Trump wants to add $54 billion to defense budget while slashing

>>116399

Oh boy, more toys for the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about almost seventy years ago.

>>116402
Totes.

If the choices are fight to win or not fighting at all, can we not fight at all? I'm not sure how beefing up our military for upcoming conflicts at the cost of domestic spending has anything to do with "putting Americans first". Surely if we wanted to put Americans first, we would be avoiding as many conflicts as possible.

The reduction in foreign aid I can understand, but they aren't even reducing it for the major beneficiaries. Trump and co has already said that they want to increase the amount of aid for Israel, for example, meanwhile other countries are actually starving to death or suffering in other ways.

>>116402
It's all show for his base. Meanwhile, the military is still the most egregious waste of tax payer dollars. $7.5 trillion is still unaccounted for by the DoD due to money mismanagement, and yet we want to give them more?

>>116399
Our military is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone elses. We have a more capable navy than the rest of the world combined. Funding is not their problem, politics and leadership is.

This is stupid.

>>116415
Don't you want the biggest most beautiful nukes?

>>116399
>"This budget expects the rest of the world to step up in some of the programs that this country has been so generous in funding in the past,"

>Foreign aid makes up about 1% of the budget.

Huge savings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/which-countries-get-the-most-foreign-aid/

There's an opportunity cost to diverting resources from soft power, like foreign aid, to military. In many circumstances, achieving the same level of influence through hard power will be more expensive in terms of blood and treasure.

I am afraid Trump might really be convinced of the perspective that the US government is omnipotent but we've been employing soft power out of a sense of charity rather than our own strategic interests.

It would be nice if the segment of the right wing which complains about taxation and "redistribution" of wealth through healthcare subsidies, social programs, EPA, and public education, would demonstrate consistency with their convictions and oppose diverting more resources than essential to prepare the military and care for soldiers.

To be fair, it looks like some of them have at least come out against this particular proposal.

The military protect our freedoms but freedoms come from many places. Not just the ability to choose your government or free speech. Options with respect to sanitation, housing, utilities, education, healthcare all contribute to expanding freedom by enabling choices that wouldn't otherwise exist in peoples' lives. Not only for those direct recipient of benefits but in many cases these serve as investments that may improve the competence of society as a whole in the long-term.

My point is, if you're going to tax and spend so heavily of a military industrial complex, in taking a broad view, there's not necessarily a fundamental difference between that as a sort of redistribution of wealth and a social program.

>biggest tax cuts since the 80's
>1 trillion dollar infrastructure bill
>20 billion dollar wall
>54 billion dollar military expansion
>social security and medicare aren't going to be touched
>don't worry folks we'll pay for it by getting rid of waste and loopholes
If all of this shit does somehow go through than the republicans should be banned from ever saying the word fiscal again.

Just gonna go buy more tanks than the Army even wants, as per usual...

I guess thats the cost of the wall and replinishing the border police/domestic cleanup

What the fuck is this real life parody.

>>116405
>>116402
>>116415
Lol. Do you tards not realize that it's the US military that makes up the Western hedgemon?

Like for reals are you that fucking retarded?

The US reaps wealth because the US military protects not just the financial interests of US corporations, but the corps in every European and Oceanic country. The large scale security of deterrence (as no country will risk a real war with the US) brought by a large military force keeps markets open.

Trump's plan is to increase security in foreign markets through military investment. In exchange, multinational corporations MUST put some percentage of their manufacturing back in the US.

This is the backroom deal he's making with companies. He's pointing out the grand protection racket that the US operates with the western world to them.

The "oh, hey X Company. Looks like you sell a lot of Y product in Z country. Do you know that the US protects Z country through an alliance? It'd be a downright shame if that alliance got torn to shreds or our military that protects Z country from [CHINESE/RUSSIAN] interference got moved to a more needed locale, now wouldn't it?"

And they capitulate. Because markets only exist if they're stable, and stability only exists through strength.

At the same time, appeasing the MIC means they're a lot less likely to side with would-be assassins. There's a reason Eisenhower only warned about them on his way out of office. And there's a reason few presidents ever fuck with them. They don't want to be Kennedy'd.

I mean, I don't like living in the American Empire, but I've come to accept it by this point. And you can too!

>>116447
No. It was both political and military superiority which allowed the Pax Americana to exist. However we are seeing its decline. The answer is not imbalance, but balance.

>>116451
Have you considered that by taking a lead on the military front again, while progressing detente with one of the other major powers (Russia in Trump's case) it can create a state of political superiority again?

I mean, it goes like this:

For some time there have been two competing global ideologies: pro-globalism and neo-polarity (renewed nationalism).

The US since Reagan has been pushing/pushed toward Globalism along with Europe and Israel. Russia and China are Polarity forces (along with India, but they're not as big in terms of influence).

Now, Trump is a polarity force, and so are his supporters. In a large part because Globalism has failed them, as it has failed most of the middle class everywhere (at best it benefits the poor and the extremely wealthy, but it tears out middle and working class folks). This is why Trump won, and it's why Brexit happened, and this trend seems likely to continue throughout the western world for some time to come.

If it does, then Trump WILL have political superiority with every new nationalist/polar Western Ally by default.

In this case, the US will retain political superiority as well as military superiority, and the Pax Americana can continue on.

At least until the end of the Trump presidency. Which granted, even if he gets two full terms, will be only 8 years.

But if that state is maintained, it will lead to wealth creation. And if that wealth creation is strong enough, then the general ideas behind it will be preserved. Trump will have set a standard to follow that will be popular with future leaders.

That could create a self perpetuating cycle for some time to come. Maybe a whole generation even (though I doubt it would ever get past that - people are too fickle in the modern world).

>>116399
Hell yeah! Kill all the sandniggers! Kill em bomb em nuke em blow em to bits! No more pussy shit, we've been too soft on the muzzrats.

>>116452
I don't live in the glorious myth of the future. As of now, the Pax Americana is on the decline even if nationalists want some sort of "grand vision." In fact I would argue that an open, free US made the American peace possible. Now that we are sliding into isolationism, other countries (Canada, China) will take up the mantle. Nothing short of a war brings us back.

>>116447
I tried to explain that to a coworker of mine when he was complaining about America not fighting wars worth fighting, his son was never going to join the army, etc. I told him very plainly that we're not fighting defensive wars anymore, we're fighting pre-emptive ones that are terribly unjust when taken in a vacuum. We essentially shit up other countries to gather better trade deals, and the end result of that is Americans can sleep peacefully at night and feel secure of their place in the world while enjoying all the comforts and amenities of the first world, even for some of the most poor of our country. If we take our collective boot off the neck of others, let them stand on equal footing, we're allowing someone else to make the rules, dictate terms. And at the end of the day, Americans are more afraid of someone else having say in how things go in the world than failing to preserve their own morals.

And besides, at this point, there's so much hate towards the US, we have no other choice but to keep riding this train or collapse and die off, with Europe right along with us. And if someone's got to be on top of the world, I can think of a whole lot worse countries than the US.

>>116452
>Have you considered that by taking a lead on the military front again
When the shit did the US lose its overwhelming lead?

Was it when we had more carriers than everyone else combined or when we were the only country to have working factory line 5th gen aircraft?

>>116427
>here's not necessarily a fundamental difference between that as a sort of redistribution of wealth and a social program.
Lol
No

>>116447
>I don't like living in the American Empire
You'd rather be dominated by communism, or Islam?

Those are you opinions. America, communism, or Islam.

People don't realize how alone the civilized world is. The USA and its real allies need to prepare to fight the entire world at once.

>>116459
>Now that we are sliding into isolationism, other countries (Canada, China) will take up the mantle.
>Canada
common now

>>116486
its called a hegemon. thanks capitalism

>>116452
>two competing global ideologies: pro-globalism and neo-polarit
it's a flase dichotomy.
Providing for national interest, economic, environmental, even cultural, frequently overlaps with global interest, because surprise surprise, we live with and trade with other countries. Cooperation mediated by the US is always going to serve US national interest better than the alternative. When other countries don't play by the same rules then there is reason to return the favor; but for the most part international cooperation is the norm with respect to providing for a nation's best interest.

What's being billed as nationalism is just myopic worldview that foreign aid is charity and free trade is a scam. More trade at market value is always beneficial for a modern economy, and soft power is generally the most cost-effective way, in terms of blood and treasure, to influence foreign parties in our interest.

>>116452
>Globalism has failed them, as it has failed most of the middle class everywhere (at best it benefits the poor and the extremely wealthy, but it tears out middle and working class folks). This is why Trump won, and it's why Brexit happened, and this trend seems likely to continue throughout the western world for some time to come.

Globalism hasn't failed them; billionaires and trans-national corporations failed them while constantly drilling in their head that the government, the one institution in which they have the same influence via the vote as a billionaire, is their enemy, and that they need less government, that somehow it's in the working class's interest to lose a guarantee of healthcare and the deregulate wallstreet in an economy with full employment. Now we have a billionaire as president with a cabinet of billionaires in a country where corporations are free to spend and command armies of lobbyists as they please to influence political outcomes.
They've been duped hard.

>>116613
to continue,
I'm not going to talk about Europe's immigration problems in part because I'm not European and in part because that's thrown into the mix as a distraction. You can be anti-billionaire and anti illegal immigration as well