re: The line of demarcation has been defined, Submissive Globalists vs US Sovereignists.

quote:

---

This is true, but it's due to social welfare programs, not our military spending.

---

Our public debt is due to more govt than we can afford at every level and every department, including defense. And those defense numbers will increase by hundreds of billions more with every unnecessary war we fight. But if we need to cut social welfare spending, lets start with non-citizens receiving govt benefits. And if politicians want to cut welfare, food stamps, medicaid, medicare, social security for US citizens, put that plan out there. Announce it on the evening news that we're cutting social programs to fund our foreign wars. It still won't work because when transfer payments shrink, the economy shrinks too and we still won't be able to afford a global military presence. A shrinking economy is inevitable, but it will also inevitably include shrinking the scope of our military engagements.

quote:

---

And global trade has made good cheaper, so we would be in even more debt if goods were more expensive and we had to raise SS and welfare payments for the poor.

---

Running trade deficits because of cheaper foreign goods has damaged our own economy over the last 50 years, to the point that we're dependent on foreigners to provide necessities. The cost is more than just the amount we pay at the point of transaction. Trade deficits reduce our domestic production and our tax base. The fact that we can't afford our own production is testament to the fact that regulatory excess, constant fiscal and monetary laxity have driven prices up even as we exported jobs and made more people dependent on govt assistance. This treadmill ends one of two ways, either we voluntarily live within our means and bring production back home, or it happens by force when debt destroys the country.

quote:

---

It's simplistic to think what's going on in the world doesn't affect our economic security.

---

It's simplistic to think we can police the world. We can't because our our economy won't support that. If other countries want the US to fight their wars, they'll have to fund our military, including retirement and lifelong healthcare for our soldiers. Denying our economic limitations doesn't make them go away.

quote:

---

We need a market for our goods. 350 million people can't support a GDP the size of America's, and our birthrate is on the decline.

---

Yes, we need a market to sell our goods so exports equal our imports. We don't need to become dependent on other nations to provide for necessities. That's not exceptionalism, it's loss of sovereignty.

quote:

---

Global communications closed the book on economic and military isolationism. That's not coming back.

---

You're confusing isolationism with economic failure. We can't afford to fight their wars. And we can't afford our trade deficits. Right now they're lending us money to support the dollar but that too shall pass. Perpetually consuming more than we can produce, including the US military, isn't an option. Consuming less is a necessity because compounding debt is destroying our economy.

quote:

---

We're dependent on foreigners because their products are either cheaper or better. If they're better, then Americans need to do better. If they're cheaper, it's because American labor, regulations, taxes and cost of capital is much higher than in other places and need to be addressed.

---

Nobody is arguing with that. Of course we need to do better. It's been debated for decades and it's still getting worse. Hard solutions are at hand. The size of govt has to decline. Domestic consumption has to decline. Production of essentials has to increase. How will we know when our economy is on a track to sustainability? Debt to GDP stops rapidly increasing and starts to decline. Trade deficits turn into balanced trade. We have a long tough road ahead. It'll get worse before it gets better but we have to start taking steps to reverse the root cause, debt and deficits. In the interim, American standards of living are going to decline because the overconsumption has to end.

You seem to think globalism is a future promise that the US can continue on its current course and its current standard of living. I'm sorry, it's not because the rest of the world won't perpetually support our overconsumption. If American capitalists want to sell here, they'll have to create jobs here and produce here. If they can't do that, they'll have no market. If by Globalism you mean balanced international trade for the US, great. If you mean we continue consuming more than we produce, import more than we export, fighting and/or paying for foreign wars, that's ending very soon no matter what.

We will know who our true friends are.