On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:28:32PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
>> The folllowing article is from Reason Magazine. Next year's Federal budget will include over $700 billion in military spending.
>> I have claimed that my AP idea will essentially eliminate military spending, around the world. I've said this for over 23 years. Isn't this a sufficient motivation to >>adopt AP? Yet, there are still people who say that AP won't, or can't, be implemented.
>> Isn't such wasteful spending a powerful motivation to cease with the current system, and proceed with a system that will eliminate wars, military spending, and >government spending?
>> Governments in the 20th century killed over 250 million people. Is that acceptable
>> Jim Bell
>I think one of the primary problems with AP is the assumption that
most Americans
Remember, AP is not specifically an "American" thing. Why should it be? Some might argue (not me !!!) that America needs AP less than other countries.
> or even "enough" Americans, have any interest in
contributing to assassination markets
To say that, you'd first have to define what is "enough". I say it's 1%, or potentially even less. I'd prefer 10%, but to start the ball rolling much less t han 1% would do. Partly this is because the media (including social media, and websites, etc.) tends to greatly amplify issues over what they would ordinarily be.
>... In my experience, most
people don't give a fuck.
Do you know WHY? We learn from birth that there are problems we can do something about, and problems we cannot do much (or anything) about. AP is a system that will solve many problems which most people have been taught are insoluble. (If you disagree with that, tell me what the actual solution to them are.)
>They want to be able to go to work, then
come home and watch tv and maybe fuck their wife or beat their kids
or whatever.
Because they have known of no mechanism to actually fix the problems which AP purports to fix. Having not heard of such a fix, do you think they will just spontaneously want to fix problems that have existed, without cure, their entire lives?
I mean, WITHOUT learning what new solutions exist to solve them?
>I'm doubtful there are enough people who give a shit to ever make
it work.
Do you mean, BEFORE or AFTER they learn what AP arguably can do? Are you saying that they don't want that result, or because they simply haven't been told what could be done?
>If there were some horrible crisis that it seemed the
current government was badly mismanaging - well, even then, I find
it hard to see.
Why SHOULDN"T they agree? Is it that you believe they don't think there's a problem? Or is it that you believe they realize that there's a problem, but are simply unaware of a possible solution?
> People just don't give a shit, or enough of a shit.
Those that organize on the political level probably *cringe* at the
idea of participating in AP - although they don't give a fuck about
installing government after government that willfully starts wars,
locks people up, kills extrajudicially, runs pointless (and completely
counter-productive) bullshit like the "war on drugs", etc, etc...
I'm cynical about overcoming all the indifference and hypocrisy that
would be needed to ever make this work (and this is all assuming there
was a perfect technical solution, which as yet there isnt).
That's an excellent reason to adopt AP. Or didn't you notice?
Jim Bell
> >
http://reason.com/blog/2018/08/13/trump-signs-82-billion-spending-boost-fo>
>
> "President Donald Trump on Monday signed a military budget boosting the Pentagon's spending by $82 billion in the next year—a spending increase that dwarfs the entire military budgets of most other nations on Earth. Russia, for example, will spend an estimated $61 billion on its military this year. Total.
>
> With the increased spending included in this year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Pentagon will get to spend more than $700 billion next year. The budget hike was a priority for Trump and was approved by Congress as part of a March spending deal that saw spending on both defense and domestic programs hiked by about $165 billion—smashing through Obama-era spending caps.
>
> This year's NDAA is "the most significant increase in our military and our war-fighters in modern history," Trump said. "It was not very hard. I went to Congress, I said, 'Let's do it, we gotta do it.'"
>
> Indeed, it was not very hard. Democrats are quick to condemn nearly everything Trump proposes and many Republicans are less than enamored with the current occupant of the White House, but partisan animosity vanishes when defense spending comes up. The final House vote on the NDAA—technically known as the "John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act" because you wouldn't vote against something named after an American hero, right?—was 359-54, while the final Senate roll call was 87-10, with only two Republican senators opposing the bill and three declining to cast votes.
>
> The spending increase will allow the Pentagon to hire another 4,000 active duty soldiers, Trump said, and would help replace aging tanks, planes, and ships with "the most advanced and lethal technology ever developed."
>
> "Hopefully, we'll be so strong that we'll never have to use it," Trump said. "But if we ever did, nobody has a chance."
>
> Trump also used the occasion to plug his recent call for the creation of a Space Force, which would be the sixth branch of the U.S. military. A Space Force is necessary, Trump said, to counter aggression from other countries in the final frontier. "I've seen things that you don't even want to see," Trump said, apparently referencing advancements in space technology being developed by other countries.
>
> There is no funding included in this NDAA for the Space Force, but the administration plans to have the new branch up and running by 2020—and it's not going to be cheap.
>
> No worries, Trump seemed to say on Monday, as he promised more spending increases to come—reversing what he said was years of "depleted" spending on the Pentagon.
>
> But as I noted in June when the NDAA cleared the Senate: the Pentagon's biggest problem isn't a shortage of funding, but misuse of the money that it already receives.
>
> Unfortunately, we don't know much about that because the Pentagon has still not been subjected to a full scale audit, despite the fact that all federal agencies and departments were ordered to undergo mandatory audits in 1990. A preliminary audit of just one office within the Pentagon found that more than $800 million could not be accounted for. Auditors said the Pentagon's Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)—described as "the military's Walmart" because it's responsible for processing supplies and equipment—has financial management "so weak that its leaders and oversight bodies have no reliable way to track the huge sums it's responsible for."
>
> Whether it's investing in bomb-sniffing elephants, paying $8,000 for something that should cost $50, or shelling out for the famous $640 toilet seat, there's no shortage of absurd waste in the Pentagon. A Reuters probe in 2013 found "$8.5 trillion in taxpayer money doled out to the Pentagon since 1996 … has never been accounted for. That sum exceeds the value of China's economic output [for 2012]."
>
> The Pentagon doesn't need more money, but until politicans from at least one party show a willingness to turn off the tap, there is no incentive for the Department of Defense to change its culture of waste and tradition of opacity.
>
--
GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7