• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

lenaitch said:
You keep coming back to this. In terms of the NATO benchmark, it is my understanding there are guidelines for what is considered 'defence spending'. If it's just to keep The Donald happy, what's the point? Might as well throw in housing, healthcare and regional development. I'm sure there is a national defence angle in there somewhere.
Click to expand...

PMQs and modern good quality singles quarters. Thousands and thousands of housing units could absolutely be buried as defense spending- and it would even be largely honest given that it would support recruiting and retention and allow for units to grow.
 
brihard said:
PMQs and modern good quality singles quarters. Thousands and thousands of housing units could absolutely be buried as defense spending- and it would even be largely honest given that it would support recruiting and retention and allow for units to grow.
Click to expand...
Military housing - sure. Anything that is actual defence spending, but the post seems to want to lump domestic policing, courts, foreign aid and maybe highway maintenance into some arbitrary GDP percentage that Trump has a had a wet dream about.
 
lenaitch said:
Military housing - sure. Anything that is actual defence spending, but the post seems to want to lump domestic policing, courts, foreign aid and maybe highway maintenance into some arbitrary GDP percentage that Trump has a had a wet dream about.
Click to expand...
Yup. It was a weird notion which was why I pushed back gently on it.
 
brihard said:
PMQs and modern good quality singles quarters.
Click to expand...
Throw in transient/shared/training quarters that aren't Early Cold War living history exhibits or offgassing cheap prefabs, spec the build quality to match the durability of the Victorian and post-WWII stuff, and there's a nice healthy boost to the defence budget.
 
quadrapiper said:
Throw in transient/shared/training quarters that aren't Early Cold War living history exhibits or offgassing cheap prefabs, spec the build quality to match the durability of the Victorian and post-WWII stuff, and there's a nice healthy boost to the defence budget.
Click to expand...
Transient is another word for homeless so it actually fits better than you think.

So, the few times I ever booked transient shacks for some dirt cheap sleep on personal travel I normally lucked in to a good room. Tried that trick with my at that time relatively new girlfriend once, ended up with a super dingy room in Kingston that she described as ‘dinosaur farts’. Base Kingston did me a dirty.

We walked away from the $15 or whatever and got a hotel.
 
lenaitch said:
Military housing - sure. Anything that is actual defence spending, but the post seems to want to lump domestic policing, courts, foreign aid and maybe highway maintenance into some arbitrary GDP percentage that Trump has a had a wet dream about.
Click to expand...

There are two separate, but connected issues.

Trump wants to strengthen America's balance sheet. Defence is a major discretionary budget for him and for us. Others, including us, have come to depend on America's discretion to protect themselves. Trump wants to take some of that load off his books.
That is item 1.

Item 2 is that NATO as a club, collectively, and prior to the rise of the Donald, had decided that membership was worth a common tax of 2% of GDP. That number is now in the process of rising with or without the Donald.

....

Concurrent activity.

Donald has some other beefs he wants addressing. These include some trade and border issues.

....

Bundling all of these issues together he has put a price tag on them. 100 BUSD is the price to Canada of conducting business as usual.

If we want to reduce that price tag then we need to pony up with some combination of defence spending, border spending and trade benefits.

Cops are not a NATO expenditure. Courts are not a NATO expenditure. But they are important, apparently to Donald. And he measures how seriously we are taking him by the amount of money we are willing to spend.
 
Kirkhill said:
There are two separate, but connected issues.

Trump wants to strengthen America's balance sheet. Defence is a major discretionary budget for him and for us. Others, including us, have come to depend on America's discretion to protect themselves. Trump wants to take some of that load off his books.
That is item 1.

Item 2 is that NATO as a club, collectively, and prior to the rise of the Donald, had decided that membership was worth a common tax of 2% of GDP. That number is now in the process of rising with or without the Donald.

....

Concurrent activity.

Donald has some other beefs he wants addressing. These include some trade and border issues.

....

Bundling all of these issues together he has put a price tag on them. 100 BUSD is the price to Canada of conducting business as usual.

If we want to reduce that price tag then we need to pony up with some combination of defence spending, border spending and trade benefits.

Cops are not a NATO expenditure. Courts are not a NATO expenditure. But they are important, apparently to Donald. And he measures how seriously we are taking him by the amount of money we are willing to spend.
Click to expand...
So just send him out Statement of Public Accounts. I think 2023-2024 is available. I'm not sure how us spending more money is going to result in them spending less money. I doubt Musk Trump will be of the mind that 'they are spending $1Bn more on border security so, goody, we don't have to'. Will us buying a dozen subs or 88 fighters mean they won't?

That $100Bn (if that figure is accurate) is a trade deficit, not a subsidy like he has been spouting. The solution is theirs - stop buying our stuff (mostly petroleum). Us spending more money, alone, isn't going to change that.
 
brihard said:
Transient is another word for homeless so it actually fits better than you think.

So, the few times I ever booked transient shacks for some dirt cheap sleep on personal travel I normally lucked in to a good room. Tried that trick with my at that time relatively new girlfriend once, ended up with a super dingy room in Kingston that she described as ‘dinosaur farts’. Base Kingston did me a dirty.

We walked away from the $15 or whatever and got a hotel.
Click to expand...
Ahhh yes. I know those shacks well.

C52/53 are the tip tier accomodations now. $90 a night in a room you wouldn't be ashamed to bring a guest into.
 
dapaterson said:
Paying for sex. Taking gifts above the legal limits. Buying and using illegal drugs.

Forget Attorney General, Gaetz is SCOTUS material.

globalnews.ca

Matt Gaetz ‘regularly’ paid for sex, including with minor, U.S report alleges - National | Globalnews.ca

The 37-page report includes explicit details of sex-filled parties and vacations that Gaetz, now 42, took part in from 2017 to 2020 while representing Florida's western panhandle.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca
Click to expand...

Why didn't the DOJ indict him for paying for sex with a minor?
 
Just read about Biden commuting the sentences of a judge who was paid to send kids to prison and 3 Chinese spies including one with tens of thousands of child porn images.

More great stuff by Biden. It's too bad Trump can't cancel their sentences being commuted. It's fucked up presendents have this power.
 
Last edited:
I missed this a week or so ago. Turns out that the USAF denied Musk some level of security clearance in relation to SpaceX.

The New York Times said the Air Force recently cited potential security risks in denying high-level security access for Musk, and that allies including Israel have flagged concerns that the billionaire CEO might share sensitive data.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top