Sanders Calls Out 'Deficit Hawks' in Both Parties Who Support $738 Billion Pentagon Budget But Claim

[Uncle Joe]

US Can't Afford Medicare for All

(snip)

Sanders wrote Tuesday that "at a time when we have massive levels of income and wealth inequality; when half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck; when more than 500,000 Americans are homeless; and when public schools throughout the country are struggling to pay their teachers a livable salary, it is time to change our national priorities."

When it comes to giving the Pentagon $738 billion—even more money than it requested—there is a deafening silence within Congress and the ruling elites about what our nation can and cannot afford. Congress will just authorize and appropriate all of this money without one penny in offsets, no questions asked.

I find it curious that few of the "deficit hawks" are asking if it is fiscally prudent to be spending more on defense than the next 10 countries combined—more than half of our nation's discretionary budget.

And there is little discussion taking place as to why the Pentagon—riddled with fraud, cost overruns and corporate price fixing—is the only major agency of government that has not successfully undergone an independent audit.

(snip)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/17/sanders-calls-out-deficit-hawks-both-parties-who-support-738-billion-pentagon-budget

[LongtimeAZDem]

1. When he drops support for the F-35, I might take him seriously

[George II]

4. And where is that F-35 being sent? Right, Vermont!

Link to tweet

Right at home in the Green Mountain State, @thef35 made its debut with the 158th Fighter Wing, the very first Air National Guard unit to receive the world's most advanced fighter

So why does the world's most advanced fighter go to Vermont? To ward off an invasion by the RCMP?

[Scurrilous]

40. Yeehaw!

F35 - $1.5 trillion estimated lifetime costs.

Design it various locales, build the parts all over the place, assemble them in others, train pilots to fly them at additional sites and base them in multiple locations. And the politicians who represent those districts are loathe to oppose the program lest they be blamed for losing jobs.

Bernie in this case is just another politician.

[George II]

2. This is why he gets very little done - he continually berates those in the Senate....

....(and the House previously) that he needs support from to get his bills passed.

With stuff like this, how does he expect to be an effective president?

[Uncle Joe]

3. Criticism of policies and mis-guided priorities are essential to any

well functioning democracy.

The alternative is the status quo and that massive societal dysfunctionality is what gave us Trump and if not altered will produce future Trumps as well.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. But won't somebody think of the $738 billion dollar budget?

Please don’t besmirch the Pentagon budget! They are sensitive types!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

11. LMFAO!! So true!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[LanternWaste]

23. Sounds like yet another poor staffing issue.

(since we're simply throwing stuff at the wall again...)

[George II]

6. Read the heading. Not "criticizes", but "calls out"! As the saying goes, you catch more flies....

....with honey than you do with vinegar. And this isn't just an isolated incident, you've posted at least another OP about him lambasting others. I sincerely hope he never has a medical condition that can only be treated at the Mayo Clinic.

So to ask again, by "calling out" members of BOTH parties, how does he expect to be an effective president?

[Uncle Joe]

7. Bernie didn't write the headline and both parties have deficit hawks;

on the one hand still voting for defense budgets that are totally out of whack when compared to our too long ignored, massive domestic needs.

Bernie could hardly criticize members of one party with any good faith while ignoring the other.

[George II]

8. So to ask again...

...by "calling out" members of BOTH parties, how does he expect to be an effective president?

[Uncle Joe]

9. Your supposition is an answer unto itself,

if Bernie's points aren't valid he won't be President, if they are and he becomes President the message to the politicians in both parties from the American People will be loud and clear as to his mandate and their belief in how our nation should address its' priorities.

[George II]

12. Exactly. So can we expect to see you change your preference to your second choice soon?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. 100%!!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[LanternWaste]

35. "The fear is perfectly understandable... this is how we know Biden is winning!!"

[LongtimeAZDem]

21. This has been the Sanders message all along: "the people will force them to do it". It's nonsense,

and reflects a total understanding of process or political reality.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

13. That's right Joe & why Bernie's considered 1 of the most respected members in the Senate.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[LanternWaste]

15. And there's the back of the t-shirt...

[Uncle Joe]

19. ...

[George II]

28. But he did refer to those he would like to cooperate with him the "ruling elites"!

[NurseJackie]

22. Is that the political equivalent of "doesn't play well with others"? Honestly...

Is that the political equivalent of "doesn't play well with others"? Honestly... this type of behavior is something that really puzzles me. There seems to be an inordinate amount of importance placed on "standing one's ground" and trying to bully or coerce others into giving-way... which almost ALWAYS results in NOTHING being accomplished: ie ZERO PROGRESS.

It would seem to me that even if someone had to swallow their pride and lower their expectations... it would be worthwhile to try and find common ground on ANY issue at all... so long as ACTUAL PROGRESS is being made.

The "my way or the highway" philosophy... and the "all or nothing, I'll gladly take nothing" philosophy is really not something to boast about.

[redqueen]

10. I swear I remember someone here telling me that no Dems voted for that budget.

I searched for any discussion of that bill in GD but didn't find anything. Search kept timing out.

[Uncle Joe]

17. Apparently many of them did.

House passes ‘progressive’ defense bill, 377-48

The split Democratic vote highlights the crosscurrents House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., must navigate ― in addition to GOP pressure ― as he steers future NDAAs. On Wednesday, Smith issued a fiery and defensive statement aimed at members of his own party, saying: “This is the most progressive defense bill we have passed in decades.”

He also argued it reflected a bipartisan consensus on national security: “Ultimately, the biggest difference between where the Democrats in the House were at and the Republicans in the Senate were at, we believe in more aggressive legislative oversight, particularly when it comes to matters of engaging in military action. We remain deeply concerned about the war in Yemen. It is not our war.”

During the debate, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said calling the bill progressive was “Orweillian,” and he exhorted his colleagues to vote “nay” over the absence of language he sponsored “to stop the war in Yemen.”

(snip)

The Senate plans to take up and pass the bill next week, where an even larger proportion of Democrats are expected to support it. However, two Democratic presidential contenders, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, announced they will vote against the bill in part because it rejected the Yemen provisions. Warren, in a tweet, called the bill a “$738 billion Christmas present to giant defense contractors.”

(snip)


https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/12/11/house-passes-progressive-defense-bill-377-48/

[redqueen]

18. Yep. I saw the vote total after that discussion.

Shameful.

[beastie boy]

16. The best cost estimate we have for M4A is 3.2 trillion per year. That's 4 annual defense budgets

each year for the next 10 years, if the estimate holds up.

Not that I have any sympathy for the poor military industrial complex, but Bernie misses the mark by a mile and a half when he even tries to compare one budget to the other. A simple fact check, if one is inclined to check facts, makes it abundantly clear.

[redqueen]

20. How much are we spending on healthcare already?

Has the figure you cited been adjusted by that amount?

[beastie boy]

24. I have no problem comparing apples to apples. Your argument is 100% more persuasive than Bernie's.

But since Bernie went there, it is only fair to point out how ridiculous his argument, which is the subject of the OP I am replying to, is.

[Lucky Luciano]

26. Her argument is roughly the same as Bernie's.

It is obviously implicit that all cost comparisons should include current costs whether it is from the government or not.

[beastie boy]

27. Not according to the OP.

When Bernie makes a roughly the same argument, I have no problem with it. But when Bernie suggests that the defense budget is comparable to the estimated budget for M4A, he is just being silly. It's pure demagoguery.

[Uncle Joe]

33. Bernie never said they were comparable, those are your words, our over sized defense budget

is just one major but important aspect of our society and its' misplaced priorities.

There are a host of others that go with it including tax policies that overwhelmingly favor the mega wealthy and corporate conglomerates.

[beastie boy]

36. Ok, let's do some deconstructin' shall we?

1. Bernie calls out deficit hawks in both parties for their support of the defense budget.
2. Bernie calls out deficit hawks in both parties for not supporting M4A.
3.According to your header, there is a "but" between the two statements connecting them in a single sentence.

Obviously, the military budget and M4A are not comparable in any way, especially not money-wise, but this doesn't stop Bernie from blaming both the support of the military budget and the non-support of M4A on the deficit hawks, Furthermore, Bernie makes money the focus of his criticism. As I showed, the two are not comparable when viewed from Bernie's main focus of criticism, which is money. Yet Bernie compares the two as if they are. This is pure demagoguery.

He doesn't have to SAY he is comparing the two, all he needs to do is compare the two. Even if the comparison is totally bonkers.

[Lucky Luciano]

25. Currently, healthcare is 18% of GDP...which is...

[Demsrule86]

29. He should talk...when he has that plane in his district... and he should not criticize Democrats but

oh well this sort of thing helps Biden.

[msongs]

30. Bernie's F 35's would pay for a lot of health care nt

[KPN]

31. Sending Bernie some more money today! I'm not even sure I'll vote for him in our Oregon primary

(my vote will depend in part on who is still in the running at that point), but no one has spoken so clearly to the fundamental issues and concerns/problems that are the most basically important in my mind than Senator Danders. Lon run on sentence — hope it made sense. His voice is so damned important to our future in my opinion. I want him to have the platform that the Presidential primary and HE provides as long as possible.

[Uncle Joe]

34. Thanks for sharing KPN.

[SWBTATTReg]

32. Insane. This military budget is more than the next 10 countries combined. Who in the ...

world is so threatening, so menacing, that we must hock our future for way too much security and / or defense? Wouldn't one think that overspending would be a national security issue?

[JudyM]

37. Same here. Too bad election security isn't important enough to warrant spending.

[Uncle Joe]

38. You make some good points SWBTATTReg.

There comes a point of diminishing returns and I believe we passed that marker a long time ago.

To my way of thinking an ignorant and unhealthy society experiencing extremes in income/wealth inequality combined with the ever growing crisis of global warming climate change poses our most significant national security risks.

[SWBTATTReg]

39. You've listed two of the most pressing national security issues we truly have in this country...

Why won't our leaders on both sides (mostly on one side) of the fence listen to us? It's time to quit playing games and get serious. You know this, I know this.

No more debate, no more head in the sand tactics. No more sidestepping what the two main issues are. The only debate that should remain should be what methods would be best suited, etc., in remedying/fixing (if possible) climate change maladies, etc. I think sometimes money is interfering (of the 1%ers) in serious efforts to resolve these problems.

If they persist in obstructing, sidestepping, etc., then declare a national emergency (it's going to get to this point anyway sooner or later), and throw the detractors in jail during this time of national crisis, so the rest of us can deal with these life threatening situations. Imagine the fossil fuel/oil companies throwing tens of $billions of dollars in advertising and/or lobbying to overwhelm positive efforts to resolve climate change issues, literally obstructing serious efforts to resolve these serious issues.

I don't know. Gerry rigging and some serious money has pretty well damaged abilities of our Country to really respond rapidly and effectively. I hope I am wrong.

Get rid of this joker and his administration now. Start repairing the damaw/ a

[brooklynite]

41. Since the Senate is expected to pass it easily, I guess he's not much of a "leader"

[The Valley Below]

42. I can't get past his embrace of the F-35.

It seems very hypocritical.