Is it really false, though? I don't think the claim is that such benefits are directly subsidized, but indirectly. For example, the EU relies (relied?) heavily on the US military to be their "big stick", freeing up some portion of their budgets to be spent on social programs rather than defense ones.
I don't know how true that is in practice, but given the numbers on aid given to Ukraine, and the difference before Trump was elected, it seems true-ish.[1]
but does EU really? EU has, even without the UK, the second biggest military in the world. Are we seriously saying that this is not enough to defend EU? if not, why not?
also, the numbers for ukraine support are not comparable like that, much of the money the EU gives ukraine are not "given", because the EU cannot just do that, they give them loans that they then later give up on (because EU is corrupt and likes to not follow own laws).
In addition to that, it is ridiculous to say that even ANY support to ukraine is needed to defend EU. Consider this, if EU really wanted to give it all, how much more could EU muster than what is currently given to ukraine? how could russia possibly hope to defeat EU?
I dunno, but this hardly a convincing rebuttal. Can you provide some citations about loans and such? I believe the thing I linked included loans as part of the "aid given".
And I'm pretty sure Russia or China have the second biggest military in the world? So I'm not sure your stats are right, either?
If you taxed the rich and corporations like Europe does you could easily have social security. The rich in the US love making Europe the boogeyman that stole your social security, while they laugh all the way to the bank.
I don't know how true that is in practice, but given the numbers on aid given to Ukraine, and the difference before Trump was elected, it seems true-ish.[1]
[1] https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/ukraine-suppor...