes 1y ago

> For Defense spending, the President proposes an increase of 13 percent to $1.01 trillion for FY 2026; for Homeland Security, the Budget commits a historic $175 billion investment to, at long last, fully secure our border.

rpmisms 1y ago

More chilling that the white house still uses WordPress.

defrost 1y ago
WordPress seems advanced for a government body whose head of health actively promotes for himself and his grandchildren swimming downstream from sewerage to boost the immune system.
tmpz22 1y ago
No. Chilling that despite making massive cuts everywhere (read the source) they put most of the savings into the military budget.
igor47 1y ago
That's really not more chilling. I recommend actually reading the document. There are multi billion dollar cuts to IT programs and CISA/cyber security infrastructure, along with massive cuts to basic research, EPA protections and toxic site cleanup, and basic social services, the list goes on. Instead we're plowing extra money into military spending, but because the defense budget is already so bloated it amounts to a small percentage increase there, and huge percentage decreases in everything else.
- Auracle 1y ago
  If we’re investing in securing the border with a significant chunk of that defense spending that’ll save us a lot more over time, presuming the democratic presidents of the future don’t proverbially throw the gates open.
  - igor47 1y ago
    This is false. A prediction of "securing our border will save money" is false. It really, really is. Check your sources and approach this as a scientist trying to verify your idea, not as a partisan and trying to defend it. You will quickly see that even illegal immigration is not a cost, especially to the federal government. Hell just ask an llm. https://chatgpt.com/share/682b50c5-27ac-8004-b217-dc3748bf1130 https://chatgpt.com/share/682b50c5-27ac-8004-b217-dc3748bf11...
    - an_guy 1y ago
      llm, as source, makes your point moot.

landl0rd 1y ago

I voted for Trump. I think the Harvard funding thing is stupid. I don't really want money going to Israel. However, I don't think this is chilling. I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China. And I would prefer to cut most social spending from the federal level and relegate it to the local level. This is pretty consistent with most people on the right. This is not a feature of the magas. Please don't act like it's strange or alien. Obviously social spending cuts will never happen sadly. All we'll get is more spending. The right will raise the defense budget and fail to stop recapture and overcharging by defense primes through the broken cost-plus model. The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt.

Braxton1980 1y ago
>The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt. But >I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China
- landl0rd 1y ago
  Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. Raise defense spending a little. Work hard on bringing down defense costs because we are throwing money at the primes for what.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    >Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. It's not a contradiction to believe in cutting spending due to a fear of the deficit EXCEPT you make exceptions, like defense, which you provided an explanation to. However that means you can't use the general rule alone as the reason for cutting social programs (or better asked as) "Why not make an exception for social programs?" ______ I don't know what primes are
    - landl0rd 1y ago
      Defense is existential and welfare is not. Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Defense must be handled at the national welfare and welfare need not be. My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do. It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Primes are the prime contractors: boeing, northrop, lockheed, rtx. The guys who do a lot of stuff on cost-plus. The guys who systems-integrate most of the smaller manufacturers' stuff.