Trump Threatens Military Bill Veto: Demands More Spending!

President Trump has threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2020 if Congress adopts the House version of the bill, which increases military spending by $16 billion but does not come close to the $33 billion increase the Administration demands. When it comes to military spending…how much is enough? On today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

8 thoughts on “Trump Threatens Military Bill Veto: Demands More Spending!”

  1. What happened to spending money in the US instead of overseas?!

    That was certainly one of Trump’s most popular arguments. Now forgotten? High speed Internet. Space exploration. Clean water. Solar. Americans could use that money.

    1. Better yet, they could use the money they would save by buying some of that from makers overseas who enjoy this or that comparative advantage which allows them to profitably sell it for less, instead of insisting that money must be thrown in a hole and set on fire because MURKA.

      1. Most comparative advantages today are found just from paying workers less and polluting more. It’s a race to the bottom…

        But more realistically, India or China will simply get ahead via protections. And once ahead, they could stay ahead technologically in some area or another. Maybe such scenario would be better if it reduced US interventions. I have no idea.

        1. I’m not sure what you mean by “get ahead via protections.” If by protections, you mean economic protectionism, that approach strangles the economy of the states practicing it.

          There are all kinds of comparative advantages, and those advantages change all the time. Right now, China has a comparative advantage in mid- to late-20th century manufacturing tech, partly for the reasons you state. But as the US (which is manufacturing more now than it ever has) continues to advance in bringing the costs of “clean” and largely automated manufacturing down, that will change. In what particular ways? Who knows?

          I understand the human tendency to see Situation X as ideal and demand that it be maintained (or returned to) at all costs.

          I also understand that there is no specific situation which is going to be maintained or returned to.

          Time happens and people act in it. “Conservatives” and “progressives” hate that for different reasons (the former want to stop it, the latter want to control it), and their attempts to thwart reality always come out of the hides of those under their control.

      2. Unless and until the wealth gap closes, people are going to continue demanding greater spending.

        You could take the vote away, but otherwise, spending will increase. Universal income could hypothetically replace the welfare state, until people vote for too much of it and break the economy. Alaska is currently struggling with its payments.

        1. Unfortunately, the true cost of transportation of those goods is not based in reality. The economic lemmings dont understand how close to the cliff we are.

  2. Mr Paul is spot on. The spin that an increase of $16 billion is “limiting spending” is head exploding ludicrous. Congressional failure.

    1. Back in 2012, the argument between Obama and the Republicans was whether DoD spending would increase by 10% or 17% from 2013 to 2018. The Republicans described Obama’s mere 10% increase as “draconian cuts.”

Comments are closed.