Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 18:04:12 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: > > grarpamp : > >BTW, the US is well beyond bankrupt, search deficit and debt. > >That entire $700B, and more, could be seen as being funded > >by fake money. > > That's a position which could be taken by people who think that the national > debt will never be paid off. (Or, perhaps, SHOULD never be paid off!!) The > problem is that debt is often owed to "ourselves". Indeed it shouldn't be paid off and as to the 'owed to yourselves' line, it's kind of meaningless... > And, perhaps it could be paid off by selling all Federal lands in America. >We should all ask, too, is it a "legitimate" debt? That National debt may >have been wasted, but the people loaning it to the Federal government did not, >merely by that loaning, make it illegitimate. people who lend money to the US govt lend money to the biggest criminal organization on the planet and finance the murdering of children for fun and profit, among a long list of atrocities. As a matter of fact people who lend money to the US govt and so fund its crimes are accomplices. So there's no reason why they should get 'their' money back. Actually they should be partially liable for the crimes of the US govt. That said, no doubt whatever 'assets' the US govt and its 'private' contractors have should be expropriated and used to compensate the victims of government crimes. As to the 700,000 millions in military spending, that is indeed a huge incentive...for the system to perpetuate itself, not so much for people to act against it. No doubt the existence of the american military system is a *reason* for whatever sane people is left on the planet to do something against it, but as far as direct economic incentives go, they favor the west-point-ayn-rand-child-murdering* party, not the common sense morality party. The problem is, a well organized group can get a lot of resources by stealing a relatively small % from big numbers of people. Which is exactly how governments operate. So a relatively small well organized group of scum (i.e. government and corps) has the upper hand over a big disorganized group of subjects. * fascist 'philosophy' - who needs it - ayn rand http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/pwni.html
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 12:23:19 PM PDT, John Newman wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 07:06:10PM +, jim bell wrote: > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 11:37:15 AM PDT, John Newman > wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 06:04:12PM +, jim bell wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 3:55:16 AM PDT, John Newman > > wrote: > > > > > > On August 15, 2018 2:31:10 AM CDT, grarpamp wrote: >>I was replying to an argument stating, more or less, that there are >> plenty of crypto-millionaires with money to blow, so it doesn't matter >> if - as I suggested - most people don't give enough of a shit to >> particpate in AP. The millionaires can fund it, and AP fixes everything! >> Or something :) I find it hard to believe... > >> So, you are admitting that you really wouldn't know if an AP market was in >> any way "dominated" by any group or another. So, why didn't you say so >> before? Why invent a phony objection that won't work? >And, neither would you know if it wasn't dominated, yeah? It would help if the word "dominated" was defined. What I proposed, AP, would be a system that is available to all, with proper programmed guarantees that the system worked as proposed. Open source, presumably. Bettors would be assured that their bets would only be paid to the winning bettor(s), bettors would be assured that the bets would be paid if the prediction was made correctly. All this requires a lot of software. That amount of programming might well have seemed imposing in 1995, but subsequent software projects (TOR, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Augur) show that this kind of project is doable. "Dominated", I assume, could mean functioning but not by the principles of being available to everyone. If you tried to make a given bet, and were somehow rejected, THAT might constitute the kind of obstruction that would be evidence of "domination". >"Except by the outcome, which has to be inferred. So - if the government didn't collapse, but you started seeing deaths of high-level or up-and-coming corporate executives, and their critical researchers, etc, etc - well, that would be a pretty reliable indicator that things were not going "as planned", I think." No doubt that people will be paying close attention to these events. >> Once you do that, why not agree that only a very tiny percentage of the >> population would be necessary to start an AP system running. A large >> percentage of the population is living on the government's tit: Government >> employees, of course, , and welfare, etc. Military contractors, also. >> This money came from SOMEBODY. Maybe such SOMEBODIES want that system to >> stop, now that they've learned about the AP concept. But there is an >> additional possibility. >Maybe. Or maybe the CIA starts channeling money into AP to get rid of its "enemies", cuz the government is loaded too :P Initially, that might occur! But remember, the function of a properly-implemented AP-type system will attack all heirarchical structures, at least those that involve involuntary factors. (financed by robbed taxes, etc.) Why will we need a "CIA" if people can kill off the upper levels of leadership in other, threatening countries? The CIA itself will recognize that it (and any other public security organizations) will be simply unnecessary when AP has destroyed all governments. Since the early 1980's, America (for just one example) has apparently been run by Executive Order 12333 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333which contains a "Proscription on Assassination". Probably sounded good, then. But killing leaders is by far the most efficient way to stop organized evil activities, and by that I mean primarily action by governments. Why would American government adopt such an order? The answer was, and is, simple, and I explain it in my AP essay: If WE can kill THEIR leaders, THEY can kill OUR leaders, as well. And leaders have more in common with each other than with their own people. OUR leaders were glad to tell THEIR leaders, 'We won't kill you, the leaders, if you won't kill our leaders. Deal???'. That's an agreement that all the world's leaders would gladly agree with. >"I think you make the mistake of assuming that there is a sizable portion of the population that wouldn't simply cringe at the idea of AP, aside of course from the sociopaths that own the majority of the capital, and the governments that enable them. " It doesn't matter if there is (initially) a "sizable portion of the population" which would cringe at AP. Some would initially think of it merely as a "murder market". Even I, for a very brief time in early January, 1995, saw it this way. Maybe it lasted for about a hour. But I quickly recognized that it would go after each government employee, and thus each government, every government, without exception. A well-functioning AP system is simply incompatible with
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 18:03:21 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 6:17:38 PM PDT, juan > wrote: > > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:06:10 + (UTC) > jim bell wrote: > > > >> I have explained, above, that even with the use of imaginative > >> accountants, the "ultra wealthy" currently fund at least a large majority > >> of (for example) America's Federal Government. > > > That is incorrect. The money that big and hugely corrupt businesses pay > in taxes come from consumers, not the 'rich' themselves. The rich don't pay > taxes, the poor do. > A given dollar (not necessarily a physical, paper "Dollar") actually goes > through many people. Arguing over who paid a given "tax" is somewhat > useless. Who actually paid the most recent tax? That's who paid the tax. > The consequences of paying that tax are arguable, which of course you want to > do. If you sell somethign for $1 and the govt puts a 10% tax on you, and then you raise the price to $1.10, the consumer pays the tax, not you. Overall, the selling price of goods include ALL costs, so it includes the taxes paid by the producers which are not really paid by them, but transferred to consumers. The counterpoint is that sellers may not be able to raise prices, but that would happen in an ideal free market, not in the highly corporatist world-wide economic system we have today. >Who actually paid the most recent tax? That's who paid the tax. Not true, as illustrated above. And the point is, if the rich are not really paying taxes to any meaningful degree, there's no 'incentive' for them to attack the government. > > > >> Do you think THEY believe that those taxes are being spent wisely? No, > >>they're not stupid, are they? They know that money is being wasted. > > > Indeed they are not stupid. They know that they owe 'their' wealth to > the govt, so the last thing they want to do is go against their vital > partner in crime. > > Some may indeed believe that. But many others might not. In addition, many > of them might see an AP system coming, and want to correct things in hopes of > being treated more kindly. rich people are half the ruling class, at least conceptually since the system works by close cooperation between government and businesses, to control and loot their subjects. also, it should be pretty much self-evident that the rich do not think the way you'd like them to think, since there's virtually no opposition to the current fascist system, except for what a few random individuals may say. If your beloved rich 'free market' 'entrepreneurs' were actually what you want them to be, then you'd see them devoting substantial resources to promote freedom. But what happens in the real is of course THE EXACT OPPOSITE. > > > > All that said (again), if AP has a chance then the funding will have to > >come from honest people, not from the ultra rich, ultra corrupt and ultra > >criminal oligarchy that rules the planet. > > To the contrary, I think the funding can come from anybody who has a > motivation to do so. Right. And the rich have NO MOTIVATION AT ALL. Again, the rich are rich because they are corrupt to the core and the number one supporters of the state, since the half of the state IS THEM, and they couldn't be rich WITHOUT THE STATE.
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 6:17:38 PM PDT, juan wrote: On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:06:10 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: >> I have explained, above, that even with the use of imaginative accountants, >> the "ultra wealthy" currently fund at least a large majority of (for >> example) America's Federal Government. > That is incorrect. The money that big and hugely corrupt businesses pay in taxes come from consumers, not the 'rich' themselves. The rich don't pay taxes, the poor do. A given dollar (not necessarily a physical, paper "Dollar") actually goes through many people. Arguing over who paid a given "tax" is somewhat useless. Who actually paid the most recent tax? That's who paid the tax. The consequences of paying that tax are arguable, which of course you want to do. > From: Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2015 Update - Tax > Foundation > × > "In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs of > $428,713 and above), earned 19.04 percent of all AGI in 2013, but paid 37.80 > percent of all federal income taxes. In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers > accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined.Nov > 19, 2015[end of quote] > >> For now, let's just consider that "top 1 percent of all taxpayers" who "paid >> 37.80% of all Federal income taxes. > That same 1% got all sorts of benefits from the govt, starting with the >fact that the government is the enabler of the corporatist system that made >them 'wealthy' thieves. But such people may be willing to decide, now, that they are not satisfied with the efficiency of that system. Also, they are no necessarily some sort of homogeneous group. Some might decide that the "cost" to them is too high, and they want to stop the system and get off the 'ride'. >> Do you think THEY believe that those taxes are being spent wisely? No, >>they're not stupid, are they? They know that money is being wasted. > Indeed they are not stupid. They know that they owe 'their' wealth to the govt, so the last thing they want to do is go against their vital partner in crime. Some may indeed believe that. But many others might not. In addition, many of them might see an AP system coming, and want to correct things in hopes of being treated more kindly. > All that said (again), if AP has a chance then the funding will have to >come from honest people, not from the ultra rich, ultra corrupt and ultra >criminal oligarchy that rules the planet. To the contrary, I think the funding can come from anybody who has a motivation to do so. >> Except that he doesn't have a billion times more targets. He doesn't know >> who to target, and will likely never learn, because AP is intended to be >> anonymous. AP can be readily used to tear down governments and their >> oppression. It cannot be easily used to oppress, if for no other reason >> that people who want to oppress don't know who to target. > Yes, that makes sense, so it seems plausible that the statists won't use the AP system. Also, they may not want to use it because it is 'ilegal'. Although the government certainly do 'ilegal'(by their own standards) stuff, in this case, usign the AP system would be tantamout to admiting that they can't provide security even for themselves, so using it would be very bad publicity to say the least. > What the statists will do is attack the AP system using ordinary means like finding out who the users are, and killing them. While the ultra rich cheer. They can do that already, although not efficiently.
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:06:10 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: > > I have explained, above, that even with the use of imaginative accountants, > the "ultra wealthy" currently fund at least a large majority of (for example) > America's Federal Government. That is incorrect. The money that big and hugely corrupt businesses pay in taxes come from consumers, not the 'rich' themselves. The rich don't pay taxes, the poor do. > From: > https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update/ > × > "In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs of > $428,713 and above), earned 19.04 percent of all AGI in 2013, but paid 37.80 > percent of all federal income taxes. In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers > accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined.Nov > 19, 2015[end of quote] > > For now, let's just consider that "top 1 percent of all taxpayers" who "paid > 37.80% of all Federal income taxes. That same 1% got all sorts of benefits from the govt, starting with the fact that the government is the enabler of the corporatist system that made them 'wealthy' thieves. > Do you think THEY believe that those taxes are being spent wisely? No, >they're not stupid, are they? They know that money is being wasted. Indeed they are not stupid. They know that they owe 'their' wealth to the govt, so the last thing they want to do is go against their vital partner in crime. All that said (again), if AP has a chance then the funding will have to come from honest people, not from the ultra rich, ultra corrupt and ultra criminal oligarchy that rules the planet. > Except that he doesn't have a billion times more targets. He doesn't know > who to target, and will likely never learn, because AP is intended to be > anonymous. AP can be readily used to tear down governments and their > oppression. It cannot be easily used to oppress, if for no other reason that > people who want to oppress don't know who to target. Yes, that makes sense, so it seems plausible that the statists won't use the AP system. Also, they may not want to use it because it is 'ilegal'. Although the government certainly do 'ilegal'(by their own standards) stuff, in this case, usign the AP system would be tantamout to admiting that they can't provide security even for themselves, so using it would be very bad publicity to say the least. What the statists will do is attack the AP system using ordinary means like finding out who the users are, and killing them. While the ultra rich cheer. > > > Jim Bell
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:46 PM, John Newman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 01:58:26PM -0400, grarpamp wrote: >> a) Those wealthy will be too busy bidding to murder each other >> like mob bosses, thus thinning their herd and allowing higher >> mass funded prices on their remaining heads. > > Yes, I agree with this, at least the first part. I'm not sure that there > will be any real thinning of the herd at the top - it sounds like > a way for the super-rich to simply cull anybody they see as an > economic threat. AP as death-squad enforcement for cartels of the > super-rich. While perhaps not thinned much in quantity, as lesser bosses will fill vacancies in organizations that are viable and don't crumble, it will cause churn and diverted resources, which will weaken the organizations to the masses. Some churn and diversion goes to efficiency, but that's in turn focused on warfare between top orgs, not the distributed masses. Masses are distributed and not seen as economic threat the way competing bosses are. > If someone could spin AP into a "reality show" style format, cameras > turned on in the last minutes of the assassination, with video of > the hit uploaded into the system (anonymously of course), then > maybe people would take an interest :) > > Of course, I doubt that's workable. Who knows what methods will be used > for the killings, and whether they would be any fun to watch. Maybe add > an excitement multiplier into the death payoff or something :P When decentral AP markets are proven functional and resistant, then all the necessary underlying anon crypto tech tools are also thus extant and proven, and so can and will naturally be applied safely by such shows and showoffs. Thankfully, the only shows you're likely to see, beyond an occaisional proof of system, are peaceful ones... lots of targets publicly vacating their offices on the evening TV news.
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
>> b) The masses, again being anonymous and widespread, are >> therefore simply not targetable... > > So why couldn't AP fund a nuclear strike? Suicidal overblast, irradiation, loss of wealth sustaining slaves and lands, etc. More plausible, a nuke strike from the AP masses towards - an invading remote army machine - a seat of government, ie: local concentrations in legacy centralized capitols
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
> Temple of Justice (Judicial) https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/case-allowing-cameras-supreme-court-proceedings/316876/
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 07:06:10PM +, jim bell wrote: > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 11:37:15 AM PDT, John Newman > wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 06:04:12PM +, jim bell wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 3:55:16 AM PDT, John Newman > > wrote: > > > > > > On August 15, 2018 2:31:10 AM CDT, grarpamp wrote: > > >>There are some very wealthy early cryptocurrency anarcho OGs. > > >>Given a working crypto prediction market, them dropping a million for a > > >>solid prediction on when some cantalope will pop... a fun game for > > >>them. > > >>Any extra kicked in by the masses is just icing on the cake. > > > > > > >Does an AP market dominated > > > > How would you, or anyone, know if an AP-type market was "dominated"? > > Whether absolutely secure and anonymous, or mostly anonymous, the vast > > majority of the population would not know who was using the AP system. > > Sure, there would be speculation, but that is all. > > >I was replying to an argument stating, more or less, that there are > plenty of crypto-millionaires with money to blow, so it doesn't matter > if - as I suggested - most people don't give enough of a shit to > particpate in AP. The millionaires can fund it, and AP fixes everything! > Or something :) I find it hard to believe... > > So, you are admitting that you really wouldn't know if an AP market was in > any way "dominated" by any group or another. So, why didn't you say so > before? Why invent a phony objection that won't work? And, neither would you know if it wasn't dominated, yeah? Except by the outcome, which has to be inferred. So - if the government didn't collapse, but you started seeing deaths of high-level or up-and-coming corporate executives, and their critical researchers, etc, etc - well, that would be a pretty reliable indicator that things were not going "as planned", I think. > Once you do that, why not agree that only a very tiny percentage of the > population would be necessary to start an AP system running. A large > percentage of the population is living on the government's tit: Government > employees, of course, , and welfare, etc. Military contractors, also. This > money came from SOMEBODY. Maybe such SOMEBODIES want that system to stop, > now that they've learned about the AP concept. But there is an additional > possibility. Maybe. Or maybe the CIA starts channeling money into AP to get rid of its "enemies", cuz the government is loaded too :P I think you make the mistake of assuming that there is a sizable portion of the population that wouldn't simply cringe at the idea of AP, aside of course from the sociopaths that own the majority of the capital, and the governments that enable them. Of course, I'm still fascinated to see it play out. The tech isn't there yet, despite all the hyperbole about Augur as AP. > > > > >by a bunch of the fucking ultra wealthy > > > > Obviously, the "ultra wealthy" might appear to have one advantage over "the > > poor" in using AP: They have much more money, on a per-person basis. But, > > the number of "the poor" (or, at least, those with incomes under, say, > > $100,000 per year) greatly outnumber the "wealthy", and certainly the > > "ultra wealthy". > > The Average American Net Worth Is Huge! > > > >> Average net worth for America in 2014 was $301K. Median net worth for > >> America is $45K. (Although, read that article; there is some dispute.)× > >> Another factor is that in order to effectively use AP, you generally have > >> to know who your target is. And I am not merely referring to names. In > >> today's political system, in order to get what you want, you have to stick > >> your head up and speak out. That might make you a target. But in an > >> AP-type system world, you need not say anything, at least not > >> anonymously.. To use AP you need to know who "the enemy" really is. > >> That's hard, when nobody is speaking up. So even if a "ultra wealth" > >> person has a virtually unlimited amount of money to pay into an AP system, > >> how does he target his enemies? How does he know who those "enemies" are? > >> He may know NOW, in a non-AP era, but he won't know in an AP-driven era > >> in the near future. > > >Right, this gets back to my point about the interests of the ultra > wealthy having very little to do with the stated goals of AP. It seems > to me they would only be interested in culling their economic competition, > and otherwise propping one another up, no doubt with shifting alliances. > I think it would boil down to just another way of gaming the system for > the rich, to keep them rich. > > > I have explained, above, that even with the use of imaginative accountants, > the "ultra wealthy" currently fund at least a large majority of (for example) > America's Federal Government. > From: > https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update/ > × > "In contrast,
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:04 PM, jim bell wrote: >>BTW, the US is well beyond bankrupt, search deficit and debt. >>That entire $700B, and more, could be seen as being funded >>by fake money. > > > That's a position which could be taken by people who think that the national > debt will never be paid off. (Or, perhaps, SHOULD never be paid off!!) > The problem is that debt is often owed to "ourselves". And, perhaps it > could be paid off by selling all Federal lands in America. The White House (Executive), US Capitol Building (Legislative), Temple of Justice (Judicial), and all those Monuments to Government in DC would indeed fetch a fine price at foreclosure auction. > We should all ask, too, is it a "legitimate" debt? That National debt may > have been wasted, but the people loaning it to the Federal government did > not, merely by that loaning, make it illegitimate. Bankruptcy assets get distributed to shareholders. There's enough public land in US for each of its citizens to get an acre, enough building space to get an office, enough terabytes to get a computer, etc. Advertising that fact would bring about a mass debt call and foreclosure filing much sooner ;) There's also the concept of mutual debt cancellation, however as that resolves its way through the global system, it will likely be disruptive, and some creditors will still get stuck with empty bags in the end, leading to further debt recovery actions. Who will the bagholders be? And who will be indebted to them? You can find and post links to those research data. > I should also point out that I believe that one big reason that the "ultra > wealthy" are ultra wealthy, is BECAUSE OF a big government, not IN SPITE OF > a big government. Laws favor the writer, the money, the lobbies. None of which the masses really partake in. Whereas business / wealthy can spot focus to keen effect. > The American federal government spends about 30x more money, per person, > corrected for inflation, than it did in about 1925. Maybe THAT is where the > wealth currently owned by the "ultra wealthy" actually came from? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States Taxed and redistributed from... to crony biz, to taxor's selves and to its institution... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_land US land, State's land, County's land, City's land, all buildings, all vehicles, all inventory, assets, etc... Kings die when the stolen booty in their coffers becomes obvious and extravagant. (If you do end up with a piece of nature parkland, please don't be asshole planet thus human suiciders and fucking it up by introducing non nature upon it, or stealing from it.)
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 11:37:15 AM PDT, John Newman wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 06:04:12PM +, jim bell wrote: > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 3:55:16 AM PDT, John Newman >wrote: > > > On August 15, 2018 2:31:10 AM CDT, grarpamp wrote: > >>There are some very wealthy early cryptocurrency anarcho OGs. > >>Given a working crypto prediction market, them dropping a million for a > >>solid prediction on when some cantalope will pop... a fun game for > >>them. > >>Any extra kicked in by the masses is just icing on the cake. > > > >Does an AP market dominated > > How would you, or anyone, know if an AP-type market was "dominated"? > Whether absolutely secure and anonymous, or mostly anonymous, the vast > majority of the population would not know who was using the AP system. Sure, > there would be speculation, but that is all. >I was replying to an argument stating, more or less, that there are plenty of crypto-millionaires with money to blow, so it doesn't matter if - as I suggested - most people don't give enough of a shit to particpate in AP. The millionaires can fund it, and AP fixes everything! Or something :) I find it hard to believe... So, you are admitting that you really wouldn't know if an AP market was in any way "dominated" by any group or another. So, why didn't you say so before? Why invent a phony objection that won't work? Once you do that, why not agree that only a very tiny percentage of the population would be necessary to start an AP system running. A large percentage of the population is living on the government's tit: Government employees, of course, , and welfare, etc. Military contractors, also. This money came from SOMEBODY. Maybe such SOMEBODIES want that system to stop, now that they've learned about the AP concept. But there is an additional possibility. > >by a bunch of the fucking ultra wealthy > > Obviously, the "ultra wealthy" might appear to have one advantage over "the > poor" in using AP: They have much more money, on a per-person basis. But, > the number of "the poor" (or, at least, those with incomes under, say, > $100,000 per year) greatly outnumber the "wealthy", and certainly the "ultra > wealthy". > The Average American Net Worth Is Huge! > >> Average net worth for America in 2014 was $301K. Median net worth for >> America is $45K. (Although, read that article; there is some dispute.)× >> Another factor is that in order to effectively use AP, you generally have to >> know who your target is. And I am not merely referring to names. In >> today's political system, in order to get what you want, you have to stick >> your head up and speak out. That might make you a target. But in an >> AP-type system world, you need not say anything, at least not anonymously.. >> To use AP you need to know who "the enemy" really is. That's hard, when >> nobody is speaking up. So even if a "ultra wealth" person has a virtually >> unlimited amount of money to pay into an AP system, how does he target his >> enemies? How does he know who those "enemies" are? He may know NOW, in a >> non-AP era, but he won't know in an AP-driven era in the near future. >Right, this gets back to my point about the interests of the ultra wealthy having very little to do with the stated goals of AP. It seems to me they would only be interested in culling their economic competition, and otherwise propping one another up, no doubt with shifting alliances. I think it would boil down to just another way of gaming the system for the rich, to keep them rich. I have explained, above, that even with the use of imaginative accountants, the "ultra wealthy" currently fund at least a large majority of (for example) America's Federal Government. From: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update/ × "In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs of $428,713 and above), earned 19.04 percent of all AGI in 2013, but paid 37.80 percent of all federal income taxes. In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined.Nov 19, 2015[end of quote] For now, let's just consider that "top 1 percent of all taxpayers" who "paid 37.80% of all Federal income taxes. Do you think THEY believe that those taxes are being spent wisely? No, they're not stupid, are they? They know that money is being wasted. > >, whose interests I promise you do not align with yours, whatever > >sociopathic method they used to accrue their capital, even count as a > >functional AP market? > > The fact that some "ultra wealthy" are using the AP system does not prevent > others from using the same system. So, the meaning of the word you used, > "dominate", is limited. > Do the "ultra wealthy" "dominate" the American food market? Does a person > whose net worth is $1 million eat 100 times as much as a person whose net > worth
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On 08/15/2018 10:58 AM, grarpamp wrote: > b) The masses, again being anonymous and widespread, are > therefore simply not targetable... So why couldn't AP fund a nuclear strike?
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 11:38:45 AM PDT, John Newman wrote: On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:28:32PM +, 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
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 01:58:26PM -0400, grarpamp wrote: > > Does an AP market dominated by a bunch of the fucking > > ultra wealthy, whose interests I promise you do not align with yours, > > whatever sociopathic method they used to > > accrue their capital, even count as a functional AP market? > > It's arguable whether anyone's interests align with anyone else, > however freedom from being murdered (and, and as part of, the > larger NAP principle) might be a starting baseline universal truth. > > > As to the wealthy 1% vs the poor 99% in an AP market... > > When decentral anonymous crypto AP markets are proven bulletproof > (by reviews, by prior successful predictions, and by unconfirmed > predictions to take them down [1], etc) then a few things will > probably be true... > > a) Those wealthy will be too busy bidding to murder each other > like mob bosses, thus thinning their herd and allowing higher > mass funded prices on their remaining heads. Yes, I agree with this, at least the first part. I'm not sure that there will be any real thinning of the herd at the top - it sounds like a way for the super-rich to simply cull anybody they see as an economic threat. AP as death-squad enforcement for cartels of the super-rich. Does that sound like a good outcome? :P > > b) The masses, again being anonymous and widespread, are > therefore simply not targetable... there's no proof of their action > thus no rationale to put out in a question for c) below. And the > prediction cost to get them all, over and above the already IRL > cost of enslaving them all, is double... better off just marching > your revolutionary guards down the street and murder them all at $0.25 a > bullet. > Doing that also lowers their profit and revenue from slavery. Nor > are there enough crazies or fortune seekers out there to make > a dent before IRL people stop them. So there's no point. > > c) No peasant is going to murder another peasant without both > - a good price, impossible as above. > - a good reason, none exist... and in this scenario they are all > brothers allies and comrades in class warfare. > > So piss them off as in b) or c) and... > > d) ... in goes whatever's left after taxes and TV, which could be > a lot once they figure out that an AP market is much more > cathartic gory and participatory fun than the fake gladiators > they see on TV. If someone could spin AP into a "reality show" style format, cameras turned on in the last minutes of the assassination, with video of the hit uploaded into the system (anonymously of course), then maybe people would take an interest :) Of course, I doubt that's workable. Who knows what methods will be used for the killings, and whether they would be any fun to watch. Maybe add an excitement multiplier into the death payoff or something :P > > [1] A strange wager to take down the same market the prediction > question is lodged in... winning that would never pay out, thus > all bids there are illogical. -- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 06:04:12PM +, jim bell wrote: > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 3:55:16 AM PDT, John Newman > wrote: > > > On August 15, 2018 2:31:10 AM CDT, grarpamp wrote: > >>There are some very wealthy early cryptocurrency anarcho OGs. > >>Given a working crypto prediction market, them dropping a million for a > >>solid prediction on when some cantalope will pop... a fun game for > >>them. > >>Any extra kicked in by the masses is just icing on the cake. > > > >Does an AP market dominated > > How would you, or anyone, know if an AP-type market was "dominated"? > Whether absolutely secure and anonymous, or mostly anonymous, the vast > majority of the population would not know who was using the AP system. Sure, > there would be speculation, but that is all. I was replying to an argument stating, more or less, that there are plenty of crypto-millionaires with money to blow, so it doesn't matter if - as I suggested - most people don't give enough of a shit to particpate in AP. The millionaires can fund it, and AP fixes everything! Or something :) I find it hard to believe... > > >by a bunch of the fucking ultra wealthy > > Obviously, the "ultra wealthy" might appear to have one advantage over "the > poor" in using AP: They have much more money, on a per-person basis. But, > the number of "the poor" (or, at least, those with incomes under, say, > $100,000 per year) greatly outnumber the "wealthy", and certainly the "ultra > wealthy". > https://www.financialsamurai.com/average-net-worth-is-huge/ > > Average net worth for America in 2014 was $301K. Median net worth for > America is $45K. (Although, read that article; there is some dispute.)× > Another factor is that in order to effectively use AP, you generally have to > know who your target is. And I am not merely referring to names. In > today's political system, in order to get what you want, you have to stick > your head up and speak out. That might make you a target. But in an AP-type > system world, you need not say anything, at least not anonymously.. To use > AP you need to know who "the enemy" really is. That's hard, when nobody is > speaking up. So even if a "ultra wealth" person has a virtually unlimited > amount of money to pay into an AP system, how does he target his enemies? > How does he know who those "enemies" are? He may know NOW, in a non-AP era, > but he won't know in an AP-driven era in the near future. Right, this gets back to my point about the interests of the ultra wealthy having very little to do with the stated goals of AP. It seems to me they would only be interested in culling their economic competition, and otherwise propping one another up, no doubt with shifting alliances. I think it would boil down to just another way of gaming the system for the rich, to keep them rich. > > > >, whose interests I promise you do not align with yours, whatever > >sociopathic method they used to accrue their capital, even count as a > >functional AP market? > > The fact that some "ultra wealthy" are using the AP system does not prevent > others from using the same system. So, the meaning of the word you used, > "dominate", is limited. > Do the "ultra wealthy" "dominate" the American food market? Does a person > whose net worth is $1 million eat 100 times as much as a person whose net > worth is $10K? Does a person whose net worth is $100 million eat 10,000 > times the amount of a person whose net worth is $10K? What about other > spending, such as housing, transportation, entertainment, etc? AP is not a consumable like food. No, a billionaire doesn't shit a billion times a day. But he does have a billion times more money to spend on AP than Joe six-pack. > > >BTW, the US is well beyond bankrupt, search deficit and debt. > >That entire $700B, and more, could be seen as being funded > >by fake money. > > That's a position which could be taken by people who think that the national > debt will never be paid off. (Or, perhaps, SHOULD never be paid off!!) The > problem is that debt is often owed to "ourselves". And, perhaps it could be > paid off by selling all Federal lands in America. We should all ask, too, is > it a "legitimate" debt? That National debt may have been wasted, but the > people loaning it to the Federal government did not, merely by that loaning, > make it illegitimate. > > I should also point out that I believe that one big reason that the "ultra > wealthy" are ultra wealthy, is BECAUSE OF a big government, not IN SPITE OF a > big government. Most people don't seem to "get" that. So, you don't like > the "ultra wealthy", I get that. But what's the best thing we could do about > that? I say, eliminate (or at least, drastically reduce) the size of > government. > The American federal government spends about 30x more money, per person, > corrected for inflation, than it did in about 1925. Maybe THAT is where the
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 3:55:16 AM PDT, John Newman wrote: On August 15, 2018 2:31:10 AM CDT, grarpamp wrote: >>There are some very wealthy early cryptocurrency anarcho OGs. >>Given a working crypto prediction market, them dropping a million for a >>solid prediction on when some cantalope will pop... a fun game for >>them. >>Any extra kicked in by the masses is just icing on the cake. >Does an AP market dominated How would you, or anyone, know if an AP-type market was "dominated"? Whether absolutely secure and anonymous, or mostly anonymous, the vast majority of the population would not know who was using the AP system. Sure, there would be speculation, but that is all. >by a bunch of the fucking ultra wealthy Obviously, the "ultra wealthy" might appear to have one advantage over "the poor" in using AP: They have much more money, on a per-person basis. But, the number of "the poor" (or, at least, those with incomes under, say, $100,000 per year) greatly outnumber the "wealthy", and certainly the "ultra wealthy". https://www.financialsamurai.com/average-net-worth-is-huge/ Average net worth for America in 2014 was $301K. Median net worth for America is $45K. (Although, read that article; there is some dispute.)× Another factor is that in order to effectively use AP, you generally have to know who your target is. And I am not merely referring to names. In today's political system, in order to get what you want, you have to stick your head up and speak out. That might make you a target. But in an AP-type system world, you need not say anything, at least not anonymously.. To use AP you need to know who "the enemy" really is. That's hard, when nobody is speaking up. So even if a "ultra wealth" person has a virtually unlimited amount of money to pay into an AP system, how does he target his enemies? How does he know who those "enemies" are? He may know NOW, in a non-AP era, but he won't know in an AP-driven era in the near future. >, whose interests I promise you do not align with yours, whatever sociopathic >method they used to accrue their capital, even count as a functional AP market? The fact that some "ultra wealthy" are using the AP system does not prevent others from using the same system. So, the meaning of the word you used, "dominate", is limited. Do the "ultra wealthy" "dominate" the American food market? Does a person whose net worth is $1 million eat 100 times as much as a person whose net worth is $10K? Does a person whose net worth is $100 million eat 10,000 times the amount of a person whose net worth is $10K? What about other spending, such as housing, transportation, entertainment, etc? >BTW, the US is well beyond bankrupt, search deficit and debt. >That entire $700B, and more, could be seen as being funded >by fake money. That's a position which could be taken by people who think that the national debt will never be paid off. (Or, perhaps, SHOULD never be paid off!!) The problem is that debt is often owed to "ourselves". And, perhaps it could be paid off by selling all Federal lands in America. We should all ask, too, is it a "legitimate" debt? That National debt may have been wasted, but the people loaning it to the Federal government did not, merely by that loaning, make it illegitimate. I should also point out that I believe that one big reason that the "ultra wealthy" are ultra wealthy, is BECAUSE OF a big government, not IN SPITE OF a big government. Most people don't seem to "get" that. So, you don't like the "ultra wealthy", I get that. But what's the best thing we could do about that? I say, eliminate (or at least, drastically reduce) the size of government. The American federal government spends about 30x more money, per person, corrected for inflation, than it did in about 1925. Maybe THAT is where the wealth currently owned by the "ultra wealthy" actually came from? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States Some (many?) people would defend the size of the national defense spending on the basis that this country needs to be defended. I have invented a system, AP, which I believe will defend the region formerly known as "America" with a factor of 100 less money, and quite possibly far less than even that. Jim Bell ×
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
> Does an AP market dominated by a bunch of the fucking > ultra wealthy, whose interests I promise you do not align with yours, > whatever sociopathic method they used to > accrue their capital, even count as a functional AP market? It's arguable whether anyone's interests align with anyone else, however freedom from being murdered (and, and as part of, the larger NAP principle) might be a starting baseline universal truth. As to the wealthy 1% vs the poor 99% in an AP market... When decentral anonymous crypto AP markets are proven bulletproof (by reviews, by prior successful predictions, and by unconfirmed predictions to take them down [1], etc) then a few things will probably be true... a) Those wealthy will be too busy bidding to murder each other like mob bosses, thus thinning their herd and allowing higher mass funded prices on their remaining heads. b) The masses, again being anonymous and widespread, are therefore simply not targetable... there's no proof of their action thus no rationale to put out in a question for c) below. And the prediction cost to get them all, over and above the already IRL cost of enslaving them all, is double... better off just marching your revolutionary guards down the street and murder them all at $0.25 a bullet. Doing that also lowers their profit and revenue from slavery. Nor are there enough crazies or fortune seekers out there to make a dent before IRL people stop them. So there's no point. c) No peasant is going to murder another peasant without both - a good price, impossible as above. - a good reason, none exist... and in this scenario they are all brothers allies and comrades in class warfare. So piss them off as in b) or c) and... d) ... in goes whatever's left after taxes and TV, which could be a lot once they figure out that an AP market is much more cathartic gory and participatory fun than the fake gladiators they see on TV. [1] A strange wager to take down the same market the prediction question is lodged in... winning that would never pay out, thus all bids there are illogical.
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 3:55:16 AM PDT, John Newman wrote: On August 15, 2018 2:31:10 AM CDT, grarpamp wrote: >There are some very wealthy early cryptocurrency anarcho OGs. >Given a working crypto prediction market, them dropping a million for a >solid prediction on when some cantalope will pop... a fun game for >them. >Any extra kicked in by the masses is just icing on the cake. > Does an AP market dominated by a bunch of the fucking ultra wealthy, whose interests I promise you do not align with yours, whatever sociopathic method they used to accrue their capital, even count as a functional AP market? >BTW, the US is well beyond bankrupt, search deficit and debt. >That entire $700B, and more, could be seen as being funded >by fake money. > >https://wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
Original message From: John Newman Date: 8/15/18 3:54 AM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org, grarpamp , CypherPunks Subject: Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem? On August 15, 2018 2:31:10 AM CDT, grarpamp wrote: >There are some very wealthy early cryptocurrency anarcho OGs. >Given a working crypto prediction market, them dropping a million for a >solid prediction on when some cantalope will pop... a fun game for >them. >Any extra kicked in by the masses is just icing on the cake. > Does an AP market dominated by a bunch of the fucking ultra wealthy, whose interests I promise you do not align with yours, whatever sociopathic method they used to accrue their capital, even count as a functional AP market? >BTW, the US is well beyond bankrupt, search deficit and debt. >That entire $700B, and more, could be seen as being funded >by fake money. > >https://wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget That's only the tip of the shitberg (android does not try to correct that word btw). There's the Black Budget for all the dirty wars, destabilizations by proxy (chechen islamist bombing russian theaters... tsarnaev's family was involved in that covert operation), et al. But what should REALLY gall everyone, even true blue patriots is the fact that Congress told the Pentagon to stop supplying logistics like refueling aircraft and targeting intel to the school bus bombing Saudis fighting our proxy war in Yemen, and the pentagram said, in so many words, "Sorry Dave. I can't do that.", yet Congress never even hesitated to pass, or threaten to sequester funding one thin dime of the NDAA. RR
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 05:54:33AM -0500, John Newman wrote: > > > On August 15, 2018 2:31:10 AM CDT, grarpamp wrote: > >There are some very wealthy early cryptocurrency anarcho OGs. > >Given a working crypto prediction market, them dropping a million for a > >solid prediction on when some cantalope will pop... a fun game for > >them. > >Any extra kicked in by the masses is just icing on the cake. > > > > Does an AP market dominated by a bunch of the fucking > ultra wealthy, whose interests I promise you do not align with yours, > whatever sociopathic method they used to > accrue their capital, even count as a functional AP market? This is a primary question/ concern that someone asked a year or so ago. > >BTW, the US is well beyond bankrupt, search deficit and debt. > >That entire $700B, and more, could be seen as being funded > >by fake money. > > > >https://wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On August 15, 2018 2:31:10 AM CDT, grarpamp wrote: >There are some very wealthy early cryptocurrency anarcho OGs. >Given a working crypto prediction market, them dropping a million for a >solid prediction on when some cantalope will pop... a fun game for >them. >Any extra kicked in by the masses is just icing on the cake. > Does an AP market dominated by a bunch of the fucking ultra wealthy, whose interests I promise you do not align with yours, whatever sociopathic method they used to accrue their capital, even count as a functional AP market? >BTW, the US is well beyond bankrupt, search deficit and debt. >That entire $700B, and more, could be seen as being funded >by fake money. > >https://wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
There are some very wealthy early cryptocurrency anarcho OGs. Given a working crypto prediction market, them dropping a million for a solid prediction on when some cantalope will pop... a fun game for them. Any extra kicked in by the masses is just icing on the cake. BTW, the US is well beyond bankrupt, search deficit and debt. That entire $700B, and more, could be seen as being funded by fake money. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Re: Next Year's Federal Military budget over $700 billion. Is that a problem?
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:28:32PM +, 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, or even "enough" Americans, have any interest in contributing to assassination markets... In my experience, most people don't give a fuck. 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. I'm doubtful there are enough people who give a shit to ever make it work. If there were some horrible crisis that it seemed the current government was badly mismanaging - well, even then, I find it hard to see. 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). > > 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
