US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5749

On May 29 2026 11:27 WombaT wrote:

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

Part of this predicament stems from a lack of will, much of it from a lack of resources in an era of austerity. For all but a handful of allies, defense budgets – in absolute terms, as a share of economic output – have been chronically starved for adequate funding for a long time, with the shortfalls compounding on themselves each year. Despite the demands of mission in Afghanistan – the first ‘hot’ ground war fought in NATO history – total European defense spending declined, by one estimate, by nearly 15 percent in the decade following 9/11. Furthermore, rising personnel costs combined with the demands of training and equipping for Afghan deployments has consumed an ever growing share of already meager defense budgets. The result is that investment accounts for future modernization and other capabilities not directly related to Afghanistan are being squeezed out – as we are seeing today over Libya.

----

I am the latest in a string of U.S. defense secretaries who have urged allies privately and publicly, often with exasperation, to meet agreed-upon NATO benchmarks for defense spending. However, fiscal, political and demographic realities make this unlikely to happen anytime soon, as even military stalwarts like the U.K have been forced to ratchet back with major cuts to force structure. Today, just five of 28 allies – the U.S., U.K., France, Greece, along with Albania – exceed the agreed 2% of GDP spending on defense.

Regrettably, but realistically, this situation is highly unlikely to change. The relevant challenge for us today, therefore, is no longer the total level of defense spending by allies, but how these limited (and dwindling) resources are allocated and for what priorities. For example, though some smaller NATO members have modestly sized and funded militaries that do not meet the 2 percent threshold, several of these allies have managed to punch well above their weight because of the way they use the resources they have.

Let me conclude with some thoughts about the political context in which all of us must operate. As you all know, America’s serious fiscal situation is now putting pressure on our defense budget, and we are in a process of assessing where the U.S. can or cannot accept more risk as a result of reducing the size of our military. Tough choices lie ahead affecting every part of our government, and during such times, scrutiny inevitably falls on the cost of overseas commitments – from foreign assistance to military basing, support, and guarantees.

President Obama and I believe that despite the budget pressures, it would be a grave mistake for the U.S. to withdraw from its global responsibilities. And in Singapore last week, I outlined the many areas where U.S. defense engagement and investment in Asia was slated to grow further in coming years, even as America’s traditional allies in that region rightfully take on the role of full partners in their own defense.

With respect to Europe, for the better part of six decades there has been relatively little doubt or debate in the United States about the value and necessity of the transatlantic alliance. The benefits of a Europe whole, prosperous and free after being twice devastated by wars requiring American intervention was self evident. Thus, for most of the Cold War U.S. governments could justify defense investments and costly forward bases that made up roughly 50 percent of all NATO military spending. But some two decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. share of NATO defense spending has now risen to more than 75 percent – at a time when politically painful budget and benefit cuts are being considered at home.

The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.

Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, Future U.S. political leaders– those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me – may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.

What I’ve sketched out is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance. Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO – individually, and collectively – have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends, and instead produce a very different future:

By making a serious effort to protect defense budgets from being further gutted in the next round of austerity measures;
By better allocating (and coordinating) the resources we do have; and
By following through on commitments to the alliance and to each other.

It is not too late for Europe to get its defense institutions and security relationships on track. But it will take leadership from political leaders and policy makers on this continent. It cannot be coaxed, demanded or imposed from across the Atlantic.

On May 29 2026 13:06 Introvert wrote:


So the thought is that if they spend "enough" the US won't expect it to actually do anything? That actually sounds like the most European thing you could have said. Besides I would think that what has happened in Ukraine ought to speak to the virtues of spending more than the bare minimum. Meanwhile the US is fighting NATO allies to try and use their bases. Yay, what an alliance.

Edit: the point is, the US frustration with Europe is not new, didn't begin because of "populism" and has been bipartisan in the 21st century. Europeans stuck their heads in the sand and now they get the rude version of that frustration.

I'll just post it again, it's actually from 2011. Several of the 5 he listed as meeting their promises subsequently stopped, as well if you look at the list.



https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/text-of-speech-by-robert-gates-on-the-future-of-nato/

On May 29 2026 14:30 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
I think while Europe has somewhat been taking advantage of the US's military involvement in Europe to allow lower military spending, (I mean, almost all of them did technically agree to 5% of GDP expenditure, when including spending on 'security related things' and not just direct military spending just last year). I think the main problem is NATO has always been more about an extension of US 'empire' than an actual security agreement.

The eastern European countries genuinely wanted their own security out of it, the western European countries were interested enough in the security of eastern European countries, and had enough cold war motivations to go along with it, and the US wanted formal agreements for those countries basically to prop up it's hegemony. Everyone understood what it was about, only for the US was it ever about what NATO is about now - e.g. the US world order. Everyone else just thought they could get enough out of it that it was worthwhile.

Now that the cold war is over, really the only thing Europe gets out of NATO is the security of the Eastern European countries. The first time this is really tested (even if the country fighting Russia isn't actually a part of NATO) and the response from the US has been.... mixed... then Europe rightfully asks themselves exactly what they get out of NATO? They weren't interested directly in the US world order to begin with, if they don't get commitment to the security of eastern Europe from Russia, then what good is NATO to them?

Look no one wants to spend a lot money on the military, it's blatantly obvious to everyone except a few old farts who still dream of empire that parts of the economy that goes to the military is not 'productive' economy. I understand when there's no imminent threat to eastern Europe why the rest of Europe might want to take the opportunity to spend their money on more productive things than the military (eg pretty much anything else). They want to still get something out of NATO, if that 'something' is being able to spend less on military while the US has military bases all over Europe, then it's understandable... just maybe don't keep agreeing to up guideline expenditure towards military if you aren't going to do it.

On the other hand, if the US isn't interested in Ukraine's security from Russia, then really there is no reason for NATO to exist. Europe and the US are in it for completely different reasons, and aren't interested in each others' reasons. If Europe has to spend the extra money it would have committed to 'security related' spending to satisfy NATO agreements anyway, then they don't really need the US to be... involved.. at all?

Honestly, NATO isn't that different from feudalism. The lord wants to be able to call his banners, and expects his vassals to raise and maintain a certain number of warriors and horses and weapons for this purpose. The vassals expect the lord to use these all these banners and his own men to also protect their lands/interests. If the lord doesn't do a good job of protecting the vassals.. then what the hell good is being a vassal?

On May 29 2026 10:57 Introvert wrote:


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.




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.

On May 29 2026 14:30 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Look no one wants to spend a lot money on the military, it's blatantly obvious to everyone except a few old farts who still dream of empire that parts of the economy that goes to the military is not 'productive' economy. I understand when there's no imminent threat to eastern Europe why the rest of Europe might want to take the opportunity to spend their money on more productive things than the military (eg pretty much anything else). They want to still get something out of NATO, if that 'something' is being able to spend less on military while the US has military bases all over Europe, then it's understandable... just maybe don't keep agreeing to up guideline expenditure towards military if you aren't going to do it.

On May 29 2026 16:09 Velr wrote:


The US wanted european countries to spend more on defense so it could sell more weapons, not so it can lower it's own expenses or for europe to take care of itself.
And that actually worked until the US alienated everyone, now spending in europe is growing but no one really wants to buy american anymore. This wasn't the case under Biden, it's happening soley because of the one and only great deal maker and his car full of rapist clowns shattering decades of good relations in record time.
Now europe and others don't want to spend american anymore, so the US has to increase it's own military budget even fruther to recompensate it's military industrial complex for the losses in the foreign markets.


Or in conservative terms: America first!

On May 29 2026 17:31 Velr wrote:
That the US wanted to get something out of NATO that is not fully alligned with what Europe wants was and is pretty much a given but with Trump it's not just "less diplomatic", it's an entirely diffrent game. He's not trying to restructure/reform NATO (or his Vassals) to allign more with US interests, he's outright trying to desolve it.

Bidens response to Ukraine, while not perfect, was seen as pretty good overall. All these issues weren't nearly as big until Trump II, sure the sentiment within the US was there but nowhere near to this level, at least on the diplomatic/politics side. Trump is just uniquely bad and he put uniquely bad people in positions of power.


The US had so much goodwill in the west, even when Iraq/Afghanistan allready hurt it, I don't think the average american ever understood just how many benefits and how much leeway this gave the US.

On May 29 2026 02:48 Jankisa wrote:
I love how the defense that our Fascist friends have to offer regarding the DoD budget is "akshualy, it's not the biggest spend" and "akshualy, they still need to vote on it".

First one is the classic case of the famous meme "My wife is giving me shit for buying a $300 sword while she spends that on groceries every month" rhetoric that is honestly shocking to see coming from someone who likes to use big words and likes to present themselves as a highbrow nuanced political thinker.

The other one is also incredibly dumb, along the line "well, if DOJ doesn't find anything on the rape victim then it's OK", pretending as if the same congress that voted for BBB a year ago, the same bill that got even this guy to say how it might bring "financial ruin" to the USA might be voted down.

Your party, the party you goons are supporting and defending here, even more then your orange turd president will happily vote for this increase as long as they can carve out something for themselves, like the famous whale hunting-related expenses write off that sealed the deal on it.

On May 29 2026 07:22 KwarK wrote:

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 03:34 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.

On May 29 2026 20:07 oBlade wrote:

There are too many tangential non sequiturs here to see what if any coherent point was being aimed at.

I will just say if you understood how the OBBBA passed, which is under the reconciliation process, with Vance tiebreaking a 50-50 because they could barely get 50 senators to give DHS $150 billion, then the idea that there are secretly votes for $600b more for defense that could be found for a complex reconciliation bill, which you can only pass one of per year, and in 2026 potentially the last chance with a bicameral Republican majority.... that idea ranges from uninformed wishful thinking, to unhinged. Remember this is the same Senate that couldn't pass the SAVE Act. The votes aren't there.


The handful of US citizens held by DHS for months mentioned in LightSpectra's response were not done "on purpose." I was certainly also confused by their invocation in reference to a case where we clearly have the motivation spelled out, which is whether Carroll perjured herself about where funding for her lawsuit came from, where it came from, and whether Reid Hoffmann or anyone else potentially broke the law in how he used a nonprofit to fund a politically motivated suit in the middle of an election cycle. As a voter that's pertinent information that I would want to know, even if not a single head ever rolls over what comes out.


They can both be true because the amounts are different. Often vastly.

US GDP > Germany GDP > US entitlements > every country's GDP until Switzerland > US defense > every other country's GDP from Sweden down

For example, if mom and dad's finances are out of balance and losing money, the largest impact is probably from the mortgage, the car payment, medical debt, student loans, other loans, etc.

Little Susie or Billy's allowance may seem too low or too high, and you could make an argument they're old enough now that they can mow lawns, walk dogs, or get a lemonade stand to get money for themselves, but in any case adjusting their allowance will never be enough to fix mom and dad's finances who desperately need the help of Dave Ramsey or Caleb Hammer. The two are independent problems.

Reducing defense spending can help, in the sense that reducing defense spending can be a part of reducing all spending, but it can't do anything by itself. Alone it's not a road to a balanced budget.

On May 29 2026 20:07 oBlade wrote:


They can both be true because the amounts are different. Often vastly.

US GDP > Germany GDP > US entitlements > every country's GDP until Switzerland > US defense > every other country's GDP from Sweden down

For example, if mom and dad's finances are out of balance and losing money, the largest impact is probably from the mortgage, the car payment, medical debt, student loans, other loans, etc.

Little Susie or Billy's allowance may seem too low or too high, and you could make an argument they're old enough now that they can mow lawns, walk dogs, or get a lemonade stand to get money for themselves, but in any case adjusting their allowance will never be enough to fix mom and dad's finances who desperately need the help of Dave Ramsey or Caleb Hammer. The two are independent problems.

Reducing defense spending can help, in the sense that reducing defense spending can be a part of reducing all spending, but it can't do anything by itself. Alone it's not a road to a balanced budget.

On May 29 2026 20:45 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:



You do realize that no matter how much the US spends on the military in Europe, they don't make Europe any richer. Defence spending isn't giving Europe money, it's just putting troops/equipment/bases there.

On May 29 2026 20:45 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:



You do realize that no matter how much the US spends on the military in Europe, they don't make Europe any richer. Defence spending isn't giving Europe money, it's just putting troops/equipment/bases there.

At best they would just make Europe ridiculously defensively capable. You can't actually save European countries more money than they were spending on defense to begin with. Eg in the hypothetical scenario, at best you save European countries their entire current military budget.

Even without this actually happening, eg they do still spend on their militaries, the Europeans are still able to have pretty good social security.

So either military budgets do in fact affect their ability to provide decent social security (thus letting them spend less on their militaries indeed allows them to have social security). In which case, there is theoretically an amount reduction in US military spending (it may not be palatable, but the number does exist) that will also allow the US to have social security.

Or military budgets don't affect their ability to have social security, in which case, no matter how much the US spends on defence in Europe, even to the point that European military budgets are now 0 because of this, it still wouldn't allow them to have social security, because no amount of reduction in military budget can allow countries who would otherwise not have decent social security to have it.

The US does not pay Europe's allowance. At best they are paying/subsidizing for the maintenance of the house that Billie and Susie live in so they don't have to pay/pay less rent. If the difference in rent alone is enough to allow Billie and Susie to go to the doctor. Then there is theoretically a reduction in rent for mom and dad to also be able to afford to go to the doctors.Because Billie and Susie have similar types of expenditures and incomes to mom and dad, because Billie and Susie are functional adults. Mom and Dad's finances aren't special.

Europe is full of functioning countries with militaries, governments, social services, infrastructure etc. Aside from the expense of maintaining a pseudo-empire the US isn't special either.

On May 29 2026 20:07 oBlade wrote:

They can both be true because the amounts are different. Often vastly.

US GDP > Germany GDP > US entitlements > every country's GDP until Switzerland > US defense > every other country's GDP from Sweden down

For example, if mom and dad's finances are out of balance and losing money, the largest impact is probably from the mortgage, the car payment, medical debt, student loans, other loans, etc.

Little Susie or Billy's allowance may seem too low or too high, and you could make an argument they're old enough now that they can mow lawns, walk dogs, or get a lemonade stand to get money for themselves, but in any case adjusting their allowance will never be enough to fix mom and dad's finances who desperately need the help of Dave Ramsey or Caleb Hammer. The two are independent problems.

Reducing defense spending can help, in the sense that reducing defense spending can be a part of reducing all spending, but it can't do anything by itself. Alone it's not a road to a balanced budget.

On May 29 2026 14:30 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
I think while Europe has somewhat been taking advantage of the US's military involvement in Europe to allow lower military spending, (I mean, almost all of them did technically agree to 5% of GDP expenditure, when including spending on 'security related things' and not just direct military spending just last year). I think the main problem is NATO has always been more about an extension of US 'empire' than an actual security agreement.

The eastern European countries genuinely wanted their own security out of it, the western European countries were interested enough in the security of eastern European countries, and had enough cold war motivations to go along with it, and the US wanted formal agreements for those countries basically to prop up it's hegemony. Everyone understood what it was about, only for the US was it ever about what NATO is about now - e.g. the US world order. Everyone else just thought they could get enough out of it that it was worthwhile.

Now that the cold war is over, really the only thing Europe gets out of NATO is the security of the Eastern European countries. The first time this is really tested (even if the country fighting Russia isn't actually a part of NATO) and the response from the US has been.... mixed... then Europe rightfully asks themselves exactly what they get out of NATO? They weren't interested directly in the US world order to begin with, if they don't get commitment to the security of eastern Europe from Russia, then what good is NATO to them?

Look no one wants to spend a lot money on the military, it's blatantly obvious to everyone except a few old farts who still dream of empire that parts of the economy that goes to the military is not 'productive' economy. I understand when there's no imminent threat to eastern Europe why the rest of Europe might want to take the opportunity to spend their money on more productive things than the military (eg pretty much anything else). They want to still get something out of NATO, if that 'something' is being able to spend less on military while the US has military bases all over Europe, then it's understandable... just maybe don't keep agreeing to up guideline expenditure towards military if you aren't going to do it.

On the other hand, if the US isn't interested in Ukraine's security from Russia, then really there is no reason for NATO to exist. Europe and the US are in it for completely different reasons, and aren't interested in each others' reasons. If Europe has to spend the extra money it would have committed to 'security related' spending to satisfy NATO agreements anyway, then they don't really need the US to be... involved.. at all?

Honestly, NATO isn't that different from feudalism. The lord wants to be able to call his banners, and expects his vassals to raise and maintain a certain number of warriors and horses and weapons for this purpose, he's always pushing for this quota to increase, as that gives him more power. The vassals expect the lord to use these all these banners and his own men to also protect their lands/interests. If the lord doesn't do a good job of protecting the vassals.. then what the hell good is being a vassal?

And just like feudalism, the vassals in areas that are not really at the threat of invasion/raids find the troop requirements onerous and want to cheap out on them as much as they can get away with it. If the lord is incompetent and everyone has to raise/maintain the same number of troops anyway to organise their own defence, that's when a few vassals organise and overthrow/split from the lord.

On May 30 2026 00:41 Oleo wrote:


Of course the little troll that sniffed too much inside the arsehole of his holy almighty child rapist comes up with a complete idiotic defense.
I would bet if the US stopped to exist, EU defense spending goes down, its actually quite nice to not have to deal with retards that ask a NORTHATLANTIC DEFENSE alliance to fight in their selfcreated offensive wars in Asia and one of the few countries actually starting wars every few years. When will you start in Cuba? Tonight, usually its right at the start of the weekend?

Anyway, what was US spending on military in 2015? 3,5 % GDP? In asia, in africa, in Oceania, in South America, in middle east etc. etc. etc., while we europeans, tired of 3000 years of fighting, are focused on local defense and assisting the UN. But lets ignore the obvious apples and oranges in the whole spending comparison, we have always paid an equal share and are now paying more then the equal share. Lets also ignore the billions on billions Europe has to spend on refugees from US crises. Lets ignore all the projection of power/benefit your bases and spending bring to you (which results in monetary gain as well)

The statements were clear. Military budget is not relevant to the overall budget in comparison to social security. And US military spending is paying for Social security in europe.
Even if europeans had to increase their spending on military to compensate for a loss of US spending, going from not relevant to their budget, to a little bit more relevant to their budget, that still means you were never paying for more then 5% of our social budget. No matter how much bullshit you will spit out and churn up. You know this, but you are a troll, so you will spend time on this fascist promotion board to troll.