What do you think about Trump's proposed budget cuts or the American First Policy choices?

There is a lot of news at the moment about the proposed budget cuts, which haven't yet been approved by congress. A lot of the world is freaking out because they see it as a first step of the US withdrawing from its global role.

There is a lot of crying about the cutting of funding to the UN and the World Bank. Though the US is still the biggest single funder of both even after the proposed budget cuts.

There is the reduction of military fundings to countries like Egypt, Pakistan, and many others. Shouldn't they be responsible for their own funding? The US has a huge national debt that isn't going away. Is it not irresponsible for someone to give away money that they don't have?

Should the government of the US not always have a American's first policy seeing as it is a government for the people by the people?

There is a lot of crying about the cut climate change funding from the US too. Here I am torn. Our understanding of climate change is very limited and there is a lot of speculation about what the long reaching effects will be. The reality is that the US is already pretty active with regulations preventing pollution and reducing carbon emissions. The pressure should be put on the new polluters, China, Thailand, India... Where it is now going to make the most difference for the cost.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User

You provide what seems like a calm, rational argument for many of the budget items. Still, I don't buy it.

I don't know that the US pays more into the UN than anyone else, but let's assume it's true. That in no way supports the argument that it makes sense to pay less.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/31/un-funding-cuts-us-trump-administration

The US carries debt. Countries do. That's how the world and global relations and government works. Should we work alleviate ours? Of course. But to think we can sit back and let conflict and trouble unfold in the world and then not be affected by the consequences, you're being naïve at best.

Do you know how much of our country's budget is committed to foreign aid? Less than 1%, and the majority of that money goes to US grants and charities working on behalf of other nations. How cheap can the GOP buy humanity and ethics?
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/02/10/383875581/guess-how-much-of-uncle-sams-money-goes-to-foreign-aid-guess-again

No, I personally don't believe our government needs to maintain an America First policy, attitude or ideology. Such a thing is born from fear, arrogance or aggressiveness. What makes this piece of land and what happens on it so insanely precious we'd forsake the rest of the planet to achieve our objectives? How special do we think we are?

Our understanding of climate change is NOT very limited. It's exceedingly clear across nearly every discipline of science. We know many of the causes, we see and can measure its effects, and we know from historical data exactly what will happen in given scenarios. The following information is from NASA, the one scientific agency that would benefit financially from denying climate change. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

As for who are the biggest polluters, let's keep working in our own backyard.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WM14KoWcGhc

Challenger1 · M

That there would be cost to the US decreasing its activity on the global platform isn't necessarily an argument against it. There is also a cost to continuing. And perhaps it is time for other countries to contribute more. Especially the newly economically powerful countries. But like I have said else where it is always important to realize the cost.

To think that we could sit back and watch parts of the world burn is not naivete. We certainly could do that, many countries, including the US have in the past and continue to do so. I didn't say it would be right. It is also not possible for the US to get involved in every conflict, and whether or not it should is another question. But the truth is that we always sit back and watch to varying degrees. The only thing in question here is the degree. Yes, countries carry debt, it is part of the way our world does economics. But can that debt be continually carried indefinitely? What happens when the debt is so big we cannot even keep up with the interest?

Yes, the percentage of the American budget that looks to foreign aid is pretty small. But it is still a lot of money. My question about lending out money you don't actually have still stands. There are lots of other areas I would like to see budget cuts first. I am not against helping people. I do think that charity should not be demanded or forced... That also doesn't look at the cost in military aid to other countries...

The America First policy choices isn't about thinking that we are special or more deserving. But rather the idea that the Government of the American people, funded by the American people, should put the interests and well being of the American people first.

Okay, even the articles that you quoted use words like very likely and the data supports. As for our projections of what this might result in in future they are anything but certain... But like I said, this is an area where I am torn because I live on and care about this planet and the future for my children's children.

The last part, that data is from 2011, there have been vast increases in countries like India and China since then and a fair amount more regulation and efficiencies developed in countries like the US and Germany... I do think we should keep working on our own output however. But the cost/benefit platform now makes the cost of further reductions in the US quite high. Especially when the US keep buying the cheaper products from countries like China and India which offsets the positive changes in the US.

I really appreciate your thoughtful response and the sources that you included. Thank you for being awesome! And for continuing this important conversation.

Sincerely,
Mars

SW-User

@MarsSword: China's pollution level is down from 2011 levels. they're taking action; they don't need us to stand over their shoulder.

As far as climate change, if there's even a question about it and you do care for future generations, why not err on the side of caution?

You offer reasonable debate and welcome serious responses. You're a welcomed addition to the conversation. We'll meet again (I suspect I can sharpen my skills with you). Thanks for making me use my mind!

room101 · 51-55, M

@MarsSword: in our previous discussion about the American military, I mentioned Obama (in response to what was said by KnightRider). Right up to 2016 and the election, Obama was actively working with the Chinese to bring about the lowering of their pollution levels as mentioned above.

He was doing this as part of the trade deals he was trying to put into place so that America could compete with China on a level playing field. Within that deal were improvements in labour conditions in China and processing methods.

Climate change deniers need to wake up!

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

@OC

Why would we borrow money only to give it away to countries that don't like us. I'm baffled.

Challenger1 · M

@Oconnor: Understood, I can see how that would happen with improved regulation. Hopefully China will continue on that trend, as it is as much their world as ours and they will continue to encourage surrounding nations to do so. Hopefully Trump will continue to work with the Chinese, he would be very stupid not to.

Erring on the side of caution is a good idea in practice. But like I said it is important to weigh the cost against the potential success...

Thank you for your kind words. I do try my best to continue such conversations with an open mind to take and think and try not to get so hung up on my own thoughts that I am responding and not really reading.

@room101: I hope that Trump continues working with the Chinese and pursuing such deals. Like I said elsewhere, he has a vested interest in the success of America.

Climate change is a serious issue and I don't' really like Trumps cavalier attitude towards it. And as someone else pointed out, the oil money behind him is quite scary. However, I also disagree with people who argue that Climate change is a perfect science.

SW-User

@Jackjjacksonjr: Well, when you put it like that...

I'm not sure that's not a simplification of the situation. There is the question of borrowing money to bulk up charitable efforts, to be sure. But like many budgets, we don't know what other developments this affects, how informal compensation occurs, and which money is relegated to a specific department and not to others. Some monies are movable, others aren't. Look, I'm not standing up for our bloated US budget, I'm only suggesting there are myriad factors that we aren't cognizant of.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

@Oconnor:

They have things set so that we have no clue what they are really doing with our money.

SW-User

@Jackjjacksonjr: Yeah, well, that's probably true of either side during any time in history.

I wonder if that's where it all starts. A certain mistrust in your government whether you like it or not; eventually it can grow into infighting and divisiveness. Suddenly all the cats are fighting, leaving the henhouse wide open for the foxes to do what they want.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

@Oconnor:

There is that and also the bill of goods they've all served us that two thirds of the money is prespent for "entitlements" and debt service. Add in a few more big ticket items and there is supposedly very little left for "discretionary" spending. We've been sold out.