Our view, a minority one...and widely viewed as ‘defeatist’...is that these things take place regardless of what anyone thinks. History marches along, thoughts get in step.
As a former Naval Aviator, a lot of us would simply say that you cannot win a defensive war. You only have to lose that war once. So if your plan is to hunker down, build shields, and allow your enemies sworn to destroy you to get stronger and stronger, you will lose that race.
I haven't noticed any enemy carriers cruising off our coasts ready to launch at a moments notice. I don't think Mexico or Canada are threatening to attack and we have two fairly large moats on the left and the right. So why are we sending our military to meddle all over the globe? The US is in a unique geographical position. We can afford not be sticking our noses in everyone elses business.
With $38 trillion debt load and adding 1 trillion every 90 days, we can't afford this military that has 800 bases around the globe. But empires gotta do the stupid shit.
No doubt there are no enemy carriers nearby. But there are thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at us, and by folks who want to control the world. We just happen to be in their way. I do agree that if we send our military out it that there has to be a clearly defined reason and time frame. Also agree we can't afford any waste, including the military, but most of the waste (mainly consisting of corruption) is in our social programs.
We have thousands pointing back and we were the first to deploy them. We were also the only country to have used nukes. Check out who has the most military installations around the globe. 800 or so for the US. Russia next with about 13. China even less. As for the defense budget the US is spends more than all the other countries on the planet combined. Who's the hegemon?
This is true. But most other countries with nukes are not the moral equivalent of the US. Iran has pledged to erase Israel as soon as it can. And if we did not have nukes some other country would have long ago decapitated our military and taken effective control of our government. We did use them 80 years ago to save lives. But, and I say unfortunately, we let other countries develop nukes and get strong, too. Their goal is to conquer the world as soon as they can overpower us, but we don't share that goal. If we did, we could have achieved that decades ago.
Yes, another America hater with half-truths and analysis out of context. Russia and China have killed millions of their own citizens, but I guess that's not an issue with you. Do you think countries with this mindset would not hesitate to kill millions of citizens in our country? Only deterrence and the willingness to show and use force would keep the China's and Russia's of the world in check. Hence, the need for military installations.
I love my country and have served it in the Marine Corps. It's what the gov't does that I sometimes disagree with. I refuse to follow blindly. 800 vs 13 and less and you see no disparity there?
John Keegan's "The Price of Admiralty" explained much of this.
If you think of U.S. history some nineteenth century examples might be familiar: certain interventions along the Barbary Coast and the situation the last time Washington was attacked and burned.
But haven't all the "offensive" wars since the 1960s resulted in a country that is slowly collapsing from within similar to what happened the Roman Empire? Could you point to any positive outcomes from all our offensive wars? Haven't Vietnam and the Taliban won defensive wars against the US?
At least we can't complain that Bill isn't offering solutions. As someone that only collects "rent" from people and businesses that occupy real estate I own, I can't relate to the ". . . subsidies, bailouts, welfare, giveaways and shake-downs."
I'm not sure cutting Defense by about two-thirds is a bright idea. Defense is one of the few things that our Constitutionally defined federal government is actually supposed to do.
Two thirds might or might not be the right number, but when our budgets include items the military doesn't even want, there has to be tremendoous waste.
You Warhawks can’t remember one of the few good things that Trump has done and that is to name that department for what it really is and has been since WWII: Department of WAR!
But does "Defense" include over 800 military bases scattered throughout the world? Speaking of the Constitution do you think the guys who wrote it had this in mind? Some of them were even against maintaining a standing army and Washington warned us against foreign entanglements.
There is no question that there is waste and abuse (and possibly fraud) in the Pentagon's budget (everyone remembers the $400.00 toilet seats). I'm just not sure that you can cut it to the extent that Mr. Bonner is suggesting to Mr. Trump.
But if we followed Bill's suggestion of a $500 billion budget we would still be spending more than China and Russia. Perhaps we need some DOGE cost cutters with defense spending and procurement experience to take a good look at our defense spending? You would think that a "successful" businessman like Trump would have done that. Shouldn't that be the responsibility of any new management team taking over a business?
Given the push back to DOGE even when they started by trying to cut low hanging fruit, I think it's a safe bet that they looked at the Military budget as a sacred cow that could not/cannot be gored at the/this time. These institutions and departments were created and grown over many decades, it's going to take more than one President and more than two terms to straighten out the mess.
Let's get the voter ID requirement passed so we don't have illegal aliens voting for Democrats, or Democrats voting multiple times or dead people voting for Democrats, then we'll see who the serious cost cutters are.
As is often the case, despite readers who always condemn Bill, this brutal approach is the only one that can save us as a country the residents continue to enjoy. Politicians currently are unable or unwilling to accept what they are doing to accelerate the decline, rather than reduce it. The Chief Scam Artist running things certainly doesn’t think beyond his own egotistical gold-plated grifter persona.
So Biden and his drug addled son weren't scam artists and grifters? I guess you'd rather have Marxists, Socialists and Leftists running the show with an auto-pen.
I can't argue with you about politicians. They don't think past their next election and how much money they can raise toward that end. Unless and until term limits are imposed, not much will change.
Very Good Billy. You've near perfectly encapsulated the problem and solution; now how do we get there-I'm not so sure we can. Seriously, excellent column.
Bill, I beseech you to steer clear of driving or even passengering in, any sort of convertible car whatsoever!
Especially in Texan conurbations…
Even if it’s one of those new fangled EV ones, that promises much about saving the planet, but offers precious little protection from your run of the mill Soviet style defector coming in from the cold ~
Great column, reminiscent of PJ O’Rourke’s “pigs at the trough” analogy. The sad irony is that our current administration has shown little inclination to shift from reactive to proactive mode à la Milei. It might yank some squealing piglets from the sow, but it has others lined up to take their place.
The corn industry that makes ethanol still gets one bushel of corn free from the government to make a gallon of ethanol. It takes three bushels of corn to make one gallon, Not bad when you get 1/3 of your raw material free from the government.
Interesting commentary. The first thing that came tom mind is to make lobbying illegal. Second thing is make it illegal to fund pork for any state. The federal government is there to protect the citizens, protect property rights, and free enterprise with no monopolies. Politicians spend more than 50% of the time trying to get re-elected. They cater to the people that receive freebies. Term limits is the answer. One other thing, all politicians will have the same health care as the general public and no pensions. Just a thought.
Abe, I agree with many of your points, but not on lobbying. If you strip our government back to its fundamental purpose of protecting individual rights instead of giving out favors and free stuff, lobbying would disappear because there would be nothing that could be gained from it. That's where the emphasis should be - stripping back government. Besides, there are those that lobby only to protect their company or industry from intrusive government regulation.
I agree with most of what you say. But how is he going to explain it to the people when almost all the media is ultra liberal and will only tell the people their agenda, not his.
Exactly, Warren - impossible. Where is that ol' saying as Caesar crossed the Rubicon “Alea iacta est” - "the die is cast". There is no saving the U.S. Empire - the only choice is how it goes into the dustbin of history. Hopefully, the World dodges the "mushroom" but with the TACO Clown holding the nuclear keys - ¿quien sabe?
Another mixed bag from Bonner, but to his credit, more good than bad. With all the fraud being exposed in government welfare programs, I don't recall him mentioning that these should be cut substantially. Bonner wants to make big cuts only in defense it seems... well, I agree in principle that there is probably a lot of wasteful spending in defense as well, but I also suspect that among reasonable people that there would be disagreement about what is in America's interest or what a rational policy of self-defense would consist of. I wouldn't just be waiting for the missiles to be flying through the air at us to put up the defenses. It would start long before that. In some cases, this would mean eliminating threats before they metastasize into full blown wars.
P.S. Bonner's comments on ethanol are spot on. Unfortunately, the more a government moves away from the protection of individual rights as its primary function and into other areas, the more the frenzy to get a piece of the pie and for the country to devolve into pressure group warfare.
It is fascinating to me that for all the talk of inflation, affordability and transparency people generally remain ignorant of the fact that the US Dollar has lost 98% of its purchasing power over the last 100 years or so and as much as 21 points of that occurred in the last 5 years. Can you have capitalism and unity without a sound currency? I think not.
Sometimes you get a little cynical, beyond my own natural level, but you are spot on suggesting a return to sound currency and less government and warning we must not go down the path that past "empires" followed to demise by overcoming our own human proclivities. History is the perfect reference so why not use it.
Thanks Bill for your sheer doggedness in raising the alarm.
Like Trump's friend Larry Fink once said - It doesn't matter who wins the elections - especially when it comes to deficit spending. Both parties like to spend money we don't have.
“We have appeared, to many readers, to be critical of Mr. Trump.“ Now, that is an understatement! It is the reason for many of my posts on this site. Given that I signed up for financial advice and not political diatribes, I am encouraged by this Bonner Epistle, given it addresses politics on from a perspective that could affect my financial wellbeing. It is also crafted as advice that is positive in nature and civilized in tone. The cheap insults that I’ve read coming from Mr. Bonner are what DJT routinely does and which I dislike coming from anyone. So, thank you Bill and keep up the good work.
The ethanol mandate is so telling of our corruption. Making ethanol uses more BTUs of energy than the manufactured ethanol produces. Ethanol is bad for engines. Farming the corn to produce the ethanol is environmentally bad. Growing all that corn on fertile land makes other agricultural products more expensive. I guess this is how a dying society dies.
Bill Bonner for President!
I agree although my guess is Bill wouldn't want the job.
He wouldn't want to take the pay cut.
Among the best articles you have written. Now if the people in power would read and adhere, we might last aa little, longer as a society.
As a former Naval Aviator, a lot of us would simply say that you cannot win a defensive war. You only have to lose that war once. So if your plan is to hunker down, build shields, and allow your enemies sworn to destroy you to get stronger and stronger, you will lose that race.
I haven't noticed any enemy carriers cruising off our coasts ready to launch at a moments notice. I don't think Mexico or Canada are threatening to attack and we have two fairly large moats on the left and the right. So why are we sending our military to meddle all over the globe? The US is in a unique geographical position. We can afford not be sticking our noses in everyone elses business.
With $38 trillion debt load and adding 1 trillion every 90 days, we can't afford this military that has 800 bases around the globe. But empires gotta do the stupid shit.
No doubt there are no enemy carriers nearby. But there are thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at us, and by folks who want to control the world. We just happen to be in their way. I do agree that if we send our military out it that there has to be a clearly defined reason and time frame. Also agree we can't afford any waste, including the military, but most of the waste (mainly consisting of corruption) is in our social programs.
We have thousands pointing back and we were the first to deploy them. We were also the only country to have used nukes. Check out who has the most military installations around the globe. 800 or so for the US. Russia next with about 13. China even less. As for the defense budget the US is spends more than all the other countries on the planet combined. Who's the hegemon?
https://www.ibon.org/us-russia-china-military-footprint/
This is true. But most other countries with nukes are not the moral equivalent of the US. Iran has pledged to erase Israel as soon as it can. And if we did not have nukes some other country would have long ago decapitated our military and taken effective control of our government. We did use them 80 years ago to save lives. But, and I say unfortunately, we let other countries develop nukes and get strong, too. Their goal is to conquer the world as soon as they can overpower us, but we don't share that goal. If we did, we could have achieved that decades ago.
Yes, another America hater with half-truths and analysis out of context. Russia and China have killed millions of their own citizens, but I guess that's not an issue with you. Do you think countries with this mindset would not hesitate to kill millions of citizens in our country? Only deterrence and the willingness to show and use force would keep the China's and Russia's of the world in check. Hence, the need for military installations.
I love my country and have served it in the Marine Corps. It's what the gov't does that I sometimes disagree with. I refuse to follow blindly. 800 vs 13 and less and you see no disparity there?
John Keegan's "The Price of Admiralty" explained much of this.
If you think of U.S. history some nineteenth century examples might be familiar: certain interventions along the Barbary Coast and the situation the last time Washington was attacked and burned.
But haven't all the "offensive" wars since the 1960s resulted in a country that is slowly collapsing from within similar to what happened the Roman Empire? Could you point to any positive outcomes from all our offensive wars? Haven't Vietnam and the Taliban won defensive wars against the US?
You are correct.
I for one am willing to risk it.
At least we can't complain that Bill isn't offering solutions. As someone that only collects "rent" from people and businesses that occupy real estate I own, I can't relate to the ". . . subsidies, bailouts, welfare, giveaways and shake-downs."
I'm not sure cutting Defense by about two-thirds is a bright idea. Defense is one of the few things that our Constitutionally defined federal government is actually supposed to do.
Two thirds might or might not be the right number, but when our budgets include items the military doesn't even want, there has to be tremendoous waste.
You Warhawks can’t remember one of the few good things that Trump has done and that is to name that department for what it really is and has been since WWII: Department of WAR!
But does "Defense" include over 800 military bases scattered throughout the world? Speaking of the Constitution do you think the guys who wrote it had this in mind? Some of them were even against maintaining a standing army and Washington warned us against foreign entanglements.
There is no question that there is waste and abuse (and possibly fraud) in the Pentagon's budget (everyone remembers the $400.00 toilet seats). I'm just not sure that you can cut it to the extent that Mr. Bonner is suggesting to Mr. Trump.
But if we followed Bill's suggestion of a $500 billion budget we would still be spending more than China and Russia. Perhaps we need some DOGE cost cutters with defense spending and procurement experience to take a good look at our defense spending? You would think that a "successful" businessman like Trump would have done that. Shouldn't that be the responsibility of any new management team taking over a business?
Given the push back to DOGE even when they started by trying to cut low hanging fruit, I think it's a safe bet that they looked at the Military budget as a sacred cow that could not/cannot be gored at the/this time. These institutions and departments were created and grown over many decades, it's going to take more than one President and more than two terms to straighten out the mess.
Let's get the voter ID requirement passed so we don't have illegal aliens voting for Democrats, or Democrats voting multiple times or dead people voting for Democrats, then we'll see who the serious cost cutters are.
As is often the case, despite readers who always condemn Bill, this brutal approach is the only one that can save us as a country the residents continue to enjoy. Politicians currently are unable or unwilling to accept what they are doing to accelerate the decline, rather than reduce it. The Chief Scam Artist running things certainly doesn’t think beyond his own egotistical gold-plated grifter persona.
So Biden and his drug addled son weren't scam artists and grifters? I guess you'd rather have Marxists, Socialists and Leftists running the show with an auto-pen.
I can't argue with you about politicians. They don't think past their next election and how much money they can raise toward that end. Unless and until term limits are imposed, not much will change.
Then there are those "who always condemn Trump".
And, then there are those "who always praise Trump".
Me as well.
Who would possibly attack the US?
No one as there is no one who wants to. There is however one country that uses and abuses the US for their own benefit.
Very Good Billy. You've near perfectly encapsulated the problem and solution; now how do we get there-I'm not so sure we can. Seriously, excellent column.
Bill, I beseech you to steer clear of driving or even passengering in, any sort of convertible car whatsoever!
Especially in Texan conurbations…
Even if it’s one of those new fangled EV ones, that promises much about saving the planet, but offers precious little protection from your run of the mill Soviet style defector coming in from the cold ~
Great column, reminiscent of PJ O’Rourke’s “pigs at the trough” analogy. The sad irony is that our current administration has shown little inclination to shift from reactive to proactive mode à la Milei. It might yank some squealing piglets from the sow, but it has others lined up to take their place.
The corn industry that makes ethanol still gets one bushel of corn free from the government to make a gallon of ethanol. It takes three bushels of corn to make one gallon, Not bad when you get 1/3 of your raw material free from the government.
Interesting commentary. The first thing that came tom mind is to make lobbying illegal. Second thing is make it illegal to fund pork for any state. The federal government is there to protect the citizens, protect property rights, and free enterprise with no monopolies. Politicians spend more than 50% of the time trying to get re-elected. They cater to the people that receive freebies. Term limits is the answer. One other thing, all politicians will have the same health care as the general public and no pensions. Just a thought.
Abe, I agree with many of your points, but not on lobbying. If you strip our government back to its fundamental purpose of protecting individual rights instead of giving out favors and free stuff, lobbying would disappear because there would be nothing that could be gained from it. That's where the emphasis should be - stripping back government. Besides, there are those that lobby only to protect their company or industry from intrusive government regulation.
Agreed
Cut government to only necessary departments
I agree with most of what you say. But how is he going to explain it to the people when almost all the media is ultra liberal and will only tell the people their agenda, not his.
Sensible, practical, and impossible. I'm reminded how much of what's happening was predicted in Empire of Debt so many years ago.
Exactly, Warren - impossible. Where is that ol' saying as Caesar crossed the Rubicon “Alea iacta est” - "the die is cast". There is no saving the U.S. Empire - the only choice is how it goes into the dustbin of history. Hopefully, the World dodges the "mushroom" but with the TACO Clown holding the nuclear keys - ¿quien sabe?
Another mixed bag from Bonner, but to his credit, more good than bad. With all the fraud being exposed in government welfare programs, I don't recall him mentioning that these should be cut substantially. Bonner wants to make big cuts only in defense it seems... well, I agree in principle that there is probably a lot of wasteful spending in defense as well, but I also suspect that among reasonable people that there would be disagreement about what is in America's interest or what a rational policy of self-defense would consist of. I wouldn't just be waiting for the missiles to be flying through the air at us to put up the defenses. It would start long before that. In some cases, this would mean eliminating threats before they metastasize into full blown wars.
P.S. Bonner's comments on ethanol are spot on. Unfortunately, the more a government moves away from the protection of individual rights as its primary function and into other areas, the more the frenzy to get a piece of the pie and for the country to devolve into pressure group warfare.
Sound advice Bill.
It is fascinating to me that for all the talk of inflation, affordability and transparency people generally remain ignorant of the fact that the US Dollar has lost 98% of its purchasing power over the last 100 years or so and as much as 21 points of that occurred in the last 5 years. Can you have capitalism and unity without a sound currency? I think not.
Sometimes you get a little cynical, beyond my own natural level, but you are spot on suggesting a return to sound currency and less government and warning we must not go down the path that past "empires" followed to demise by overcoming our own human proclivities. History is the perfect reference so why not use it.
Thanks Bill for your sheer doggedness in raising the alarm.
Like Trump's friend Larry Fink once said - It doesn't matter who wins the elections - especially when it comes to deficit spending. Both parties like to spend money we don't have.
“We have appeared, to many readers, to be critical of Mr. Trump.“ Now, that is an understatement! It is the reason for many of my posts on this site. Given that I signed up for financial advice and not political diatribes, I am encouraged by this Bonner Epistle, given it addresses politics on from a perspective that could affect my financial wellbeing. It is also crafted as advice that is positive in nature and civilized in tone. The cheap insults that I’ve read coming from Mr. Bonner are what DJT routinely does and which I dislike coming from anyone. So, thank you Bill and keep up the good work.
Great post, Bill! Did you mail the letter!
The ethanol mandate is so telling of our corruption. Making ethanol uses more BTUs of energy than the manufactured ethanol produces. Ethanol is bad for engines. Farming the corn to produce the ethanol is environmentally bad. Growing all that corn on fertile land makes other agricultural products more expensive. I guess this is how a dying society dies.