|
Replies: 18
| visibility 201
|
Orange Blooded [2574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2059
Joined: 7/17/13
|
Defense Spending and NATO questions
1
Feb 12, 2024, 10:00 AM
|
|
I'm much less of a political expert than many on here... but was reading this and started thinking.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/12/europe/trump-nato-putin-europe-analysis-intl/index.html
Personally, I think defense spending should be lowered and money brought back to help people in our country.
But on the other hand, does the US have, or better yet should they have, a responsibility to police the world and keep others safe, especially if they aren't pulling their weight.
This just seems like there's no good solution to me. If we were to lower defense spending and let the world handle itself, it would certainly hurt trade and relations.
Just curious on other's thoughts from both sides as I waffle on these questions.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [42197]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38274
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Certainly not an easy answer
2
Feb 12, 2024, 10:31 AM
|
|
Like you, I've often wanted slashes in defense spending and spending the money more wisely. But at the end of the day, as long as dictators like Putin exist, we have to also work to prevent conquest. Those who know their history remember what happens when you let dictators like him run amuck and unchecked.
SOMEONE has to stand in the way of that to prevent the third world war. But as you said, it ain't easy doing it and it sure is expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24812]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42563
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Where's Victoria Nuland's next coup...? MIC needs another crisis/war...***
Feb 12, 2024, 11:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17295]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14241
Joined: 12/14/98
|
Not sure exactly but a lot of the $800 B renters the US economy
3
Feb 12, 2024, 11:33 AM
|
|
… through the defense industry. So the economic impact is somewhat complex. And rarely mentioned, conflicts on foreign soil are better than conflicts on US soil.
Historically there was some reluctance after WWII to allow Germany and Japan fully rearm. Germany would be the strongest deterrent to Russia aggression and Japan would serve as a deterrent to Chinese aggression. So the US became by default the main deterrent in Western Europe and the Pacific. Also the devastation of WWII was greater in Europe and the Pacific while the continental US was unscathed.
But things have changed in 75 years and the US responsibilities should be reevaluated. Who knows what that should look like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24812]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42563
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Now, about that Pentagon audit...***
Feb 12, 2024, 12:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2059
Joined: 7/17/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [441]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 370
Joined: 8/25/18
|
Re: Defense Spending and NATO questions
Feb 12, 2024, 8:35 PM
|
|
To look at the question of National Security through the lens of a financial transaction misses the big picture. Funding the military is crazy expensive, neither side will argue this. Let us also examine many of the problems we face internally as a military. Our Navy, the standoff arm of our Armed Forces is now smaller than China's. To build, modernize, and grow requires money. I think most people, regardless of political affiliation see the threat they pose. Our Air Force's primary bomber Aircraft was designed and built in the 1950s (the B-52), its primary Air Refueler (KC-135) is just as old. Look at the price of the new B-21 as a refernce cost for modernization. We just created an Entirely new branch of the military, albeit one that was already functioning as part of the Air Force...start-up costs for any business are huge. So whats my point? America's presence as the pre-eminent global power is predicated upon our economic and military might and they feed off one another. This is not an excuse to over extend across the globe. However, positioning troops in hot spots across the world serves as a deterrent to our foes. You can withdraw within your own borders and expect your enemies to simultaneously stay within theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [441]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 370
Joined: 8/25/18
|
Re: Defense Spending and NATO questions
Feb 12, 2024, 8:46 PM
|
|
*can not
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2059
Joined: 7/17/13
|
Completely understand where youre coming from. And agree a presence is needed
Feb 13, 2024, 7:49 AM
|
|
In said hot spots. Withdrawing from NATO though? Yikes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24812]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42563
Joined: 7/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10212
Joined: 1/28/15
|
Re: US 155mm artillery shell: $5-6,000 Russian 155mm: $5-600. There's your MIC.***
Feb 13, 2024, 12:17 PM
|
|
Let’s assume this is true. Where is that money going?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24812]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42563
Joined: 7/31/10
|
I don't know if it's true or not. Heard Sen Ron Johnson speaking about it on
Feb 13, 2024, 1:18 PM
|
|
CSpan2 around 2AM this morning. His figures, not mine. He's on a Senate committee that would know.
Excess, probably no-bid profits... Take a guess. There needs to be accountability at the Pentagon (like maybe actually doing a true audit).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10212
Joined: 1/28/15
|
Re: I don't know if it's true or not. Heard Sen Ron Johnson speaking about it on
Feb 13, 2024, 1:25 PM
|
|
Let’s say it is no-bid contracts and corruption, that money is still going to US companies that employ US residents, who spend their paychecks like good little consumers. What’s left over goes to pay dividends to share holders, or stock buybacks to drive up their stock price. Their shareholders are… us.
I’m just saying I see both sides of the coin. The taxpayers probably aren’t getting our moneys worth, that much is for sure, but as long as you have the means to participate in the stock market, you see some benefit on the back end. I’m sure the people at the top benefit the most, but what else is new. It’s capitalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24812]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42563
Joined: 7/31/10
|
In summary, corruption is cool just so the privileged get a cut. Makes sense.
Feb 13, 2024, 1:34 PM
|
|
That whole attitude is what is wrong across all the major US Government subsidized industries in general. It's not plain "capitalism".
It's corrupt CRONIE CAPITALISM. Any TRUE Conservative should want to put an end to it, but many so-called ones have their own inside to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10212
Joined: 1/28/15
|
Re: In summary, corruption is cool just so the privileged get a cut. Makes sense.
Feb 13, 2024, 2:07 PM
|
|
That’s fine, let’s just be clear that this is the same argument you get from the far left, this is occupy wall st Bernie Sanders kind of message, that corporations have all the advantages. That’s not not true, but you also have to remember that when industry and the economy at large does well, everyone does well, maybe save for those at the very bottom that can’t participate in markets.
Insurance industry is the same. They are in the business of denying claims because they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to do so. It screws over individuals sometimes, but profits are shared and everyone else gains. I could almost guarantee if you own any shares in mutual funds you own some Aetna or some Humana. There are decent arguments against corporate profiteering or executive pay, but those aren’t arguments you’re usually going to hear from the political right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24812]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42563
Joined: 7/31/10
|
That's why I'm not Democrat or Republican, Left or Right, but "divide & conquer"
Feb 13, 2024, 2:13 PM
|
|
is the new theme of the day. I'm a moderate "reformist" independent. It comes down to rooting out the graft and establishing accountability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13155]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14147
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Welfare creates dependency whether it be individuals or nations.
Feb 12, 2024, 9:06 PM
|
|
We reached a point a couple of decades ago where those dependents began making the demands.
The world is backwards and Trump had it right his first go round. He told Germany that you aren’t paying your fair share, and now you want protection from Russia while simultaneously supporting their military (they gave up making energy in the name of climate change, only to buy it from Russia and fund Putin’s army).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2059
Joined: 7/17/13
|
To be clear. Im not saying lower military spending in the name of welfare, or
Feb 13, 2024, 7:47 AM
|
|
At least welfare specifically. There are a hell of a lot of things we could be putting money into at home versus spending it all on defense.
Honestly if that’s really how it went down with Trump and I don’t know any more info I don’t necessarily disagree, however leaving the world to fend for itself is also not in America’s best interest.
It really is a tough dichotomy and I don’t think it’s so cut and dry, especially considering foreign policy is pretty unique to each individual country, it’s obviously not one size fits all.
I don’t envy anyone having to make these decisions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2059
Joined: 7/17/13
|
Oh duh, i misunderstood your welfare comment. Gotcha***
1
Feb 13, 2024, 8:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 18
| visibility 201
|
|
|
50
