US Foreign Policy Trump47

[ChileG]

Foreign aid may be a relatively paltry sum but our defense spending is just the opposite. And a fair amount of that defense spending is needed because we are protecting those allies.

So what does that spending get us? Influence for what? Countries we have to defend right next to a large enemy? The juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Folks on here are ridiculing Trump's plan of cutting spending because this or that policy won't make a dent. I agree. But rolling back our defense commitments can most definitely make a dent, and its dismissed because we don't want to lose some not all that useful allies. I think the trade-offs are worth it.

To be clear, I wasn’t just mocking the “make budget cuts by requiring everyone to work five instead of three days,” merely because it won’t move the needle in regards to the deficit.
It’s also because it is about the dumbest way possible to eliminate part of the workforce to save money. Instead of having department heads decide which 25% percent to cut, it’s only slightly less arbitrary than pulling names from a hat. How do they know the best, most productive people won’t be the ones to quit first? Usually, they are the ones that have the most options.

However, I agree that defense spending should be looked at. Not sure that leaving NATO (if that is the plan) is the best plan for that. Could be penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[CRHeel94]

I wonder if the Europeans will at some point call Trump's bluff..something along the lines of "You want to pull out of NATO? Go ahead. Europe will defend Europe.".
1. The Russian threat is not as scary as it was 3 years ago. The boogey man is not quite as scary.
2. The euros take it as an opportunity to funnel government spending into their regional defenses industry.
3. Germany shrugs off its post war aversion to rebuilding its armed forces.

That scenario, in the long run, makes the world a more dangerous place. Trump is a fool for not understanding the importance of NATO in global stability and American preponderance in the last 75 years.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

To be clear, I wasn’t just mocking the “make budget cuts by requiring everyone to work five instead of three days,” merely because it won’t move the needle in regards to the deficit.
It’s also because it is about the dumbest way possible to eliminate part of the workforce to save money. Instead of having department heads decide which 25% percent to cut, it’s only slightly less arbitrary than pulling names from a hat. How do they know the best, most productive people won’t be the ones to quit first? Usually, they are the ones that have the most options.

However, I agree that defense spending should be looked at. Not sure that leaving NATO (if that is the plan) is the best plan for that. Could be penny wise and pound foolish.

To be clear, I'm not for leaving NATO. I am for shrinking our NATO commitments to the most important allies.

If Russian aggression threatens a place like Lithuania, a Ukraine style conflict funded by us and our allies serves our interests better than a commitment to put forces into combat.

 

[finesse]

Sure. I'm sure all that defense spending and those bases in Europe are to protect Iowa from a Red Dawn style invasion.

What do we get for the 4 billion we give to Israel which is mostly military as well? How many troops have they provided?

Do you think Russia is not put at a serious disadvantage by NATO?

 

[farce©]

To be clear, I'm not for leaving NATO. I am for shrinking our NATO commitments to the most important allies.

If Russian aggression threatens a place like Lithuania, an Ukraine style conflict funded by us and our allies serves our interests better than a commitment to put forces into combat.

Short-sighted nonsense.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

What do we get for the 4 billion we give to Israel which is mostly military as well? How many troops have they provided?

Do you think Russia is not put at a serious disadvantage by NATO?

Hey I'd pull that money out of Israel too. Screw those genocidal maniacs.

Russia is at a serious disadvantage but maybe that is the wrong way to think about it. Let's figure out what the main US interests are and come at it like that instead of checking Russia.

Did it really affect us when Russia took a few provinces in Georgia? Would it really matter to the vast majority of American taxpayers if Latvia lost a few provinces, assuming that Russia could do it?

I just think if we are going to reign in our spending, defense spending to protect some very weak allies is a very juicy target. But the military industrial complex has convinced us that we need to buy their goods to protect Albania against the threat of a Russian invasion that can't fight their way across Ukraine.

The defense contractors are not nearly as effective at convincing Germany that their interests are well served by mortgaging their grandkids' future to protect against that Russian threat. We could take a lesson from those guys.

 

[lawtig02]

Can anyone identify a time in our nation’s history when isolationism has been beneficial to our long term strategic interests?

 

[finesse]

Hey I'd pull that money out of Israel too. Screw those genocidal maniacs.

Russia is at a serious disadvantage but maybe that is the wrong way to think about it. Let's figure out what the main US interests are and come at it like that instead of checking Russia.

Did it really affect us when Russia took a few provinces in Georgia? Would it really matter to the vast majority of American taxpayers if Latvia lost a few provinces, assuming that Russia could do it?

I just think if we are going to reign in our spending, defense spending to protect some very weak allies is a very juicy target. But the military industrial complex has convinced us that we need to buy their goods to protect Albania against the threat of a Russian invasion that can't fight their way across Ukraine.

The defense contractors are not nearly as effective at convincing Germany that their interests are well served by mortgaging their grandkids' future to protect against that Russian threat. We could take a lesson from those guys.

Seriously, anything that Russia wants to do outside its borders is generally against our interests. Making it difficult for them there for less money than it costs to operate our carrier groups for a year is a win. Btw, at 27 billion to build and 3 billion to operate a year, why do we have so many?

You might want to get so recent information on NATO spending. Europe has picked up its spending and changed its spending focus, Germany in particular.

 

[finesse]

Can anyone identify a time in our nation’s history when isolationism has been beneficial to our long term strategic interests?

You could ask the same about immigration, then you realize that you're talking about the same idiots.

 

[StrangePackage]

To be clear, I wasn’t just mocking the “make budget cuts by requiring everyone to work five instead of three days,” merely because it won’t move the needle in regards to the deficit.
It’s also because it is about the dumbest way possible to eliminate part of the workforce to save money. Instead of having department heads decide which 25% percent to cut, it’s only slightly less arbitrary than pulling names from a hat. How do they know the best, most productive people won’t be the ones to quit first? Usually, they are the ones that have the most options.

However, I agree that defense spending should be looked at. Not sure that leaving NATO (if that is the plan) is the best plan for that. Could be penny wise and pound foolish.

Nonsense. When trying to reduce defense spending it is the best possible course to make sure that you alienate any possible allies so that you have to bear 100% of the burden of your own defense at all times.

That's just math.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Seriously, anything that Russia wants to do outside its borders is generally against our interests. Making it difficult for them there for less money than it costs to operate our carrier groups for a year is a win. Btw, at 27 billion to build and 3 billion to operate a year, why do we have so many?

You might want to get so recent information on NATO spending. Europe has picked up its spending and changed its spending focus, Germany in particular.

The 2/3 number comes from this report which is collecting 2023 data.

SIPRI Military Expenditure Database

The SIPRI Military Expenditure Database contains consistent time series on the military spending of countries for the period 1949–2023. The database is updated annually, which may include updates to data for any of the years included in the database.

www.sipri.org

The wide difference between the two numbers is the issue I mentioned earlier with the US spending money to protect its interest in South America and Asia but also a bit of an accounting gimmick. 14% is likely the money the US directly contributes to shared NATO operations but I suspect it doesn't include all of the budget that we dedicate at least nominally to European defense.

I don't think we need anywhere near that number of carrier groups. Those monkeys are expensive as heck. They do offer us a lot of flexibility but once again, flexibility to do what? Protect Israel from their own decisions? Protect US interests in Albania from a Russia that looks pretty anemic? Protect a few islands in the Philippines? Protect Taiwan who is the 14th richest country in the world and spends 30% less than us on a GDP basis on their military? That's a lot of money to spend.

To me the choices are we spend that money on our citizens' welfare programs, we spend it on defending some other country's interests, we go into debt or we raise taxes. We have chosen to go into debt but I think that's the wrong choice. I'd rather stop spending that money to protect the Estonias of the world and start spending it on Americans FDR and LBJ style.

 

[finesse]

start spending it on Americans FDR and LBJ style.

Curiously, defense spending by percentage reached its peak under FDR (that WWII thing) dropped after the war but remained high until the end of Vietnam and been dropping fairly steadily since. Both of those had a greater % of defense spending than currently. That not to say we don't need to refocus but those aren't great examples.

Do you ever research things before you post? If you do, why don't you look at the change in corporate and farm subsidies? I suspect there's more serious fat there that can be trimmed than in overseas defense spending without harming the country.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

start spending it on Americans FDR and LBJ style.

Curiously, defense spending by percentage reached its peak under FDR (that WWII thing) dropped after the war but remained high until the end of Vietnam and been dropping fairly steadily since. Both of those had a greater % of defense spending than currently. That not to say we don't need to refocus but those aren't great examples.

Do you ever research things before you post? If you do, why don't you look at the change in corporate and farm subsidies? I suspect there's more serious fat there that can be trimmed than in overseas defense spending without harming the country.

Yeah. I guess I didn't really need to research that defense spending went up under two major wars but maybe you can provide a link since that seems to be the go-to statement for everyone.

You are aware that FDR held office for a a few months before world war II started and during that time he was able to implement a number of social welfare programs? Of course you're also aware that LBJ tried to continue that legacy.

I specifically talked about social welfare spending LBJ and FDR style. I didn't advocate for defense spending FDR and LBJ style. I suspect you're aware what that implies. Do you bring up their defense spending just to win an argument or do you not really feel like those liberal social programs are worthwhile?

 

[finesse]

For a few years, actually.. I brought up their defense spending because you strongly implied that their social programs were at the expense of defense spending.

I don't think anyone goes to any particular effort to "win" an argument against you.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

For a few years, actually.. I brought up their defense spending because you strongly implied that their social programs were at the expense of defense spending.

I don't think anyone goes to any particular effort to "win" an argument against you.

But when I say I want to "stop spending that money to protect the Estonias of the world and start spending it on Americans FDR and LBJ style" I'm implying that I want to spend it on social welfare for Americans. But if you think that somehow strongly implies that I want to increase defense spending like FDR and LBJ, I'm glad I could correct your misinterpretation.

So if you're done with your straw men, what choice do you think we should make? Do you want to decrease defense spending so that we could spend that money on other priorities, and if you do, where do you want to cut?

 

[finesse]

But when I say I want to "stop spending that money to protect the Estonias of the world and start spending it on Americans FDR and LBJ style" I'm implying that I want to spend it on social welfare for Americans. But if you think that somehow strongly implies that I want to increase defense spending like FDR and LBJ, I'm glad I could correct your misinterpretation.

So if you're done with your straw men, what choice do you think we should make? Do you want to decrease defense spending so that we could spend that money on other priorities, and if you do, where do you want to cut?

The defense spending we most need to cut are damned near untouchable. That's those weapons systems and stuff that Congress designates to their constituents to justify their donations from defense contractors in their states. The international stuff? Most of it is a good investment. Israel? Not so much but damned near a political fact of life.

What really needs to be addressed is farm subsidies, corporate welfare and tax breaks for oil companies. There's a lot of bloat there that is not in the best interests of the nation.

 

[Mundial]

To be clear, I'm not for leaving NATO. I am for shrinking our NATO commitments to the most important allies.

If Russian aggression threatens a place like Lithuania, an Ukraine style conflict funded by us and our allies serves our interests better than a commitment to put forces into combat.

So (1) you would advocate essentially the same approach that the Biden Admin took with Ukraine but that most republicans including Trump criticized Biden for taking and (ii) Trump would not do this; he wouldn’t understand why Lithuania would be important to US interests.

Also, Ukraine is far more important than Lithuania and all other Eastern Europe states except for Poland. As a natural buffer state, and given its size and population, it is a clear and logical site for fighting Russian aggression.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

So (1) you would advocate essentially the same approach that the Biden Admin took with Ukraine but that most republicans including Trump criticized Biden for taking and (ii) Trump would not do this; he wouldn’t understand why Lithuania would be important to US interests.

Also, Ukraine is far more important than Lithuania and all other Eastern Europe states except for Poland. As a natural buffer state, and given its size and population, it is a clear and logical site for fighting Russian aggression.

Yes. Absolutely. The Biden approach of funding other people to fight our largest enemies is the way to go.

The approach of pretty much all presidents since Clinton which is to expand our NATO commitments is not the approach I would take although I would keep Poland in NATO. That's a good Ally to have as opposed to some of the ones that we have brought in.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

The defense spending we most need to cut are damned near untouchable. That's those weapons systems and stuff that Congress designates to their constituents to justify their donations from defense contractors in their states. The international stuff? Most of it is a good investment. Israel? Not so much but damned near a political fact of life.

What really needs to be addressed is farm subsidies, corporate welfare and tax breaks for oil companies. There's a lot of bloat there that is not in the best interests of the nation.

I'd be all for cutting corporate welfare but it's not going to get you anywhere near where you need. Corporate welfare is about $100 billion per year depending on how you define it. Tax breaks for oil companies are about $2 billion and farm subsidies are about $20 billion and there's some overlap with the corporate welfare number.

Defense spending is more than eight times that at $850b per year. Reduce that from the 3.5% of GDP that we currently spend to the around 2% that our better NATO allies in Europe spend and you're making real progress.

So if we're going to start making some hard decisions, we can't just say cut government waste or corporate welfare or NASA or whatever other peanuts approach people advocate and never get done. We have to cut defence, cut entitlements, raise taxes or keep running up the credit card. Now which one do you want to do?

 

[finesse]

I'd be all for cutting corporate welfare but it's not going to get you anywhere near where you need. Corporate welfare is about $100 billion per year depending on how you define it. Tax breaks for oil companies are about $2 billion and farm subsidies are about $20 billion and there's some overlap with the corporate welfare number.

Defense spending is more than eight times that at $850b per year. Reduce that from the 3.5% of GDP that we currently spend to the around 2% that our better NATO allies in Europe spend and you're making real progress.

So if we're going to start making some hard decisions, we can't just say cut government waste or corporate welfare or NASA or whatever other peanuts approach people advocate and never get done. We have to cut defence, cut entitlements, raise taxes or keep running up the credit card. Now which one do you want to do?

Other than you're equating NATO spending with their entire defense spending and that you're ignoring how much more of the world we're spending that money on than NATO is, and you're making real sense. I expect we're getting good value for that money when it comes to the Ukraine and NATO.

The problem is that it's the money to private contractors, sweetheart deals for constituents and things that most need to be cut that are the most likely to be hands off.