US Politics 2026

[Jamie in Chile]

Just seen the news of (warning: this is depressing, option to close this thread now is available!)

The White House asked Congress on Friday to approve about $1.5 trillion for defense in the 2027 fiscal year. If enacted, that amount would set military spending at its highest level in modern history.

The request, which arrived as part of President Trump’s new budget, would amount to a roughly 40 percent increase from what the United States spent on the Pentagon this fiscal year.

The administration coupled the proposal with a call for $73 billion in cuts spread across many domestic agencies, including the elimination of key federal health, housing and education programs, some of which serve minority groups and the poor.

The White House asked Congress on Friday to slash domestic spending by about 10 percent, targeting core government services, including money meant to respond to natural disasters, train new teachers, root out tax fraud, research cures for diseases and develop clean energy technology.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/03/us/politics/white-house-defense-budget.html

 

[Jamie in Chile]

The US already spends more than triple any other country on military

Russia is at $100-$200 billion per year and China at $300 billion.

List of countries with highest military expenditures - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think the US could afford to reduce its military expenditure hugely. I would spend about $300 billion a year I think, about the same as China, and a third of what is spent today, or about 1% of GDP. I would pay for some semiconductor factories in the US with some of the savings incase Taiwan is invaded. No-one is really threatening the US - at least not the 50 states - maybe some military base miles away.

If the US population is about 333 million, and the military spending is $1 trillion, I make that $3,000 per year for every man woman and child. So anyone earning at or above average salary is paying more than that.

The US doesn't need to be in the middle East or support Israel, I would just stay out of it. I would also reduce spending (and personnel) in Europe, South Korea and Japan steadily over time, with those countries building up their own defence.

Sadly even if the US does what I say and cuts military spending by over half, that doesn't free up any dollars. The government would still spend more each year than it collects. All you do is take a big chunk out of that budget deficit.

I had a quick chat with a couple of the AIs and to be fair they suggested they cutting the military budget is not a real saving if global trade is restricted by wars and shipping not moving as freely. I don't think I buy that though.

 

[KLS52]

This was interesting. He's quite the funny guy.

 

[KLS52]

King Charles III quietly did something genuinely beautiful; a lifelong environmentalist who has spent over 50 years putting his credibility on the line for conservation, Charles wrapped up his state visit by heading out to Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. There he sat with park rangers, swore in a group of Junior Rangers, met Buddy the bald eagle, and unveiled stones marking a new conservation partnership between Shenandoah and the Cairngorms in Scotland. This is a man who converted his estate to organic farming in 1986 and got mocked by the British press for decades for caring too loudly about the natural world. A foreign king showing up to honor our public lands with genuine curiosity and warmth? That's a man exactly where he belongs.

And yet this barely registered a blip in the news cycle. That silence matters, because when a visiting head of state has to remind us what our own national parks are worth, something has gone very wrong. It would be nice to have a president who has actually laced up hiking boots, slept under the stars in a national forest, and felt something other than a dollar sign when looking at a tree. trump, whose relationship with the outdoors appears to begin and end at a golf course, is simply not that person.

What's gone wrong is this: trump has spent his tenure treating America's public lands like a fire sale, gutting the Roadless Rule and blowing open nearly 60 million acres of national forests to commercial logging and strip mining, while moving to sell hundreds of thousands of additional acres to private developers. It is a corporate giveaway on a historic scale, and the fact that a British monarch devoted to environmental causes cared more visibly about these forests this week than the American president ever has should be front page news.

Facebook

www.facebook.com

 

[PTree15]

@KLS52 he is such a disgrace on so many levels. I'm not a big follower of the British royals, but I do applaud King Charles for his efforts on behalf of the planet.

 

[KLS52]

It does not affect me but I know several people on Zoloft.

https://www.npr.org/2026/05/07/nx-s1-5814083/rfk-jr-hhs-ssri-antidepressant-psychiatry-therapy-mental-health

 

[KLS52]

I almost hate to bump this thread but saw this when I woke up and found it interesting. I did not know the word Patrimonialism. I like The Atlantic but their articles are so looooooong. My brain has trouble holding on. I only copy /pasted some of which stood out to me.

One Word Describes Trump

A century ago, a German sociologist explained precisely how the president thinks about the world.

www.theatlantic.com

"Patrimonialism is less a form of government than a style of governing. It is not defined by institutions or rules; rather, it can infect all forms of government by replacing impersonal, formal lines of authority with personalized, informal ones. Based on individual loyalty and connections, and on rewarding friends and punishing enemies (real or perceived), it can be found not just in states but also among tribes, street gangs, and criminal organizations."

"Understanding patrimonialism is essential to defeating it. In particular, it has a fatal weakness that Democrats and Trump’s other opponents should make their primary and relentless line of attack."

"In its governmental guise, patrimonialism is distinguished by running the state as if it were the leader’s personal property or family business. It can be found in many countries, but its main contemporary exponent—at least until January 20, 2025—has been Vladimir Putin. In the first portion of his rule, he ran the Russian state as a personal racket. State bureaucracies and private companies continued to operate, but the real governing principle was Stay on Vladimir Vladimirovich’s good side … or else."

"Patrimonialism’s antithesis is not democracy; it is bureaucracy, or, more precisely, bureaucratic proceduralism. Classic authoritarianism—the sort of system seen in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union—is often heavily bureaucratized. When authoritarians take power, they consolidate their rule by creating structures such as secret police, propaganda agencies, special military units, and politburos. They legitimate their power with legal codes and constitutions. Orwell understood the bureaucratic aspect of classic authoritarianism; in 1984, Oceania’s ministries of Truth (propaganda), Peace (war), and Love (state security) are the regime’s most characteristic (and terrifying) features."

"Also unlike classic authoritarianism, patrimonialism can coexist with democracy, at least for a while.

"Even if authoritarianism is averted, the damage that patrimonialism does to state capacity is severe. Governments’ best people leave or are driven out. Agencies’ missions are distorted and their practices corrupted. Procedures and norms are abandoned and forgotten. Civil servants, contractors, grantees, corporations, and the public are corrupted by the habit of currying favor."

"Patrimonialism is corrupt by definition, because its reason for being is to exploit the state for gain—political, personal, and financial. At every turn, it is at war with the rules and institutions that impede rigging, robbing, and gutting the state."