The US: At the Bottom Again

Remove all ads!

It seems everytime I read an article with a study regarding basic citizen needs, such as education, healthcare, poverty, child welfare, etc, among the wealthiest nations, we are at the bottom. Here is an example:

US officials "always" question the results, which is just another way of saying they could not care less. Considering that Americans carted off "pallets of cash" to Iraq, to promote the "American way of life" to those in the ME, I think this is despicable. This is serious, that America always ranks at the bottom of these kinds of issues. Further, I think it is disturbing that some Americans believe its just dandy that Bush sends millions of taxpayer dollars to Iraq, whlile they rant and rant about welfare for American children at home.

But, hey world, we're number one! (everyone hold up your forefinger). And hey, we have the world's greatest military, don't 'cha know? Aren't we just great and wonderful? Just ask any child....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17155848/

 

You cant invest in that stuff when you spend 20-25% of your budget on weapons. Thats just the way it is. How do the US government justify, year after year, to spend as much or more on their military as the rest of the world combined?

It is quite simple maths Chandos, what you spend on the carousel you have to withdraw from the swings (Swedish saying which I dont know how well it translates).

 

Exactly. Anyone who has played Civilisation IV will know that. Whenever you go to war, your economy goes down the toilet.

 

Especially if you try to have your cake and eat it, too.

'Yes, we're at war. No, we don't need to raise taxes. Or remove tax cuts. Or quit spending more than $100 billion/year on weapons programs that have absolutely nothing to do with counterinsurgency or the Global War on Tactics--er, Terror (F-35, F-22, DDx, Land Warrior, FCS, ABM, etc). Because we're America, man. AMERICA!'

 

A study in Britain about American way of life? How's about we look a bit closer to home first eh, Mr. Bradshaw.

Massive NHS waiting lists, state pensions scrapped, benefit fraud on a massive scale, poorly funded police force, not enough officers on the beat, growing racial tension, ridiculous student fees, first time buyers being forced out of the housing market due to the stupid boom.... America? Isn't that over the water somewhere?

 

Actually the study shows that the UK is the worst, followed by the States. Why Britain is wasting its money on Trident instead of addressing real issues, I don't know.

I think Ireland was in the top 10, so would be interesting to see what N.Ireland position would be considering its a British province.

Edit: I was thinking of the UNicef study, which is basically the same thing.

 

A good deal of that money is spent on protecting and defending other countries, which -- spared the expense themselves -- have better schools, hospitals, etc. than the US. That doesn't seem fair to me, as an American, but anytime the US kicks the idea around of closing its military bases in foreign countries and just going back home the residents of those countries whine that we're abandoning them... that's when they're not shouting "Yankee go home!" Have I gotten bitter from my time spent in Korea? You bet!

 

No matter what you do, you piss someone off. People are angry that America hasn't left Iraq but if America tried to leave Iraq people would get angry (many the same people who want America to leave Iraq) because they are leaving the country in such a mess.

You just can't please some people.

 

Interesting to see the list at last. It's been reported that its the top 21 richest nations, but it actually appears to basically be the larger European countries (Doesn't even include Luxenbourg) plus Canada and the US.

 

The military budget of the US will not be cut anytime soon. And NOT because of warmongers.

Most democrats will not allow a big cut in defense for one simple reason -- jobs. I've heard it mentioned that for every person working in DoD, there are two or three people with industrial jobs directly dependant on defense spending.

The money that goes to defense doesn't just disappear down some gun barrel. It goes to buying things necessary for the military to function: guns and ammo sure, but also toilet paper, butter and computers. The military is the single largest consumer in the US (and the world) -- that purchasing power means millions of jobs. No senator or congressman want to decrease the number of jobs (which directly correlates to lost votes) in their district.

Cut a billion dollars out of the defense budget and you cut thousands of jobs in the industrial sector -- let alone the jobs you cut within the DoD.

Which is better: provide a job, or provide welfare?

 

Wow, if the BOM allowed signatures I think I would use this one.

I'm curious as to the cause. I know everyone so far has been piling on military spending, but I'm curious if instead it is because of immigration. For all of our faults, the U.S. is still a point of destination for millions of people who are fleeing their native lands.

 

I already formulated a theory in my teens which i have since read about from various political scientists that the entire US economy and the very society is completely dependant on a vast military industry. Without it the US would have serious issues. You cannot have a huge military industry without an enemy though so when the Sovietunion crumbled the people at the top had find a new enemy and quick. They succeeded, now they have an enemey that cant be defeated, that cant fall apart and that is as illusive as a will o' the wisp which enables them to perpetuate an eternal war and keep the economy going.

In many European countries the ecquivalent of this are massive public sectors which basically serve the same purpose. The scary thing is that if this is true and not the ramblings of a delusional paranoid wacko it means that the US will never know true peace as peace itself is the greatest threat to the American way of life.

 

@ T2Bruno

But that military spending is just welfare, although with a longer path. The military does not produce economic benefit. Sure, sometimes they build a bridge or whatever...but you know what I mean, the military part of the military does not produce economic benefit. The work those tank-builders are doing is wasted work. The work the tank does reduces human potential for work (by killing human beings with whom we could trade). It is all just one big waste.

A person having a job is not an innately good thing for us all. If that person produces cocaine, or uses preciously valuable resources to build valueless things (like a tank), then that person needs to change their job...or even not having one altogether is still a better alternative.

Do we really need the military to be as big as it is? I don't think so. It seems like an awfully big waste to me.

 

What Late Night Thinker is saying seems to make perfect sense to me. The US economy seems to be a teetering house of cards. I can't see what is holding it all up, but the ephemeral military threats seem to be the main pillars.

 

You should put something like, "to my own view", between those two sentences.

 

everyone loves to publish lists to show how bad things are in countries which get press.

there is a bigger picture to everything, the list os coallated from meaningless statistics which dont look at a bigger picture.

for example;

single parent families seem to have been taken into account as a bad thing, but if you live in the UK a single mother gets a house given to her, rent free and tax free by her local council - think about that for a second, and then think... "did any of these girls do that on purpose?"

 

Why bother choosing when you can take both? The same money that is used for the defense budget could be gradually be cut and redirected to create public healthcare and to various other public services that help the community far more than the military. Better yet, move to an eniterly conscripted army and perhaps even the deciders will think twice before sending troops to harms way.

 

But by the same token, if the money wasn't spent on the military, it wouldn't just disappear. You could as easily spend it on, say, hospitals. Or construction for low-rent housing. Or developing alternative energy sources. Or police/firefighting. Or developing more efficient [lightbulbs]. Or education. Or whatever.

Point being, doing all that would also provide jobs, as well as providing a much more significant societal benefit than, say, fielding a handful of destroyers with railguns.

 

joacin: excellent comments.

Now we are getting to the meat of the matter. Defense spending plays a vital role in the US economy -- how do you shift to less defense spending? Keep in mind such a shift needs to be as painless as possible. Base closing throughout the past decade have caused huge unemployment in regions where the military bases shut down. As plants manufacturing military equipment (and even toilet paper for the military) are shut down (trust me, you wouldn't want to use that toilet paper if given the choice) what happens to the workers? How long do we, as a nation, support them in the retraining process? Do we force them to move to places that actually have a job?

These are the issue the politicians have to face everytime a cutback or shutdown is on the books. There was tremendous clashing within congress when deciding what bases would be shut down -- many bases that really serve no military purpose were kept open due to the pull of an influential senator or two. Some bases with vital resources were shut down.

Face it, it is easier to maintain the status quo than to institute major change. Spending less on the military and funneling it to other programs is easy enough to talk about, but actually doing it is quite difficult.

 

I don't say it would be easy. I don't even think it'd necessarily be possible in the present political climate. I do think it'd involve some, ah, 'growing pains' as people and spending shifted around.

Nonetheless, it would be advantageous, at least after the first year or two.