|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 29 2026 03:34 Oleo wrote:
Lovely how the fascist bootlickers are claiming:
A) The budget is mostly impacted by social security and defense spending has very little influence on the budget.
B) US military spending has allowed Europe to have social security by reducing their defense spending.
Fuck me, you all sure burned away any remains of brain cells you once might have had. Too bad you live on the same planet as us.
The whole right wing take on Europe is the saddest piece of uninformed retarded nonsense I have read in my lifetime and I read a whole lot of ignorant bullshit. To actually believe 10% of that, you have to have your head up someones asshole sniffing all the good stuff.
chef's kiss
|
On May 29 2026 03:42 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 14:51 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 14:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 07:26 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 05:09 Razyda wrote:On May 28 2026 04:58 Jankisa wrote:
When it comes to human and worker rights, EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home. They dont hate it, they hold it in contempt, and not because of the reasons you mentioned, but because Europe is essentially non factor and yet it keep acting all high and mighty. Right-wing ideology: The EU boasts of the gentler and kinder liberal society, all the while the US is subsidizing their defense budgets through NATO, and thus their welfare state by extension. All the while, they’ve exchanged core freedoms and justice for the promise of safety and security. Their domestic policy is flawed. They are overly dependent on Russian energy. They should be regarded as on a diverging path from the US and subject to less partnership. The more stringent right-wingers will use europoor and caretaker governments of tourist destinations. (I take it that Europeans, for their part, also think America is backwards or uncultured. Thanks for the answer but it's still very vague. EU countries had welfare states during the cold war, in the in-between period and at the current time. During that period defense spending have been extremely varied. Clearly there is no connection to the welfare states and defense spending so how exactly does the US subsidise our welfare? Furthermore do you disagree with the assessment that the US have pushed Europe to buy US systems and that the US, by being the leader in NATO, have heavily influenced European armies? We have had the core freedoms debate before so let's not rehash that one. But what kinds of false sense security are we talking about? And how is our domestic policy flawed? As for Russian energy I am assuming you meant that in the past tense? At this point we are more reliant on US energy. Most countries in the world import some kind of energy from somewhere. It's not until recently that has been a problem (which many are working on, like EU and China, which at the end of the day will be a net negative for energy exporters.) Finally exactly how are we on a divergent path from the US? I want to put forward the fair reading of how America's right wing views Europe, or the problems of Europe from the American right-wing context. Of course it's going to be vague! But if a poster's apprehension of the topic advances beyond, and I'm trying to be fair here so this is a direct quote from the thread, "EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home," then that's an absolute win. The ultimate goal here is to be able to express to a triple-Trump voter in America an opinion on Europe that they would wholeheartedly agree with from their perspective, and not the same claptrap that's how left-wingers view right-wingers and what they would really describe their thought process if only they were more honest. You've got a perspective that would reduce to how you'd argue a right-winger out of believing as they do, which is valid in that context, but not actually responsive to On May 28 2026 00:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Why is there such a hyperfixation on Europe? And why is it getting worse?
We are really living rent free in the MAGA heads. Of course they also don't know anything about Europe. I doubt that there is such a hyperfixation, or that it's getting worse, but the substance of the charge is your own personal research, which isn't actually something that can serve as a basis for argument. Fair enough that's what they think. And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites. Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts. Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. One of the strange points of Democrat and Republican agreement nowadays is saying that taxes should stay the same or decrease for 96-98% of Americans. That's the math behind the recent candidate Kamala Harris's campaign promise excluding those that make under $400,000. It should be obvious foolishness if we're talking about the deficit or paying off the debt, but so is focusing conversations around the $900 bil budget category instead of the $4.1 tril budget category. Government should do it all, but don't you dare touch my hard-earned money!
It is really dumb that people are fixated on rates and not value. I’d pay 100% taxes if everything was free and amazing.
When people look at getting anything most people do not look only at the lowest price, they want what ever they perceive to be the best for the money. But for some reason North Americans (us more than Canada but we are trending that way) wants to pay as little as possible for government services and then complain when it sucks.
|
On May 29 2026 03:14 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. The USA willfully became the West's global policeman after World War II because it came with an unprecedented amount of soft power and economic growth. There was nothing controversial about this until Trump came along and started the discourse that the USA has to spend so much money on our military because we're getting ripped off by those Europeans loafing off of NATO. Not only is this just flagrantly wrong, it doesn't even make sense, because both Trump terms came with explosions of unnecessary military spending despite an increasingly isolationist foreign policy. He promised to run the government like a business, and he's done so by increasing spending, decreasing income, and tearing up all the deals that were one-sidedly beneficial to America. It's part of the reason people keep thinking he's being blackmailed, if a Manchurian Candidate became POTUS it would be hard to sabotage the country as rapidly as Trump has.
Soft power is being exercised by trolling and extorting now. Worshipping and enabling nonsense can be fun as a pastime activity, as long as it's not in US politics or collaborating communities near you.
Some of the guys they have in power are an environmental and personal safety hazard.
Yeah, wonder why nobody trusts them.
Fuck suntan lotion, I‘ma smear myself in thermal paste this summer with the heat going around.
They replaced the MIB coffee ground reading by tabloid with google ads.
Do they have doomsday bunkers in Argentina ?
|
On May 29 2026 00:27 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2026 23:58 Manit0u wrote:https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYzexT7MHdZ/Haha, what a failure. The US administration has just learned that pretty much all of the rail network in US is actually owned by Canadians and because of the tariffs and trade wars they've stopped freight in the US and are instead focused on moving the trains east/west within their own borders. This resulted in a massive supply chain breakage within the US. And you learned all this from an instagram reel? Never fear, I'm told it was a slightly different number above $500 billion and happened 3 months ago instead of a couple days ago! I'm predicting a similar, sudden transportation emergency reported three to nine months from today, with a number between $100 billion and $900 billion dollars of impact! Let's practice our own information hygiene and overall skepticism to try to draw a meaningful difference between us and the reviled right-wing disinformation networks that get singled out over and over again.
I guess I got baited because the US rail seems to be in a pretty bad shape and it wouldn't be the first time that Canada could disrupt US logistics via rail: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/22/canadian-rail-lockout-leaves-billions-in-us-trade-stranded.html
After looking more deeply into it this railway bailout seems to just be an internet rumor.
|
On May 28 2026 20:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2026 19:49 LightSpectra wrote:On May 28 2026 16:50 oBlade wrote:The arm of "nobody is above the law" continuous to extend its reach. It's just an investigation, if she didn't perjure herself she has nothing to worry about. Just like the U.S. citizens who have spent months in ICE detention facilities have nothing to fear from immigration control, right? If the criteria for being scared is "the government might make a mistake" then everybody everywhere should be scared to that realistic extent.
Just a reminder that two years ago this was they guy winging and moaning about gubbermint overreach. Now that same gubbermint can't reach far enough!
|
United States44245 Posts
On May 29 2026 06:21 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2026 20:45 oBlade wrote:On May 28 2026 19:49 LightSpectra wrote:On May 28 2026 16:50 oBlade wrote:The arm of "nobody is above the law" continuous to extend its reach. It's just an investigation, if she didn't perjure herself she has nothing to worry about. Just like the U.S. citizens who have spent months in ICE detention facilities have nothing to fear from immigration control, right? If the criteria for being scared is "the government might make a mistake" then everybody everywhere should be scared to that realistic extent. Just a reminder that two years ago this was they guy winging and moaning about gubbermint overreach. Now that same gubbermint can't reach far enough!
His response doesn’t even make sense. People aren’t afraid of the government accidentally arresting innocent people, they’re afraid of the government doing it on purpose. They didn’t trip and fall and accidentally target the wrong Carroll, they’re mad at her because she wouldn’t stay silent after Trump raped her.
|
On May 29 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 14:51 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 14:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 07:26 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 05:09 Razyda wrote:On May 28 2026 04:58 Jankisa wrote:
When it comes to human and worker rights, EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home. They dont hate it, they hold it in contempt, and not because of the reasons you mentioned, but because Europe is essentially non factor and yet it keep acting all high and mighty. Right-wing ideology: The EU boasts of the gentler and kinder liberal society, all the while the US is subsidizing their defense budgets through NATO, and thus their welfare state by extension. All the while, they’ve exchanged core freedoms and justice for the promise of safety and security. Their domestic policy is flawed. They are overly dependent on Russian energy. They should be regarded as on a diverging path from the US and subject to less partnership. The more stringent right-wingers will use europoor and caretaker governments of tourist destinations. (I take it that Europeans, for their part, also think America is backwards or uncultured. Thanks for the answer but it's still very vague. EU countries had welfare states during the cold war, in the in-between period and at the current time. During that period defense spending have been extremely varied. Clearly there is no connection to the welfare states and defense spending so how exactly does the US subsidise our welfare? Furthermore do you disagree with the assessment that the US have pushed Europe to buy US systems and that the US, by being the leader in NATO, have heavily influenced European armies? We have had the core freedoms debate before so let's not rehash that one. But what kinds of false sense security are we talking about? And how is our domestic policy flawed? As for Russian energy I am assuming you meant that in the past tense? At this point we are more reliant on US energy. Most countries in the world import some kind of energy from somewhere. It's not until recently that has been a problem (which many are working on, like EU and China, which at the end of the day will be a net negative for energy exporters.) Finally exactly how are we on a divergent path from the US? I want to put forward the fair reading of how America's right wing views Europe, or the problems of Europe from the American right-wing context. Of course it's going to be vague! But if a poster's apprehension of the topic advances beyond, and I'm trying to be fair here so this is a direct quote from the thread, "EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home," then that's an absolute win. The ultimate goal here is to be able to express to a triple-Trump voter in America an opinion on Europe that they would wholeheartedly agree with from their perspective, and not the same claptrap that's how left-wingers view right-wingers and what they would really describe their thought process if only they were more honest. You've got a perspective that would reduce to how you'd argue a right-winger out of believing as they do, which is valid in that context, but not actually responsive to On May 28 2026 00:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Why is there such a hyperfixation on Europe? And why is it getting worse?
We are really living rent free in the MAGA heads. Of course they also don't know anything about Europe. I doubt that there is such a hyperfixation, or that it's getting worse, but the substance of the charge is your own personal research, which isn't actually something that can serve as a basis for argument. Fair enough that's what they think. And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites. Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts. Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. It’s almost like France having the welfare state it does is because it chooses to spend 57% of GDP on government spending or something The idea it can do this solely because of American largesse is utterly fanciful, I mean by all means don’t emulate it, but it’s perfectly within American economic capacity to emulate various European style welfare states. What’s even in NATO for Europeans if the current direction of travel continues? A European centric combined defence policy is looking more and more attractive by the day
See you are looking at it from a European pov. Somehow France will spend 57% of GDP through the government but can barely manage 2% for defense spending. So while "subsidizing" is the wrong word it certainly seems as though, to go back to B), they are *unwilling*.
I won't post it again because I have multiple times but administrations going back decades now have been pressuring Europe to spend more. I've posted the speech by Roberts Gates from ~2013 where he was telling a bunch of Europeans that the US public had limited patience. This is not new. It certainly *appears* that Europeans would rather spend more on benefits while relying on the US for protection. And their spensing choices seem to made that policy, official or not.
|
On May 29 2026 03:49 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 14:51 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 14:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 07:26 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 05:09 Razyda wrote:On May 28 2026 04:58 Jankisa wrote:
When it comes to human and worker rights, EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home. They dont hate it, they hold it in contempt, and not because of the reasons you mentioned, but because Europe is essentially non factor and yet it keep acting all high and mighty. Right-wing ideology: The EU boasts of the gentler and kinder liberal society, all the while the US is subsidizing their defense budgets through NATO, and thus their welfare state by extension. All the while, they’ve exchanged core freedoms and justice for the promise of safety and security. Their domestic policy is flawed. They are overly dependent on Russian energy. They should be regarded as on a diverging path from the US and subject to less partnership. The more stringent right-wingers will use europoor and caretaker governments of tourist destinations. (I take it that Europeans, for their part, also think America is backwards or uncultured. Thanks for the answer but it's still very vague. EU countries had welfare states during the cold war, in the in-between period and at the current time. During that period defense spending have been extremely varied. Clearly there is no connection to the welfare states and defense spending so how exactly does the US subsidise our welfare? Furthermore do you disagree with the assessment that the US have pushed Europe to buy US systems and that the US, by being the leader in NATO, have heavily influenced European armies? We have had the core freedoms debate before so let's not rehash that one. But what kinds of false sense security are we talking about? And how is our domestic policy flawed? As for Russian energy I am assuming you meant that in the past tense? At this point we are more reliant on US energy. Most countries in the world import some kind of energy from somewhere. It's not until recently that has been a problem (which many are working on, like EU and China, which at the end of the day will be a net negative for energy exporters.) Finally exactly how are we on a divergent path from the US? I want to put forward the fair reading of how America's right wing views Europe, or the problems of Europe from the American right-wing context. Of course it's going to be vague! But if a poster's apprehension of the topic advances beyond, and I'm trying to be fair here so this is a direct quote from the thread, "EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home," then that's an absolute win. The ultimate goal here is to be able to express to a triple-Trump voter in America an opinion on Europe that they would wholeheartedly agree with from their perspective, and not the same claptrap that's how left-wingers view right-wingers and what they would really describe their thought process if only they were more honest. You've got a perspective that would reduce to how you'd argue a right-winger out of believing as they do, which is valid in that context, but not actually responsive to On May 28 2026 00:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Why is there such a hyperfixation on Europe? And why is it getting worse?
We are really living rent free in the MAGA heads. Of course they also don't know anything about Europe. I doubt that there is such a hyperfixation, or that it's getting worse, but the substance of the charge is your own personal research, which isn't actually something that can serve as a basis for argument. Fair enough that's what they think. And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites. Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts. Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. Fair enough. It's much harder to find a European that says we should be like the US too. There are a lot of problems with waiting for "the crisis point" to come. As the Fortune article points out, that you reach the point where interest rates outscale growth. And at that point fixing it will be much more difficult and painful. Like a lot more difficult. If current interest rates don't go down that point could 2036. That's just Trump and one more president. And that's as long as things doesn't get *worse*. Another problem is that since you can just keep borrowing money to cover increasing interest payments the general American won't notice anything until the whole house of cards collapses. It's exactly like a household running on maxing out new credit cards to cover interest rates on the old ones + overspending. Once you can't get that final card you are fucked but until then the kids won't notice anything in their daily routine. And finally America has no one to stop them. Greece had Europe that could say "no", push towards proper finances and back them up with credit as they recovered. In the US it's your politicians and your educated voters. Fixing this now would probably be fine. You need more taxes, cut *some* spending and structural reforms to medicare and social security. It won't be a big problem for most Americans. In 10 years it's going to be considerably harder. In 15-20 years (?) if allowed to crash it might seriously bring down the entire country at that point and taking the global economy with it.
I think many things throughout American history have been done only because circumstances forced it. It will hurt more, but as I've said recently I think the US is almost "too rich". No one wants to say things voters don't want to hear and of course the voters don't want to hear hard things. The US still had a lot of advantages, even if many of them are because everyone else is in a worse position on the whole.
|
On May 29 2026 07:32 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 14:51 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 14:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 07:26 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 05:09 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
They dont hate it, they hold it in contempt, and not because of the reasons you mentioned, but because Europe is essentially non factor and yet it keep acting all high and mighty.
Right-wing ideology: The EU boasts of the gentler and kinder liberal society, all the while the US is subsidizing their defense budgets through NATO, and thus their welfare state by extension. All the while, they’ve exchanged core freedoms and justice for the promise of safety and security. Their domestic policy is flawed. They are overly dependent on Russian energy. They should be regarded as on a diverging path from the US and subject to less partnership. The more stringent right-wingers will use europoor and caretaker governments of tourist destinations. (I take it that Europeans, for their part, also think America is backwards or uncultured. Thanks for the answer but it's still very vague. EU countries had welfare states during the cold war, in the in-between period and at the current time. During that period defense spending have been extremely varied. Clearly there is no connection to the welfare states and defense spending so how exactly does the US subsidise our welfare? Furthermore do you disagree with the assessment that the US have pushed Europe to buy US systems and that the US, by being the leader in NATO, have heavily influenced European armies? We have had the core freedoms debate before so let's not rehash that one. But what kinds of false sense security are we talking about? And how is our domestic policy flawed? As for Russian energy I am assuming you meant that in the past tense? At this point we are more reliant on US energy. Most countries in the world import some kind of energy from somewhere. It's not until recently that has been a problem (which many are working on, like EU and China, which at the end of the day will be a net negative for energy exporters.) Finally exactly how are we on a divergent path from the US? I want to put forward the fair reading of how America's right wing views Europe, or the problems of Europe from the American right-wing context. Of course it's going to be vague! But if a poster's apprehension of the topic advances beyond, and I'm trying to be fair here so this is a direct quote from the thread, "EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home," then that's an absolute win. The ultimate goal here is to be able to express to a triple-Trump voter in America an opinion on Europe that they would wholeheartedly agree with from their perspective, and not the same claptrap that's how left-wingers view right-wingers and what they would really describe their thought process if only they were more honest. You've got a perspective that would reduce to how you'd argue a right-winger out of believing as they do, which is valid in that context, but not actually responsive to On May 28 2026 00:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Why is there such a hyperfixation on Europe? And why is it getting worse?
We are really living rent free in the MAGA heads. Of course they also don't know anything about Europe. I doubt that there is such a hyperfixation, or that it's getting worse, but the substance of the charge is your own personal research, which isn't actually something that can serve as a basis for argument. Fair enough that's what they think. And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites. Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts. Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. It’s almost like France having the welfare state it does is because it chooses to spend 57% of GDP on government spending or something The idea it can do this solely because of American largesse is utterly fanciful, I mean by all means don’t emulate it, but it’s perfectly within American economic capacity to emulate various European style welfare states. What’s even in NATO for Europeans if the current direction of travel continues? A European centric combined defence policy is looking more and more attractive by the day See you are looking at it from a European pov. Somehow France will spend 57% of GDP through the government but can barely manage 2% for defense spending. So while "subsidizing" is the wrong word it certainly seems as though, to go back to B), they are *unwilling*. I won't post it again because I have multiple times but administrations going back decades now have been pressuring Europe to spend more. I've posted the speech by Roberts Gates from ~2013 where he was telling a bunch of Europeans that the US public had limited patience. This is not new. It certainly *appears* that Europeans would rather spend more on benefits while relying on the US for protection. And their spensing choices seem to made that policy, official or not.
I think the flaw in this argument is that, the US is not spending less as the Europeans spend more. It doesn’t seem likely that they will. The reason that people actually wanted them to spend more is so that the US industries would make more, more jobs and so on.
But you have Trump strategy “working” in that they will spend more, but they are spending it in Europe because Trump is so unreliable and extremely unlikeable to the vast majority of non Americans. Even non European countries are making purchases away from the US.
So you are losing soft power, spending same or more, and making less.
|
On May 29 2026 07:56 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 07:32 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 14:51 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 14:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 07:26 dyhb wrote:
[quote]Right-wing ideology: The EU boasts of the gentler and kinder liberal society, all the while the US is subsidizing their defense budgets through NATO, and thus their welfare state by extension. All the while, they’ve exchanged core freedoms and justice for the promise of safety and security. Their domestic policy is flawed. They are overly dependent on Russian energy. They should be regarded as on a diverging path from the US and subject to less partnership.
The more stringent right-wingers will use europoor and caretaker governments of tourist destinations.
(I take it that Europeans, for their part, also think America is backwards or uncultured. Thanks for the answer but it's still very vague. EU countries had welfare states during the cold war, in the in-between period and at the current time. During that period defense spending have been extremely varied. Clearly there is no connection to the welfare states and defense spending so how exactly does the US subsidise our welfare? Furthermore do you disagree with the assessment that the US have pushed Europe to buy US systems and that the US, by being the leader in NATO, have heavily influenced European armies? We have had the core freedoms debate before so let's not rehash that one. But what kinds of false sense security are we talking about? And how is our domestic policy flawed? As for Russian energy I am assuming you meant that in the past tense? At this point we are more reliant on US energy. Most countries in the world import some kind of energy from somewhere. It's not until recently that has been a problem (which many are working on, like EU and China, which at the end of the day will be a net negative for energy exporters.) Finally exactly how are we on a divergent path from the US? I want to put forward the fair reading of how America's right wing views Europe, or the problems of Europe from the American right-wing context. Of course it's going to be vague! But if a poster's apprehension of the topic advances beyond, and I'm trying to be fair here so this is a direct quote from the thread, "EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home," then that's an absolute win. The ultimate goal here is to be able to express to a triple-Trump voter in America an opinion on Europe that they would wholeheartedly agree with from their perspective, and not the same claptrap that's how left-wingers view right-wingers and what they would really describe their thought process if only they were more honest. You've got a perspective that would reduce to how you'd argue a right-winger out of believing as they do, which is valid in that context, but not actually responsive to On May 28 2026 00:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Why is there such a hyperfixation on Europe? And why is it getting worse?
We are really living rent free in the MAGA heads. Of course they also don't know anything about Europe. I doubt that there is such a hyperfixation, or that it's getting worse, but the substance of the charge is your own personal research, which isn't actually something that can serve as a basis for argument. Fair enough that's what they think. And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites. Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts. Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. It’s almost like France having the welfare state it does is because it chooses to spend 57% of GDP on government spending or something The idea it can do this solely because of American largesse is utterly fanciful, I mean by all means don’t emulate it, but it’s perfectly within American economic capacity to emulate various European style welfare states. What’s even in NATO for Europeans if the current direction of travel continues? A European centric combined defence policy is looking more and more attractive by the day See you are looking at it from a European pov. Somehow France will spend 57% of GDP through the government but can barely manage 2% for defense spending. So while "subsidizing" is the wrong word it certainly seems as though, to go back to B), they are *unwilling*. I won't post it again because I have multiple times but administrations going back decades now have been pressuring Europe to spend more. I've posted the speech by Roberts Gates from ~2013 where he was telling a bunch of Europeans that the US public had limited patience. This is not new. It certainly *appears* that Europeans would rather spend more on benefits while relying on the US for protection. And their spensing choices seem to made that policy, official or not. I think the flaw in this argument is that, the US is not spending less as the Europeans spend more. It doesn’t seem likely that they will. The reason that people actually wanted them to spend more is so that the US industries would make more, more jobs and so on. But you have Trump strategy “working” in that they will spend more, but they are spending it in Europe because Trump is so unreliable and extremely unlikeable to the vast majority of non Americans. Even non European countries are making purchases away from the US. So you are losing soft power, spending same or more, and making less.
For me, personally, as I've said before I want to move away from Europe because I think the US has more pressing matters elsewhere. It's about ROI, but the return is not what some people seem to think it should be. I don't care if the Europeans buy fewer American weapons.
|
On May 29 2026 08:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 07:56 Billyboy wrote:On May 29 2026 07:32 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 14:51 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 14:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
[quote]
Thanks for the answer but it's still very vague.
EU countries had welfare states during the cold war, in the in-between period and at the current time. During that period defense spending have been extremely varied. Clearly there is no connection to the welfare states and defense spending so how exactly does the US subsidise our welfare?
Furthermore do you disagree with the assessment that the US have pushed Europe to buy US systems and that the US, by being the leader in NATO, have heavily influenced European armies?
We have had the core freedoms debate before so let's not rehash that one. But what kinds of false sense security are we talking about?
And how is our domestic policy flawed?
As for Russian energy I am assuming you meant that in the past tense? At this point we are more reliant on US energy. Most countries in the world import some kind of energy from somewhere. It's not until recently that has been a problem (which many are working on, like EU and China, which at the end of the day will be a net negative for energy exporters.)
Finally exactly how are we on a divergent path from the US? I want to put forward the fair reading of how America's right wing views Europe, or the problems of Europe from the American right-wing context. Of course it's going to be vague! But if a poster's apprehension of the topic advances beyond, and I'm trying to be fair here so this is a direct quote from the thread, "EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home," then that's an absolute win. The ultimate goal here is to be able to express to a triple-Trump voter in America an opinion on Europe that they would wholeheartedly agree with from their perspective, and not the same claptrap that's how left-wingers view right-wingers and what they would really describe their thought process if only they were more honest. You've got a perspective that would reduce to how you'd argue a right-winger out of believing as they do, which is valid in that context, but not actually responsive to On May 28 2026 00:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Why is there such a hyperfixation on Europe? And why is it getting worse?
We are really living rent free in the MAGA heads. Of course they also don't know anything about Europe. I doubt that there is such a hyperfixation, or that it's getting worse, but the substance of the charge is your own personal research, which isn't actually something that can serve as a basis for argument. Fair enough that's what they think. And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites. Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts. Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. It’s almost like France having the welfare state it does is because it chooses to spend 57% of GDP on government spending or something The idea it can do this solely because of American largesse is utterly fanciful, I mean by all means don’t emulate it, but it’s perfectly within American economic capacity to emulate various European style welfare states. What’s even in NATO for Europeans if the current direction of travel continues? A European centric combined defence policy is looking more and more attractive by the day See you are looking at it from a European pov. Somehow France will spend 57% of GDP through the government but can barely manage 2% for defense spending. So while "subsidizing" is the wrong word it certainly seems as though, to go back to B), they are *unwilling*. I won't post it again because I have multiple times but administrations going back decades now have been pressuring Europe to spend more. I've posted the speech by Roberts Gates from ~2013 where he was telling a bunch of Europeans that the US public had limited patience. This is not new. It certainly *appears* that Europeans would rather spend more on benefits while relying on the US for protection. And their spensing choices seem to made that policy, official or not. I think the flaw in this argument is that, the US is not spending less as the Europeans spend more. It doesn’t seem likely that they will. The reason that people actually wanted them to spend more is so that the US industries would make more, more jobs and so on. But you have Trump strategy “working” in that they will spend more, but they are spending it in Europe because Trump is so unreliable and extremely unlikeable to the vast majority of non Americans. Even non European countries are making purchases away from the US. So you are losing soft power, spending same or more, and making less. For me, personally, as I've said before I want to move away from Europe because I think the US has more pressing matters elsewhere. It's about ROI, but the return is not what some people seem to think it should be. I don't care if the Europeans buy fewer American weapons.
How do you move away from a historical trade partner? Europe is diversifying from US IT technology because it's either been weaponized in cases or the data wasn't handled according to protection laws in a multitude of instances. What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable isn't a negotiation basis, even most software is sold as a license, and you got politics interfering in the markets constantly.
Can the US be as prosperous just trading within the nation and exporting McDonalds and Coca cola to South America? Maybe, if it can enforce its currency on its own.
Militarily, nobody wins either way with nukes in a pinch. An inferior opponent can always launch them when losing which lowers the inhibition threshold for other participants who get involved if a scene escalates.
It's just a stupid timeline with too many sweats tbh. Now you just kinda estimate which nations act out of necessity and which out of greed.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On May 29 2026 07:32 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 14:51 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 14:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 07:26 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 05:09 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
They dont hate it, they hold it in contempt, and not because of the reasons you mentioned, but because Europe is essentially non factor and yet it keep acting all high and mighty.
Right-wing ideology: The EU boasts of the gentler and kinder liberal society, all the while the US is subsidizing their defense budgets through NATO, and thus their welfare state by extension. All the while, they’ve exchanged core freedoms and justice for the promise of safety and security. Their domestic policy is flawed. They are overly dependent on Russian energy. They should be regarded as on a diverging path from the US and subject to less partnership. The more stringent right-wingers will use europoor and caretaker governments of tourist destinations. (I take it that Europeans, for their part, also think America is backwards or uncultured. Thanks for the answer but it's still very vague. EU countries had welfare states during the cold war, in the in-between period and at the current time. During that period defense spending have been extremely varied. Clearly there is no connection to the welfare states and defense spending so how exactly does the US subsidise our welfare? Furthermore do you disagree with the assessment that the US have pushed Europe to buy US systems and that the US, by being the leader in NATO, have heavily influenced European armies? We have had the core freedoms debate before so let's not rehash that one. But what kinds of false sense security are we talking about? And how is our domestic policy flawed? As for Russian energy I am assuming you meant that in the past tense? At this point we are more reliant on US energy. Most countries in the world import some kind of energy from somewhere. It's not until recently that has been a problem (which many are working on, like EU and China, which at the end of the day will be a net negative for energy exporters.) Finally exactly how are we on a divergent path from the US? I want to put forward the fair reading of how America's right wing views Europe, or the problems of Europe from the American right-wing context. Of course it's going to be vague! But if a poster's apprehension of the topic advances beyond, and I'm trying to be fair here so this is a direct quote from the thread, "EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home," then that's an absolute win. The ultimate goal here is to be able to express to a triple-Trump voter in America an opinion on Europe that they would wholeheartedly agree with from their perspective, and not the same claptrap that's how left-wingers view right-wingers and what they would really describe their thought process if only they were more honest. You've got a perspective that would reduce to how you'd argue a right-winger out of believing as they do, which is valid in that context, but not actually responsive to On May 28 2026 00:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Why is there such a hyperfixation on Europe? And why is it getting worse?
We are really living rent free in the MAGA heads. Of course they also don't know anything about Europe. I doubt that there is such a hyperfixation, or that it's getting worse, but the substance of the charge is your own personal research, which isn't actually something that can serve as a basis for argument. Fair enough that's what they think. And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites. Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts. Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. It’s almost like France having the welfare state it does is because it chooses to spend 57% of GDP on government spending or something The idea it can do this solely because of American largesse is utterly fanciful, I mean by all means don’t emulate it, but it’s perfectly within American economic capacity to emulate various European style welfare states. What’s even in NATO for Europeans if the current direction of travel continues? A European centric combined defence policy is looking more and more attractive by the day See you are looking at it from a European pov. Somehow France will spend 57% of GDP through the government but can barely manage 2% for defense spending. So while "subsidizing" is the wrong word it certainly seems as though, to go back to B), they are *unwilling*. I won't post it again because I have multiple times but administrations going back decades now have been pressuring Europe to spend more. I've posted the speech by Roberts Gates from ~2013 where he was telling a bunch of Europeans that the US public had limited patience. This is not new. It certainly *appears* that Europeans would rather spend more on benefits while relying on the US for protection. And their spensing choices seem to made that policy, official or not.
The ‘somehow’ being that they choose to right?
If France spent 7% of GDP on defence they could still spend 52% of GDP on other government spending, or massage those numbers how you will
|
On May 29 2026 09:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 07:32 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 14:51 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 14:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 07:26 dyhb wrote:
[quote]Right-wing ideology: The EU boasts of the gentler and kinder liberal society, all the while the US is subsidizing their defense budgets through NATO, and thus their welfare state by extension. All the while, they’ve exchanged core freedoms and justice for the promise of safety and security. Their domestic policy is flawed. They are overly dependent on Russian energy. They should be regarded as on a diverging path from the US and subject to less partnership.
The more stringent right-wingers will use europoor and caretaker governments of tourist destinations.
(I take it that Europeans, for their part, also think America is backwards or uncultured. Thanks for the answer but it's still very vague. EU countries had welfare states during the cold war, in the in-between period and at the current time. During that period defense spending have been extremely varied. Clearly there is no connection to the welfare states and defense spending so how exactly does the US subsidise our welfare? Furthermore do you disagree with the assessment that the US have pushed Europe to buy US systems and that the US, by being the leader in NATO, have heavily influenced European armies? We have had the core freedoms debate before so let's not rehash that one. But what kinds of false sense security are we talking about? And how is our domestic policy flawed? As for Russian energy I am assuming you meant that in the past tense? At this point we are more reliant on US energy. Most countries in the world import some kind of energy from somewhere. It's not until recently that has been a problem (which many are working on, like EU and China, which at the end of the day will be a net negative for energy exporters.) Finally exactly how are we on a divergent path from the US? I want to put forward the fair reading of how America's right wing views Europe, or the problems of Europe from the American right-wing context. Of course it's going to be vague! But if a poster's apprehension of the topic advances beyond, and I'm trying to be fair here so this is a direct quote from the thread, "EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home," then that's an absolute win. The ultimate goal here is to be able to express to a triple-Trump voter in America an opinion on Europe that they would wholeheartedly agree with from their perspective, and not the same claptrap that's how left-wingers view right-wingers and what they would really describe their thought process if only they were more honest. You've got a perspective that would reduce to how you'd argue a right-winger out of believing as they do, which is valid in that context, but not actually responsive to On May 28 2026 00:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Why is there such a hyperfixation on Europe? And why is it getting worse?
We are really living rent free in the MAGA heads. Of course they also don't know anything about Europe. I doubt that there is such a hyperfixation, or that it's getting worse, but the substance of the charge is your own personal research, which isn't actually something that can serve as a basis for argument. Fair enough that's what they think. And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites. Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts. Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. It’s almost like France having the welfare state it does is because it chooses to spend 57% of GDP on government spending or something The idea it can do this solely because of American largesse is utterly fanciful, I mean by all means don’t emulate it, but it’s perfectly within American economic capacity to emulate various European style welfare states. What’s even in NATO for Europeans if the current direction of travel continues? A European centric combined defence policy is looking more and more attractive by the day See you are looking at it from a European pov. Somehow France will spend 57% of GDP through the government but can barely manage 2% for defense spending. So while "subsidizing" is the wrong word it certainly seems as though, to go back to B), they are *unwilling*. I won't post it again because I have multiple times but administrations going back decades now have been pressuring Europe to spend more. I've posted the speech by Roberts Gates from ~2013 where he was telling a bunch of Europeans that the US public had limited patience. This is not new. It certainly *appears* that Europeans would rather spend more on benefits while relying on the US for protection. And their spensing choices seem to made that policy, official or not. The ‘somehow’ being that they choose to right? If France spent 7% of GDP on defence they could still spend 52% of GDP on other government spending, or massage those numbers how you will
One other thing worthy of note is that every country is rather unwilling to spend on defense because in general military expenditure is high and doesn't bring much of economy with it. Spending on military in peace time is pretty much just burning money. Sure, it does pay dividends if you ever get attacked, but we've had such a long period of stability now within the EU that most countries didn't really feel the need to spend so much on defense, especially those in the core as opposed to countries on the border (with potentially unstable or aggressive neighbors).
Even now most of the arms produced in the West (both EU and US) are made for exports purposes as this is the way to keep your military production infrastructure running through peace times and justify its existence.
Edit: Most countries that overspend on military are typically some kinds of dictatorships or oppressive governments. They need big military for posturing externally and internally to have the threat looming on their populace and inspire awe.
|
On May 28 2026 12:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are either of you under the impression that people want the current inequality (that they expressly say they don't want whenever asked) bad enough to fight and sacrifice to keep it over the more equitable society they expressly say they want?
No, I am not under that impression. The point is closer to what you said in your other post — most people are just following the inertia of the current system.
If you want those people in your organising efforts, you have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia. Or, you need to amass enough of the people already willing to fight/sacrifice that you can start to change the system's inertia.
Simply observing that a lot of people don't like the current system is almost irrelevant, beyond as a way to prove that a better system is needed. But if 90% of people already believe that, you don't even need that proof.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On May 29 2026 10:37 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2026 12:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are either of you under the impression that people want the current inequality (that they expressly say they don't want whenever asked) bad enough to fight and sacrifice to keep it over the more equitable society they expressly say they want? No, I am not under that impression. The point is closer to what you said in your other post — most people are just following the inertia of the current system. If you want those people in your organising efforts, you have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia. Or, you need to amass enough of the people already willing to fight/sacrifice that you can start to change the system's inertia. Simply observing that a lot of people don't like the current system is almost irrelevant, beyond as a way to prove that a better system is needed. But if 90% of people already believe that, you don't even need that proof.
90% of people would probably like to bang supermodels on the regular, it doesn’t mean a hypothetical 90% of folks will make the step to actualise said desire, or have the capacity
As you say, there’s a powerful inertia to fight against, which can be hard. Additionally you may not necessarily need a hivemind, but at least people who kinda believe the same things to agitate simultaneously
Conditions I don’t think are even remotely plausible to all coalesce at once in the current climate.
Something better? Sure, but that? Nah.
Such a radical change requires a crazy amount of consensus across differing groups. Which I don’t think is achievable anyway.
And is less achievable if one has positioned oneself to shit on Democrats all the time and can’t concede maybe that was a tactical error.
Joe and Jane Public who maybe desperately didn’t want Trump to be elected aren’t going to jump on a radical platform run by people who didn’t do all in their power to keep Trump out.
Never mind actually getting Trump voters on board. And you’ll need some of those as well
|
On May 29 2026 08:47 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 08:04 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 07:56 Billyboy wrote:On May 29 2026 07:32 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 14:51 dyhb wrote:
[quote]I want to put forward the fair reading of how America's right wing views Europe, or the problems of Europe from the American right-wing context. Of course it's going to be vague! But if a poster's apprehension of the topic advances beyond, and I'm trying to be fair here so this is a direct quote from the thread, "EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home," then that's an absolute win.
The ultimate goal here is to be able to express to a triple-Trump voter in America an opinion on Europe that they would wholeheartedly agree with from their perspective, and not the same claptrap that's how left-wingers view right-wingers and what they would really describe their thought process if only they were more honest. You've got a perspective that would reduce to how you'd argue a right-winger out of believing as they do, which is valid in that context, but not actually responsive to [quote]I doubt that there is such a hyperfixation, or that it's getting worse, but the substance of the charge is your own personal research, which isn't actually something that can serve as a basis for argument. Fair enough that's what they think. And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites. Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts. Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. It’s almost like France having the welfare state it does is because it chooses to spend 57% of GDP on government spending or something The idea it can do this solely because of American largesse is utterly fanciful, I mean by all means don’t emulate it, but it’s perfectly within American economic capacity to emulate various European style welfare states. What’s even in NATO for Europeans if the current direction of travel continues? A European centric combined defence policy is looking more and more attractive by the day See you are looking at it from a European pov. Somehow France will spend 57% of GDP through the government but can barely manage 2% for defense spending. So while "subsidizing" is the wrong word it certainly seems as though, to go back to B), they are *unwilling*. I won't post it again because I have multiple times but administrations going back decades now have been pressuring Europe to spend more. I've posted the speech by Roberts Gates from ~2013 where he was telling a bunch of Europeans that the US public had limited patience. This is not new. It certainly *appears* that Europeans would rather spend more on benefits while relying on the US for protection. And their spensing choices seem to made that policy, official or not. I think the flaw in this argument is that, the US is not spending less as the Europeans spend more. It doesn’t seem likely that they will. The reason that people actually wanted them to spend more is so that the US industries would make more, more jobs and so on. But you have Trump strategy “working” in that they will spend more, but they are spending it in Europe because Trump is so unreliable and extremely unlikeable to the vast majority of non Americans. Even non European countries are making purchases away from the US. So you are losing soft power, spending same or more, and making less. For me, personally, as I've said before I want to move away from Europe because I think the US has more pressing matters elsewhere. It's about ROI, but the return is not what some people seem to think it should be. I don't care if the Europeans buy fewer American weapons. How do you move away from a historical trade partner? Europe is diversifying from US IT technology because it's either been weaponized in cases or the data wasn't handled according to protection laws in a multitude of instances. What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable isn't a negotiation basis, even most software is sold as a license, and you got politics interfering in the markets constantly. Can the US be as prosperous just trading within the nation and exporting McDonalds and Coca cola to South America? Maybe, if it can enforce its currency on its own. Militarily, nobody wins either way with nukes in a pinch. An inferior opponent can always launch them when losing which lowers the inhibition threshold for other participants who get involved if a scene escalates. It's just a stupid timeline with too many sweats tbh. Now you just kinda estimate which nations act out of necessity and which out of greed.
I didn't say I don't want trade with Europe. I said I want fewer American taxpayer dollars spent in Europe for military purposes. And if the Euros don't want to buy it then so be it.
On May 29 2026 09:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 07:32 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 14:51 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 14:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 07:26 dyhb wrote:
[quote]Right-wing ideology: The EU boasts of the gentler and kinder liberal society, all the while the US is subsidizing their defense budgets through NATO, and thus their welfare state by extension. All the while, they’ve exchanged core freedoms and justice for the promise of safety and security. Their domestic policy is flawed. They are overly dependent on Russian energy. They should be regarded as on a diverging path from the US and subject to less partnership.
The more stringent right-wingers will use europoor and caretaker governments of tourist destinations.
(I take it that Europeans, for their part, also think America is backwards or uncultured. Thanks for the answer but it's still very vague. EU countries had welfare states during the cold war, in the in-between period and at the current time. During that period defense spending have been extremely varied. Clearly there is no connection to the welfare states and defense spending so how exactly does the US subsidise our welfare? Furthermore do you disagree with the assessment that the US have pushed Europe to buy US systems and that the US, by being the leader in NATO, have heavily influenced European armies? We have had the core freedoms debate before so let's not rehash that one. But what kinds of false sense security are we talking about? And how is our domestic policy flawed? As for Russian energy I am assuming you meant that in the past tense? At this point we are more reliant on US energy. Most countries in the world import some kind of energy from somewhere. It's not until recently that has been a problem (which many are working on, like EU and China, which at the end of the day will be a net negative for energy exporters.) Finally exactly how are we on a divergent path from the US? I want to put forward the fair reading of how America's right wing views Europe, or the problems of Europe from the American right-wing context. Of course it's going to be vague! But if a poster's apprehension of the topic advances beyond, and I'm trying to be fair here so this is a direct quote from the thread, "EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home," then that's an absolute win. The ultimate goal here is to be able to express to a triple-Trump voter in America an opinion on Europe that they would wholeheartedly agree with from their perspective, and not the same claptrap that's how left-wingers view right-wingers and what they would really describe their thought process if only they were more honest. You've got a perspective that would reduce to how you'd argue a right-winger out of believing as they do, which is valid in that context, but not actually responsive to On May 28 2026 00:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Why is there such a hyperfixation on Europe? And why is it getting worse?
We are really living rent free in the MAGA heads. Of course they also don't know anything about Europe. I doubt that there is such a hyperfixation, or that it's getting worse, but the substance of the charge is your own personal research, which isn't actually something that can serve as a basis for argument. Fair enough that's what they think. And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites. Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts. Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. It’s almost like France having the welfare state it does is because it chooses to spend 57% of GDP on government spending or something The idea it can do this solely because of American largesse is utterly fanciful, I mean by all means don’t emulate it, but it’s perfectly within American economic capacity to emulate various European style welfare states. What’s even in NATO for Europeans if the current direction of travel continues? A European centric combined defence policy is looking more and more attractive by the day See you are looking at it from a European pov. Somehow France will spend 57% of GDP through the government but can barely manage 2% for defense spending. So while "subsidizing" is the wrong word it certainly seems as though, to go back to B), they are *unwilling*. I won't post it again because I have multiple times but administrations going back decades now have been pressuring Europe to spend more. I've posted the speech by Roberts Gates from ~2013 where he was telling a bunch of Europeans that the US public had limited patience. This is not new. It certainly *appears* that Europeans would rather spend more on benefits while relying on the US for protection. And their spensing choices seem to made that policy, official or not. The ‘somehow’ being that they choose to right? If France spent 7% of GDP on defence they could still spend 52% of GDP on other government spending, or massage those numbers how you will
That's the point. Over 50% of GDP by the state and they still have to be convinced to spend 2% militarily. If the French want over 0.5 of every Euro to be spent by government I guess that's up to them. But it highlights that their unwillingness to hit the goal of 2% until very recently seems to be because they think the US will, in some sense, cover the difference.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On May 29 2026 09:43 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 09:14 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 07:32 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 14:51 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 14:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
[quote]
Thanks for the answer but it's still very vague.
EU countries had welfare states during the cold war, in the in-between period and at the current time. During that period defense spending have been extremely varied. Clearly there is no connection to the welfare states and defense spending so how exactly does the US subsidise our welfare?
Furthermore do you disagree with the assessment that the US have pushed Europe to buy US systems and that the US, by being the leader in NATO, have heavily influenced European armies?
We have had the core freedoms debate before so let's not rehash that one. But what kinds of false sense security are we talking about?
And how is our domestic policy flawed?
As for Russian energy I am assuming you meant that in the past tense? At this point we are more reliant on US energy. Most countries in the world import some kind of energy from somewhere. It's not until recently that has been a problem (which many are working on, like EU and China, which at the end of the day will be a net negative for energy exporters.)
Finally exactly how are we on a divergent path from the US? I want to put forward the fair reading of how America's right wing views Europe, or the problems of Europe from the American right-wing context. Of course it's going to be vague! But if a poster's apprehension of the topic advances beyond, and I'm trying to be fair here so this is a direct quote from the thread, "EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home," then that's an absolute win. The ultimate goal here is to be able to express to a triple-Trump voter in America an opinion on Europe that they would wholeheartedly agree with from their perspective, and not the same claptrap that's how left-wingers view right-wingers and what they would really describe their thought process if only they were more honest. You've got a perspective that would reduce to how you'd argue a right-winger out of believing as they do, which is valid in that context, but not actually responsive to On May 28 2026 00:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Why is there such a hyperfixation on Europe? And why is it getting worse?
We are really living rent free in the MAGA heads. Of course they also don't know anything about Europe. I doubt that there is such a hyperfixation, or that it's getting worse, but the substance of the charge is your own personal research, which isn't actually something that can serve as a basis for argument. Fair enough that's what they think. And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites. Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts. Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. It’s almost like France having the welfare state it does is because it chooses to spend 57% of GDP on government spending or something The idea it can do this solely because of American largesse is utterly fanciful, I mean by all means don’t emulate it, but it’s perfectly within American economic capacity to emulate various European style welfare states. What’s even in NATO for Europeans if the current direction of travel continues? A European centric combined defence policy is looking more and more attractive by the day See you are looking at it from a European pov. Somehow France will spend 57% of GDP through the government but can barely manage 2% for defense spending. So while "subsidizing" is the wrong word it certainly seems as though, to go back to B), they are *unwilling*. I won't post it again because I have multiple times but administrations going back decades now have been pressuring Europe to spend more. I've posted the speech by Roberts Gates from ~2013 where he was telling a bunch of Europeans that the US public had limited patience. This is not new. It certainly *appears* that Europeans would rather spend more on benefits while relying on the US for protection. And their spensing choices seem to made that policy, official or not. The ‘somehow’ being that they choose to right? If France spent 7% of GDP on defence they could still spend 52% of GDP on other government spending, or massage those numbers how you will One other thing worthy of note is that every country is rather unwilling to spend on defense because in general military expenditure is high and doesn't bring much of economy with it. Spending on military in peace time is pretty much just burning money. Sure, it does pay dividends if you ever get attacked, but we've had such a long period of stability now within the EU that most countries didn't really feel the need to spend so much on defense, especially those in the core as opposed to countries on the border (with potentially unstable or aggressive neighbors). Even now most of the arms produced in the West (both EU and US) are made for exports purposes as this is the way to keep your military production infrastructure running through peace times and justify its existence. Edit: Most countries that overspend on military are typically some kinds of dictatorships or oppressive governments. They need big military for posturing externally and internally to have the threat looming on their populace and inspire awe.
Yeah exactly
Under current conditions I don’t really see a particularly compelling argument for NATO versus a Europe that has a more coordinated defence strategy within the continent. Some may disagree, I think it’s an antiquated Cold War relic
Which the US should love except well, they obviously don’t. Chiefly because they’re lead by populist morons. That changes the equations
The Ukraine conflict is the litmus test for the NATO alliance and the US has been frequently found wanting, so why not pivot away?
This aspect of the current administration has long confused me. NATO is a sweet, sweet soft power deal, you keep Europe somewhat under thumb and buying your shit, you also kind of maintain ostensible liberal, open democracies who you can make more money off
Instead the current administration decides let’s just fuck around with all that, a fucking sweet deal in exerting soft power.
Idiocy or corruption, take your pick
|
United States44245 Posts
France has a very capable military. They probably just spend the money more efficiently. Military spend is not a good metric for NATO contribution, you can spend trillions starting wars completely unrelated to Northern Atlantic security.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On May 29 2026 10:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 08:47 Vivax wrote:On May 29 2026 08:04 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 07:56 Billyboy wrote:On May 29 2026 07:32 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
[quote]
Fair enough that's what they think.
And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites.
Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts.
Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. It’s almost like France having the welfare state it does is because it chooses to spend 57% of GDP on government spending or something The idea it can do this solely because of American largesse is utterly fanciful, I mean by all means don’t emulate it, but it’s perfectly within American economic capacity to emulate various European style welfare states. What’s even in NATO for Europeans if the current direction of travel continues? A European centric combined defence policy is looking more and more attractive by the day See you are looking at it from a European pov. Somehow France will spend 57% of GDP through the government but can barely manage 2% for defense spending. So while "subsidizing" is the wrong word it certainly seems as though, to go back to B), they are *unwilling*. I won't post it again because I have multiple times but administrations going back decades now have been pressuring Europe to spend more. I've posted the speech by Roberts Gates from ~2013 where he was telling a bunch of Europeans that the US public had limited patience. This is not new. It certainly *appears* that Europeans would rather spend more on benefits while relying on the US for protection. And their spensing choices seem to made that policy, official or not. I think the flaw in this argument is that, the US is not spending less as the Europeans spend more. It doesn’t seem likely that they will. The reason that people actually wanted them to spend more is so that the US industries would make more, more jobs and so on. But you have Trump strategy “working” in that they will spend more, but they are spending it in Europe because Trump is so unreliable and extremely unlikeable to the vast majority of non Americans. Even non European countries are making purchases away from the US. So you are losing soft power, spending same or more, and making less. For me, personally, as I've said before I want to move away from Europe because I think the US has more pressing matters elsewhere. It's about ROI, but the return is not what some people seem to think it should be. I don't care if the Europeans buy fewer American weapons. How do you move away from a historical trade partner? Europe is diversifying from US IT technology because it's either been weaponized in cases or the data wasn't handled according to protection laws in a multitude of instances. What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable isn't a negotiation basis, even most software is sold as a license, and you got politics interfering in the markets constantly. Can the US be as prosperous just trading within the nation and exporting McDonalds and Coca cola to South America? Maybe, if it can enforce its currency on its own. Militarily, nobody wins either way with nukes in a pinch. An inferior opponent can always launch them when losing which lowers the inhibition threshold for other participants who get involved if a scene escalates. It's just a stupid timeline with too many sweats tbh. Now you just kinda estimate which nations act out of necessity and which out of greed. I didn't say I don't want trade with Europe. I said I want fewer American taxpayer dollars spent in Europe for military purposes. And if the Euros don't want to buy it then so be it. Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 09:14 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 07:32 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 14:51 dyhb wrote:On May 28 2026 14:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
[quote]
Thanks for the answer but it's still very vague.
EU countries had welfare states during the cold war, in the in-between period and at the current time. During that period defense spending have been extremely varied. Clearly there is no connection to the welfare states and defense spending so how exactly does the US subsidise our welfare?
Furthermore do you disagree with the assessment that the US have pushed Europe to buy US systems and that the US, by being the leader in NATO, have heavily influenced European armies?
We have had the core freedoms debate before so let's not rehash that one. But what kinds of false sense security are we talking about?
And how is our domestic policy flawed?
As for Russian energy I am assuming you meant that in the past tense? At this point we are more reliant on US energy. Most countries in the world import some kind of energy from somewhere. It's not until recently that has been a problem (which many are working on, like EU and China, which at the end of the day will be a net negative for energy exporters.)
Finally exactly how are we on a divergent path from the US? I want to put forward the fair reading of how America's right wing views Europe, or the problems of Europe from the American right-wing context. Of course it's going to be vague! But if a poster's apprehension of the topic advances beyond, and I'm trying to be fair here so this is a direct quote from the thread, "EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home," then that's an absolute win. The ultimate goal here is to be able to express to a triple-Trump voter in America an opinion on Europe that they would wholeheartedly agree with from their perspective, and not the same claptrap that's how left-wingers view right-wingers and what they would really describe their thought process if only they were more honest. You've got a perspective that would reduce to how you'd argue a right-winger out of believing as they do, which is valid in that context, but not actually responsive to On May 28 2026 00:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Why is there such a hyperfixation on Europe? And why is it getting worse?
We are really living rent free in the MAGA heads. Of course they also don't know anything about Europe. I doubt that there is such a hyperfixation, or that it's getting worse, but the substance of the charge is your own personal research, which isn't actually something that can serve as a basis for argument. Fair enough that's what they think. And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites. Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts. Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. It’s almost like France having the welfare state it does is because it chooses to spend 57% of GDP on government spending or something The idea it can do this solely because of American largesse is utterly fanciful, I mean by all means don’t emulate it, but it’s perfectly within American economic capacity to emulate various European style welfare states. What’s even in NATO for Europeans if the current direction of travel continues? A European centric combined defence policy is looking more and more attractive by the day See you are looking at it from a European pov. Somehow France will spend 57% of GDP through the government but can barely manage 2% for defense spending. So while "subsidizing" is the wrong word it certainly seems as though, to go back to B), they are *unwilling*. I won't post it again because I have multiple times but administrations going back decades now have been pressuring Europe to spend more. I've posted the speech by Roberts Gates from ~2013 where he was telling a bunch of Europeans that the US public had limited patience. This is not new. It certainly *appears* that Europeans would rather spend more on benefits while relying on the US for protection. And their spensing choices seem to made that policy, official or not. The ‘somehow’ being that they choose to right? If France spent 7% of GDP on defence they could still spend 52% of GDP on other government spending, or massage those numbers how you will That's the point. Over 50% of GDP by the state and they still have to be convinced to spend 2% militarily. If the French want over 0.5 of every Euro to be spent by government I guess that's up to them. But it highlights that their unwillingness to hit the goal of 2% until very recently seems to be because they think the US will, in some sense, cover the difference.
That’s still completely irrelevant to the initial topic tangent that the US can’t afford X because it’s subsidising France though
How much do youse want us to spend for something that doesn’t benefit us anymore?
France and the UK float around the minimum contribution and that’s still 120 billion of defence spending.
What do we get out of that? An unreliable partner when there’s an actual crisis in Europe and whose senior government officials will shit on us even when we went to bat for your wars.
Yay. What a fucking alliance
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On May 29 2026 11:21 KwarK wrote:
France has a very capable military. They probably just spend the money more efficiently. Military spend is not a good metric for NATO contribution, you can spend trillions starting wars completely unrelated to Northern Atlantic security.
Yep. In a proper head to head multiple European countries could curbstomp Russia’s recent excursions pretty easily
Unfortunately we can’t because those pesky Ruskies have nukes so the conflict has to take on its current form where we give stuff but not all the stuff to Ukraine
But that would still be the lay of the land if say, the UK spent 150 billion, or 300 billion or whatever on defence
There’s not really an actual threat on the planet to any NATO member in Europe, it’s an antiquated relic. So why be beholden to defence spending requirements?
China could, but considering its economy is hugely weighted to selling us shit, starting wars with us in Europe is fucking stupid. And the Chinese don’t strike me as stupidly governed
Ironically, it may not be via military means but I’m not alone in thinking the US is by far the biggest threat to Europe currently. So yeah let’s bump up our defence spending to placate them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
