The role of the US in the world Follow

Yeah... no.

For government/economic discussions I pretty much always stick with historical CBO budget data. That way, I'm not arguing based on projections, guesses, or calculations. My arguments are based on the actual dollars spent over the course of a year. There's no "un-budgeted military expenses" to account for because I'm not looking at a budget proposal, but the actual accounting at years end. And there is no freaking way that the claims being tossed around about military spending are even close to correct.


The absolute highest possible percentage calculation you could have for the military spending in 2009 is 42%. And that's only if you assume that all receipts are because of past military spending, and every dime of discretionary spending ends out funding the military. So I guess we don't fund education in this country, right? And no NPR funding, or PBS, or planned parenthood, right? I guess the GOP was tilting at nothing when they were trying to cut out 30 billion dollars from the discretionary budget and the Dems fought them on it because all of that money was really spent on the military! Who knew?

Huh? How does that even make sense? Relative to other countries still at some point requires an expenditure relative to our own economy.

But hey. Let's nip this little backpedal in the bud:

40 years ago, was the US military larger or smaller relatively speaking when compared to all the other militaries in the world? 30 years ago? 20 years ago? 10 years ago? The very fact that no one talked about the US military being "too big" compared to other militaries even just 15-20 years ago, suggests that the US military has gotten larger relatively speaking, right?

Yet, during that some time period, the amount we spend on our military relative to GDP has gotten smaller.


So... Where the hell is the non-sustainable part of all of this?




If it makes you happy, whatever. You're still wrong though. Our military is sustainable. Other areas of spending, on the other hand...




Ok. But do you understand that if we take money we're currently spending on the military, and spend it on something else which has less positive growth effects, then the net effect is slower economic growth, right? Your argument magically assumes that anything else we do with the money will have a greater growth effect than spending it on the military. I disagree.


And that's the problem, isn't it? We can sit here and speculate that in a perfect world every penny of money we don't spend on the military will be used in the most productive manner possible, but you and I both know that historically what happens it that the money is shuffled off into some other budgetary black hole, never to be seen again. The day every single person in the country stands up as one and says "Let's cut the military by X dollars and spend that money on <other thing>" is the day the argument you're using works. Anything less than that, and I can't possibly trust what said money will actually end out being spent on so any arguments about what you or I might *want* it spent on (or given back to the people) is completely moot.





Yes. And my counter argument is that if our reason for cutting military spending is because of its effect on economic growth, then we should apply that same argument to all spending. Doubly so when you and I both know that most of the spending we cut from the military will not end out going back to the people in the form of tax cuts, but will instead be used to fund various social programs. Arguing for one because of economic impact, without assessing the economic impact of the other is unfair at best, right?

Your taxes pay me to snipe.

It'd have to be.

gbaji doesn't snip from the gallery, he bombards.

Um... But you didn't cite those other sources. You cited that one, and its absurd claim that the military accounts for half of our government spending. It doesn't. It can't. It's not even close. What part of that confuses you?



I'm baffled how you got that response from my post. I'm measuring spending as a percentage of the entire economic pie so that we get an accurate picture of how much it's costing we the taxpayers. The reason this is a better measurement than the percentage of the total federal budget, is because the budget could be larger or smaller on any given year.

How you got that I was saying the government owned all the GDP is a mental gyration of epic proportions. It's a point to measure from. Nothing more.



But in order to get those programs, the people have to allow the government to take their money, right? Do you get how if one portion of "the people" want some free stuff, and they get another portion of "the people" to pay for it via higher taxes, that the result is a government abusing its authority. It's strange because you claim to argue that it's not the government's money but "the people's" money, but then you seem to support taking it from "the people" and allowing government to sell it back to them in return for votes.


It's also not "the people's" money. Each portion of it is owned by each individual. Once you start thinking about it collectively you are doing exactly what you accused me of doing: Treating all of it as actually owned by the government. You're one of those people who uses "government" and "the people" interchangeably, aren't you? Know who else did that? Communists. Dirty stinking mutant traitor communist scum. ;)



No. They're just primarily funded via state and local taxes instead of federal. Including veterans benefits and military and economic aid to foreign countries, the entire "Defense" spending at all levels of government for 2010 was $848B. Do you know how much we spent at all levels on education? Want to take a wild guess? $887B. Let me repeat that: We spent more money on education than on our military.

source


But education is woefully underfunded. Maybe if you educated yourself first, you might not make such rookie mistakes.



I understand the word "reform". I also understand that I haven't seen any from the Dems over the last few years. Have you? Did they "reform" our health care system? Or did they just make the same system bigger?



Lolwut? You just randomly toss out terms with no clue what they mean? Universal Democracy? WTF is that?

I want smaller government. I don't think that "the people" should collectively seize the fruits of my labors so that they can buy themselves a free ride, and I don't support politicians who run on a platform of promising that free ride in exchange for votes from "the people". I oppose those things because I know that they end out costing us all more in the end. The ride comes to an end and we all have to pay the piper. It's reckless. It's short sighted. And it's a stupid way to run a country.

Edited, Jun 7th 2011 4:12pm by gbaji

No it doesn't. The ratio of America's economy to its military spending is NOT equal to the ratio of any other economy to its military spending.

As soon as the European Union was created, the EU economy became almost exactly equal to the USA economy. (This is why, as a matter of spreading risk, other people sold half their holdings of US dollars in order to buy Euros. They also started to buy half their crude oil in Euros instead of US dollars. When the USA "won" in Iraq, the new Iraqi government stopped selling oil in Euros, and went back to selling oil in US dollars.)

Europe was under even more threat from the Soviet Union in the Cold War than America was. Then it was under threat from China's build up of intercontinental missiles. And yet despite Western Europe as a whole zone being equal to the US economically, and under the same military threats, Western-Europe-then-The-European-Union spent/spends 4/5ths less on its combined military than the US does.

The US has and continues to spend MORE on its military THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED, despite not coming a million miles close to having half of the world's GDP. I believe in nations having strong, effective defence forces, peacekeeping forces, and national emergency forces, I really really do. But somewhere, somehow America has fucked up its defence spending, and needs to reform it and de-corrupt it. Australia too has a history of really bad defence spending decisions.

Edited, Jun 9th 2011 7:27am by Aripyanfar

I didn't say it was. It's not ridiculously out of par though. There is a middle ground here. The US does spend a larger portion of its GDP on the military than other countries. But that number has gotten lower over time, not higher. So why the argument now? I don't recall anyone insisting that the US had too large a military back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, when it was much larger relatively speaking than it is today. Why do you suppose that is?



Yeah. Because the US was spending money protecting those countries. With what? Its military. Funny how the complaints from the other western countries about how large the US military is started *after* the Soviet Union fell? Coincidence? I think not. They got their free protection, but now that the big scary monster right on the other side of the wall is gone, they've forgotten why that protection is needed and think they don't need it anymore.



The US accounts for about 1/5th of the worlds GDP. That is kinda within a "million miles" of half, right? And how many of those nations are directly or indirectly under the US military umbrella? How many of them don't field significant militaries of their own entirely because the US does it for them?


The UN has proven to be woefully incapable of resolving any real military problems. It's what happens when you try to run a military by committee. They talk about how much they deplore something going on, but not enough to ever do anything about it. Sure, they approved the attack on Afghanistan, but if the US military didn't exist, do you think anything would have happened anyway? We'd have a resolution to remove the Taliban from power and capture Al-queda members, and everyone would be standing around with their thumbs up their rears waiting for someone to do something.


What happens when the US doesn't lead militarily to deal with violence around the world? Libya happens. Bosnia happens. Somalia happens. Darfur happens. Sometimes those things eventually work themselves through, often with massive civilian casualties. All while the UN clucks its collective tongue and talks about how "regrettable" the whole thing is.




I don't agree. I believe that large portions of the world have enjoyed an historically rare period of peace because the US military is so large. So long that you've forgotten what happens when there isn't a "big dog" keeping the peace. Do you honestly think the UN will protect you? You do realize that in another 15-20 years China will likely start attempting to seize greater control in the South Pacific right? So if the US shrinks its influence and military, who's going to stand up and help out when the Chinese military lands on the beaches of Australia? Why wouldn't they do this if they know no one will do anything?


It'll be "regrettable" though. I'm sure the UN will pass a resolution requesting that we have "peace in our time".


Please tell me you aren't foolish enough to think that the western world has enjoyed such peace and prosperity because human beings have just magically evolved socially beyond war?

Edited, Jun 8th 2011 12:58pm by gbaji

This is what you actually believe? Both are hardly more than western mouthpieces, specifically for the US. The only real function of the ICC is to be a velvet glove for the iron fist of US hegemony. They're almost as much of a joke as the Nobel Institute. Riddle me this, why hasn't Kissinger been brought to The Hague and prosecuted for war crimes? Why does the US have ground troops in Libya when it's only authorized for a No Fly Zone? There are a thousand such questions and they all have a simple answer: Realpolitik. Nobody cares about the opinions of minor states. When it comes down to it, they can't really do anything but complain to the stronger countries, who don't care unless their their interests are aligned and it gives them a convenient excuse to execute a potentially controversial action.

I like this guy too.

And he's proving my points:






See? We agree.

I guess the question is whether we agree or not that the world needs a World Police, and if it does, Who Should It Be? And do the UN/WCC have moral authority to be the World Police, even though America has in practise sidelined and undermined them? Although I'm pretty sure the UN was very much an American creation after 1945, and America hosts the UN's headquarters.

So should the US Congress/Senate/Senate Inquiries lose all credibility because someone whose beliefs and actions you abominate are sitting on them?

To me Iran on a Human Rights committee is like an anti-abortionist, who belongs to group that has bombed and killed doctors and nurses, sitting on a Roe Vs Wade committee.

Australia has had its extremist nut-jobs in parliament, but being minorities, they haven't done too much damage there. (Pauline Hanson probably doesn't mean much to you.)

"I [extremely and fundamentally] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Sincere question: is the "practise" here, "even though America has in practise sidelined and undermined them" a verb, or an adjective to a verb?

Or is it a noun?

Please answer the question according to English English rules, and not American English rules. American English is of course, absolutely legitimate, when written by Americans. But I am not American, and would like to be correct in the English way.

Edited, Jun 9th 2011 9:52am by Aripyanfar

No, because the members of those commissions were duly elected by the people they represent and govern/serve at the pleasure of same.

Except in that as the aggressor (represser?) Iran would be like the abortion provider who sits on the board of a Pro-Life charity.

Oddly enough, I am familiar with her. Henry Rollins riffs on her pretty good in one of the Talk Is Cheap releases.

Speaking of talk is cheap...