Oh no. Now we don't get to subsidise Europeans' social benefits

lol, its ridiculous to think this is happening, this is one of the stupidest things trump is saying

why? i want to understand this deeply please

If you taxed the rich and corporations like Europe does you could easily have social security. The rich in the US love making Europe the boogeyman that stole your social security, while they laugh all the way to the bank.

Is that really a narrative that people believe in? (that the EU “stole” the money that would otherwise go towards social security in the US)

wild

Some do:

U.S. Is Not a Piggy Bank for Europe’s Socialist Policies

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2024/03/11/u-s-is-not-a-piggy...

Just like people believe the EU is subsiding the success of the US by its lack of military

Is it really false, though? I don't think the claim is that such benefits are directly subsidized, but indirectly. For example, the EU relies (relied?) heavily on the US military to be their "big stick", freeing up some portion of their budgets to be spent on social programs rather than defense ones.

I don't know how true that is in practice, but given the numbers on aid given to Ukraine, and the difference before Trump was elected, it seems true-ish.[1]

[1] https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/ukraine-suppor...

but does EU really? EU has, even without the UK, the second biggest military in the world. Are we seriously saying that this is not enough to defend EU? if not, why not?

also, the numbers for ukraine support are not comparable like that, much of the money the EU gives ukraine are not "given", because the EU cannot just do that, they give them loans that they then later give up on (because EU is corrupt and likes to not follow own laws).

In addition to that, it is ridiculous to say that even ANY support to ukraine is needed to defend EU. Consider this, if EU really wanted to give it all, how much more could EU muster than what is currently given to ukraine? how could russia possibly hope to defeat EU?

so no, it is in fact not at all true

I dunno, but this hardly a convincing rebuttal. Can you provide some citations about loans and such? I believe the thing I linked included loans as part of the "aid given".

And I'm pretty sure Russia or China have the second biggest military in the world? So I'm not sure your stats are right, either?

The US also profited an exceptional amount from selling arms & software to Europe, far more than the US was spending on military aid to Europe, which was largely contingent on trust and friendly terms.

Over a decade or so the US is on course to lose far more than it's saving with these changing politics.

Europe wasn't giving anything away for free.

Europe will lose trillions trying to catch up from zero. Especially with a dwindling, aging population. Over decades you'll see.

Eh we're taxed for these things you know, you could have the same in the #1 economy and #1 power in the world if you didn't keep falling so hard for grifters and sociopath decades after decades but ok

Right. Now let us see what happens when European elites will move money from Wall Street to Europe back again.

Sure. Let's see what happens when Europe's population crashes while their pension obligations go up.

Plenty of time to deal with, much less when number doesn't go up anymore.

Isn't this a good thing though? Europe becomes more self-reliant and less dependent on US technology, the US is able to refocus to the Pacific which is a more strategically relevant area, the anti-US people in Europe become happy, and the anti-Europe people in the US become happy.

It's not like tourism or cultural distance is going to disappear. All that disappears is the military entanglement, which to be honest, was mostly obsolete after 1991 anyway.

> All that disappears is the military entanglement, which to be honest, was mostly obsolete after 1991 anyway.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/tactical/royal-marine-command...

Also:

- F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter) Program: The UK is the only Tier 1 partner in this program, procuring F-35B aircraft for the Royal Navy/RAF and considering F-35A variants.

- Trident Nuclear Missile System: A continuation of the 1982 amendment to the Polaris Sales Agreement, the US provides Trident D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles for the UK’s Vanguard-class and future Dreadnought-class submarines.AUKUS Submarine Combat Systems

- Boeing P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft: The UK procured nine P-8A aircraft to improve maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare capabilities, with deliveries starting in 2019.

- AH-64D/E Apache Attack Helicopters: The UK acquired Boeing Apache gunships, later upgrading them to the AH-64E standard.

- C-17 Globemaster III Transport Aircraft: The Royal Air Force acquired and has maintained a fleet of Boeing C-17s for strategic airlift.

- MQ-9 Reaper & Protector Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS): The UK operates MQ-9 Reaper drones and is transitioning to the improved MQ-9B Protector (Protector RG Mk 1) to modernize its surveillance and strike capabilities.

- Chinook Helicopters: Ongoing procurement and upgrading of Boeing Chinook heavy-lift helicopters for the Royal Air Force.

- Hellfire and Guided Missiles

These are just some of the more expensive programs of procurement the UK has done with US arms since 1991. I'm not suggesting the UK buys everything it needs from the US, but it has a habit of doing a lot of it.

As long as there is NATO and US troops in the EU, I don't see that this is happening (plus, all europeans need a nuclear arsenal under EU control).

> It's not like tourism or cultural distance is going to disappear.

I do not think tourism is an issue anywhere.

> All that disappears is the military entanglement, which to be honest, was mostly obsolete after 1991 anyway.

This is a possibility, but why would you discount other possibilities? The USA is saying a lot, but doing very little. Why are there still occupying troops in the EU? Didn't the USA announce how NATO is dead already? So why are there still troops?

I am very much not convinced that anything has really changed, aside from the rhetorics.

>the US is able to refocus to the Pacific which is a more strategically relevant area

this was the ostensible narrative for almost a decade but in reality the US has since then, threatened Europe with the annexation of Greenland, invaded Latin America and withdrawn resources from Asia for a war in the Middle East, with energy market consequences worst for America's allies in the Pacific. (Japan depends almost entirely on the Gulf)

This has not been good news for the China hawks in the US, literally as we're discussing this the US president is in China and Taiwan seems to have completely vanished from the agenda. Far from directing resources against China and bolstering democratic nations in Asia the US is now emulating China, withdrawing from Asia to bully its regional neighbors.

> The US-European alliance is on its deathbed.

Agreed, though the nuclear issue still has to be solved. IMO the EU needs a nuclear arsenal. Any future dictator from the east will keep on probing otherwise.

But, even IF the US-led over-dominance would be maintained, I really don't understand why my taxes paid, go into US companies. This model really does not work anymore after the USA allied with Russia (de-facto, if you listen to the orange king).

> IMO the EU needs a nuclear arsenal.

What's wrong with the British and French nuclear arsenals?

And where are the "EU" armed forces, and nuclear weapon supply chain, and military and civilian command structures that would be needed to design/test/build/test/deploy/use nuclear weapons?

> And where are the "EU" armed forces, and nuclear weapon supply chain

Well, in France and in England, although the other european countries have them as well, and/or are part of that supply chain - but it's not exactly advertised due to the general population's (imo understandable) disdain for nuclear weapons; and probably a collection of geopolitical reasons too.