it’s like you believe you can tariff them expecting they won’t do the same. Why do you believe the rest of the world is not going to retaliate and why do you believe America can prosper without the rest of the world?
What’s the point of having a military alliance with countries you puts tariffs on? That’s unfriendly to say the least.
I’m not a Republican, but I’ll bite.
The U.S. is kinda in a bad spot right now. Not just politically but economically as well. Our National Debt is the highest it’s ever been. While I’m 100% for taxing Billionaires and their Trillion dollars companies more, by like, a lot, the Billionaires of course don’t want that. So they’re trying to cut what they can and wheel and deal. Why support Climate Change (French EU thing, I don’t remember) acts when you can [pocket the money] use that to pay down debt? The War in Ukraine has unfortunately been drawn out too long for us to stay financially invested in it. Our allies across the sea won’t be able to help our country balance our debt when they have Ukraine to worry about as well. So they’ve decided to put pressure on every external source of revenue while cutting what they can without getting lynched.
Let’s talk about Canada and Mexico, but first, a bit of H I S T O R Y. Back in the 90s or 00s the Clinton Administration implemented NAFTA. The agreement sounded good on paper: Strength our border countries. Lifts us all up by giving all the countries jobs, more opportunity, more demand. While outsourcing our manual labor we can focus on the future: Technology! Hindsight is 20/20 though. Why not move our business to a country where we pay lower wages and will end up with higher profits for future investments (like yachts)? Why not get cheaper parts instead of paying the U.S. prices? A ton of manual labor jobs were lost, and many cities (car manufacturing cities, steel cities, etc.) simply never recovered. NAFTA stayed in place more or less until Trump Trumped it into the USMCA in 2020. That gets renegotiated in 2026 with all 3 countries either coming to an agreement or dissolving the agreement.
From all accounts, NAFTA certainly seemed harmful to the American industry at the time, but can that industry recover, and should it? Personally, I don’t think so, but they seem to think so. So, from my point of view, the reason they’re alienating allies is to extort them for money to help pay down the National Debt and hopefully grow back American industries lost over 2 decades ago.
The ‘‘aid’’ we send to Ukraine is the US goverment using US money to buy US products and have the military drop them off. Those millions we send to Ukraine is money we have and keep in our economy, why conservatives are so fucking stupid they can’t figure this out is infuriating. Yes. Saw off you legs to lose weight. You’ll lose SO much.
Not even. A lot of the “aid” is
US gets
Why the hell is this supposed to be a point in favor? I don’t support the military-industrial complex, because I’m not a right-winger or a hawk.
Profitable is a point in favor, if you’re one of them. Strong supply chain is a point in favor, if you’re a hawk or if you think we do need defense
Profitable for the rich. Defense for the rich. Both are points against.
The money is still in the US but in private hands rather than public. Just because the money primarily stays in the domestic economy doesn’t mean there’s no cost to it.
If you want more money in public hands, holy shit is supporting a republican at any point from Regan to Trump the dumbest shit you could vote for. This is the party of ‘‘goverment doesn’t work’’ and privatization of all public services. They have never been shy about just how little tax revenue they want to end up in gov service to citizens.
I’m aware. I’ve never voted Republican in my life and don’t intend to.
You realise private workers are also civilians with lives aka members of the public. Wtf do you mean “in private hands rather than the public”?
“Public funds” refers to money held by the government, tax revenue. The amount of public funds is limited and there are a lot of valid, competing priorities for how the government spends it’s money. Every dollar of public funds spent on bombs is a dollar that’s not available for things like schools and infrastructure.
Private workers receive only some of the funds spent on manufacturing bombs. A significant portion of it goes to executives and shareholders in the military-industrial complex, as well as finding their way to politicians in the form of bribes. Private funds cannot be allocated to public services unless the individual chooses to donate them, or they are taxed back into being public.
I really shouldn’t have to explain this, the difference between public and private is extremely basic. Public in this context doesn’t mean “held by a member of the public” (that’s what private means) it means “held by the public collectively, as represented by the government.”
Thought you meant “THE public” as in “the average joe”, soz. What I’m not sure about is what you have an issue with. The money invested into arms replenishment is a boost to US jobs/the economy. Why the complaint that it’s left the treasury? Because it could “go to something else”? Sure, anything could go to something else, but you’d have to prove that something else is actually more important/urgent. And I don’t think there’s anything more worthwhile currently than defeating Russia, the biggest antagonist to the West for decades.
Not to mention, the investment has been miniscule given the gravity of the situation, how much is “too much” for peace in Europe/World? There can be no prosperity without security.
Virtually every possible use of that money is “a boost to jobs/the economy.” If they spent more on education, teachers would have more money to spend which would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. If they spent the money building trains, it would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. If they spent the money paying people to dig ditches and then fill the ditches back in, it would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. This talking point is complete nonsense and either ignorant or disingenuous. The arms industry is not particularly good for creating jobs/economic stimulus compared to spending the money on other things like education, you’re trying to compare it to what, not spending it at all? That makes no sense.
That assumes that funding the conflict and building more bombs is necessary to bring about peace and security, which I personally disagree with, but my position on the matter is irrelevant, the original comment was just seeking to answer the question and describe what some people on the right believe. Regardless of whether it’s true or not that the military aid is necessary for peace, many people don’t agree with that assessment.
Sorry, made edits while you were responding. Covers some issues you have with it.
Well, I’m a leftist, so naturally I believe that using money on domestic spending to help people is preferable to spending money on bombs to kill people. That’s like, most of what it means to be a leftist. I would like to think that this is the natural, base assumption, and that the argument in favor of military spending is the thing that has to be proven.
If you’d like, I could go on about the many, many domestic crises we’re facing due to insufficient public funding, everything from healthcare to education to even basic infrastructure like bridges. Seems like a bit of a tangent though.
Ultimately, whichever position is “correct” doesn’t really matter. If you don’t address domestic problems then you’re probably going to lose the election and then you don’t get any say in what happens at all, which is, you know, what happened.
It’s been like 80 years of unjustified conflicts that have consistently made the world a worse place before you can find any conflict where US bombs were actually used to improve anyone’s life, including a twenty year long quagmire that we just got out of before this. Despite making things worse for everyone, pretty much every conflict whether it was Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc were entered into with widespread popular support and they all had the exact same justification: that the other side was just like Hitler and they would keep expanding forever unless we got involved. It’s a wonder to me that there’s anyone who still believes in “benevolent interventionism.”
I don’t care that “many people don’t agree with that statement”. Who? Republicucks? Right wing grifters/Russian puppets on YouTube? The morons who listen to them?
The consensus is that the military defeat of Russia is paramount to the West. Especially among those who are most qualified to opine on the matter.
Roughly 50% of all Americans. I’m not sure who determines “the consensus” if polls are devided and the side that disagrees just won an election.
Same for every industry, executives, politicians and shareholders are Americans too.
This is such an inane point. Yes they are “Americans” but the goal of public policy shouldn’t be to just give money to whoever so long as they’re Americans. The same $100 means a lot more to a poor person than to a rich person, and they are also a lot more likely to spend the money, stimulating the economy and providing more tax revenue in a virtuous cycle.
Like the difference between public and private, this is extremely basic economics.
Same for every other industry with poor people and rich people working for them that you CARE about, they are Americans.
Who cares?
In american workers hands too.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. We’re not just sending missiles, some of it is logistical, funding, training - some of it doesn’t just come back into our economy, and not in full. For example, there is a fund in the billions for Ukraine and allies to buy weapons from us on a need by basis - but like not immediately. It has been years, it could be years.
More importantly though a good portion of these funds were out of bounds of the National Budget causing National Debt to grow. Now, I’m not saying Ukraine is the sole reason the National Debt is out of control, it’s been a long time coming, but we’re peaking. We print more money, the value of the dollar drops, things get more expensive not just national but worldwide since the dollar is an international currency reserve.
How concerned are trumpoloids about how much return they get from aid to Israel? No minerals? they haven’t been programmed for that I guess.
I don’t even understand the point you’re trying to make with this one. I guess if you’re referring to me as a trumpoloid you could dumb this response down a bit so I can maybe process it and reply. On a side note, I don’t understand why we (as a Nation) support Israels genocide, but I personally don’t support it so there’s that I guess.
Anyone who genuinely cares about the national debt wouldn’t want Trump in power. The piss-dribble amount of aid the US has sent to Ukraine is definitely not a factor, and if you still think it is, go ahead and let us know what percentage of the budget has gone to Ukraine and then compare that to the US lend-lease program. The reason people only care to question what they get in return for Ukrainian aid yet don’t ask the same of Israel is because that’s what right-wing media programmed them to do. Is that clearer?
You keep trying to make this a party issue, when it’s not. Biden also increased the National Debt by a similar amount. You’re right, 1 Billion dollars in a pool of Trillions really is a drop in the bucket. I don’t think we need to get anything from Ukraine in return of our support. They’re fighting a foreign offender, they deserved much more than throwing money at the problem, but here we are. Everything we send out of the U.S. that’s not accounted for in the U.S. budget goes into debt; as the National Debt climbed, the U.S. needs to find ways to pay that down, and they’re trying to do that without offending the Billionaire Class buying politicians. So, from Trumps perspective, Ukraine is an easy cut, regardless if we think he’s Putins Puppet, it’s clear Trump doesn’t care for what’s happening in Ukraine.
I support funds for Ukraine over funds for Isreal any day of the week, but that’s just not going to happen under this administration.
Right-wingers make it a partisan issue by conveniently dangling the debt over any spending they dislike. Also, while you mention Biden’s debt increase, not only was Trump much worse, but not all increases are equal in kind. If a president increases the debt to keep the country standing during a difficult period, sure, good stuff. On the other hand, if the president increases the debt just to provide tax cuts that mainly benefit his rich friends, then not so good, these aren’t the same in any way despite both being increases.
This faux concern about the debt is so fucking disingenuous, and I wish people would stop claiming it because you’re embarrassing yourselves.
Republicans are ALWAYS worse for the debt.
The National Debt has been on a steady growth since Obama, through Trump, through Biden. Like, it’s an issue that spans multiple presidencies and parties. The U.S. dollars is a global reserve note. So, not only do we need to account for paying it down in our National Budget, but we also can’t just print more money at the problem either. I fully support Ukraine. Russia should not have invaded them, and either we or the EU should have had a stronger opposition than just throwing money at the problem. If we want to continue to support Ukraine, if we want to pay down our National Debt, if we want to continue supporting our Nations social services we need to fucking tax Billionaires and their Trillion dollar companies. Like, corporations buying politicians is a problem.
That National Debt isn’t some invisible barrier, it affects our every day lives, our future, what programs we can support, and the global economy. I don’t know, unless you can explain to me me why the National Debt doesn’t matter, and how we can continue to support Ukraine. I’m here for a discussion.
It has always and will always grow. Even though we had surplus under. GOP are also the party that when they hold a majority spend like fucking mad, Bush paying for Iraq, Trump’s crippling tax cuts that explicitly shifted tax burden onto the poor and middleclass. They do not care, they only pretend to care and use that as an excuse for more spending, or tax cuts for the owner class. They never fucking care when they have the ball.
Republicans literally add to the debt everytime they’re elected.
So do Democrats, it’s been on a hot run for the last decade or so. Through Obama, through Trump, through Biden, and now back to Trump. This is a multi-party issue and the solution is to tax Billionaires.
I’m disagreeing. Even though Clinton was the last president to decrease the debt when he left office.
But as a liberal, I’m not worried about the National Debt if they’d just cut military spending, which is like saying you wanna kill a baby now, since 9/11.
We need forgiveness from China, not tariffs.
I recognize you’re doing some form or devils advocate and I appreciate that. I grew up in the ruins of one of those cities and it really helped define my political beliefs. I think it’s important to not suddenly frame NAFTA as this wonderful thing just because trump opposes it. There is a real reckoning we need to have as a country when it comes to rebuilding our industrial base. Are tariffs the answer? Almost certainly not, but that doesn’t mean that the people asking for them are completely delusional. Trump is capitalizing on a real pain that people are feeling, and have felt for a generation now. I wish we had a proper progressive to reframe the debate. It’s not about us vs Canada, it’s about the disgustingly wealthy vs everyone else. You don’t want people to support tariffs? Then we need real left wing populist arguments.
I know it’s stupid. Being right should be good enough. But it’s not. We need to be convincing. And not ‘republican lite’ convincing - more like teddy Roosevelt f’ing come at me unabashed progressivism convincing.
What about a good, strong third party? A green party or a working class party of some sort? It’s fully evident neither Reps nor Dems give a single fuck about the working class, they just pretend so they can use them while pocketing the money of the rich and stuffing their wallets. I feel like I’m not the only one who is 100% fed up with the bullshit of both parties and just want an actual party throwing the best candidates based on their policies and hosting proper primary elections so we can choose who tf speaks for us.
It’s 2025 ffs. I don’t care about the candidates’ fashion or their goddamn tours and rallies. You can get the word out there in any number of ways. Engage with your target audience. Your voterbase. Get one of the practically nonexistant parties to step up. I’m tired of dealing with a tug-o-war between two sides of the same goddamn coin. We need a party that will focus on keeping us rooted to the constitutional values and ensuring everyone has access to the rights of the basic human necessities of this century. Let the goddamn donkey and elephant Duke it out over policies neither of them really care about. Idgaf. I just want more goddamn options. Some real fucking options.
Yeah, I agree I don’t think NAFTA was a wholly wonderful thing - a lot of people lost their jobs, had families at the time, and really, it was poor planning to not realize that what happened happened. I think NAFTA had some good ideas, like trying reduce carbon emissions and trying to ensure workers are being taken care of, but I think overall the transition from industry was fumbled.
I honestly have no idea if tariffs are the answer, but if they aren’t, it seems like people are going to start to realize the quality in life difference. And I mean, it could have a rubberband effect. History has shown that when conditions get bad, workers revolt, pretty much always. If the country is going to be run like a Corporation trying to recoup costs, what’s the percentage before it gets noticeable? Maybe, optimistically, at the end of all this, we can get money out of politics, corporate money specifically, funding transparency, stock? idk about that - stricter rules or something. Then we could actually focus on real things that matter without this weird age of commercial politics.
At the end of the day, I think people of all parties and backgrounds can come together on the idea/conversation to remove money from politics. Having our representation (vote/politician) able to be bought by some billionaire through backchannels (donations, crypto, favors) is simply not fair or in our best interests.
Trump added a lot to the national debt. https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225
Every president has. It’s been a growing problem through multiple different administrations now. This isn’t a party issue, it’s a “Eat the Rich” issue. The Billionaire class has taking but not putting back in, and they’re expecting regular working people to foot the bill. That’s why the 22 Billion dollar cut on Social Services through HHS instead of taxing the 400+ Billionaires in America.
You’ve really bought into the propaganda there, besides Clinton our national debt has always been the “highest” every year. The most important factor is foreign vs domestically held debt, and that ratio hasn’t changed for the worse.
Obviously we have some spending concerns, but financially that’s not the primary concern for the US right now (and we wouldn’t be talking tax cuts if it was).
Maybe I have bought into the propaganda, but am willing to learn more. If we’re pouring Trillions from our National Budget into paying down the ever-growing Federal Debt, where’s the tipping point for the dollars value?
This debt has been ever-growing, by the +5 trillion pretty much every administration, and American prosperity has been on a decline (maybe not for you, but the city I’m sitting in feels it). If we’re not going to tax Billionaires (which we fucking should, by a lot) then what’s the next best thing to bring better prosperity to the American Working Class?
Finally, what do you feel is America’s primary economic concern?
While the amount of debt has been ever growing, it hasn’t relative to GDP. When it has grown, it’s grown primarily due to policies from Bush and Trump. Both of these president’s also passed massive tax breaks which is a significant contributing factor to the national debt.
At the end of the day, the national debt only matters if we can’t pay it. All the cuts being made to federal spending right now are more significant because they will slow down the economy and cause reverberations for years to come (public research and investment are multipliers for the economy in many ways).
As you call out, we should be taxing billionaires, which points to the larger economic concern right now for America - economic disparity.
Right now, the National Debt is ~125% of the GDP and is estimated to climb - we’ll know more March 27th when the quarterly report is published.
I had to do some research on this one because I wasn’t too familiar with how much weight the ratio factors in. For example, Japan is over 200%, but they’re well off due to societal/governmental factors such as low interest rates, high sovereign savings, and keeping a portion of the debt local to the nation itself. On the other hand, Greece is ~160% due to their last recession. They had worker strikes in 2024 due to stagnating wages, but they’re a come back with economic growth projected to hit ~2% and debt ratio to be at ~145% by the end of the year so it’s a bit of a mixed bag.
That being said, the U.S. is in quite a different situation economically. From what I can tell, it’s not great, but not catastrophic either. If our economic growth continues it’s upward trend, maybe we can balance it out. But, if our National Debt continues to grow, or if our GDP starts to taper off, the % gap may widen and we may see a slow and steady downturn in QoL. The economists I ran across seemed to agree that it could be a growing issue and something to keep an eye on how it’s handled. I thought this blogpost was a good read - it doesn’t get into all the nuance but is a decent summary / overlook. For an official overlook you can read the House Summary.
Finally, this is from the approved House 2025 Budget Document (or bill? idk), if you trust that, but it says:
On a sidenote, mmw kinda thing, I don’t think DJT is going to be a good fit for this situation. I don’t think the mixing of corporate interests, deregulation, and shaking of trees is going to pull us out of this mess but entrench the Nation. The only way out is to explain to regular people that our only solution is to tax the Billionaire class, and get our local politicians to enact change.
Funny you think they’re going to actually pay down the debt.
I’m cautiously optimistic. They cut 22 Billion in Social Services. If things keep getting worse, regular people are going to start wondering where that money is going and the veil will be lifted.
Regular people are dumb af they elected that orange shit stain while he spit in our faces.
So I’m not really confident they’re gonna connect any dots.
They are not going to bring it down, Trump increased the debt a huuge amount. https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225
I know that’s why I thought it was funny! Got to find the humor in this mess right now. Hoping we can right the ship but right now Trump is steering us into an ice berg full speed ahead
I would just say that not everyone is cut out for “advanced” jobs. There is a need for more industrial/mechanical jobs that those of us can occupy and still make a decent living.
I don’t mean that as a way to disparage other people, I’m referring to myself and people like me. I’m far too stupid for tech jobs.
You right, I think there’s always going to be a need for industrial and mechanics. Like, we’re for sure always going to need transport, lumber, steel, infrastructure, logistics, more. When I wrote that I was mostly thinking Steel as we really just don’t have as much a need for it as we used to. Like, sure we need to keep up with infrastructure and national security, etc. but we’re not at war, we’re not expanding as a nation (like big cities) anymore so it’ll never recover to times before NAFTA.
That being said, I really do think we should be making automobiles in house which could bring more Steel back, but on the other hand, do we really want more automobiles? Like, drive by any dealership and there always seem to just be an abundance.