Regarding the election of Trump, it is true that he has jumped on nationalism as opposed to globalism and the costs of globalism. It is true that he is a populist who has seen the rust grow in the so called rust belt while industrialists move their operation to the sweatshops in China to take advantage of cheap labor and minimal regulations, the result being a trade deficit with China on the order of $400 billion per year, year after year. The profiteers and rich consumers love it, but American workers suffer.
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-china-trade-deficit-causes-effects-and-solutions-3306277
I feel like you guys, like your president, don't understand that the deficit is not a price tag you're actually paying. It is just the quantity of goods purchased on the free market. As your link notes, the largest import from China for the US is phones and computers.
All your iPhones and technology is made in China. And it's mostly from American companies who make their goods there to dodge tax and exploit cheaper workers. Also clothes, which as has been pointed out millions of times, the Trump family themselves have exploited Chinese labour for their own fashion lines and assorted products. Don't even get me started on the likes of Nike, Adidas and thousands of other products that are American but simply made in China. Again, make at a cheap rate overseas, and then sell at a massively inflated price back home... and then blame China for this?
And you dipshits wonder why us "socialists" want the companies who do this to pay more tax? Lol.
That isn't a nation taking advantage of you, it's just companies doing what they are actively encouraged to do, by you and those who share you ideals, because taxing them for the practice is socialism.
So, you're not giving China $300B, you're just buying more from them than they buy from you. At quadruple the price. I condemn that and it makes me a socialist, I guess.
And yes, the trade deals negotiated by past administrations have been a disaster for us and deserved to be pulled back and renegotiated fairly. They basically involved a giveaway that was unsustainable but nevertheless sustained at great cost. And if "goodwill" with the foreign benefactors of the scams allowed by prior administrations is lost, then so be it.
Here is the reason this sentiment is stupid: It's hypocritical.
U.S. goods and services trade with Australia totaled an estimated $65.5 billion in 2018. Exports were $47.3 billion; imports were $18.2 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with Australia was $29.1 billion in 2018.
https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/southeast-asia-pacific/australia
So you guys are outraged by a $300B deficit when it comes to trade with China, but cool with a $30B surplus with a nation as small as Australia?
But, because we're not dumb as fuck, we know that isn't actually us giving you $30B for nothing. You import meat and pharmaceuticals from us, we import aircraft, military equipment, machinery, vehicles and medical instruments - we aren't running at a deceit, we're just buying more expensive shit than you guys are.
Oh, and just so you know, those $900M in pharmaceuticals you buy from us is really scary. We have pricing regulations on the cost of medicines which keeps the production costs extremely low. You guys, on the other hand, hate socialism so your medicines and treatment cost utterly fucking insane quantities of money. So just like the insane mark ups on phones, computers and clothing/footwear, your companies are participating in socialism and then selling those products back to you at quadruple the cost - and ya'll beat your chest and say you're beating socialism. Cute.
And, yes, socialism is the enemy of free enterprise, self reliance and freedom.
This is another aspect of American ignorance that your President highlights - shitholes.
You guys really think everywhere else is a shithole. That we just don't have free enterprise, self reliance or freedom because, um, we've got health care and don't shoot children in schools. It's so. damn. weird.
But it's everyone else who doesn't understand how the world works. Right.
In regard to his mention of the military, however, let's be honest for a change. Our foreign entanglement have become unmanageable and Trump was elected to end the endless wars of previous administrations. As Trump has repeatedly pointed out, we have spent over $8 trillion dollars in the Middle East in the past 20 years for no good reason. We need to let Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia take care of the Middle East. No doubt, liberals in congress will cringe at the concept of allowing Russia to replace us in Syria and other such like, but it is inevitable in any case. They are there and we are an ocean away. It is their backyard. Let them have their own backyard.
Firstly, you're welcome. That $8T blown on the Middle East? Imagine the cost if nations like Australia told you to go fuck yourselves and refused to offer so much in military support. Given how the tiny handed tyrant has treated everyone, I think it's safe to say you guys won't get nearly as much assistance moving forward.
How is that going?
Judging by the headlines, the last two years of U.S. Middle East policy seem to be marked by a whiplash-inducing series of radical shifts. U.S. President Donald Trump ran on opposition to a foreign policy of “intervention and chaos,” then ramped up U.S. airstrikes from Somalia to Syria. He announced a complete pullout of U.S. troops from eastern Syria in December, declaring, “They’re all coming back and they’re coming back now,” only to reverse himself and then trumpet additional military deployments to the region to counter Iran six months later. He has simultaneously decried his predecessor’s overinvestment in the Middle East and his weakness there.
Even articles that slant more sympathetic to Trump?
Through its post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, the Bush administration attempted not only to root out hostile regimes but also to fundamentally remake the region in a manner consistent with U.S. interests and values. Bush, of course, failed in spectacular fashion to achieve that transformation. Barack Obama, who ran for president in part to remedy those failures, mostly maintained America’s security architecture in the region and sought (largely unsuccessfully) to overhaul America’s role in the Middle East without resorting to military force. Trump, by contrast, has been willing to use limited military force, but has also demonstrated little interest in effecting any change in the region beyond retiring the United States as a security guarantor. Ultimately, he wants out.
Either by incompetence or inability, Trump has changed little and the United States continues to bleed funds in to failed military efforts.
The same applies to Europe. We currently have about 60,000 troops stationed in Europe, mainly in Germany, Italy and the UK. Why are they there? Why not let Europeans take care of the security of Europe. Europe is as rich as us and with at least the resources. If Europe want our soldiers on their soil, they should pay for their keep. If not, said soldiers should come home.
What are you guys waiting for? In case you haven't noticed, people don't actually love the US having a military presence everywhere - despite what I'm sure your textbooks teach you. Take them home. You idiots won't take them home because you want people to pay you to do something that, well, you want to do. Believe it or not, the US isn't actually serving as security. Team America isn't defending our freedoms the way you gleefully seem to think. I bet you actually think those troops are the reason Europe isn't being invaded by whatever force you're claiming to protect us from this week. You are a warmongering nation with a military complex - stationing troops all around the globe is just part of your "bigger stick, little dick" oeuvre.
If he wasn't so quick to ascribe the blame to the new guy who is trying to end the morass, we might find some agreement here and there. But why bother with facts, his mind is made up. And, anyway, the major disagreement I (and presumably MMW) is the prescription for fixing the problem.
Don't blame him, it's everyone else's fault!
Firstly, I completely agree. Bush was a fucking mental case and Obama lacked the fucking spine to make the changes needed to be made - admittedly, he was in office during a time of far greater threat. But, I do acknowledge that a large part of the reason he was unwilling to end the war efforts was... you. He was consistently and relentlessly hounded for being too soft, too weak and too much of a pussy on that front. Shit, even following Trump's military strikes just a few months ago, are we going to pretend GOP supporters all across the nation didn't boast about how nice it was to have a strong leader who wouldn't take shit? Let's face it, he couldn't pull out of military efforts because the GOP provided the pressure point for those efforts to be continued at the least or massive ramped up at the worst. Unlike Obama, Trump is up against progressives who want those efforts to end.
Secondly, Trump hasn't ended shit. Even you mention the "new guy trying to end the morass." Key word is trying. Not doing. And he's not doing because he doesn't want to do. He's heightened tensions with Iran and Syria, launched more than his fair share of military engagement and hasn't done shit towards legitimately ending anything.
Yes, why would I blame literally the only person who can do something for not doing something? I wonder. I'm sure we could find common ground if I blamed Obama or Bush, but considering neither is President of the United States, I'm not entirely sure what you want them to do?
He prescribes socialism; I prefer free enterprise, self reliance and libertarian freedom.
Just so we're clear, what Australia and the slew of other nations on similar policies do is not socialism. I let you use the buzzword for the sake of simplicity, but all it shows is you guy don't actually know what socialism is. It's just something you scream to make yourself feel better about being confronted with policy you can't form a cohesive argument against. I mean, let's be honest, your crowd uses "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably without the faintest idea that those ideals aren't actually synonymous.