American Political News in relation to Poland

Yeah, the other NATO members made jokes behind his back about that.

No Trump made a joke out of Merkel.
We pay $151 billion in trade deficits with the E.U. and on top of that they kill us with NATO.
So we pay 4% of a huge GDP --s which amounts to 80 to 90 % of NATO.
Time for the E.U. to Pony Up, especially Germany who is only pay 1.2% GDP.
Trump being Politically Incorrect tells it like it is when he called out Chancellor Merkel telling her the gravy train is over.

realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/05/trump_nato_were_the_schmucks_paying_for_the_whole_thing.html

Good then they shouldn't have any concern when Trump as commander in chief decides to pack up and leave Europe to defend itself. If they want protection they need to pay a FAIR amount for it.

Strategic decision? This was a strategic decision after ww2 and during the cold war in response to the Warsaw pact. That's the whole reason why NATO was formed. Us gains next to nothing to stationing troops in Europe today. We're paying the vast majority of the nato budget which helps.europe out a he'll of a lot more than it helps the us out. If a tiny country like Belgium or Montenegro is attacked we have to spend billions protecting them when they're paying in some cases tens/hundreds of millions for the smaller NATO nations.


Again, then they shouldn't be upset when they're kicked out for not following us 'recommendation'


Even better. Imo the European NATO partners should be collectively footing the majority of the budget to protect europe. In fact the European NATO partners should be paying 90% for their own defense, not the US


Even Obama complained about this calling germany and others the 'free rider problem' of nato. Only difference is Trump has the balls to do something about it and all Obama knew how to do is talk talk talk but do nothing constructive

Who kicks out whom? The US doesn't own NATO, and there are no member fees other than "direct and indirect contributions to the costs of running NATO and implementing its policies and activities".


That's not what a trade deficit is. The US buys more from the EU than the EU buys from us, and we pay with cheap green paper that we print in large quantities. It's a good deal: products for paper. Until the US Dollar stops being the world's reserve currency, that is. Then we are toast. Stop buying foreign stuff, and the deficit will go down.


How much of our military budget is actually used for NATO? If we want to continue to play policeman of the world, it'll cost us.

That is exactly what a trade deficit is !

That's the plan. Slap the same kind of tariffs on eu Chinese Canadian etc goods than they slap on us in turn making them more expensive so American consumers buy American substitutes.

First of all, most Americans are dependent on cheap imports from China and other places because they cannot afford local products. Second, who will work in your manufacturing plants when there is full employment and half of the American population is paranoid about immigrants from south of the border?


Huh? You said "we pay $151 billion in trade deficits with the E.U." That makes no sense. Buy less or manufacture stuff that others want, then you can't complain about a deficit.

That's because Chinese goods are artificially made cheap due to a weak yuan. Once they are made more expensive via tariffs Americans will have no choice but to buy local goods, or pay a lot more for imports - same way China and eu treats local goods and imports - cheap local goods, expensive imports due to tariffs.


Blue collar americans are clamoring for ma ufacturing jobs that pay 20 30 an hour. . And there will never be full employment as long as inner city bums keep filing bogus disability and welfare claims as they come out to the same as working a 50k a year job. Get rid of the welfare leeches' programs and they'll get to work real quick once their fridge is empty and lights are turned off with no taxpayers to rescue them

I have been looking where I can disagree with you but so far without much success.

And surgically castrate the sperm donors that do not support their offspring sufficiently and all single women after their second child if she is unable to support her children sufficiently without the help of ANY welfare programs.

If they want or need welfare to help support their life style then agree to sterilization or you do not qualify for ANY government assistance of any kind.

Any able bodied person would be required to have a full time J.O.B. in order to qualify for supplemental government assistance.
And things like depression, anxiety and arthritis WOULD NOT qualify you for being disabled to work and NOT automatically qualify you for Medicare Disability Social Security, Supplemental Social Security or Medicaid.

The condom stocks would sky rocket.
Damn, only if I were in charge.....................

Even in many prisons they make people work... I don't see why we can't do the same in the real world for people claiming benefits. Trump wants to change that but I guaruntee you'll see the dems oppose this more than any other bill.

I remember when I was in college and Ohio wanted to make receiving benefits contingent on passing a drug test. Oh man I've never seen so many welfare leeches have such enthusiasm. If only they had the same enthusiasm for getting a job and contributing then we'd be fine. Naturally the bill didn't pass. The bums wanted to keep smoking weed all day long and have taxpayers fund their munchies.

Why do American corporations manufacture in China for the US market? That's right, because slave wages guarantee big profits. Currency manipulation is only a small part of the problem. Here's an interesting piece by the US-China Business Council about it:

chinabusinessreview.com/trade-facts-chinas-exchange-rate-us-trade-deficit


The adjusted 4% in June are considered full employment. 0% is not possible.

Nato destroyed, the West no rival anymore...Putin's dreams coming true!

Putin plays Trump (and you) like a fiddle...he is the ultimate puppet master...and you are dancing after his tune!

I wonder what it would need for you to wake up!

Indeed. And if Europe doesn't want that to happen they need to pay the us additional tens if not hundreds of billions. Otherwise good luck. Europe needs to start paying for its own defense and if it refuses then it shouldn't be surprised when the commander in chief brings the us troops home... or relocates them to Poland who is actually paying it's fair share


European leaders having the same kind of balls as putin and the populist nationalism of obran. Kicking all the bogus asylum claimants out, shuttering all the Saudi funded mosques, destroying every no go zone and deporting every migrant on benefits. We could start with that... Except western Europe is waaay too cucked so itll.nlever happen

Kinda like when Putin makes Germany (and you) slaves to his direct gas pipeline that supplies 70% of Germanys gas you mean.

You beat me to it. As I was reading your post, JR for president popped into my head, but then I realized that I want to be the Absolute Ruler, with Congress and the SC safely in a North Korean gulag, so clearly there would a conflict. But I am open to a coin flip.


If you dial it down, you will see that nobody here advocates 'destroying' NATO. Some of us simply claim that WE, with France and UK being nuclear powers, can now defend itself without any US participation. Maybe in the information gathering capacity just as we assisted Saddam.

There is no "West" without the US participation. There is only a group of countries...one by one can be plucked off so much more easily. Especially if the biggest one behaves like a bully...

In this there will be only one winner...and it won't be the US!

Then "West" should pay the US cost plus profit.

There is the US without the Europe participation. Give the US another friend like Europe, and our burden instead of going down would double. Thanks, but no.

This again reveals the sick, asymmetrical and parasitic relationship between the two sides. Whatever the US spends on the West's military, the free-loading Europe, Japan, and Korea don't have to. Trump knows is and hates the arrangement. And that is why the parasites hate him.

Sick, asymmetrical and parasitic? Excuse me but me thinks the US didn't lived bad during the last decades. If you have only the slightest interest in history then you could compare the US during it's isolationist time till up to WWII (great depression) and the time after as she decided to become involved with all things Europe and the world (world leader).

That "before" is where Trump want's to lead you back again, forgotten all the lessons of history. Without Europe and it's allies there won't be the US as you know it anymore either. There is a reason all your presidents before didn't care for the "two percent", they just knew better!!!

That's much more a case of "having the cake and eating it" than everything you accuse Germany of. You want the stature, the standing, the influence and the power of the US before Trump without having to do what it takes...but I have news for you, THAT WON'T WORK! And the US will pay the price as much as Europe!

Because of your size, your fall down will only take abit longer...

In the end the only winner of Trumps policy will be the biggest western rivals, Russia and China...they can't believe their luck.

Yes on both counts. (1) It's the US who is the loser trading with Europe, not the other way around. (2) It's Europe who needs the US military umbrella. The US does not need Europe to stay safe, the US as a world cop - which is stupid and totally optional - aside.

Bottom line: Europe is a net liability to the United States, not an asset.

Justifications can be discussed forever. But those two above are facts.

It is not a fact. It is ignorant nonsense. You ignore the significant amounts of US capital in Europe, you ignore the significant US corporate assets in Europe.You ignore the significant amount of government bonds, private bonds et cetera owned by US funds and companies. You ignore the user basis of US businesses like Facebook, Google, Apple et cetera - literally hundreds of millions of people.

Nobody forces the US to trade with other countries.

The US could withdraw the security umbrella - the result would be nuclear proliferation, by people that were able to actually build and use them quickly.

Maybe some experiences just need to be made...for example that leader with "balls" are not making their people happy, or that every country is stronger in a union than alone...

To bad so much porcelain get's destroyed in the process...and from some lessons a country recovers not so easily.


That was all true during the last decades too...the US didn't suffer for it, quite the contrary...it made the US what it was. The leader of the free world, the "exceptional" country, the winner of the Cold War...

Yes, that strategy made the US extremely successful. There is this saying: "Never change a winning team!" But Trumps is trying to do just that, and you applaud him for that!

I ignored nothing. Your list is a list of components. My 150-billion US trade deficit with Europe is the sum total of those components. So who is ignorant here? To argue that trade deficits make the US stronger is so off-chart moronic that I will not debate that point, since every country on mother earth hates imports and loves exports and trade surpluses.


Now, that is an ignorant nonsense. You already have your own nuclear umbrella in France and UK. How many umbrellas do you need? And why are the French and UK umbrellas not enough to make the US umbrella critical to the security of Europe? And who is the potential aggressor against Europe that would trigger an American nuclear response?

Let me assure that no conventional attack on Europe would ever cause the US commit suicide by launching its nukes, so please don't mention nukes as any justification to keep this fossil, NATO, not only alive but actually proliferating.

The way I see it Europe needs the us a whole lot more than us needs Europe. Trump needs to drive that fact home and if they don't want to cough up additiinal billions for defense or reduce tariffs (or atleast not be surprised when we enact tariffs that match what the eu has had for decades) then we can pack our troops and move them elsewhere

The best test to see who is a friend and who is a foe is by asking this simple question: do I want more of them or fewer?

This applies to everything, from our private lives to running a country.

Just imagine that instead of one Europe with its trade deficit and the military needs, the US has, say 5 Europes as "partners" all over the globe.

I will take zero Europes in a millisecond and save a ton of money in millisecond two.

No - the trade deficit is an annual figure. The items I referred to are assets built up over many years and of mutual interest and far greater than that annual figure.

And by the way your 150 annual figure is also wrong as it does not include services. The real figure is 101 billion.

I've said it before and I'll say it again,but differently.
Germany,as the most populous country in Europe and therefore with the largest GDP ,needs to be setting an example instead of cheating the system.If The UK,Poland and The Baltic states can spend 2% of GDP then what is wrong with Germany???

Actually, it's Poland that's cheating the system. Poland is notorious for budgeting much more for defence and then not spending it - it's been going on for years, and there's no evidence that anything has changed. Germany always highlights this as why the 2% promise is just a promise and not based on reality.

Do you sit there at night and just make things up to put Poland down, and use every opportunity to calling us cheats

Here are the figures from Nato 2014 to 2017 Nato Press release March 2018

nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_03/20180315_180315-pr2018-16-en.pdf

The top contributors as a percentage of GDP were.

1. USA
2 Greece
3 UK
4 Estonia
5 Poland

Germany 16th Place.

Yes Delph the above is reality, what Germans have you been talking to down the pub.

Earnings or a loss is a lot more important than assets. A persistent negative cash flow will kill any business. Assets matter only as a collateral or at liquidation.

If you know how to make the annual US trade deficits of 800 billion sustainable year after year, please, let the US government know ASAP. They will be happy to hear from you.

Since you seem to be blase about that 100 billion, would you be OK if Poland had that kind of trade deficit? Or is it OK only if it's the US?