How is everything not collapsing in the US?

[red_elk]

And I remember watching a documentary on the Cold War where they interviewed a former Soviet general and he said they just did a very good job of fooling NATO into believing the USSR was stronger than it actually was. In reality though, Soviet officers were terrified of the prospect of a conventional war with NATO because they were not confident they could win such a war.

During Cold War both sides tried to fool each other. From what I read in multiple sources, modern analysis shows that Warsaw Pact seizing Western Europe in 2 weeks was (military-wise) quite realistic scenario back then, provided the war doesn't go nuclear. US troops in Germany were needed to justify nuclear escalation in case of attack.

 

[warpus]

I wouldn't compare it to wartime spending, though.

I'd put it this way: even the dovish Carter submitted a budget that ultimately raised it to 6% from a post-Vietnam low. And people that post that transcript of Eisenhower talking about the military-industrial complex? Spending was nearly 10% of the GNP at that time.

There's lots of room for argument about defense spending but historically 3-4% is pretty much where we've been since the original post-Cold War Bush cuts back in the 1990's and the economy has more room to absorb that spending than it would have in the past.

The point is that if America can afford to easily shoulder all these expenses, it should be very easy for the country to invest in healthcare for all Americans and maybe even make education cheap or free. And a lot more than that. But nope, there's never any money in the budget for any of that. If it's so easy to fund this stuff, where's the money and why aren't they doing that?

Believing in human rights or the geneva convention is ideology. Believing in religious, sexual and reproductive freedom is ideology. Believing men and women should be equal before the law is ideology. Believing slavery is wrong is ideology..

Read my follow-up post. These are not ideologies that our politicians throw their hats into. Our politicians throw their hat into the "conservative" or "libertarian" or "green" or "liberal" ideology ring and then ignore all others.

There is probably a better word to use than "ideology", but I'm not a political analyst so the terminology escapes me. If some guy said "I only ever care about the Geneva convention, I will ignore all other problems and solutions", that would make her a useless politician.

 

[Socrates99]

That depends on time. In 70-s - early 80-s, USSR had serious conventional superiority in Europe and NATO had to rely on nukes to maintain balance.
At least that's what I read from American military analysts. Today the situation is reversed.


US can support Russian aggression all they want, but without Russia's participation.


Trump.

Edit: I don't mean him personally, but you can't always rely on counterpart's rationality. Better to judge by their capabilities.

POTUS doesn't have that kind of power.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The point is that if America can afford to easily shoulder all these expenses, it should be very easy for the country to invest in healthcare for all Americans and maybe even make education cheap or free. And a lot more than that. But nope, there's never any money in the budget for any of that. If it's so easy to fund this stuff, where's the money and why aren't they doing that?

Because countries don't generally go against their own business because said businesses have influence in politics. So while US could go for universal healthcare, the current healthcare providers who would maybe cease to exist if that happens obviously don't want that to happen. Same thing why EU seems so pro alcohol and I think actually forced countries like Sweden to adopt more pro alcohol legislation or something like that. The better option would be working towards a complete alcohol ban.

Governments sometimes don't select the options that are best for people due to various factors such as influence from businesses. Money is just a medium of exchange, so when they say it is the money that is the problem it is probably really something else that is the problem.

 

[Commodore]

The point is that if America can afford to easily shoulder all these expenses, it should be very easy for the country to invest in healthcare for all Americans and maybe even make education cheap or free. And a lot more than that. But nope, there's never any money in the budget for any of that. If it's so easy to fund this stuff, where's the money and why aren't they doing that

It's not all about money. Did you ever think there are cultural and historical reasons why certain nations don't adopt certain policies? Just because you are able to do something doesn't necessarily mean you will do it or that you even want to do it. Same goes for things that a nation does decide to do.

As a smaller scale example take my Warhammer hobby. To many people that would seem like a stupid use of my money. "Why don't you invest or save it? That's what all the successful rich people would do!" they would probably say. And yeah, maybe in the grand scheme of things it is a waste of money. But it makes me, personally, happy which is why I continue to dump money into it instead of spending that money on a "smarter" financial move.

 

[warpus]

It's not all about money. Did you ever think there are cultural and historical reasons why certain nations don't adopt certain policies? Just because you are able to do something doesn't necessarily mean you will do it or that you even want to do it. Same goes for things that a nation does decide to do.

Yeah, I'm sure there are a bunch of historical reasons why the American people have been fooled to accept the situation in which they supposedly live in the world's best country but at the same time have horrible access to healthcare and education and socioeconomic mobility prospects.

The excuse is always "We don't have money to pay for any of that", which is obviously a lie. The money is there, it's just being spent on something else, such as $500k desks for military officers and $20M surface to air missiles that never get used.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Yeah, I'm sure there are a bunch of historical reasons why the American people have been fooled to accept the situation in which they supposedly live in the world's best country but at the same time have horrible access to healthcare and education and socioeconomic mobility prospects.

The excuse is always "We don't have money to pay for any of that", which is obviously a lie. The money is there, it's just being spent on something else, such as $500k desks for military officers and $20M surface to air missiles that never get used.

As I said before, money is just a medium of exchange. The $500k desk only cost that much because someone is willing to pay $500k for that desk. Both americans and europeans have lived easy if you compare to the situation in the rest of the world which may cause quite ignorant behaviors.

 

[warpus]

As I said before, money is just a medium of exchange. The $500k desk only cost that much because someone is willing to pay $500k for that desk. Both americans and europeans have lived easy if you compare to the situation in the rest of the world which may cause quite ignorant behaviors.

The American tax payer is paying for that desk, but not by choice.

"We're doing better than the developing world, so there is nothing to discuss here" is such a weird way of ignoring problems. It would be fine if you weren't at the same time claiming to be the best country in the world.. but..

 

[Commodore]

20M surface to air missiles that never get used

This is not a valid argument against military spending. The whole point of maintaining a strong military is precisely so you don't have to use it. If you have to use your military, it's because others think you are weak enough to be challenged.

That's why whenever I hear people say some stupid crap like "How does fighting in Iraq protect my freedom?" I respond by telling them it doesn't, but just the fact that the military exists is how they defend your freedom.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The American tax payer is paying for that desk, but not by choice.

"We're doing better than the developing world, so there is nothing to discuss here" is such a weird way of ignoring problems. It would be fine if you weren't at the same time claiming to be the best country in the world.. but..

In Sweden the tax payers pay for the politicians expensive travels which is as much of a waste as the desk. Meanwhile the EU can dismantle Sweden's alcohol monopoly and things like that while the country probably pay EU more than it get back in return. Meanwhile Sweden is used by american politicans either as a perfect country or a horrible place.

 

[Socrates99]

This is not a valid argument against military spending. The whole point of maintaining a strong military is precisely so you don't have to use it. If you have to use your military, it's because others think you are weak enough to be challenged.

That's why whenever I hear people say some stupid crap like "How does fighting in Iraq protect my freedom?" I respond by telling them it doesn't, but just the fact that the military exists is how they defend your freedom.

...so is Iraq a training exercise? Kinda like when I cheese promotions in civ by harassing a CS endlessly?

 

[Commodore]

The American tax payer is paying for that desk, but not by choice.

No, the American tax payer is paying for protection. What the government then chooses to do with the protection money they are paid is up to them, not the people.

I mean, you pay for monthly cellphone service right? Do you think of that in terms of paying for the service or do you think of it in terms of paying for the CEO's salary increase? You think of it as the former because that is the correct way if thinking of it. So why don't you think of it that way when it comes to tax dollars? And I don't want to hear anything about taxes being involuntary because they aren't. You can choose not to pay taxes by giving up your citizenship and leaving the country just like you would have to move out of your apartment if you decided you didn't want to pay your rent anymore.

 

[amadeus]

Yeah, I'm sure there are a bunch of historical reasons why the American people have been fooled to accept the situation in which they supposedly live in the world's best country but at the same time have horrible access to healthcare and education and socioeconomic mobility prospects.

Undoubtedly problems exist, but it's not what the loudest voices on the internet would have you believe.

 

[red_elk]

POTUS doesn't have that kind of power.

In my opinion, Europe or Russia shouldn't base their security policies on the foundation of US internal laws and regulations.
US has track record of multiple aggressions against independent countries, ignoring international laws whenever they see fit and electing unpredictable irrational populist as a president.
It's EU business, but IMO they should invest more into their military even though they aren't being threatened by anybody right now.

 

[Socrates99]

In my opinion, Europe or Russia shouldn't base their security policies on the foundation of US internal laws and regulations.
US has track record of multiple aggressions against independent countries, ignoring international laws whenever they see fit and electing unpredictable irrational populist as a president.
It's EU business, but IMO they should invest more into their military even though they aren't being threatened by anybody right now.

investment without reason doesn't make sense. That's why I keep asking what enemy could pose a threat worth increasing investment in a military that can, as commodore pointed out, already defend itself against Russia without the US.

Just blanket statements that they're not doing enough isnt saying much. The US would be shooting itself in the foot economically by invading. If China or Russia invaded the US would absolutely react. I'm just asking what threat out there is going to go after the EU that they currently cannot handle.

 

[amadeus]

Why is an American invasion of Western Europe being discussed again?

 

[warpus]

This is not a valid argument against military spending. The whole point of maintaining a strong military is precisely so you don't have to use it. If you have to use your military, it's because others think you are weak enough to be challenged.

I'm not arguing against military spending. I am arguing that not spending money on universal healthcare or education or other infrastructure your citizens need.. and then spending such obscene amounts on the world's largest military.. to such an extent that if you put together every single other military in the world (most of which are American allies), the American military complex would still dwarf it by quite a bit.

Your argument seems to be: "Military spending is important! You never know when the aliens can show up or maybe the Transformers. We have to be ready for anything. Nobody needs healthcare or education, we don't have money for that"

No, the American tax payer is paying for protection. What the government then chooses to do with the protection money they are paid is up to them, not the people.

Protection from what, space aliens? Giant death robots?

Sounds like a mafia type racket if you ask me. "Pay us for protection and forget you ever needed healthcare or education or heck screw sidewalks too, there's no money for anything"

You do realize that the vast majority of threats facing America would not be dealt with using a traditional military? There is virtually no enemy out there that you need such an insanely large military for. Unless you are getting ready for an alien invasion

 

[Socrates99]

Why is an American invasion of Western Europe being discussed again?

Because it's the only world power that could feasibly pose a threat I'm guessing. Funny part is that most "experts" and politicians in America who argue that Europe needs to increase military are doing so on the behalf of the weapons industry. That means the guys arguing for increased EU spending because the US is a potential threat under a kook like Trump are arguing that the EU should spend more on US munitions.

 

[Commodore]

Sounds like a mafia type racket if you ask me

Well, what is a government but a legitimized mafia?

 

[stinkubus]

Vietnam was a loss though. No arguing that. We lost though not because the NVA was stronger, but because they were more motivated and believed in their cause while the US sent an army of conscripts who didn't want to fight and we're only there because they didn't want to go to prison.

You could have the strongest military in the world, but it doesn't mean anything if the soldiers in that military don't want to fight.

We left a few women and children alive in Vietnam and haven't felt good about ourselves since.