You want to improve all areas of your country? Just take a third from your military budget, and you're good to go.
[Question] A question about Trump supporters
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Dave
Staff member
The problem with our military budget is that we overspend on equipment while cutting everything we can for the people. So we'll pay billions for planes that we just don't need (or want) while the individual soldiers are eligible for food stamps. So ending entitlements (and by this I mean corporate welfare, which is different than what Gas means, probably) and putting some fucking logic into the military budget and tax codes would go a long way to making our country economically solvent.
Of course, just like the last time we had a surplus, congress rushed to spend it all as fast as they could.
Of course, just like the last time we had a surplus, congress rushed to spend it all as fast as they could.
GasBandit
Staff member
Government only grows, as a rule. You know what Milton Friedman said - nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. That's why it's important to fight tooth and nail against every single expansion of government... because every inch it expands is an inch you'll never get back.
Not necessarily true. The Belgian government's been cutting back. With huuuuge strikes and complaints and whatnot as a consequence, mind, because "what? Give me more money but I have to pay for [X] myslef?! NO!". Sadly.
Yes, but (and I'm speaking completely without information here - so this is pure assumption) isn't this due in part to comply with EU financial requirements, which may be related to the whole financial mess other EU states are in? In short, are the people making these cuts doing so in order to avoid financial failures and the possibility of austerity measures?
(well, that's partially stereotype and exaggeration, of course)
With regards to the military, I've read a really great explanation as to why we can't just cut into that budget and how the US economy would completely tank if we did.
People underestimate ( I was one of them) just how much of the US private sector is contracted by the military, AND that the US military essentially subsidizes the existence of all these wonderful European social programs so they don't have to dump money into their own militaries. For the better part of post- WWII, Russia could and would (and did to some countries) buttfuck the shit out of Europe.
Back to Gas' quote here.
Giving the government more tax money is no guarantee that money will be used appropriately or practically. I have potholes all over my daily commute that attest to that.
GasBandit
Staff member
That is a lot more charitably and less snarkily put than I usually do. "The United States Military - Spending billions defending Europe so Europe doesn't have to."
And that's just local government! As government becomes more and more layers removed from the constituency - city -> county -> state -> federal - responsiveness to said constituency has a tendency to become exponentially worse.
Well, we can't trust France and Germany to defend Europe. For completely different reasons.
I'm sure @GasBandit would be more than happy to allow companies that can't make it on their own just ... die.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Absolutely.
Which means they're already quelled ahead of the day when y'all finally decide to formally declare yourselves an empire. (which may come a couple months after electing Trump).
But anyway, yeah, since your goal is to have overwhelming military power, keeping your allies dependant on you makes sense.
Pretty sure we don't set the military budgets of Europe though. It's easy for Europeans to talk about cutting military spending when they have someone else to pick up the slack.
I'm sure the USA will happily give you away for a few iPhones. But they'll speak very sternly about how wrong your conquest was. Just look at how the world acts about how bad everything China is doing in Tibet!
...
Sorry, you're screwed. It's only a matter of time. And no, not trying to be funny. I honestly think that. 10 or more years ago maybe "the west" would have gone to war with China over an invasion of your island, but nobody gives a shit today.
Yeah.
It's time like these when I really get that "I'm gonna become a suicide bomber" extremist mentality.
GasBandit
Staff member
Lindsey Graham's primary hot-button issue is sympathy for illegal immigrants - that's why Rush calls him "Senator Lindsey Grahamnesty." He's on the diametrically opposite side of Trump's main sound-byte issue: building a wall and stopping the influx of illegal immigration. So it kind of makes sense.
That does, but the rest sure doesn't. At what point does the Hillary-hate stop and the what-the-fuck-are-we-doing start?
Once you never top 0.1% in the worst Republican field in history, I guess you have nothing to lose.
He's not up for reelection in the Senate until 2020, so he's got that going for him, which is nice.
Yeah, that's another big part. I knew he wasn't up this year, but 2020 is practically an eon away in US politics
While China has been threading the needle in terms of slowly and surely moving toward taking over Taiwan, it's really the current administrations policies of disengagement and disinterest ( which they like to call "multi-lateralism" but is really a form of isolationism) which will prevent us from intervening.
Obama and the democrats have believed that Americas general unhappiness with the recent wars means we don't want any wars, but the reality is that we still want to protect our friends, and if Taiwan falls as a formal treaty signing ally, we will only be signaling to China, Russia, and others that our power and promises are largely toothless, and we will only work in self serving ways to protect ourselves.
The rest of our allies should (and probably are, given many of them are increasing their defense spending while we cut) take notice.
It won't be too long before we are facing Crimea type wars on our own land. If we are attempting diplomacy rather than defense we will have already lost.
Perhaps, though there might be a bit more to it than that. European defence budgets have plummeted since the 1990's, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the lack of a military threat to prepare against. During the Cold War, the military posture of European NATO members was one of all-out defence against an oncoming Soviet juggernaut, to buy time for US reinforcements to be sent to Europe and the (mostly) US strategic bombing campaing to work its magic. When the Soviet Union went away, the Europeans were stuck with vast stores of defence-oriented military hardware, and no threat to use it against. No more Soviet (Warsaw Pact to be more precise) tank columns roaring through the Fulda Gap or across the Central European Plain, no more bombers to flatten European cities. And, after having thrown off the Soviet yoke, the people and state of Russia surely would, with Western advice, develop into a modern liberal democracy and human rights respecting nation, so that we could all hold hands and sing kumbayah. As both the European politicians and soldiers were unable to come up with sufficient reasons to convince the public why military budgets needed to be maintained at anything near previous levels, they were scaled back (since 1990, European NATO membership has nearly doubled, while combined defence spending has decreased from USD314 billion in 1990 to USD227 billion in 2015), and the states wondered what to do with all the money they were saving.
Of course, things didn't work out quite so nicely as was thought when the Soviet Union collapsed. The United States has for a long time tried to convince their European partners to increase their defence expenditure, and that the current inequitable burden sharing is unsustainable. In 2014 NATO held a conference in Wales, and as a result of that conference a number of initiatives were launched. One of those intiatives was a pledge by European NATO members to aim at increasing military spending to 2% of their respective GDPs within ten years. At present, only five NATO countries meet that goal (United States, Estonia, Greece, United Kingdom, Poland), and with sluggish economic growth and budget cuts across the board, increased defence spending might be a hard sell. And even though some European members have shown a willingness to spend more, the relevant military powers are not among them. So it is unlikely that there will be a significant increase in the military capabilities of European NATO members anytime soon, while the US has significantly reduced their forces in Europe since 1990. Which of course leaves an emptied strategic space an outside power could exploit.
So the dilemma remains: Europeans are still dependent on the United States for a large part of their defence needs, and don't seem to be overly bothered by the fact, as their threat perceptions differ (Estonia is more concerned with the Russian threat than France). The US wants the Europeans to spend more, but are unable to provide sufficient stick to fully convince them – Europe is too strategically important for them to abandon.
Yes. During the Cold War, the consensus was that, in a conventional (non-WMD) war, the Red Team would win.
This argument has actually been advanced by the germans themselves. If Germany would spend 2% of it's enormous GDP on defence, it would not only mean doubling their current defence budget (potentially creating inefficiency and waste, rather than a corresponding increase in actual capability), but also would create a military which overshadows those of countries like France or Britain. According to the argument, this might create more concern than assurance in their neighbours.
I'm not sure this will happen in the short-to-medium term, though. The United States has shifted focus and political and military assets from Europe to Asia, which incidentally has reduced the relevance of European strategic concerns to policymakers in Washington. This shift in focus is understandable, given the surge of Chinese power and the regional imbalances, historic grievances, and lack of trust that run rampant in the area. Asia will almost certainly be the most important area for global stability in the near future, and if the United States wants to play there, then cutting an ally loose might be a very poor move. Evidence of outright american perfidy would almost certainly cause doubts in their other regional allies, and make them wonder if the best course for their own nations would not in fact be to come to some arrangement with China, rather than relying on US guarantees that don't seem to be worth all that much anymore.
Them bhamv3's people are robbing Europeans of the United States military budget...
Thankfully, you were smart enough to not even try. Ukraine was not a NATO member (and only after their revolution, which started the whole mess, did their new west-leaning government even try to get in after their previous bid was put on hold), and especially their eastern parts are more important to Russia than they are to you. Russia would likely have been willing to push harder and get pushed harder than you were. Wrong place, wrong time, no need.
Last edited:
Yup. I'll throw in that the current Belgian government (cue laughtrack) is trying to fund €15B new fighter jets, and pretty much everyone's against it. As per usual, "spending a lot on defense" is one thing, "spending it efficiently" is another. We don't, honestly, need to replace our F16s with JSFs - either is useful for bombing IS or Libya, neither's useful against Russia or China. And in case you're wondering, yes, our current government pretty much copied the Republican roadmap, badly, as this sort of thing might be useful if it also creates jobs in your own economy, which JSFs obviously wouldn't, for us.
Anyway, a European army would be a far better idea than 25 little (or not so little) armies running around together, but with the Brexit looming and anti-EU sentiment on the rise all over, not likely to happen. If only we could get Frontex properly organized it'd be a step in the right direction, but even that seems impossible, instead contracting out our border guarding to Turkey of all places *sigh*
Anyway, a European army would be a far better idea than 25 little (or not so little) armies running around together, but with the Brexit looming and anti-EU sentiment on the rise all over, not likely to happen. If only we could get Frontex properly organized it'd be a step in the right direction, but even that seems impossible, instead contracting out our border guarding to Turkey of all places *sigh*
Not to mention plenty of anti-US sentiment among many of EU's citizens. We stopped trying to convince many countries to accept missile defense shields in eastern Europe because the government wouldn't do what the people were clearly against.
That said, I have a hard time imaging the bigger players getting into physical wars. The wars are, in fact, being fought right now, but they are wars of economics and information. We may not think of them that way as there are few casualties, but we are involved and fighting them too. Very convenient that oil prices dropped so precipitously right as Russia started flexing its muscle, and Europe is aggressively weaning itself for oil, which will only weaken Russia further.
The US economy sometimes appears to be the dog that wags the tail of the world economy, but China is exerting a surprising amount of power, and our recession wasn't completely caused from things within, nor from things outside government control.
It's a lot harder to see than even the cold war, but it's perhaps more effective due to the global economy and nature of instant communications.
That said, I have a hard time imaging the bigger players getting into physical wars. The wars are, in fact, being fought right now, but they are wars of economics and information. We may not think of them that way as there are few casualties, but we are involved and fighting them too. Very convenient that oil prices dropped so precipitously right as Russia started flexing its muscle, and Europe is aggressively weaning itself for oil, which will only weaken Russia further.
The US economy sometimes appears to be the dog that wags the tail of the world economy, but China is exerting a surprising amount of power, and our recession wasn't completely caused from things within, nor from things outside government control.
It's a lot harder to see than even the cold war, but it's perhaps more effective due to the global economy and nature of instant communications.
It's not surprising that many European countries refused the missile defense shields after what has happened with Ukraine and Georgia. It is clear that Russia is willing to launch ground invasions of countries in the face of possible nuclear annihilation and Vladimir Putin has made it clear that he believes he can win a small scale nuclear engagement. No one wants to/can deal with Russia, so they are just hoping to outlast Russia's will to fight.
At the end of the day, Russia sees itself on the brink of disaster. It has no resources beyond oil and no one wants to give them a good trade deal. The criminal oligarchy is too entrenched to remove and is already planning to run if things get bad. As such, their only path to remaining relevant as a world power is to subjugate other nation states and gain their resources... but everyone is afraid of being next, instead of getting ready to fight back.
My dad's contractors and technicians are, in some cases, literally pulling parts from old, retired and in some cases museum planes to continue to allow some planes to fly. Parts initially cleared for, say, 50k flight miles are now being pushed to 80 or 100k miles instead.
So no, there's not really a lot of cash going into planes, at least not the ones we already have out there flying.
