Democrats, liberals, and progressives have become some of the biggest hawks in Washington.

[King Kreole]

1. Yes you can. why is this even a topic of discussion.

No, you cannot. You cannot credibly prosecute a case for progressive domestic policies (healthcare as a human right, education as a human right, living wages as a human right, humane living conditions, criminal justice reform, climate change reforms, etc) if your imperialist anti-progressive foreign policies are actively negating human rights across the globe. You lose any sort of moral or practical credibility. It's the same reason you cannot be truly progressive and racist. You can't say "I'm for universal health care as a human right, but no blacks allowed." any more than you can say "I'm for healthcare is a human right, but let's invade Iraq and drone Yemeni hospitals."

It's a topic of discussion because progressive politics has a foundation in morality, and one of largest sources of American immorality is its foreign policy.

2. The military is not cannibalizing the budget. If you understood how the military budget works you would know that money they "don't have" beforehand becomes available whenever the military deems it necessary. The military doesn't rely on cutbacks on other programs to use for itself. The military says what's needed and the government makes it so. The real issue isn't the military cannibalizing this imaginary set number of dollars available, it's making those in government decide that money needs to be allocated to progressive programs by becoming magically "available" like they do for wars.

BOLDED. IS. THE. ENTIRE. POINT.

The military has been given an air of unearned and undemocratic untouchability when it comes to spending. There is no reason for it except lobbyist from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin paying politicians across the spectrum to make it so. The military should not be able to unilaterally decide how much of the budget they get to eat. No other department does. It's the job of the people via congress to make that decision. That money going to DOD spending comes out of the same discretionary budget pot as the money for Education, Labor, Transportation, etc.

There is absolutely no reason why the allocation ratio cannot be altered to lessen the military spending and increase spending on other progressive areas.

3. that "how can we afford this" argument is a fake stance in the first place. Nobody asked how we could afford Iraq and Afghanistan, the government just made it so.
If you really wanna get into the "how can we afford this" argument why don't you go through the koch study that shows a singlepayer system actually SAVES the country money.... then come back to discuss.

You're soooo close to getting it. The government "makes it so" not by "magic", as you have claimed, but by spending into deficit. The "how can we afford it" argument isn't fake, it's disingenuous. Progressives can care about the budget and the deficit without playing the insincere budget hawk game that Republicans play. The argument for reducing military spending isn't solely based on freeing up funds for progressive policies (although it is a leading feature), it's also about unnecessary waste on immoral policies on its own right. And yes, single payer is more cost effective than the current bloated health care system, so that elides that conservative trap right there, but there are other progressive policies which will need funding, and the military budget should be drawn down to address those policies.

If you're too scared of conservative opposition, then get out of the fight.

 

[King Kreole]

1.

a. who said anything about not having a foreign policy?
b. a progressive movement can have a foreign policy perspective without that end all be all (ie. prerequisite) of the ENTIRE movement
c. it's possible to have a progressive movement with a hawkish foreign policy... isn't that the complaint this thread is based on?

Foreign policy is enacted by national-level politicians, which is why every national-level politician has to have a foreign policy position. If you claim to be a progressive, you must be consistently progressive across your platform. You seem to be claiming that you can be progressive domestically yet conservative/regressive in foreign policy, and I'm saying that means you're not truly progressive. It is not possible to have a progressive movement with a hawkish foreign policy. It's like saying you can have a racist progressive movement. The racist/hawkishness invalidates the moral and practical underpinning of the movement, because progressive politics is based on a set of universal moral principles of human rights.

3. The military doesn't eat up the budget. The military decides by how much they will increase the budget itself to meet its needs... it's not subtracting money from a set number. If you study budget you would know that.

If you study budget you would know that that's not how the system works. The President and his team (OMB and federal agencies, including DOD) come up with a budget proposal, which is then sent to the House and Senate budget and appropriation committees where spending limits are set via resolutions, which are then voted on in the House and Senate, and then ultimately passed on to the White House for the President to sign into law. Nowhere in this process does the military unilaterally decide how much they will be getting. They can request any amount they want, but it is the job of congressional committees to question those amounts and come out with a reasonable amount. According to you, the military can unilaterally decide it needs 40 trillion dollars in next year's budget and it must happen because they "decide how much they will increase the budget itself to meet its needs" and this wouldn't be a problem because "it's not subtracting money from a set number", it's "magic".

4. military spending needing to be cut has nothing to do with healthcare or judicial system reform.... the examples you gave are issues that deal directly with the cause it affects.
Saying military cuts are a prerequisite to a progressive movement is using separate progressive issues as roadblocks to each other instead of trying to get through whatever is possible with the amount of power the movement holds.

Reducing military spending and checking US imperialist action is not a roadblock to a progressive movement, it's a fundamental component. Just as healthcare and education and a living wage and climate change action and campaign finance reform and upholding civil rights are not roadblocks to each other, they are pieces of a whole. They all have to do with each other because the progressive movement is about enacting a fundamental foundational change to the structure of America. Campaign finance reform is tied to universal healthcare which is tied to progressive foreign policy which is tied to racism which is tied to a living wage. These issues are distinct yet interconnected via the broader progressive movement, and it's totally defeatist to view them roadblocks to each other, as you do.

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

Brownskin intellect sounds like a trump voter

I've never voted Republican

 

[Savvir]

You guys are basically saying any progressive movement that does not check off ALL of your prerequisites will not get your support because it is not a "true" progressive movement.

I'm saying that this is a good way to divide the "progressive" movement and help continue to take losses politically

 

[Copy Ninja]

They are all the same mayne. That's why i don't trust these fukkers when they talk about all these social programs they want to implement and raise our taxes. It's a fukking money grab.

 

[Savvir]

what do you think the tax money will go to if taxes get raised?

 

[King Kreole]

2. The military is not cannibalizing the budget. If you understood how the military budget works you would know that money they "don't have" beforehand becomes available whenever the military deems it necessary. The military doesn't rely on cutbacks on other programs to use for itself. The military says what's needed and the government makes it so.

 

[newworldafro]

You don't say

What gave it away??

Was it destroying Libya by BHO and HillRod?

Was destroying Syria by BHO and HillRod?

Was it destroying Yemen by BHO and HillRod?

Or was it staying in Iraq and Afghanistan, when were told in 2008, we would be begin efforts to leave?

Or did recieving the Nobel Peace Prize before conducting 10x more drone strikes in 8 years than Dubya give the author a hint? Obama’s covert drone war in numbers: ten times more strikes than Bush

Wonder what made the author realize these warhawks are in both sides of the political spectrum?

 

[Gains]

look at this complete bullshyt, brehs

that sentence alone discredits OP

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

that sentence alone discredits OP

Really....
Can you explain how?

 

[Gains]

Really....
Can you explain how?

You made the claim that there was no anti war movement on the left

 

[Pressure]

No republicans are.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

You guys are basically saying any progressive movement that does not check off ALL of your prerequisites will not get your support because it is not a "true" progressive movement.

I'm saying that this is a good way to divide the "progressive" movement and help continue to take losses politically

The funny part is, in trying to do this, they end up just like "the left" that they claim to despise

Ignored and dismissed outright

Funny thing is, it was the LEFT that was pushing for no boots on the ground and tactical drone strikes at specific targets.

What these people want, is the fantasy land where the US does nothing but give aid and does not get involved in the rest of the worlds affairs, despite those affairs effecting the US whether they choose to get involved or not.

It's shortsighted and screams misunderstanding of geopolitics and the world stage in general

I'd expect no less from the "The US is the only country to ever use nukes" crew and their affiliates.

It's why no one takes ya'll serious...nikkas still picking Libya as the hill to die on

 

[King Kreole]

The funny part is, in trying to do this, they end up just like "the left" that they claim to despise

Ignored and dismissed outright

Funny thing is, it was the LEFT that was pushing for no boots on the ground and tactical drone strikes at specific targets.

What these people want, is the fantasy land where the US does nothing but give aid and does not get involved in the rest of the worlds affairs, despite those affairs effecting the US whether they choose to get involved or not.

It's shortsighted and screams misunderstanding of geopolitics and the world stage in general

I'd expect no less from the "The US is the only country to ever use nukes" crew and their affiliates.

It's why no one takes ya'll serious...nikkas still picking Libya as the hill to die on

Yeah I agree, the Iraq war was good and necessary.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

Yeah I agree, the Iraq war was good and necessary.

The Iraq War was not good and was unnecessary

However, in trying to demonize Democrats for voting for the "war" you ignore the fact that it would have been political suicide to do so at the time, which would have led to an even greater GOP infestation in US politics.

And the Obama approach, drone strikes, which minimizes the amount of US personnel casualties that would occur otherwise, was the best approach, as simply "leaving" would not only destabilize those regions even more, but would put US Military in danger.

Like I said, shortsighted...