Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You made a general, pedestrian claim about spending I didn't do anything, that wasn't me. > You're not making a serious claim that we're overspending. This is the thread about debt to GDP ratio hitting 123%. I don't claim anything, but if this isn't overspending then I think we agree to disagree. > Not really. Most US debt is owed to Americans, and in the circumstances in which we're worried about some other countr…
> I didn't do anything, that wasn't me. Ok you're defending it. > I don't claim anything, but if this isn't overspending then I think we agree to disagree. Ok if it's over-spending then let's cut the programs that align with my ideology instead of cutting military spending. > You want to solve that with weapons?? That'll only make everyone drop the dollar, as simple as that. Not worried at all - those dollars become…
Yes, I think the question of whether or not the US is living above its means is settled. Where you cut is a political decision. I certainly think the US can reduce its military spending, with an emphasis on reduce.
> The strength of the dollar is because of the actual physical reality and capabilities of the United States.
I don't think this is true at all. It's value is a result of being the reserve currency of the world and as a result a lot of things being denominated in USD. The financial system will lose so much if the dollar devalues significantly that that's a bad outcome to almost everyone, not just the US.
I think the actual capabilities of the US have 0 influence there. Certainly military capabilities. That kind of stuff is true for drug cartels, not global financial stability. You cannot force anyone to buy dollars by force.
> You're directionally right but also wrong w.r.t America.
I think you're wrong here. But not in the sense you might expect.
You present your reading as a fact. I think how you read the current situation with Iran is a question of how you interpret the situation.
For example, you say
> Iran's economy literally doesn't function due to our blockade (which means we also control the Strait of Hormuz).
The US has never controlled the strait. The biggest win for Iran is that it has asserted being able to block it. The US can block any ships going to and coming from Iran's ports. It cannot and has never been able to guarantee safe passage through the strait. That last fact is Iran's biggest win of the conflict as it has now shown that even when the US goes full scale war, it can still shut off the strait for all intents and purposes.
The other miscalculation is that while you might have air superiority, it should be clear by now that the US can't win from the air alone. And Iran might have known/gambled that the US wasn't willing to commit to a ground offensive. As bad as it sounds to be bombed whenever your enemy wants, from a strategic point of view I think this makes sense. Horrible for the population but the regime doesn't care.
> The worst outcome is some MAGA coal rollers have to pay more for gas.
Uh no. The US lost quite a bit of respect I think for this intervention. We need to see what a final cease fire might look like but the whole world is essentially asking what the hell this whole endeavour was for. The whole world is paying higher gas prices and in a lot of other countries especially south east Asia there is a much bigger dependency on Middle East oil. Those people aren't happy about this at all. It might not even be higher prices but outright shortages. And wait for food prices to shoot up because of more expensive fertilizer for example.
The problem with a lot of this is that the American view doesn't extend past its borders. You see spending on bombs and some higher gas prices. Other countries see shortages and higher food prices. Just remember how pissed off America was when egg prices went up because of avian flu. Now imagine a foreign power being responsible. The decision makers can't even explain the actual goal, and when they try it seems to be shifting all the time.
> But this also reinforces the need for a higher military budget and the need to spend more to acquire more arms and capabilities.
In the end I think it comes down to one simple assumption. You seem to be convinced that with enough military spending the US can force a country to do what it wants. I think that that's not possible at all (see Russia and the Iran conflict right now) let alone at a cost that any country can bear. The US clearly is already struggling to pay for it all.
> By the way, the military budget isn't actually that high as a percentage of GDP. You're welcome to do that comparison yourself.
Sure, but I never said that. The problem is that you don't raise the money to pay for your spending. It's a significant chunk of the federal budget and that will need to be balanced at some point. Every US household knows this, they have to do it every month.