US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7149

On March 20 2017 00:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:


You can probably figure it out by looking at social media.

On March 20 2017 02:17 Danglars wrote:

Do you at least register how insulting it is to spend so much on defense and our military alliances can't even meet a 2% target? Because I'm not on board with much of Trump's rhetoric on NATO, but I do know something has to change over there. We provide three quarters of funding, and only four countries at last check hit 2%, all the while the European nations included total more population and GDP than us? Hardly. And anyone not sufficiently partisan should know it.

Speaking of which, people who's minds are not made up may read more here.

On March 20 2017 02:17 Danglars wrote:

Do you at least register how insulting it is to spend so much on defense and our military alliances can't even meet a 2% target? Because I'm not on board with much of Trump's rhetoric on NATO, but I do know something has to change over there. We provide three quarters of funding, and only four countries at last check hit 2%, all the while the European nations included total more population and GDP than us? Hardly. And anyone not sufficiently partisan should know it.

Speaking of which, people who's minds are not made up may read more here.

On March 20 2017 02:53 LegalLord wrote:

I wanted to draw attention to this comment on the article:


While I don't endorse the comment in full, it makes the good point that the current situation isn't just people leeching off the US - this is by design a US-dominated system. And it can certainly be argued that the EU, a project that is closely tied to NATO in many ways, often bears a lot of the brunt for the fallout of US-dominated actions.

The question is, of course, if Americans still want that arrangement. And increasingly since Iraq, the answer has been "no." It might take the FP apparatus a while to catch up to that fact but it's clearly the case that Trump's proposition of making others pay their fair share pursues a more aggressive retrenchment than Obama, who was already doing the same. Though Trump did fuck up the Asia pivot so the US has fewer options now, it's clear that they were headed towards isolationism much more than in the past.

Furthermore, NATO grew so big that it is perhaps collapsing under its own weight. Over the past two decades it's been adding commitments like there's no tomorrow, in a way that starts to undermine the core of the alliance. The "historical argument" for its existence has to come to terms with the fact that it no longer serves the purpose it once did.

Also, Trump changes his mind ten times a day. I don't buy a commitment to NATO being permanent. He will just give mixed signals for the next four years.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said Sunday he's seeking changes to the Republican health care bill to provide more assistance to people in their 50s and 60s.

“We believe we should have even more assistance — and that’s one of the things we’re looking at — for that person in their 50s and 60s because they experience higher health care costs," the Wisconsin Republican told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday."

Ryan's comments came in the wake of a Congressional Budget Office analysis showing that older people could pay higher premiums under the GOP bill. Ryan expressed skepticism about the CBO analysis but said his leadership team is looking at more ways to help older people under the new plan.

"The CBO looked at a little piece of the issue, when we know the secretary of [the Department of Health and Human Services] will help bring market freedom and regulatory relief to the insurance markets to dramatically lower the price of the plan for the 50- and 60-year-olds," Ryan said. "But even with that, we think we should be offering more assistance than what the bill currently does."

Moderates in Congress have urged congressional leaders to do more to curb rising costs. In a Facebook post Saturday night, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) said he wouldn't vote for the bill in its current form, calling rising premiums "unsustainable."

"If we accept the status quo, our health care system will collapse and all of us will suffer as a result," he wrote.

The speaker also confirmed that work is proceeding on a number of other amendments ahead of an expected Thursday floor vote, including boosting tax credits for low-income and older people, allowing states to impose work requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients and allowing states to accept fixed block-grant dollars for Medicaid.

On March 20 2017 02:17 Danglars wrote:

Do you at least register how insulting it is to spend so much on defense and our military alliances can't even meet a 2% target? Because I'm not on board with much of Trump's rhetoric on NATO, but I do know something has to change over there. We provide three quarters of funding, and only four countries at last check hit 2%, all the while the European nations included total more population and GDP than us? Hardly. And anyone not sufficiently partisan should know it.

Speaking of which, people who's minds are not made up may read more here.

On March 20 2017 04:10 Sermokala wrote:
As long as Europeans admit that they caused the problem with their handling of the breakup of the ottoman empire.

On March 20 2017 04:13 LegalLord wrote:

I generally agree with the idea that the US is being hypocritical here on the money matter. My post above generally makes that case.

But as for your specific example, can you really say that the US is responsible for the way the refugee crisis went? Sure, American FP ventures have a lot to do with why refugees were created to begin with. But who actually made the decision to take them?

On March 20 2017 04:10 Sermokala wrote:
As long as Europeans admit that they caused the problem with their handling of the breakup of the ottoman empire.

On March 20 2017 04:13 LegalLord wrote:

I generally agree with the idea that the US is being hypocritical here on the money matter. My post above generally makes that case.

But as for your specific example, can you really say that the US is responsible for the way the refugee crisis went? Sure, American FP ventures have a lot to do with why refugees were created to begin with. But who actually made the decision to take them?

On March 20 2017 04:29 LegalLord wrote:

The matter's come up in both threads very frequently. But the topic came up right here right now so... yeah.

As for what to do: shoot them, deport them, set up refugee camps where it is cheaper to take care of a mass influx of refugees, take them at your own peril, or any other choice. It's your call since it's the union y'all decided to be a part of. But don't go blaming the US for the decision you made. Maybe you will just have to come to terms with the realization that ideals don't always conform with reality and that the "open the floodgates" project is going to show just how frail and problematic the "freedom of movement" provision can be. But that's not the US's fault.