>

Him signing the bill essentially funds the government so the action isn’t good or bad (it was always going to happen). What’s up to debate is the funding levels of individual programs/departments. Some programs will inevitably get a raise, stay the same, or be cut every year.
Just love that new CNN mgmt, calling the regular annual federal budget "government spending"... a nice dog whistle for the right. >

Also made sure to spend plenty of time talking about Biden vacationing. Has Obama golfing vibes. Who cares if he is on vaction its results not days at a desk that matter. >

Did you care about how many vacations trump took? >


its results not days at a desk that matter.

once the results start lacking, yeah, your vacations start being looked at. >

It's been a good two years, President Biden and the Democrats got way more done than I ever anticipated, and I wouldn't say I started off pessimistic. 
If you're new to watching politics you should know that this has been one of the most effective Congressional terms in decades, actual decades, like, since the 1990's decades. 
It's sad to see it go, I would've loved two more years of legislative progress, but it's nice to ~~remember~~ find out what it feels like.  (I was ten in 1994, so, yeah.) >

They spent way to much on defense, the approved more than the WH requested but we still can’t feed homeless kids or forgive student debt which would cost a fraction of that budget.
Be happy with some progress, but be critical of the excessive spending when we are told it costs too much to help those struggling. >


They spent way to much on defense, the approved more than the WH requested but we still can’t feed homeless kids or forgive student debt which would cost a fraction of that budget.
Be happy with some progress, but be critical of the excessive spending when we are told it costs too much to help those struggling.

This is another reason why folks don't think much has gotten done: There are a lot of people out there that are eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. >

Being critical and of the most powerful people who are lobbied and bribed but sometimes toss the vulnerable scraps in this country is important part of democracy. You can be proud of and criticize your victories. >


scraps >

The fact that Biden has kept our government functional is pretty awesome! >

I know, now imagine if we had a president under 50. >

We didn’t have that choice but he’s doing great 
Gas is down too - Biden did that lol 
Funny how fast those stickers were removed by republicans >

All my holiday vacation I didn't hear a peep about gas prices. They went up about 10 cents today and suddenly my whole family is saying "Biden is messing with the gas prices again, what a surprise" like really.... >

Federal employees got a nice raise. So that's a good thing. >

Retired people got an 8% raise. >

Pretty happy with this, at the very least Republicans can't start out using it as a weapon against everybody.
Personally would've liked to see a bit less into the DoJ (if we lived in peaceful times) and a bit more into NASA and Research, but it'll do. >

850 some billion on military shit we dont need.
how about reinvesting that into the people.   like college, health care, homelessness, the list goes on >

Hopefully you realize that most of that money goes back into the hands of US citizen employees and businesses which then build more than what the US needs so the can sell at the excess to other countries at a profit. I think we'd all like to not have to spend money on things that kill, main, and destroy but this investment advanced the technology we need to keep our place as the largest economy. It's a deal with the devil. >

Yes, it brings jobs and promotes growth and lines the pockets of the people with the highly paid lobbyists. But cant we do all those things via a more productive vehicle?
Rather than spending it on equipment that will sit on a lot for 30 years until it is tossed out, think what all that funding can do if reallocated to space exploration for example.
You still get job creation, technological advancement, and money for the bigwigs, but we would also be investing in something that has real long term returns. Wouldn't that be better? >

The Pentagon will spend $145 billion on procurement this year, over half of which funds the latest lot of F-35s and the continued construction of the new nuclear submarine fleet. Meanwhile, the Pentagon will spend $173 billion on wages and benefits, and $130 billion on research and development. Save for some pennies for military construction, the rest of the budget is spent on operations and maintenance.
None of that is "sitting on the lot" for thirty years, unless by "sitting" you mean "patrolling" and by "on the lot" you mean "the world's oceans providing a vital nuclear deterrent." Or unless by "sitting" you mean "actively training" and by "on the lot" you mean "around the world to ensure operational readiness and support our allies abroad." >

Happy Cake Day!
 
The United States has currently about 8,000 Abrams tanks in various conditions, Congress continues to procure more tanks that the Army itself considers superfluous. Many of these tanks are just sitting on lots. Who is the US planning to fight that it need 8,000 tanks to do so?
You mention the F-35. (Now granted the United States relies on its airpower to a significant extent, and aircraft are a lot more of a rational choice when compared to tanks for a nation who's geopolitical opponents are on other continents.) But are the numbers justifiable? Just looking at fixed wing aircraft the US is in a league of its own, with the US Airforce competing with the US Navy for largest air force. What real world capability is lost if we were to half the number of aircraft?
And on the F-35 and F-22 specifically those airframes are notorious for their cost overruns. And yet the US is already working on (and spending for) the development of the next generation air superiority fighter.
~~And don't get me started on the Zumwalt's or the LCSs~~
 
I understand spending on items such as nuclear deterrence; the B2s, the Ohio class, a handful of Minutemen. I also get force projection, the US wants to be able to enforce its interests abroad, a couple of carriers is good for that. But the fact of the matter remains that a large scale conventional conflict involving nuclear powers is not going to happen. We don't need to spend preparing for a war that wont come.
I am not suggesting that the United States give up its position as a superpower, but such status can be better maintained via soft power than hard power. And the US can keep all its relevant military capability while still significantly reducing its expenditure on the armed forces and redirecting that funding to areas that bring about a better return on investment. >

The specific incident you're referring to happened almost a decade ago, and accounted for $120 million out of an $800 billion budget. At the time, Congress made the decision to ensure the industrial base for producing tanks remained functional -- you can't easily spin up a new tank factory -- and made a specific point about the potential for foreign sales.
It turns out, Congress was right. The investment in the Lima plant has led to a $3.75 billion deal that turns a profit for the Department of Defense and also vastly improves a critical ally's ability to compete in armored warfare against a very real geopolitical threat.
The army has also changed its tune since last you looked up your defense spending talking points. The current pace of production and modernization is well behind their procurement goals -- and wouldn't be moving at all if the Lima plant had been closed. And those tanks "sitting on a lot" -- they aren't -- are important now because you can't afford to wait and make them later.
We're responsible to our NATO allies for the common defense of trans-Atlantic democracy. The Lima plant is currently producing 22 tanks per year, or one half the number needed to field a Brigade Combat Team. There are 58 Brigade Combat Teams that need tanks, so starting from zero tanks the Army would only need 116 years to fully equip itself.
Could we spool up production? Obviously. But assume for a moment you're the President and an allied nation being invaded by a hostile power.  How many allied lives are you comfortable sacrificing for $120 million per year in spare tank capacity? How many days, weeks, or months are you willing to wait to send help because we just didn't feel like having tanks around?
More to the point, how many American lives are you willing to sacrifice because instead of the overwhelming air dominance strategy enabled by a fleet of next-generation fighters, you opted instead to put up half as many jets based on 1970s technology in the sky? And do you suppose our adversaries are willing to let us call "time out" for a few years while we design, develop, and produce new planes when a war breaks out?
Absolutely no one knows what the next war will look like. People swore up and down that there would never be a catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil until there was. People were swearing up and down that Russia would never invade anyone until they did. And now people are swearing up and down there won't ever be a war between two nuclear powers. If you insist.
Plainly, the price for a state-of-the-art, globally-capable military force is stupidly small given the incredible wealth at our disposal. You want to live in a world where we have to choose between social programs and the greatest military ever known to the human race. I want to live in a world where we do both. Maybe instead of gutting our ability to credibly respond to a broad range of geopolitical threats, you could just have Jeff Bezos pay his taxes. >

Our discussion is becoming circular. (Though I appreciate the discussion, it's somewhat rare to have a disagreement on the internet that remains civil and is intelligently debated)
You mentioned the need to equip 58 Brigade Combat Teams and the time that would take. I ask in what situation with the US reasonably need in excess of 8,000 main battle tanks?
You suggest that we will lose American lives if we lack overwhelming air superiority. My question would be, who are we fighting where even half of America's air power wouldn't constitute overwhelming air superiority?
Again I am not opposed to having a large modern military, I am not blind to the realities of the world. What I'm saying is we're well beyond what can be considered a rational level of expenditure. >

Thanks everyone, this includes part of my salary. I do good with it. >

Half of this is just the DoD budget >


The U.S. Department of Defense has been named the largest employer in the world with 3.2 million employees on its payroll, according to the World Economic Forum.

Also all the associated aspects, support, manufacturing and the rest. Plus the peace keeping we do, without our Pacific fleets, Korea, Taiwan and Japan would be under new management.
The DoD budget is bloated, yes and we could trim a bit of fat. (Mostly by actually listening to our Military Service People)
BUT!!!
It's a needed.
Notation (1) - For example; America's DoD derives a lot of new things in Science and Technology. The whole of the Internet for example.
Small Edit  (1) America for America's DoD.
Additionally (1) - Telecommunications technology, battery tech, sat tech, coding tech, drones, jet engines and medical tech!!! There's a whole lot of things people enjoy because of the DoD. >

Nah it's just to sell weapons and kill people, you little patriot >

Yep. 
We sell weapons and kill people.
Since time was time and humans first learned how to pick up a rock! We've sold rocks. Meh. That's just that. You cannot stop war. >

Would this be considered a good thing? 
(Genuine question).