Donald Trump: "Let them pay for protection"

[Patranus]

Trump was being interviewed about the unbalanced trade agreements the US signs with such countries as South Korea and then went onto say that the US is spending billions to protect South Korea. His argument is since they are making billions off of the USA in terms of trade they should be paying for the cost of protection from the US.

Trump also stated that OPEC wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the US because the US pays the protection of those countries.

So, do you agree or disagree with Trump in that since these countries are getting rich from doing business with the US they should be paying for the protection provided by the US.

 

[Genx87]

I dont know how we go about collecting any kind of compensation from Europe or SK. But I propose we leave all together and let them pick up the cost of defending themselves.

 

[Schadenfroh]

We have cost-sharing agreements with host countries like Japan, they usually provide the land and pay for about half of the expenses of stationing forces there.

 

[Karl Agathon]

I agree with Mr Trump. :thumbsup:

 

[Darwin333]

Trump was being interviewed about the unbalanced trade agreements the US signs with such countries as South Korea and then went onto say that the US is spending billions to protect South Korea. His argument is since they are making billions off of the USA in terms of trade they should be paying for the cost of protection from the US.

Trump also stated that OPEC wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the US because the US pays the protection of those countries.

So, do you agree or disagree with Trump in that since these countries are getting rich from doing business with the US they should be paying for the protection provided by the US.

We don't have much of a choice concerning the ME. Their oil is vital to our economy and there isn't another supplier ready willing and able to replace what they supply us. If something pops off in the ME and the canal gets shut down our economy will be in shambles not long after.

But hey, at least we still have a ton of our oil in the ground for when it becomes worth even more!

 

[boomerang]

We don't have much of a choice concerning the ME. Their oil is vital to our economy and there isn't another supplier ready willing and able to replace what they supply us. If something pops off in the ME and the canal gets shut down our economy will be in shambles not long after.

But hey, at least we still have a ton of our oil in the ground for when it becomes worth even more!

I have read many times and many places that the overwhelming majority of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico.

Edit: In researching it, I appear to be misinformed. It appears that we domestically produce 40% of our oil and the rest comes from OPEC. We are not restricted from buying exclusively from OPEC however and regularly buy from other nations, Canada being one of them.

 

[Scotteq]

Just a minute: A Real Estate guy from New York who owns Casinos wants people to "Pay for Protection"!?!?!


Gee... wonder where he got *that* idea!

 

[Schadenfroh]

I have read many times and many places that the overwhelming majority of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico.

Edit: In researching it, I appear to be misinformed. It appears that we domestically produce 40% of our oil and the rest comes from OPEC. We are not restricted from buying exclusively from OPEC however and regularly buy from other nations, Canada being one of them.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html

The top five sources of US crude oil imports for October were Canada (1,840 thousand barrels per day), Mexico (1,178 thousand barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1,114 thousand barrels per day), Venezuela (887 thousand barrels per day), and Nigeria (812 thousand barrels per day).

The only nation really hostile on that top 5 list is Venezuela (who could be a friend with a regime change). However, Saudi Arabia is one regime change away from being another Iran. Nigeria is at risk if the rest of the world finally decides to deal with the scammer / spammer problem in a drastic way.

 

[CPA]

In some circles, Trump is seriously considering a run for the Presidency next year. This may be the start of his platform.

 

[Patranus]

In some circles, Trump is seriously considering a run for the Presidency next year. This may be the start of his platform.

It would certainly cut military spending significantly.

 

[Scotteq]

In some circles, Trump is seriously considering a run for the Presidency next year. This may be the start of his platform.

I heard... but Gawd, I hope not: And partly for one of the same reasons I didn't want Forbes to run. Trump owns the old DeLorean estate in Bedminster*, and it would suck to no longer be able to rip down that road on the motorcycle for fear of a Secret Service Sniper...






*Down the road from one of Forbes' places

 

[Lemon law]

Yes, I can somewhat agree with the Donald Trump. In the heady days after WW2, when the USA was making a fortune selling consumer goods to Europe and the world while the the larger world was consumed with repairing the infrastructure damage WW2 caused, there was some wisdom in the USA paying all the defense costs of the entire free world.

But that US balance of trade surplus that bought went South in 1980, and has been going ever South since then. Since Uncle Sucker is paying everyone's defense costs, it makes our exports less price competitive as we also give other nations a free ride with their imports.

Worse yet, those nations we bribe have less and less faith in US foreign policy as they vote with their feet. And to some extent any rational US citizen can't blame our allies, our foreign policy has gotten significantly more stupid in the last decade. Not that past US foreign policy has been any smarter, because the USA has been stuck on stupid for many decades.

 

[Zedtom]

Donald Trump might be laying the groundwork for a presidential run, but the ideas are worthy of consideration.

The American taxpayer should have reliable numbers to see if we are getting a good return on our investments overseas. If we are spending x amount for the protection of a country and we have a trade deficit, then we need to renegotiate our contract. When they whine and complain we must show that we are serious and start pulling out our troops and equipment.

The problem is that the state department doesn't want to disclose the truth of actual foreign aid amounts for security reasons and the military accounting system is a complex mystery utilizing smoke and mirrors.

 

[shortylickens]

Isnt this the guy who routinely declares bankruptcy as a business tactic?
Not that I disagree with him but I'd prefer someone elses opinion if I were to give a shit.

 

[bamacre]

Let me get this straight. Some of you are in favor of entities paying protection money to another entity? World policeman is too expensive, we'd rather be the world's Godfather? If they don't pay, we go break some legs.

 

[bamacre]

It would certainly cut military spending significantly.

No, military spending wouldn't be cut. It would just produce a revenue.

 

[ayabe]

Not saying I agree with our current stance but the Donald is taking a way too simplistic viewpoint on this.

Let's say we pull out of Japan and SK completely.

1. North Korea will probably start a war within 24 hours of us leaving.

2. The Chinese will be the unchallenged #1 in Asia and will bully the shit out of its neighbors and probably invade Taiwan in short order.

3. Japan will have to re-militarize to protect themselves from China.

That's just in the very short term, long term is could be a region wide war which we'd get dragged in to eventually anyways.

More or less the same will play out in Europe but at a much slower pace. The European powers will have to pump up their forces to fill the void and eventually they'll start squabbling and you know where that will lead as it has countless times in the last 1000 years.

So to me, it's a lesser of two evils, we're there to protect these people from themselves.

Edit - Should have said this from the get-go but most of countries with US bases don't want us there anyways, so if we try to present them with a bill, we'll be told to get the F out in short order, leading to the above.

 

[irishScott]

Let me get this straight. Some of you are in favor of entities paying protection money to another entity? World policeman is too expensive, we'd rather be the world's Godfather? If they don't pay, we go break some legs.

Thing is our protection would be legitimate. If they don't pay, we leave and let someone else tear into them.

 

[UberNeuman]

Isnt this the guy who routinely declares bankruptcy as a business tactic?
Not that I disagree with him but I'd prefer someone elses opinion if I were to give a shit.

How can you hate on a man that saves money by cutting his own hair with a flowbee?

 

[bamacre]

Thing is our protection would be legitimate. If they don't pay, we leave and let someone else tear into them.

No offense, but that's a very naive perspective.

 

[Jaskalas]

Let me get this straight. Some of you are in favor of entities paying protection money to another entity? World policeman is too expensive, we'd rather be the world's Godfather? If they don't pay, we go break some legs.

If they don't pay, we let others 'break some legs'.

 

[Jaskalas]

No offense, but that's a very naive perspective.

Cause you're thinking to involve us anyway?

 

[bamacre]

If they don't pay, we let others 'break some legs'.

I just can't believe you people actually think this is the way this game would be played.

 

[irishScott]

No offense, but that's a very naive perspective.

Lol didn't say I'd support it. I'd rather not cause Asian War I, Just saying the concept is sound from a financial standpoint. And who knows? It's not like South Korea and Taiwan have weak militaries. If we stepped up sales and gave them more hardware they'd be fine against China for a while. The Japanese military is well trained, if they decided to re-militarize it'd be a force to be reckoned with.

 

[bamacre]

Cause you're thinking to involve us anyway?

Oh, hell no. That's the last thing I would support.