Trump: U.S., China & Russia Should Decrease Military Spending By 50%!
President Trump likes to keep everyone on their toes. He has repeatedly proven to say things that (in the end) were perhaps never meant to be taken seriously in the first place. Sometimes the president's statements are terrible ideas, like the U.S. owning Gaza. But at other times, his statements are incredible, like the U.S. cutting military spending by 50% if Russia and China agree to do the same. Today on the Liberty Report, we cover the latter statement, which would be a huge positive for our nation, were it ever to come to pass.
Raising the Debt Limit: Currency Debasement00:06:50
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today, we have Chris Rossini, our co-host.
Chris, welcome to the program.
Great to be with you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
There's lots to talk about.
None of it's very important because it just deals with a small number of trillions of dollars.
It's no big deal.
And not to be facetious or not, but there's good stuff going on.
I think there's people in this new administration that's very, very sincere.
Some days I become very cynical and say, yeah, I've heard that before, but I do think it's different this time than ever before.
And yet, the spending looks like it's going to continue.
I came across an article that said that the House wants to raise the debt limit by the defense spending by $150 billion.
And that's the Senate and the House $100.
So they're already talking about increasing it.
But what do they want to do?
I thought we were having trouble even keeping the government open.
So they have to raise the debt limit to be correct.
They don't want to disobey the rules and regulations they have.
So in these bills they're proposing, they're still in early discussion.
They could be higher.
They could be lower.
But the principle seems to be that they need to raise the debt limit and they need to cut spending.
And the proposals, though, when they want to increase the spending is for the military, for so-called defense.
I don't call it defense.
I call it offense.
But they want to raise the debt limit by $4 trillion.
So what does that do with people who are not interested in inside politics, but interested in this, in the financial thing?
But if they're worried about inflation and prices going up, they ought to pay attention because the most important factor that makes the people most unhappy are prices are going up.
The CPI is going up.
Food's going up.
Everybody wants eggs now.
There are no eggs left.
They just go on and on.
But the whole thing is, is they have to realize the exact reasons why they have to print so much money for various reasons.
Some people just need a lot of loans.
Big banks need it and bills out and all that.
But the other reason they have to do this is to keep the federal government going.
That's why it always passes.
They have to raise the interest rates, raise the debt limit, because they can't pass out money that they don't have.
And they pretend that there's a limitation on this.
So they have to raise this debt limit.
And what motivates them to do it and the need for it?
Debt.
And that is it.
The more the debt is, they don't have any money into debt.
We are bankrupt in a very technical fashion.
And it's not declared.
People don't suffer from it for the time being because people still trust our money.
So we still can counterfeit money in order to do what we have to do.
But we don't really pay for it.
What we do is we debase the currency.
And the money we debase is passed on as an inflation tax.
So this happens continuously.
And if you look at these numbers, raising the national debt, spending is going up, of course, for national security.
You can't vote against that.
My problem with it all the time was I never believed the money was going to national security.
I believe in national security, but it usually goes for weapon building and that sort of thing.
So I think this is an idea.
So if people are concerned about inflation, still the numbers are already moving up again, they have to really pay attention to what the Congress is doing, whether or not they're going to do it, whether or not the new administration will be successful in their efforts.
Will the proposed cuts really happen?
And that has a direct effect on the dollar.
And a dollar has an effect on gold.
And that is why a lot of people resort to gold as a reserve against what the government is doing.
So that I think is important.
That is one of the reasons why we partner with Birch Gold Group is that they're in the business of gold.
They're in the business of advising and telling people how they can.
One of the things they do is they talk about taking ordinary investments, stocks and bonds.
If you want to convert them, they have techniques for that.
So if you want more information about that from Birch Gold, if you text the number on the screen, you can reach Birch Gold and they can send you some material to explain exactly what I'm referring to.
So that's one thing you could do.
If you text that number, Ron 989898, you'll get in touch with Birch Gold.
And this is necessary for people to consider it because if you have an IRA right now, you're not allowed to put bullion gold in it.
So they address that subject.
Can I really put gold in my IRA in 401k?
And they can answer these questions.
But that's just text the number on the screen, and you can reach and request it.
There's no charge for their service to send you this material.
And Chris, we need to talk about, I think, a little bit about the foreign policy because there's been a lot of activity.
The vice president is out there.
Sounds like he's a more active vice president, quite a bit different than our previous vice president when you want to compare the two.
So they're doing this, but they have to deal with some of the big guys, the big countries.
And Trump said, well, one of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi at China and President Putin of Russia.
And I want to say, listen to this, what I want to say is, let's cut our military budget in half.
And I wonder, you know, we're increasing the budget.
It's bipartisan.
We want more security.
Cut Military Budget In Half00:03:36
Of course, I see we get less security because we're destroying the economic system we have.
But that is it.
We're going to do it.
And the administration's suggestion is: why don't you guys cut your military budget in half?
And that would solidify our empire because we don't want any competition.
Anyway, how it works out, we don't know.
But the odds of that request being fulfilled next week, very slim.
But it also puts emphasis on the fact that if the problems are difficult, that the spending is going to continue, the deficits are going to go up, the Federal Reserve is going to do what they do, and that is accommodate the deficit, take care of the politicians, take care of the bankers, take care of anybody who needs it to enhance the empire.
So it's all mixed in there.
But gold goes up and down.
Today, gold happens to be down.
Well, that's not the direction that's going ahead.
That's not the direction of the past year.
It's not the direction of gold since it was revealed in 1971 that the system wouldn't work.
And that's when Bretton Woods broke down.
And gold was tentatively or pretending to be $35 an ounce.
And now it's almost $3,000 an ounce.
And even though I anticipated it, I knew it could happen, it still is astounding.
So if you just, and that's back when gold sometimes would in an upswing, it might go up two, three, eight times.
In the 70s, it went up quite a bit.
So all you'd have to, people say, well, you know, things look bad.
These deficits are going to continue.
I think gold is going to double.
Well, compared to the other cycles, that's nothing compared to the many times.
Just think of gold being $270 in the year 2000.
And look at where it is now.
So just doubling gold.
That would be, it's almost three.
So that would be $6,000.
He said, no way.
And it does seem strange, but that's what the American people have to deal with.
And I think, if nothing else, if people don't like the idea of investing in gold or protecting themselves in gold, what they ought to say is, well, at least it's an interesting indicator.
And it's something that the politicians and the investors and the savers have watched for a long time.
I consider it very, very important signal, as well as what the Fed's doing and how they're rigging interest rate.
Chris, I think you had a comment or two about what's going to happen on foreign policy and whether we're going to set more money, not less, for the military-industrial complex.
That's right, Dr. Paul.
And President Trump, he likes to keep everyone guessing.
He's made that clear.
Trying to pin him down is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.
You're not going to do it.
You have to go by what ultimately happens, his actions.
And he will say things that are not meant to be taken seriously, but it will be very seriously reported.
He'll say it very seriously.
One of the things that we hope he's not serious about is U.S. taking over Gaza.
That's for sure.
We hope he's not serious there.
But like you mentioned, Dr. Paul, he made a statement that I had to make sure that it was real because it was on C-SPAN, and he actually said it.
Presidential Puzzler00:04:04
He said that, like you quoted, he wants to get together with Xi and Putin and have all three countries decrease the military budget in half.
I mean, is he serious?
But he said it very seriously.
That would be one of the greatest things in the last hundred years.
We wouldn't know what to do with that kind of information if it was to happen.
We're so used to the opposite.
And the government is so used to the opposite.
And they'll write that one off quickly.
But, you know, in any case, the fact that he said it, it's not a hostile statement.
We could have had another administration that is ready to go to war with Russia and China.
Trump is not speaking that way.
He's going in the opposite direction.
So by his actions, we have to say that so far, so good.
Very good.
You know, we're in NATO.
I consider that one of the ugliest type of intervention, you know, alliance that we've had because it's led to so many wars and killing and spending.
So that's going up.
And this administration is not exactly a fan of NATO, and that I like.
But Hagseth, the Secretary of Defense, had some statements about that.
He said that the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiator.
He said, well, that sounds good.
I think we'd like that.
Hegseth also said, adding the security guarantees for Ukraine, quote, must be backed by capable European and non-European troops.
The greatest motivation for the Europeans and the European troops would be for us just to leave and tell them to mind, take care of our own business and not accept the idea that we took over that responsibility eagerly to start the growth of our empire.
But now there's saying that we can urge them to do it or pressure them to do it, do it in a deal if we have a settlement.
And I would say the best thing is to just get out of there and maybe we would have a lot of money dealing with our own security.
Maybe we would deal with our own borders rather than the borders in the Middle East and Ukraine and Vietnam and Korea.
We deal with everybody else's borders.
And fortunately, right now, we have an administration that, well, we ought to pay a little attention to our own borders.
Maybe some bad people might come in here.
So that's pretty good.
And I think the Europeans would mind their own business and take care of it a lot better.
They're nervous about it.
They like this.
They had a free ride.
And Trump's right about that.
But I just have a different opinion about how to deal with it instead of getting something and working it out and maybe it gives them backdoor benefits from people.
I just say, our obligation is our Constitution and providing national security and not to worry about when will the Europeans or others take care of themselves.
And maybe they would be motivated.
Further on with Hegset, he says, to be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine.
That's great.
And I like that.
And it's approaching our position.
But for some reason, I'm not expecting next week you're going to see troops marching on airplanes.
Like, boy, I remember very clearly because I had relatives in the military at the end of World War II.
It was a great sight.
People came home and everybody knew the war was over.
Doge's Warning00:13:25
You know, there was a big difference.
I don't think we're going to see that.
As a matter of fact, compare it to us getting out of the senseless war in Afghanistan.
That's the kind of thing that happens when we get involved unnecessarily.
So, Chris, I think if we had our way, we would be able to find how it would be possible to follow the Constitution, have a strong national defense, have some national security, and spend a lot more, less than 50%.
We probably could do it for maybe 33%.
Who knows?
But a lot less than what we're doing.
And there wouldn't be this discussion.
Well, we have this great debate going on.
Are we going to increase the budget by $150 billion or $100 billion, mostly for national security?
That attitude is still out there because the forces behind that, the military-industrial complex, they're huge and they're very aggressive.
And they won't go walking away.
You can tell that the far left is not walking away with their tail between their legs since they lost this last race.
They're bold.
How do we do now?
How are we going to charge the president with some crime and then we'll get him and oh no, I don't think they can impeach him again.
So anyway, there's a lot of good stuff going on, but there's a lot of things to be cautious about if we really want to see a sound economy and more peace.
That's right, Dr. Paul.
And one of the good things, and we talk about it a lot on this show, is Doge and what they have been doing.
And they are, as everyone knows by now, ripping through the federal government.
And that's where the focus needs to remain because they are cutting waste, cutting fraud.
They're exposing it.
They're showing the receipts.
They are actually getting results.
And this is not just talk.
This is very new in my lifetime.
I've been around long enough where, you know, this is not normal behavior in a good way.
We're so used to being disappointed, especially from the Republicans.
Republicans, you know, have forever been telling us about decrease in government, limited government.
They never do that.
And it's actually, we're getting some results.
Now, it's not showing up in the numbers yet, but it's only been a few weeks.
So the spending, the debt, the deficits are still bad.
But again, it's only been a few weeks.
But they have to keep this up.
And again, the Republicans need to feel the pinch.
The fact that House Republicans want to increase the defense, quote-unquote, spending by $100 billion and the Senate $150 billion means they're not taking Doge seriously at all.
This is a Democrat thing.
We're going after all the Democrat corruption and waste.
That's not what I hope what Doge ends up being because the Republicans are huge spenders.
They oftentimes spend way more than Democrats and on the military.
So again, this has to be addressed.
Doge has to put the fire under their feet.
As of today, they're not worried about it.
Right.
You know, while in Congress, I witnessed a lot of temptations at agreements between the two parties or two factions.
And they would get together and decide, well, we'll make a promise.
You spend dealing with taxes.
We'll reduce the taxes.
And then they promise, and we'll, in the future, decrease the spending.
But guess what?
I don't remember any time where that has been the case where they always followed through.
And they might increase the taxes and say, well, we'll go do this.
But the agreement to cut the spending never holds up because that is more difficult.
But it's easy to badger enough people to pass these bills.
But I think what's happening right now, it's getting more difficult.
And with Doge, I think this is very good because the American people know more what's going on.
But it still has to overcome these obstacles.
What thing about getting rid of a lot of employees out of some agency of government?
Let's say there's 10,000 people in an agency of government.
Well, boy, we're going to do it.
We found out that about half of them don't do a very good job.
So we're going to kick out 5,000.
And boy, that's exciting.
We're going to get rid of this agency of government.
And hopefully this go around they will.
But in the past, what they would do is as long as the principle is there.
So I always argue, even if it's only 1% of the proposal to have an income tax, what does it do?
It leads to 20% and 30%.
So that's why I want to address the principle of thing.
So cutting back calls attention to it, and maybe we will get rid of some of these agencies and USAID.
They look like they're in big trouble, but we had to bribe them to fire them.
But nevertheless, that's better than just keeping me going and not telling people what's really going on.
But I think people ought to always go back.
If you leave in place the seeds of building an empire or building a bureaucracy, believe me, it'll grow back again.
So that is why you have to get rid of it.
But in the meantime, more people are thinking about getting rid of getting rid of USIID, except for some of the far left.
But the other thing is, is I think what really is the big benefit of what Doge is doing is exposure.
People, what are they doing?
I didn't believe it was this bad.
But that is why, from very early on in my political career, I said, if you really want to know what's behind this whole mess, you have to audit the Fed because the Fed provides the money.
They steal the money by debasing the currency and put the tax on the poor people.
And poor people think they're getting a gift when they get a check and they get an increase in their funding or their welfare benefit, but they never keep up with the inflation.
That is a tax.
So that is the reason that we have to eventually do what they have done.
And I think there are people there starting to talk about that and looking into the Fed.
How do they operate?
Who's getting all of this?
And who's responsible?
Are the people responsible?
Is the Congress responsible?
Is it just Treasury that's responsible?
Is it just the Federal Reserve?
It just happened.
It's a whole philosophy of monetary policy, believing that if you have a strong empire that is militarily, the strength has never been seen before, and you have a currency that once was the best currency ever erode slowly and steadily, but it's in a bad shape right now because we're on the verge of things exploding where the whole things come down.
That's why Doge has to work rapidly to reassure that we're going to get our house in order.
That's what I hope will happen.
Very good, Dr. Paul.
I'll finish up with my closing statement.
Yes, the biggest drain on our society by far is the military empire.
It's not even close.
We are sustaining out there a thousand bases for no reason.
It costs us.
Look how they're willing to even raise it again, another $100 billion, $150 billion.
Economically, it's obvious how it drains us.
We're $36 trillion in debt.
That's the obvious thing.
But there's also the non-obvious thing, and that's us paying for it.
Just think about all the checks that we write for income taxes, all these thousands every single year.
My goodness, what my family could have done with that money that's poof, up in smoke.
You know, and I'm just one person.
Everybody's in that boat writing all these checks for this.
And we do not see what could have been.
That's the part that's not so obvious.
We'll never know what could have been because it was wasted away on war.
And that's just the economic part.
There's more to life than just economics.
The empire has morally corrupted us because it's impossible for it not to.
It gives Americans a very false sense of pride, where you tend to look down on other nations because you think your country is the bully.
So many years, so many wars throughout the years, I remember.
I'll just go bomb those people, go bomb them.
I mean, over and over, I've heard it throughout my life, and I'm thinking, what kind of human being?
Do you realize what you're even saying?
These are innocents over there that go bomb them.
So that's what happens to us morally.
So it corrupts us economically, morally.
I mean, it's just a big loser for the American people.
And, you know, hopefully someday the opportunity is here for us to turn this around, to finally slash it away and become a normal country with normal people again.
Hopefully that happens.
If not, it'll have to happen at some point in the future.
Very good.
You know, I talk a lot about money issues.
I talk about fraud and counterfeit because that's what it is.
And we should be more blunt about that.
To not say, well, it's just the money manager's power doesn't know what he's doing.
We just need a new chairman of the Federal Reserve.
That's not going to do it.
What they have to do is understand the issue of what they're actually doing.
You know, they're corrupting the system.
It is dishonest.
It's unconstitutional.
I see it as immoral, but it's wrong to do this and very, very dangerous.
You know, there's a principle that has been known for a long time to look at how you divide what people should do and what governments should do.
I think the answer comes from, well, if you and I can't do it, we can't defraud the people.
We can't print money.
We can't be the chief counterfeiter.
But why do we allow the government to do this?
Oh, they're helping the people.
And then people say, well, look at the mess we're in because it's all a facade.
It's a fake.
And it lasts for a long time because people haven't caught on what really is happening.
So now they're starting to realize it was sort of like the enlightenment of the people as the worse things going under COVID, the more people became aware of it.
And finally, they had to do something about it.
And at least there's been some holding on that attitude.
And the principle here is we should never allow the government or a government agent do anything that you or I are not permitted to do.
If we're not allowed to cheat, we're not allowed to lie and cheat and steal and kill.
But why does the government get involved?
Kill?
Do governments kill?
Well, indirectly, that's what war is all about.
What if you fight a war for 20 years and millions of people die?
I mean, if private individuals do that, they're in big trouble.
So this principle of never allowing the government to do what you're not allowed to do.
And that means the burden falls on individuals to make these decisions on what to do, and they will not be perfect.
But when an individual messes up and abuses the law, that can be dealt with.
But when an individual at the top level of USAID does it, millions of people suffer, and it's being exposed, and that's good.
But when government does it, if they're permitted to do the things that we're not allowed to do as individuals, there's something wrong with that because the Constitution didn't come in to protect Democracy, vote on it, rig the elections, and then you can do whatever you want.
And they have the authority because the law said you can do this.
That has to be canceled.
That's what has to be canceled.
The government should be there to protect our liberties and let the responsibility of being safe and secure and happy and peaceful up to the individuals.
Want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.