Quote: @IDVikingfan said:
Certainly we can give more dollars to humanitarian causes if the Europeans pay for their own defense, right? I say make em pay more gradually until they cover their own cost. American forces in Europe are deployed for the old model of warfare, large scale tank battles and soldier versus soldier. Paying for NATO is outdated and served its purpose.
I absolutely believe NATO countries should be footing much more of the bill...There's still a big russian bear who would love to print NATO is outdated t-shirts and give em away for free. And a growing China presence worldwide too.
Yes, as much as I am a lib on many issues today, I'm still that old hawk who voted for Reagan back when the Republicans were The Republicans and not the party of Trumpism and Nationalism.
Well as long as China and Russia are stepping into the vacuums created by our walking away from agreements and partnerships, I guess we have the luxury of seeing who going to pick up the tab.
I do agree, it would good have the Europeans pay more but we really can't leave the area. Our military might is a deterence
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
Good, can we stop paying for everyone else's NATO, UN and other aid programs? Seems silly to me to pay for other countries to become the best place to live by printing out own currency into existence and saddling our kids with debt they'll never be able to pay.
Well...some of us believe humans in shithole countries have value, too. By the way, 1% of our federal budget goes to foreign aid. That's money well spent since it's also an effective bulwark against the kind of instability that leads to terrorism. A war on terror will cost 1,000 times that.
Eliminating every penny of foreign aid wouldn't even make a dent in our debt. You want to cut the debt? Try eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy and then do something about our disastrous healthcare system.
It's absolutely ridiculous that humanitarian programs are the first to be considered when it is such a small portion of the budget. In addition to the tax cuts and healthcare, looking at the defense spending wouldn't hurt. I know it's not popular but there is a lot more money to work with.
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
Certainly we can give more dollars to humanitarian causes if the Europeans pay for their own defense, right? I say make em pay more gradually until they cover their own cost. American forces in Europe are deployed for the old model of warfare, large scale tank battles and soldier versus soldier. Paying for NATO is outdated and served its purpose.
I absolutely believe NATO countries should be footing much more of the bill...There's still a big russian bear who would love to print NATO is outdated t-shirts and give em away for free. And a growing China presence worldwide too.
Yes, as much as I am a lib on many issues today, I'm still that old hawk who voted for Reagan back when the Republicans were The Republicans and not the party of Trumpism and Nationalism.
I know you're talking about NATO here (and yes, both Trump and Putin would love to see it go away).
But since you bring up Reagan, there aren't many presidents in our history who were bigger advocates of foreign aid. Reagan urged his largely democratic congress to increase spending on FA to double what it is now (% of gdp), saying "You know the excuses: We can’t afford foreign aid anymore, or we’re wasting money pouring it into these poor countries, or we can’t buy friends... Well, all these excuses are just that, excuses -- and they’re dead wrong."
Quote: @Vikergirl said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
Good, can we stop paying for everyone else's NATO, UN and other aid programs? Seems silly to me to pay for other countries to become the best place to live by printing out own currency into existence and saddling our kids with debt they'll never be able to pay.
Well...some of us believe humans in shithole countries have value, too. By the way, 1% of our federal budget goes to foreign aid. That's money well spent since it's also an effective bulwark against the kind of instability that leads to terrorism. A war on terror will cost 1,000 times that.
Eliminating every penny of foreign aid wouldn't even make a dent in our debt. You want to cut the debt? Try eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy and then do something about our disastrous healthcare system.
It's absolutely ridiculous that humanitarian programs are the first to be considered when it is such a small portion of the budget. In addition to the tax cuts and healthcare, looking at the defense spending wouldn't hurt. I know it's not popular but there is a lot more money to work with.
Yes, defense has to be completely re-thought. It's crazy that we still spend so much money on tanks and battleships when it's not likely we'll ever again fight a war with tanks and battleships.
Foreign aid programs should be part of defense spending, right alongside cyber and terror programs. Angela Merkel is a big advocate of that. And so is Obama...
"If you look at our foreign assistance as a tool in our national security portfolio as opposed to charity, and you combined our defense budget overall with our diplomatic budget and our foreign assistance budget, then in that mix, there is a lot more we should be doing.”
I miss presidents.
Quote: @IDVikingfan said:
Certainly we can give more dollars to humanitarian causes if the Europeans pay for their own defense, right? I say make em pay more gradually until they cover their own cost. American forces in Europe are deployed for the old model of warfare, large scale tank battles and soldier versus soldier. Paying for NATO is outdated and served its purpose.
Strange that’s what Obama was trying to do. Cut older unnecessary military models in favor of updated modern warfare.
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
Certainly we can give more dollars to humanitarian causes if the Europeans pay for their own defense, right? I say make em pay more gradually until they cover their own cost. American forces in Europe are deployed for the old model of warfare, large scale tank battles and soldier versus soldier. Paying for NATO is outdated and served its purpose.
Strange that’s what Obama was trying to do. Cut older unnecessary military models in favor of updated modern warfare.
Was he also holding the feet of the europeans to the fire, demanding they pay more of the costs for NATO? I don't remember if he did or not....
Quote: @IDVikingfan said:
@ Mike Olson said:
@ IDVikingfan said:
Certainly we can give more dollars to humanitarian causes if the Europeans pay for their own defense, right? I say make em pay more gradually until they cover their own cost. American forces in Europe are deployed for the old model of warfare, large scale tank battles and soldier versus soldier. Paying for NATO is outdated and served its purpose.
Strange that’s what Obama was trying to do. Cut older unnecessary military models in favor of updated modern warfare.
Was he also holding the feet of the europeans to the fire, demanding they pay more of the costs for NATO? I don't remember if he did or not....
Yes.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-nato-pay-fair-share-231405
|
