[matthewdgreen]

It's been the goal of several administrations for the EU to increase spending, and the lip service goal of this one. But I don't think anyone really wanted the EU to stop purchasing US weapons or abandon the very useful economic/military dependencies that benefited the US. This administration appears to have pushed hard enough to actually break those ties, and I don't think they (and their supporters) fully appreciate how bad that could be.

[ta9000]

As an American, if an outcome of the Trump administration is even a slight deterioration of the US military industrial complex, I don’t think I’ll mind that. I’d rather spend that money on the poor and the young.

[jghn]

> I’d rather spend that money on the poor and the young.

Me too, but that's not how things would play out.

[GenerWork]

I agree 100%. I find it odd how many people will claim to be against the MIC and promote a drop in military spending, yet they act how Europeans spending money with European defense companies rather than American ones is a terrible thing. I suppose they think that we'll just spend less money and nothing will happen otherwise?

[seanmcdirmid]

That money isn’t going to hang around for us to spend on other things though, we are just going to be poorer for it because our economic influence and reach are deteriorating at the same rate as our overall leadership clout.

[ericmcer]

The military is a huge jobs program though, it does provide a way out if you are low income. Some of my good friends had bad childhoods and 4 years in the military (navy, marines) did work out a lot of their issues, pay for their college and get them on some kind of path.

It would be way better if we had jobs programs that built infrastructure and improved public works, but I don't know if converting from `military` -> `direct handouts` would be an improvement.

[ta9000]

Military and defense contractors are two separate things. Both are jobs programs, the latter for upper middle class white people in flyover states.