I Have Questions wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 1:11 pm
Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:49 pm
No, my position is that NATO, and the American foreign policy of foreign aid and military interventionism, is a hugely detrimental money sink, especially considering the size of the deficit.
The United States had $699 billion in total bilateral trade with the European Union in 2015. That trade can occur only if the key ports and airfields supporting it are secure. NATO contributes significantly to that security.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-dept ... e-numbers/
I guess you could limit trade to just internal stuff, right?
So without NATO, those key ports and airfields would be bombed by Russia or something? What would be their motive?
US foreign direct investment in Europe was $2.89 trillion, while foreign direct investment from Europe in the United States totaled approximately $2.49 trillion.
It appears to be less of a one way street than you are portraying Shades.
All of which had nothing to do with NATO.
Every day, between two thousand and three thousand airline flights cross the North Atlantic.40 Again, NATO contributes to the security on which those flights rely.
Americans can just stay at home and holiday within the United States, right?
What, would Russia shoot those flights out of the sky were it not for NATO? What would be their motive?
Gadianton wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 1:41 pm
Shades wrote:So, the money wasn't "generated," it was simply reallocated to those involved with supplying or otherwise working for the armaments industry. If you're not one of them, then you're not benefitting from others' tax dollars.
That's not true. Who the money goes to is secondary to the fact that it goes somewhere.
So as long as it goes somewhere
other than to the people who earned it is all that matters. Do you hand out $100 bills to college students? If not, why not?
If the US hadn't got involved in WW2, the US would have remained in the Great Depression (to answer an other point you suggested).
So all those lives lost--not to mention the trillions of dollars spent--were worth getting out of the Great Depression a year or two sooner.
Along with your fiscal responsibility model, you need an macroeconomic model to go with it that is thus far untested by any real nation. I'm not saying that the growing deficit isn't a problem, I'm saying your simplistic fixes aren't necessarily fixes. For instance, in a multi-polar world where the US dollar and the US is no longer the only game in town, our capacity for debt may be substantially less.
All the more reason to stay out of debt.
You don't actually know what the tradeoffs are in terms of our debt for the isolationist scenario.
I'm not advocating isolationism. I'm advocating refraining from ballooning the deficit by sending the taxpayers' money overseas. . . with the resulting lack of benefit to the taxpayers.
So, if you have a family of four (for example) living in your home, that's $811.92 that your family could've NOT paid in taxes if the U.S.A
Good lord, the things I could have done with that 203$ that will forever be lost to me. I'm mad as hell.
Would you still be happy if the amount of your own money you didn't get was doubled to $406? How about quadrupled to $812? Where would you draw the line and say, "Hey, I earned this money, stop taking it from me and sending it overseas?" How about someone much poorer than you who works at, say, a convenience store? Do they feel as cavalier about the loss of $203 as you do?
I think you and Ceebs are well on your way to approximating the number of folks who could have been housed for that money.
"That money" ≠ $203. "That money" = $203 x 335,000,000, the population of the United States.
Ceebs agreeing with you is the only time I've ever seen Republicans suggest that deficit spending should be used to hire teachers and build houses for poor people.
I'm not a Republican.
As soon as spending for Ukraine gets brought up, all the Republicans are suddenly progressive Democrats who want to go into debt feeding the homeless.
Presuming to speak for Republicans for a moment, I imagine their line of thinking is that it's better for American tax dollars be spent on Americans in America than flushed down the toilet by giving it away as gifts to foreign governments.
canpakes wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 2:49 pm
Dr. Shades wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 7:49 am
That quote ignores the fact that the money being spent
was siphoned out of the pockets of Americans to begin with. If not through taxation, then through borrowing money, a.k.a. deficit spending, which will need to be paid back at some point.
Sure. I understand how taxation works. And money doesn’t grow on trees. We have to turn the money printer on for that.
Which increases inflation, so it's not a real solution.
So, the money wasn't "generated," it was simply reallocated to those involved with supplying or otherwise working for the armaments industry. If you're not one of them, then you're not benefitting from others' tax dollars.
Absolutely. But the implication is that this money is going somewhere
other than being reallocated into US hands, when in fact it’s largely the case that it’s feeding
into the US economy.
Great! Then why not advocate for a doubling of your taxes, just so long as it feeds into the U.S. economy? Or why not advocate for ballooning the deficit by another order of magnitude, since the borrowed money will feed into the U.S. economy?
Let's break the figures down: Your quote says that $68 billion was sent to Ukraine. The U.S.A. has roughly 335 million people living in it. $68,000,000,000 ÷ 335,000,000 = $202.98 (rounded down to the nearest penny) for every man, woman, and child. So, if you have a family of four (for example) living in your home, that's $811.92 that your family could've NOT paid in taxes if the U.S.A. had adopted a non-interventionist stance.
We
could redirect that money to Americans in other ways. I suppose that we could help pay down student loan debt, as example. But you and Ceeboo may need to distance yourselves from your current political ideologies a bit more if you’re starting to talk about doing that, or giving houses away to homeless people, because those sorts of things are
icky socialism, and homeless losers certainly don’t deserve free houses for making bad financial decisions or being addicts. I didn’t find that proposal within the Project 2025 handbook, anyway.
Better to have
icky socialism than to have nothing at all by flushing the money down the toilet, wouldn't you say?
The problem with ‘MAGA’ and ‘America First’ is that it only applies to the person making the list. It’s better described as, ‘Me First’. There are a lot of folks making their own list, and their priorities won’t be yours. How do you resolve that?
That's just the sad reality of politics. I'm very used to it. I won't complain too much as long as the deficit isn't increased and the money gets used in-house instead of flushed down the toilet.
Our incoming Administration’s priorities are all about launching a deportation program that some smart folks are calculating will cost around $88 billion dollars per 1 million people deported. What does America benefit from spending to remove working people who are arguably contributing to the economy, in order to toss them across the border?
It doesn't.
Even if the program costs a third less than estimated, that’s $202.98 (rounded down to the nearest penny) for every man, woman, and child. If you have a family of four (for example) living in your home, that's $811.92 that your family could've NOT paid in taxes if the U.S.A. had adopted a non-deportation stance.
Then let's adopt a non-deportation stance.
Then repeat that 10 more times.
Okay.
