3 ms·

If you assume the status quo for all of those items mentioned are good, then perhaps, yes the US is leaving its role. If you assume that most of those are bad (

If you assume the status quo for all of those items mentioned are good, then perhaps, yes the US is leaving its role. If you assume that most of those are bad (except in the case of PRK), the the US is asserting its role. Take the PRK. Will it collapse any time soon? Probably not. The government disarmed the populace. They are internally too weak to oust Kim. Does bringing the PRK into the less violent world benefit people? Yes. The US would have to spend far less on Korea. So the US could save anywhere from 350 million to 1 billion by not having to be there. [1] TPP was terrible for rights of the individual. It was a promotion by the media companies, among others, to strip ownership rights. It also pushed a greater term for copyright, which at the current levels already stagnates the economy. Reducing NATO has the benefit that it's making EU members start to think about spending their money on defense. The US has funded the EU social systems for too long. The EU countries mock the US saying, "If you spent less on your worthless bombs, perhaps you could provide good medical systems to your population." I'm tired of this lie. They don't spend much on their defense. They don't spend what they should with Russia parked on their front lawn. Is it good leadership to have your crew, who appear to be of little worth, make you spend on every outing? Initiating trade conflicts is not necessarily wrong if the deals are bad. Are Americans better off under these new deals? I don't know; not enough details nor time. If they are, isn't pushing such negotiations ago thing? Could the same ends been achieved with different means? 1 - https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-the-US-spend-on-defending-South-Korea https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-the-US-spend-on-defendin... On the idea of free trade https://youtu.be/rw7PUrgU3N0 https://youtu.be/rw7PUrgU3N0

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
adventured 8y ago
Spending less on the military also wouldn't dent the healthcare problem the US has. The US has a $3.8 trillion healthcare system. Just covering the ~8% of the population without health insurance, would cost 50% of what the US spends on the military. The only good targets for slashing the military budget by eg $200b, is infrastructure (we could build national high-speed rail with it) or deficit reduction. You can only broaden healthcare coverage through massive cost reductions (minimum 1/3 cost slashing), or epic tax increases on the top ~60% income bracket (which is how everyone else pays for universal coverage, but this would be a huge cost break to corporations who currently largely foot that bill). Imagine if Canada had to actually spend real money on defense to keep Russia from going after its northern most territory (Russia has begun getting aggressive there). They're spending 1.3% of GDP on their military, with no ability to actually secure their own territory if Russia decides to start claiming some of their land in the Arctic region. Who are they going to look to as Russia gets more aggressive? The US of course, nobody else can do anything about it.
XorNot 8y ago
The US has been free to curtail it's military spending any time it wants. The American cross to bear is apparently that they just can't help themselves in wanting to help everybody else. Just like your healthcare system which is "providing cheap drugs to the world which is why we can't improve it for our own citizens". While you know, you also manage to spend more per capita then any other nation on the planet despite a complete lack of coverage for your citizens. On the back of threatening NATO, the US approved the largest increase in defense spending ever. To what end? Who are your enemies in a world where you apparently don't plan to commit to NATO and are going to reduce foreign imperialist activity?
- virmundi 8y ago
  If we're sticking to the topic of NATO, I'd love to leave it. I have no desire to keep the EU free. They've stepped up to say they are their own unified power equal to the US. Let them defend themselves. The US has a natural moat and friendly neighbors. The Russians couldn't invade the US and keep its troops supplied for the long haul. Not even if they successfully conquered a portion of Canada. Neither can the Chinese. I'm not sure who we're afraid of. The US military is largely worthless in a true asymmetric war without our territory. There are better options in both law enforcement and the true concept of the US citizenry being part of an independent State militia. If we let the EU fall or stand on its own, the US could get rid of the majority of its standing military. We wouldn't need friendly bases because we could scrap the idea of a volunteer army. Such armies make foreign adventures palatable since the soldiers asked to join. An army that is mostly conscripted does not go abroad unless it has too. A conscripted army is not large enough to threaten the homeland. If we collapsed our military to just Navy and Air force, enough to keep trade routes open and secure our airspace, we could free up 300-400 billion dollars. The US could pay down some of its 20 trillion dollar debt year after year after year.
  - XorNot 8y ago
    The idea that the US would enjoy it's current trading relationships in a world where the EU's defense industry is selling to itself (remembering the idea of the EU falling is absurd - it's a nuclear ICBM equipped collection of nations, Russian expansionism ends at Germany's borders purely on some guesstimating about whether nuclear annihilation is worth saving Estonia) is laughable. And why would an expansionist China let any country in its sphere of influence give preferable trade deals to Americans at all? The point of an empire is to get it to pay tribute to you, which is what the US currently does via it's various economic relationships backed by its military. The reality is that if other country's build up their military's, then any money from trade the US is getting is diverted since what are they going to buy from you? The first thing you do for a self-reliant military is build your own industries, or make military alliances with your neighbors to share industrial capacity. All of which would have lost any reason to bother with US hardware.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

adventured 8y ago

Spending less on the military also wouldn't dent the healthcare problem the US has. The US has a $3.8 trillion healthcare system. Just covering the ~8% of the population without health insurance, would cost 50% of what the US spends on the military. The only good targets for slashing the military budget by eg $200b, is infrastructure (we could build national high-speed rail with it) or deficit reduction. You can only broaden healthcare coverage through massive cost reductions (minimum 1/3 cost slashing), or epic tax increases on the top ~60% income bracket (which is how everyone else pays for universal coverage, but this would be a huge cost break to corporations who currently largely foot that bill). Imagine if Canada had to actually spend real money on defense to keep Russia from going after its northern most territory (Russia has begun getting aggressive there). They're spending 1.3% of GDP on their military, with no ability to actually secure their own territory if Russia decides to start claiming some of their land in the Arctic region. Who are they going to look to as Russia gets more aggressive? The US of course, nobody else can do anything about it.

XorNot 8y ago

The US has been free to curtail it's military spending any time it wants. The American cross to bear is apparently that they just can't help themselves in wanting to help everybody else. Just like your healthcare system which is "providing cheap drugs to the world which is why we can't improve it for our own citizens". While you know, you also manage to spend more per capita then any other nation on the planet despite a complete lack of coverage for your citizens. On the back of threatening NATO, the US approved the largest increase in defense spending ever. To what end? Who are your enemies in a world where you apparently don't plan to commit to NATO and are going to reduce foreign imperialist activity?

virmundi 8y ago
If we're sticking to the topic of NATO, I'd love to leave it. I have no desire to keep the EU free. They've stepped up to say they are their own unified power equal to the US. Let them defend themselves. The US has a natural moat and friendly neighbors. The Russians couldn't invade the US and keep its troops supplied for the long haul. Not even if they successfully conquered a portion of Canada. Neither can the Chinese. I'm not sure who we're afraid of. The US military is largely worthless in a true asymmetric war without our territory. There are better options in both law enforcement and the true concept of the US citizenry being part of an independent State militia. If we let the EU fall or stand on its own, the US could get rid of the majority of its standing military. We wouldn't need friendly bases because we could scrap the idea of a volunteer army. Such armies make foreign adventures palatable since the soldiers asked to join. An army that is mostly conscripted does not go abroad unless it has too. A conscripted army is not large enough to threaten the homeland. If we collapsed our military to just Navy and Air force, enough to keep trade routes open and secure our airspace, we could free up 300-400 billion dollars. The US could pay down some of its 20 trillion dollar debt year after year after year.
- XorNot 8y ago
  The idea that the US would enjoy it's current trading relationships in a world where the EU's defense industry is selling to itself (remembering the idea of the EU falling is absurd - it's a nuclear ICBM equipped collection of nations, Russian expansionism ends at Germany's borders purely on some guesstimating about whether nuclear annihilation is worth saving Estonia) is laughable. And why would an expansionist China let any country in its sphere of influence give preferable trade deals to Americans at all? The point of an empire is to get it to pay tribute to you, which is what the US currently does via it's various economic relationships backed by its military. The reality is that if other country's build up their military's, then any money from trade the US is getting is diverted since what are they going to buy from you? The first thing you do for a self-reliant military is build your own industries, or make military alliances with your neighbors to share industrial capacity. All of which would have lost any reason to bother with US hardware.