Trump charges allies for US protection "Cost + 50%"

[Harpy Eagle]

I love everyone and hate every equally!

I am not a bigot like you

Blah, blah, blah. Everyone is a bigot these days. Hypocritical moonbat.

there are a lot of you out there that choose to judge whole groups by the actions of a few. I am glad you proudly claim the title

Wrong. I judge Islam by its doctrine. It's a backwards murderous misogynistic ignorant tribal cult. I judge you by your lies about being a Marine. Anyone can post pictures of documents on the internet. Means nothing. A real Marine wouldn't be trying that hard. You're a fraud.

damn son, you do have a hardon for me. I have provided far more evidence to support the claims that I make than anyone on this forum, you especially.

You provided pictures. I don't know who you are. You're a fraud.

I provided evidence. but since you never had the balls to serve your nation you assume everyone is a ballless wonder like you.

 

[whitehall]

"Private discussions with his aids"? File this under fake news.

 

[bendog]

I doubt Trump will charge the Saudis. LOL

And McConnell isn't gonna charge Asia.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I doubt Trump will charge the Saudis. LOL

And McConnell isn't gonna charge Asia.

Got any reasoning, or are you talking out of your ass again?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I provided evidence. but since you never had the balls to serve your nation you assume everyone is a ballless wonder like you.

Nope. The fact that you keep trying to make me accept anonymous documents is proof you're a fraud. What's your real name?

like i would tell you freaks what my real name is. I have had more than one person on this forum threaten me and my family.

Then how does anyone know that the pictures of documents you presented belong to you? Moron. You're an idiot.

They do not. That is why they are evidence and not proof. I do not care if you believe me or not, but I always back up my claims, which I did in this case.

If I told you my real name you would have no way to know if i was lying to you or not about that.

Evidence IS proof

holy fucking shit...a new level of ignorance from you.

just when I think you cannot get any more stupid, you prove me wrong.

Well done!

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Um, no....How about just leaving altogether and make those people defend their own damn dirt?

That would save much more money.

This reflects your complete and total ignorance of international affairs, addition, and subtraction.

 

[Lesh]

They don't even like Americans all they do is talk trash about us.

Nooooo...they don't like people like you..

But then neither do most of us

 

[kyzr]

COUNTRIES SHOULD PAY FOR US PROTECTION / BASES:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.

For Decades liberals whined and complained about the United States defending allies at tax payer expense. 'America should not be paying for 'South Korea's' national security. We need to either bring our troops home or CHARGE Korea for their defense.' Now that we have a President who actually pondered / suggested this aloud - and mainly because it is Donald Trump saying it - Democrats have reversed course and are making a big deal out of it. 'SSDD'.

'Force Projection' - a military term meaning having the capability to respond to hostilities away from the US, anywhere around the world. The US military has aerial refueling planes - tankers - that can form air 'bridges' that can refuel our aircraft to get anywhere in the world, however, there is a limited number of those aircraft, and having actual bases in different parts of the world makes it easier for the United States to respond to conflicts abroad and to support / defend our allies.

'Mutual Benefit' - Having a US base in a country provides that country a measure of security, builds / maintains alliances, and provides monetary / financial benefit. Ambassadors negotiate the details and decide what benefit each nation in the partnership demands / is willing to agree to. Ambassadors also negotiate what the US can and can not do from that base in another country.

For example, just because we have an airbase in a country does NOT mean the US can launch attacks on other nations from that country. Some nations allow us to have bases in their nation as part of a supply chain - cargo in, stored, and out to other bases or on-hand if needed somewhere only. That includes aircraft - aircraft can be based there - to train / move forward to strike base locations, but no launching strikes from their country. There is a whole host of permission levels negotiated.

Without these negotiations, bases, and permissions the United States would be hamstrung, unable to project strength and force when / if needed.

COUNTRIES SHOULD NOT PAY FOR US PROTECTION / BASES:
2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.

'US bases secure our allies' loyalty': 'LOYALTY' is like Bill Clinton's word 'IS'. It depends on the definition and WHOSE definition.

CASE IN POINT: When the United States invaded Afghanistan and went to war with the Taliban, Pakistan was one of our 'loyal allies'.

Pakistan is like California, in a way. You could split California in half politically north and south, die-hard Democrats in the south with a moderate amount of Conservatives / in the North. Pakistan was / is the same way regarding the Taliban. Northern Pakistan is Pro-Taliban country while the South is against the Taliban. The government has to play a balancing act to keep the country stable.

Every winter the Taliban made / makes their way through several passes into their safe haven of northern Pakistan, and every spring a hoard of rested Taliban return through those same passes to Afghanistan to fight again. We knew this...and northern Pakistan was officially 'off limits'. And, BTW, after all that time looking for UBL, where was he eventually found? PAKISTAN, a couple of hundred yards from a Pakistani Police station / academy or something.

Alliances with nations we need means sometimes 'dancing with the devil' a bit. Another example is Qatar, a nation that is critical for our footprint in the ME. We have known for a while that Qatar supports terrorist groups...yet we still have an 'alliance' - a mutually beneficial alliance - with Qatar. One of the good things about partnering the US is that we keep Iran in check. Iran has agents / people in every country in the ME, especially along / near the Gulf, whispering in their ear that they need to partner with them instead of the US because THEY will always be there, and the US will one day pull out, abandoning them, and they will be left all alone to deal with Iran. So, some of these countries play both sides a little, remaining 'loyal' to us but hedging their bets in case we should fall / pull out.

Demanding countries PAY us for our security sounds great...some may be willing to do so, but if you overplay your hand you might drive them onto the 'arms' of someone else we don't like.

Again, it's all about 'MUTUAL BENEFIT'.

Well written post. In summary, at a $22T National Debt we simply can't afford to lavish military security around the globe. We need a smaller footprint, and to spend less, what happens happens, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". In this case, a bloated DOD budget needs an ounce of prevention before the Debt hits $30T and the US can't afford a military..

 

[Lesh]

COUNTRIES SHOULD PAY FOR US PROTECTION / BASES:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.

For Decades liberals whined and complained about the United States defending allies at tax payer expense. 'America should not be paying for 'South Korea's' national security. We need to either bring our troops home or CHARGE Korea for their defense.' Now that we have a President who actually pondered / suggested this aloud - and mainly because it is Donald Trump saying it - Democrats have reversed course and are making a big deal out of it. 'SSDD'.

'Force Projection' - a military term meaning having the capability to respond to hostilities away from the US, anywhere around the world. The US military has aerial refueling planes - tankers - that can form air 'bridges' that can refuel our aircraft to get anywhere in the world, however, there is a limited number of those aircraft, and having actual bases in different parts of the world makes it easier for the United States to respond to conflicts abroad and to support / defend our allies.

'Mutual Benefit' - Having a US base in a country provides that country a measure of security, builds / maintains alliances, and provides monetary / financial benefit. Ambassadors negotiate the details and decide what benefit each nation in the partnership demands / is willing to agree to. Ambassadors also negotiate what the US can and can not do from that base in another country.

For example, just because we have an airbase in a country does NOT mean the US can launch attacks on other nations from that country. Some nations allow us to have bases in their nation as part of a supply chain - cargo in, stored, and out to other bases or on-hand if needed somewhere only. That includes aircraft - aircraft can be based there - to train / move forward to strike base locations, but no launching strikes from their country. There is a whole host of permission levels negotiated.

Without these negotiations, bases, and permissions the United States would be hamstrung, unable to project strength and force when / if needed.

COUNTRIES SHOULD NOT PAY FOR US PROTECTION / BASES:
2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.

'US bases secure our allies' loyalty': 'LOYALTY' is like Bill Clinton's word 'IS'. It depends on the definition and WHOSE definition.

CASE IN POINT: When the United States invaded Afghanistan and went to war with the Taliban, Pakistan was one of our 'loyal allies'.

Pakistan is like California, in a way. You could split California in half politically north and south, die-hard Democrats in the south with a moderate amount of Conservatives / in the North. Pakistan was / is the same way regarding the Taliban. Northern Pakistan is Pro-Taliban country while the South is against the Taliban. The government has to play a balancing act to keep the country stable.

Every winter the Taliban made / makes their way through several passes into their safe haven of northern Pakistan, and every spring a hoard of rested Taliban return through those same passes to Afghanistan to fight again. We knew this...and northern Pakistan was officially 'off limits'. And, BTW, after all that time looking for UBL, where was he eventually found? PAKISTAN, a couple of hundred yards from a Pakistani Police station / academy or something.

Alliances with nations we need means sometimes 'dancing with the devil' a bit. Another example is Qatar, a nation that is critical for our footprint in the ME. We have known for a while that Qatar supports terrorist groups...yet we still have an 'alliance' - a mutually beneficial alliance - with Qatar. One of the good things about partnering the US is that we keep Iran in check. Iran has agents / people in every country in the ME, especially along / near the Gulf, whispering in their ear that they need to partner with them instead of the US because THEY will always be there, and the US will one day pull out, abandoning them, and they will be left all alone to deal with Iran. So, some of these countries play both sides a little, remaining 'loyal' to us but hedging their bets in case we should fall / pull out.

Demanding countries PAY us for our security sounds great...some may be willing to do so, but if you overplay your hand you might drive them onto the 'arms' of someone else we don't like.

Again, it's all about 'MUTUAL BENEFIT'.

Well written post. In summary, at a $22T National Debt we simply can't afford to lavish military security around the globe. We need a smaller footprint, and to spend less, what happens happens, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". In this case, a bloated DOD budget needs an ounce of prevention before the Debt hits $30T and the US can't afford a military..

That sorta sounds "reasonable" until you realize that Trump also proposes a big jump in Military spending.

Oh...

 

[kyzr]

Big debate on the Sunday morning talk shows, Trump wants to charge US allies the actual cost plus 50% for US forces stationed in their countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...91378986dbb_story.html?utm_term=.6de5012523a8

I can see both sides of this debate:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.

2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.

Lets take a poll...

It is kind of cute how you think we are there to protect them and not project our own power across the globe.

I want to see Trump pull all the troops out of Japan after they tell him to pound sand...he does not have the balls for such an action.

I'll take that bet, Japan needs to build up their own military to help police the Pacific, especially NK.
The US military budget is 10x Russia's, and more than the next 15 military budgets combined. That is way more than we can afford. As for "projecting military power", that's what submarines are for. Even Trump was impressed with their capabilities. When we parked 3 carrier battle groups off NK, that got their attention. So I'm not sold on too many military bases, especially in the EU, when the NATO military budgets aren't keeping up.

NATO 2% of GDP Military Spending Guideline (US is pulling the NATO wagon, EU countries riding in it!)

I notice how all of the Russian sock puppets are full bore in favour of getting the troops out of Europe.

Does this mean you don't need a Space Force.

It costs $24b a year to keep the current level of US troops in Europe.
Either they pay to offset those troop costs, or they can defend themselves, and if they need help call.

The $24b or so saved can be used to start the Space Force.

If you are withdrawing all of your troops that you demanded be placed in Europe and Asia to protect against the advent of communism, what has changed? Is Russia no longer a threat in Europe. Is China no longer a threat in Asia. Are Americans willing to abandon their corporate "interests" in these regions when Russian and China take over leadership in these areas?

If you are withdrawing all of your troops that you demanded be placed in Europe and Asia to protect against the advent of communism, what has changed?
After 75 years a lot has changed, The USSR changed, then changed back. Commie China changed, then changed back. The US national debt changed, then got worse, and is now unsustainable. Its a matter of what can the US afford and what is fair. The EU economy is roughly the size of the US, so why can't the EU pay a fair share of their defense? The US can't afford $24b a year to defend the EU from Russia, while the EU buys gas from Russia to fund their military.

Is Russia no longer a threat in Europe?
Ask the Ukraine and Crimea if Russia is still a threat. Poland feels safer with a contingent of US military present. NATO can fill that role as a speed bump as well as the US. Ask Germany if their gas deals with Russia are in NATO's best interest.

Is China no longer a threat in Asia?
US bases may not be as valuable as they once seemed. They can be targeted by a first strike. Its the deterrence of the balance of the US military that stops the bad guys from starting a conflict. Even Trump was surprised how powerful nuclear subs are. What's a better bargain, more targets, or better military responses?

Are Americans willing to abandon their corporate "interests" in these regions when Russian and China take over leadership in these areas?
LOL!! Russia's economy is the size of Italy's. Countries are free to choose who to deal with. If they like China, they can deal, and live with with that decision. If the Saudis want to buy Russian military hardware they can. It didn't work out too well for Saddam though did it?

 

[kyzr]

COUNTRIES SHOULD PAY FOR US PROTECTION / BASES:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.

For Decades liberals whined and complained about the United States defending allies at tax payer expense. 'America should not be paying for 'South Korea's' national security. We need to either bring our troops home or CHARGE Korea for their defense.' Now that we have a President who actually pondered / suggested this aloud - and mainly because it is Donald Trump saying it - Democrats have reversed course and are making a big deal out of it. 'SSDD'.

'Force Projection' - a military term meaning having the capability to respond to hostilities away from the US, anywhere around the world. The US military has aerial refueling planes - tankers - that can form air 'bridges' that can refuel our aircraft to get anywhere in the world, however, there is a limited number of those aircraft, and having actual bases in different parts of the world makes it easier for the United States to respond to conflicts abroad and to support / defend our allies.

'Mutual Benefit' - Having a US base in a country provides that country a measure of security, builds / maintains alliances, and provides monetary / financial benefit. Ambassadors negotiate the details and decide what benefit each nation in the partnership demands / is willing to agree to. Ambassadors also negotiate what the US can and can not do from that base in another country.

For example, just because we have an airbase in a country does NOT mean the US can launch attacks on other nations from that country. Some nations allow us to have bases in their nation as part of a supply chain - cargo in, stored, and out to other bases or on-hand if needed somewhere only. That includes aircraft - aircraft can be based there - to train / move forward to strike base locations, but no launching strikes from their country. There is a whole host of permission levels negotiated.

Without these negotiations, bases, and permissions the United States would be hamstrung, unable to project strength and force when / if needed.

COUNTRIES SHOULD NOT PAY FOR US PROTECTION / BASES:
2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.

'US bases secure our allies' loyalty': 'LOYALTY' is like Bill Clinton's word 'IS'. It depends on the definition and WHOSE definition.

CASE IN POINT: When the United States invaded Afghanistan and went to war with the Taliban, Pakistan was one of our 'loyal allies'.

Pakistan is like California, in a way. You could split California in half politically north and south, die-hard Democrats in the south with a moderate amount of Conservatives / in the North. Pakistan was / is the same way regarding the Taliban. Northern Pakistan is Pro-Taliban country while the South is against the Taliban. The government has to play a balancing act to keep the country stable.

Every winter the Taliban made / makes their way through several passes into their safe haven of northern Pakistan, and every spring a hoard of rested Taliban return through those same passes to Afghanistan to fight again. We knew this...and northern Pakistan was officially 'off limits'. And, BTW, after all that time looking for UBL, where was he eventually found? PAKISTAN, a couple of hundred yards from a Pakistani Police station / academy or something.

Alliances with nations we need means sometimes 'dancing with the devil' a bit. Another example is Qatar, a nation that is critical for our footprint in the ME. We have known for a while that Qatar supports terrorist groups...yet we still have an 'alliance' - a mutually beneficial alliance - with Qatar. One of the good things about partnering the US is that we keep Iran in check. Iran has agents / people in every country in the ME, especially along / near the Gulf, whispering in their ear that they need to partner with them instead of the US because THEY will always be there, and the US will one day pull out, abandoning them, and they will be left all alone to deal with Iran. So, some of these countries play both sides a little, remaining 'loyal' to us but hedging their bets in case we should fall / pull out.

Demanding countries PAY us for our security sounds great...some may be willing to do so, but if you overplay your hand you might drive them onto the 'arms' of someone else we don't like.

Again, it's all about 'MUTUAL BENEFIT'.

Well written post. In summary, at a $22T National Debt we simply can't afford to lavish military security around the globe. We need a smaller footprint, and to spend less, what happens happens, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". In this case, a bloated DOD budget needs an ounce of prevention before the Debt hits $30T and the US can't afford a military..

That sorta sounds "reasonable" until you realize that Trump also proposes a big jump in Military spending.

Oh...

Nancy is making noise about cutting the deficit. Lets hope sanity prevails. Less for defense ($100b - 150b), a higher top rate ($100b), and add the transaction tax ($100b). All they need to do is cut about $650b more to get a balanced budget. My solution is a 3% Federal sales tax, and fix entitlements.

 

[easyt65]

Well written post. In summary, at a $22T National Debt we simply can't afford to lavish military security around the globe. We need a smaller footprint, and to spend less, what happens happens, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". In this case, a bloated DOD budget needs an ounce of prevention before the Debt hits $30T and the US can't afford a military..

I will add this...and probably get slammed for it, but I never shy away from telling the truth even when I will 'catch hell' for it.....

You want to reduce our global footprint, send the message to the world the US is shrinking and if there was ever a time to run amok it would be 'now', leave our critical resources we trade for/rely on unguarded, ok...that's one way to go....

...but I have noticed whenever politicians - especially Socialist Democrats - want to cut the budget 'to save the US from debt-hell' THEY ALWAYS TARGET THE MILITARY 1ST...and the MILITARY is the LEAST of your worries!

Barak Obama and Democrats rammed a useless, tax-dollar wasting, 'Shovel-Ready Jobs-Promoting' NON-stimulating 'Stimulus Bill' that cost $1 TRILLION, contained over 7,000 (SEVEN THOUSAND) individual Democrat/Party-benefitting pieces of PORK!

Every POS, tax-dollar-wasting, self-benefitting thing they could fund, they did. It failed to keep unemployment below 9% as promised, failed to economically save/create jobs as promised - the CBO declared at the end that ever job Obama claimed he saved/created cost tax dollars approx. $774,000 PER JOB, and Obama had to admit there was no such thing as shovel-ready jobs.

Don't start snapping at me about being Partisan - the Republicans in Congress may not have added 1 single bill to that tax dollar-wasting monstrosity, but they have proven they can waste tax dollars and increase the debt just as goo as the Democrats can.

There are MULTIPLE (as in some cases MANY) overlapping Federal Agencies tasked to do the same exact thing, which could be combined, streamlines, or in come cases terminate 1 or more of them to have only 1.

There is a massive amount of admitted FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE that if tacked could save BILLIONS of dollars.
-- The Problem is no one knows where to start, and once you start no agency wants to be investigated, have their areas in which they are losing money to FW&A identified, and have their budgets cut.

There is a 'culture' within the government that causes government agencies - even the military - to use all federal funds they have at the end of the fiscal year or have it taken away / back, risking having their next year's budget lowered if they did not spend all of their budget THIS year.
-- It is the 'Use It Or Lose It' Mentality which ENCOURAGES all Federal Agencies to spend money they don't need so their budgets will be cut / tailored to exactly what they DO need.

This culture / way of thinking needs to END!

And FINALLY....the #1 spending problem US Politicians treat like 'He Who Shall Not (even) Be NAMED' in the famous Harry Potter novels.....Yup, Social Program, the 'Voldemort' of the US Economy, the infamous '3rd Rail':

SOCIAL PROGRAMS: Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid...

Forget the Military, here is your ' Frankenstein'!

Politicians, and by 'politicians' I mean DEMOCRATS, simply LOVE to use our government's social programs in their election-time Fear-Mongering to scare the ever-loving SHITE out of the old folks:

"The nasty GOP is going to steal your Social Security, cut your welfare pay - or make you take a (gasp) DRUG TEST before you can collect, cut or eliminate your Food Stamps - forcing you to eat FIDO, and is going to screw you over on insurance you need for drugs forcing you to make a decision between FOOD or DRUGS this month!"



...and once the election is over the cork is put back in that bottle until the next election. You can sure as hell bet no politician will actually DO anything about any of those programs to make sure they stick around....especially Social Security.

Sorry Grandma & Grandpa, YOUR Social Security has been gone - taken and spent by Politicians - a LONG time ago. The money you are getting each month is money being taken out of your KIDS and GRANDKIDS' paychecks - money that is supposed to be THEIR Social Security being securely stored away for THEM for when THEY retire.
-- WELCOME TO THE 'SOCIAL IN-SECURITY' PONZI SCHEME', brought to you by greedy, corrupt debt-adding POS politicians who stole and used your money long ago, creating this Ponzi scheme to keep the racket going.

(How f*ing IRONIC is it that Madoff went to jail for a Ponzi scheme and compared to the US Govt he was nothing more than a school yard money who stile lunch money from some kids?! )

But the REAL economic problem is this '3rd Rail'


THE MILITARY?

Mandatory spending is currently estimated to be $2.739 trillion for FY 2019. The two largest mandatory programs are Social Security and Medicare. That's 62 percent of all federal spending. It's also three times more than the military budget.

The Mandatory Federal Programs That Are Eating the Budget Alive



(As of 2017) 27.6% of the debt (about $5.48 trillion) is owed to another arm of the federal government itself. The single biggest creditors, in fact, are Social Security’s two trust funds, which together held more than $2.9 trillion in special non-traded Treasury securities, or 14.7% of the total debt.

(As of 2017) Net interest payments on the debt are estimated to total $276.2 billion this fiscal year, or 6.8% of all federal outlays.

 

[kyzr]

Feel better? Holy shit that was a rant! Tend to agree.
Also, need to trim the rolls of welfare and medicaid, and support Trump's work requirement.

Here are 12 way to strengthen entitlements and help the Budget:

Here are 5 way to fix Social Security
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes

7 way to fix Medicare
7 Ways to Fix Medicare -- The Motley Fool
the 8th is if you didn't pay in, you don't get benefits

 

[BluesLegend]

They don't even like Americans all they do is talk trash about us.

Nooooo...they don't like people like you..

But then neither do most of us

Your personal problems and desperate need for attention are off topic.

 

[McRocket]

I agree with Trump on this point.

But I have a better idea...PULL ALL OF THE TROOPS HOME.

Short of starvation/plagues/mass genocide...what other countries do inside their borders is none of our fucking business.

Legally and ethically.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Big debate on the Sunday morning talk shows, Trump wants to charge US allies the actual cost plus 50% for US forces stationed in their countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...91378986dbb_story.html?utm_term=.6de5012523a8

I can see both sides of this debate:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.

2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.

Lets take a poll...

It is kind of cute how you think we are there to protect them and not project our own power across the globe.

I want to see Trump pull all the troops out of Japan after they tell him to pound sand...he does not have the balls for such an action.

I'll take that bet, Japan needs to build up their own military to help police the Pacific, especially NK.
The US military budget is 10x Russia's, and more than the next 15 military budgets combined. That is way more than we can afford. As for "projecting military power", that's what submarines are for. Even Trump was impressed with their capabilities. When we parked 3 carrier battle groups off NK, that got their attention. So I'm not sold on too many military bases, especially in the EU, when the NATO military budgets aren't keeping up.

Rank Country Spending 2018 (US$ Bn.)
1 United States 643.3 ($714b 2019 & $750b 2020)
2 China 168.2
3 Saudi Arabia 82.9
4 Russia 63.1
5 India 57.9
6 United Kingdom 56.1EU
7 France 53.4 EU
8 Japan 47.3
9 Germany 45.7 EU
10 South Korea 39.2
11 Brazil 28.0
12 Australia 26.6
13 Italy 24.9
14 Israel 21.6
15 Iraq 19.6

NATO 2% of GDP Military Spending Guideline (US is pulling the NATO wagon, EU countries riding in it!)

I’d cut defense spending judiciously by 10% and we could build a wall around every lefty jerkoff in the country if we wanted to.

For the record I’m big on defense spending, but I’m also very experienced in budgets and what happens to them when no one’s keeping an eye on things. They become fat. It’s just a question of how much fat’s been allowed to grow and generally 10% is about a given starting point IMO.

The DOD could easily cut 10 to 15 percent if they tried.

I think they could save at least 5% off the top just be getting rid of the "you have to use all your money by the end of the FY or you will get less next year" mentality.

I remember those days. Around August, the command would check to see how much money they still hadn't spent, and then they would start looking for stuff to spend the money on. I remember that from October to around July, if you wanted pens, all they would allow us to buy were the black and silver Government Issued pens. But, when it came to the end of the fiscal year, we were told to buy whatever we wanted.

I also remember the squadron maintenance people HATED it when it came to around September and we had a whole bunch of money left over. Why? Because the pilots would have lots of money for fuel, and they would be flying constantly that month.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Big debate on the Sunday morning talk shows, Trump wants to charge US allies the actual cost plus 50% for US forces stationed in their countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...91378986dbb_story.html?utm_term=.6de5012523a8

I can see both sides of this debate:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.

2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.

Lets take a poll...

It is kind of cute how you think we are there to protect them and not project our own power across the globe.

I want to see Trump pull all the troops out of Japan after they tell him to pound sand...he does not have the balls for such an action.

I'll take that bet, Japan needs to build up their own military to help police the Pacific, especially NK.
The US military budget is 10x Russia's, and more than the next 15 military budgets combined. That is way more than we can afford. As for "projecting military power", that's what submarines are for. Even Trump was impressed with their capabilities. When we parked 3 carrier battle groups off NK, that got their attention. So I'm not sold on too many military bases, especially in the EU, when the NATO military budgets aren't keeping up.

Rank Country Spending 2018 (US$ Bn.)
1 United States 643.3 ($714b 2019 & $750b 2020)
2 China 168.2
3 Saudi Arabia 82.9
4 Russia 63.1
5 India 57.9
6 United Kingdom 56.1EU
7 France 53.4 EU
8 Japan 47.3
9 Germany 45.7 EU
10 South Korea 39.2
11 Brazil 28.0
12 Australia 26.6
13 Italy 24.9
14 Israel 21.6
15 Iraq 19.6

NATO 2% of GDP Military Spending Guideline (US is pulling the NATO wagon, EU countries riding in it!)

I’d cut defense spending judiciously by 10% and we could build a wall around every lefty jerkoff in the country if we wanted to.

For the record I’m big on defense spending, but I’m also very experienced in budgets and what happens to them when no one’s keeping an eye on things. They become fat. It’s just a question of how much fat’s been allowed to grow and generally 10% is about a given starting point IMO.

The DOD could easily cut 10 to 15 percent if they tried.

I think they could save at least 5% off the top just be getting rid of the "you have to use all your money by the end of the FY or you will get less next year" mentality.

I remember those days. Around August, the command would check to see how much money they still hadn't spent, and then they would start looking for stuff to spend the money on. I remember that from October to around July, if you wanted pens, all they would allow us to buy were the black and silver Government Issued pens. But, when it came to the end of the fiscal year, we were told to buy whatever we wanted.

I also remember the squadron maintenance people HATED it when it came to around September and we had a whole bunch of money left over. Why? Because the pilots would have lots of money for fuel, and they would be flying constantly that month.

I did the flight schedule and come August we had all sorts of cross countries going out to spend all of the TAD money. When I was at MCAS Beaufort, NAS Key West was a very popular destination in Aug and Sept!

 

[busybee01]

Big debate on the Sunday morning talk shows, Trump wants to charge US allies the actual cost plus 50% for US forces stationed in their countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...91378986dbb_story.html?utm_term=.6de5012523a8

I can see both sides of this debate:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.

2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.

Lets take a poll...

Our presence in many countries are far more that protecting them. They also provide a deterrence to our actual and potential enemies. If the Straits of Hormuz was blocked by Iran, oil prices would skyrocket. There are vital shipping lanes that are at stake in the South China Sea. Without bases in Japan, it would be much harder to project our power. Also NATO has provided support in various US missions such as Afghanistan.

When you talk about costs, some things are wrongly added to the cost of overseas bases. Salaries and training are the same whether a soldier is based in the US or Germany. The only real cost is the cost of running the base.

Dick Cheney said it best. “I don’t know, that sounded like a New York state real estate deal to me,”.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

I will add this...and probably get slammed for it, but I never shy away from telling the truth even when I will 'catch hell' for it.....

You want to reduce our global footprint, send the message to the world the US is shrinking and if there was ever a time to run amok it would be 'now', leave our critical resources we trade for/rely on unguarded, ok...that's one way to go....

...but I have noticed whenever politicians - especially Socialist Democrats - want to cut the budget 'to save the US from debt-hell' THEY ALWAYS TARGET THE MILITARY 1ST...and the MILITARY is the LEAST of your worries!

Barak Obama and Democrats rammed a useless, tax-dollar wasting, 'Shovel-Ready Jobs-Promoting' NON-stimulating 'Stimulus Bill' that cost $1 TRILLION, contained over 7,000 (SEVEN THOUSAND) individual Democrat/Party-benefitting pieces of PORK!

Every POS, tax-dollar-wasting, self-benefitting thing they could fund, they did. It failed to keep unemployment below 9% as promised, failed to economically save/create jobs as promised - the CBO declared at the end that ever job Obama claimed he saved/created cost tax dollars approx. $774,000 PER JOB, and Obama had to admit there was no such thing as shovel-ready jobs.

Don't start snapping at me about being Partisan - the Republicans in Congress may not have added 1 single bill to that tax dollar-wasting monstrosity, but they have proven they can waste tax dollars and increase the debt just as goo as the Democrats can.

There are MULTIPLE (as in some cases MANY) overlapping Federal Agencies tasked to do the same exact thing, which could be combined, streamlines, or in come cases terminate 1 or more of them to have only 1.

There is a massive amount of admitted FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE that if tacked could save BILLIONS of dollars.
-- The Problem is no one knows where to start, and once you start no agency wants to be investigated, have their areas in which they are losing money to FW&A identified, and have their budgets cut.

There is a 'culture' within the government that causes government agencies - even the military - to use all federal funds they have at the end of the fiscal year or have it taken away / back, risking having their next year's budget lowered if they did not spend all of their budget THIS year.
-- It is the 'Use It Or Lose It' Mentality which ENCOURAGES all Federal Agencies to spend money they don't need so their budgets will be cut / tailored to exactly what they DO need.

This culture / way of thinking needs to END!

And FINALLY....the #1 spending problem US Politicians treat like 'He Who Shall Not (even) Be NAMED' in the famous Harry Potter novels.....Yup, Social Program, the 'Voldemort' of the US Economy, the infamous '3rd Rail':

SOCIAL PROGRAMS: Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid...

Forget the Military, here is your ' Frankenstein'!

Politicians, and by 'politicians' I mean DEMOCRATS, simply LOVE to use our government's social programs in their election-time Fear-Mongering to scare the ever-loving SHITE out of the old folks:

"The nasty GOP is going to steal your Social Security, cut your welfare pay - or make you take a (gasp) DRUG TEST before you can collect, cut or eliminate your Food Stamps - forcing you to eat FIDO, and is going to screw you over on insurance you need for drugs forcing you to make a decision between FOOD or DRUGS this month!"



...and once the election is over the cork is put back in that bottle until the next election. You can sure as hell bet no politician will actually DO anything about any of those programs to make sure they stick around....especially Social Security.

Sorry Grandma & Grandpa, YOUR Social Security has been gone - taken and spent by Politicians - a LONG time ago. The money you are getting each month is money being taken out of your KIDS and GRANDKIDS' paychecks - money that is supposed to be THEIR Social Security being securely stored away for THEM for when THEY retire.
-- WELCOME TO THE 'SOCIAL IN-SECURITY' PONZI SCHEME', brought to you by greedy, corrupt debt-adding POS politicians who stole and used your money long ago, creating this Ponzi scheme to keep the racket going.

(How f*ing IRONIC is it that Madoff went to jail for a Ponzi scheme and compared to the US Govt he was nothing more than a school yard money who stile lunch money from some kids?! )

But the REAL economic problem is this '3rd Rail'


THE MILITARY?

Mandatory spending is currently estimated to be $2.739 trillion for FY 2019. The two largest mandatory programs are Social Security and Medicare. That's 62 percent of all federal spending. It's also three times more than the military budget.

The Mandatory Federal Programs That Are Eating the Budget Alive



(As of 2017) 27.6% of the debt (about $5.48 trillion) is owed to another arm of the federal government itself. The single biggest creditors, in fact, are Social Security’s two trust funds, which together held more than $2.9 trillion in special non-traded Treasury securities, or 14.7% of the total debt.

(As of 2017) Net interest payments on the debt are estimated to total $276.2 billion this fiscal year, or 6.8% of all federal outlays.

fuckin A
and amen

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It is kind of cute how you think we are there to protect them and not project our own power across the globe.

I want to see Trump pull all the troops out of Japan after they tell him to pound sand...he does not have the balls for such an action.

I'll take that bet, Japan needs to build up their own military to help police the Pacific, especially NK.
The US military budget is 10x Russia's, and more than the next 15 military budgets combined. That is way more than we can afford. As for "projecting military power", that's what submarines are for. Even Trump was impressed with their capabilities. When we parked 3 carrier battle groups off NK, that got their attention. So I'm not sold on too many military bases, especially in the EU, when the NATO military budgets aren't keeping up.

NATO 2% of GDP Military Spending Guideline (US is pulling the NATO wagon, EU countries riding in it!)

I notice how all of the Russian sock puppets are full bore in favour of getting the troops out of Europe.

Does this mean you don't need a Space Force.

It costs $24b a year to keep the current level of US troops in Europe.
Either they pay to offset those troop costs, or they can defend themselves, and if they need help call.

The $24b or so saved can be used to start the Space Force.

If you are withdrawing all of your troops that you demanded be placed in Europe and Asia to protect against the advent of communism, what has changed? Is Russia no longer a threat in Europe. Is China no longer a threat in Asia. Are Americans willing to abandon their corporate "interests" in these regions when Russian and China take over leadership in these areas?

If you are withdrawing all of your troops that you demanded be placed in Europe and Asia to protect against the advent of communism, what has changed?
After 75 years a lot has changed, The USSR changed, then changed back. Commie China changed, then changed back. The US national debt changed, then got worse, and is now unsustainable. Its a matter of what can the US afford and what is fair. The EU economy is roughly the size of the US, so why can't the EU pay a fair share of their defense? The US can't afford $24b a year to defend the EU from Russia, while the EU buys gas from Russia to fund their military.

Is Russia no longer a threat in Europe?
Ask the Ukraine and Crimea if Russia is still a threat. Poland feels safer with a contingent of US military present. NATO can fill that role as a speed bump as well as the US. Ask Germany if their gas deals with Russia are in NATO's best interest.

Is China no longer a threat in Asia?
US bases may not be as valuable as they once seemed. They can be targeted by a first strike. Its the deterrence of the balance of the US military that stops the bad guys from starting a conflict. Even Trump was surprised how powerful nuclear subs are. What's a better bargain, more targets, or better military responses?

Are Americans willing to abandon their corporate "interests" in these regions when Russian and China take over leadership in these areas?
LOL!! Russia's economy is the size of Italy's. Countries are free to choose who to deal with. If they like China, they can deal, and live with with that decision. If the Saudis want to buy Russian military hardware they can. It didn't work out too well for Saddam though did it?

"They can be targeted by a first strike."

That one statement branded you an amateur. There are no winners in a nuclear war so that will never happen.