Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 11

 

2010-05-22 07:48:56
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

eleven bravo wrote:

fuck that I made 22 thousand dollars for the year I was in iraq.  raise the pay.
This is only partially related, but one thing I don't get is how they don't adjust pay according to where your residence in America is.  In other words, you could be from NYC or bumfuck Alabama, and either way, you're getting paid the same amount if you're the same rank, so by the time you come back, you're either ok or truly fucked -- depending on the cost of living of the area you're from.

Also, if you have a wife and kids back home, the amount you send back is either adequate or shit depending on the same factor.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-22 07:50:36)

2010-05-22 07:53:57
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:


I believe current defense spending is ~4% of GDP, is it not?

Not to say spending overall doesn't need to be cut (to include defense), but there are just as large, if not larger targets out there (entitlement programs).
This is true.  I support cutting both.
Current defense spending is less than it was during the Cold War, as a percentage of GDP. Far less than it was during Vietnam and WW2 by that metric, as well, IIRC.
True, but if we're going by that measure, then maybe we should compare what percentage of the GDP other countries spend on their military vs. other things.

For example, I'd be willing to bet that Canada spends more on their social safety as a percentage of their GDP and less on their military by the same measure.
2010-05-22 07:59:24
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


This is true.  I support cutting both.
Current defense spending is less than it was during the Cold War, as a percentage of GDP. Far less than it was during Vietnam and WW2 by that metric, as well, IIRC.
True, but if we're going by that measure, then maybe we should compare what percentage of the GDP other countries spend on their military vs. other things.

For example, I'd be willing to bet that Canada spends more on their social safety as a percentage of their GDP and less on their military by the same measure.
Now hold your horses. I don't condone cutting the military only to up spending elsewhere. That's the garbage the Ds pull that ends up ballooning our deficit with unaccounted long term costs.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-05-22 08:12:41
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Current defense spending is less than it was during the Cold War, as a percentage of GDP. Far less than it was during Vietnam and WW2 by that metric, as well, IIRC.
True, but if we're going by that measure, then maybe we should compare what percentage of the GDP other countries spend on their military vs. other things.

For example, I'd be willing to bet that Canada spends more on their social safety as a percentage of their GDP and less on their military by the same measure.
Now hold your horses. I don't condone cutting the military only to up spending elsewhere. That's the garbage the Ds pull that ends up ballooning our deficit with unaccounted long term costs.
I'm just saying.  People like to use these measures without looking at the full context.

If we're using percentage of GDP as a measure, then you have to look outside of the U.S. to get a balanced perspective on what percentage is generally regarded as appropriate by societies.

There's no logical reason for us to try maintaining our position as the top military superpower when our economy stops allowing for it.  As we become comparatively less powerful in an economic sense, we also have to get used to the idea that our military will become comparatively less powerful.

Otherwise, we're going to have to start cutting everything else to stay on top.  Eventually, we'd have to function like Sparta to do that in about 30 years.

Logically, it would make more sense to align our budgets proportionally with those of other prosperous nations, so that military spending becomes more evenhanded in the developed world.  If we spend significantly less on our military, then countries like the U.K., Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, etc. eventually will start picking up the slack.

This may be contrary to what a lot of Americans seem to believe, but this realignment of military power is a good thing.  It will make it much less tempting for us to flex our might at every given opportunity.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-22 08:13:14)

2010-05-22 08:27:26
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

True, but if we're going by that measure, then maybe we should compare what percentage of the GDP other countries spend on their military vs. other things.

For example, I'd be willing to bet that Canada spends more on their social safety as a percentage of their GDP and less on their military by the same measure.
Now hold your horses. I don't condone cutting the military only to up spending elsewhere. That's the garbage the Ds pull that ends up ballooning our deficit with unaccounted long term costs.
I'm just saying.  People like to use these measures without looking at the full context.

If we're using percentage of GDP as a measure, then you have to look outside of the U.S. to get a balanced perspective on what percentage is generally regarded as appropriate by societies.

There's no logical reason for us to try maintaining our position as the top military superpower when our economy stops allowing for it.  As we become comparatively less powerful in an economic sense, we also have to get used to the idea that our military will become comparatively less powerful.

Otherwise, we're going to have to start cutting everything else to stay on top.  Eventually, we'd have to function like Sparta to do that in about 30 years.

Logically, it would make more sense to align our budgets proportionally with those of other prosperous nations, so that military spending becomes more evenhanded in the developed world.  If we spend significantly less on our military, then countries like the U.K., Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, etc. eventually will start picking up the slack.

This may be contrary to what a lot of Americans seem to believe, but this realignment of military power is a good thing.  It will make it much less tempting for us to flex our might at every given opportunity.
Do you maintain an overwhelming desire to fit in or something? Does this carry over to real life? Do you share a sense of style with your friends and make fun of those that don't fall in line? You keep pointing to other countries and saying we should be more like them without stopping to think that hey, maybe we've been on top precisely because we are unique.

I dunno man, I just don't have the desperate desire to fit in that most American 'liberals' possess.

Edit - Great example is/was the punk scene. They all listened to the same music, all dressed similarly, all maintained the same political views, all desperately wanted to fit in with their scene but would deny it vehemently to anyone who pointed it out. They were all so in love with the idea of being rebellious individuals and they... became just like everyone else. Safe in their social cocoon.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-22 08:30:14)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-05-22 11:18:28
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Do you maintain an overwhelming desire to fit in or something? Does this carry over to real life? Do you share a sense of style with your friends and make fun of those that don't fall in line? You keep pointing to other countries and saying we should be more like them without stopping to think that hey, maybe we've been on top precisely because we are unique.
I would suggest that the reason we are on top has nothing to do with our uniqueness.  I think it has a lot more to do with social mobility (with respect to innovation) and geography (with respect to both world wars).

But feel free to assume that I'm a mindless conformist.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I dunno man, I just don't have the desperate desire to fit in that most American 'liberals' possess.
And I don't have the same "desperate" desire to maintain a military several times the power of everyone else.  I don't have the paranoia necessary for that.

But hey, that's probably why I often relate better to Canadians than to Americans.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Edit - Great example is/was the punk scene. They all listened to the same music, all dressed similarly, all maintained the same political views, all desperately wanted to fit in with their scene but would deny it vehemently to anyone who pointed it out. They were all so in love with the idea of being rebellious individuals and they... became just like everyone else. Safe in their social cocoon.
And the same could be said of patriotic types regarding fashion and lifestyle.  The same could be said of reading material among free market types.

Look, I'm no punk fan, nor are my combination of political views capable of being pigeonholed into a label like liberal.  I'm not exactly a liberal regarding immigration policy, for example.  I'd like to phase out SS.  I think affirmative action is bullshit.

I choose not to conform to any particular party not for the sake of being "rebellious" but because I prefer to view things issue by issue.  If you want to label me, then call me a cynic, because that's about the only stereotype I fit.
2010-05-22 11:24:11
BLdw
..
+27|5457|M104 "Sombrero"

FEOS wrote:

Current defense spending is less than it was during the Cold War, as a percentage of GDP. Far less than it was during Vietnam and WW2 by that metric, as well, IIRC.
This is true and I was about to write my own text but I'm slightly tired now, so I'm just gonna quote something from wikipedia (as my only source at the moment) like a parrot:

wikipedia wrote:

For FY 2010, Department of Defense spending amounts to 4.7% of GDP.[22]  Because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP. For example, the Department of Defense budget is slated to be $664 billion in 2010 (including the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan previously funded through supplementary budget legislation[23][24]), higher than at any other point in American history, but still 1.1–1.4% lower as a percentage of GDP than the amount spent on defense during the peak of Cold-War military spending in the late 1980s.[22]  Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called four percent an "absolute floor".[25]  This calculation does not take into account some other defense-related non-DOD spending, such as Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and interest paid on debt incurred in past wars, which has increased even as a percentage of the national GDP.
Now you should just find out how much earnings of individual workers (in US) have increased in %'s and compare that to how much GDP has increased over the same period of time. Then you should be able to see what is the true increase/decrease of defense spending costs for individual US worker compared to 50-, 40-, 30-, 20-, 10-years ago.


Edit:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Do you maintain an overwhelming desire to fit in or something?
Do you maintain an overwhelming desire to fit in some "top line" or something?

Last edited by BLdw (2010-05-22 11:30:39)

2010-05-22 11:30:15
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

If you want to label me, then call me a cynic, because that's about the only stereotype I fit.
such lies
2010-05-22 11:42:01
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Do you maintain an overwhelming desire to fit in or something? Does this carry over to real life? Do you share a sense of style with your friends and make fun of those that don't fall in line? You keep pointing to other countries and saying we should be more like them without stopping to think that hey, maybe we've been on top precisely because we are unique.
I would suggest that the reason we are on top has nothing to do with our uniqueness.  I think it has a lot more to do with social mobility (with respect to innovation) and geography (with respect to both world wars).

But feel free to assume that I'm a mindless conformist.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I dunno man, I just don't have the desperate desire to fit in that most American 'liberals' possess.
And I don't have the same "desperate" desire to maintain a military several times the power of everyone else.  I don't have the paranoia necessary for that.

But hey, that's probably why I often relate better to Canadians than to Americans.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Edit - Great example is/was the punk scene. They all listened to the same music, all dressed similarly, all maintained the same political views, all desperately wanted to fit in with their scene but would deny it vehemently to anyone who pointed it out. They were all so in love with the idea of being rebellious individuals and they... became just like everyone else. Safe in their social cocoon.
And the same could be said of patriotic types regarding fashion and lifestyle.  The same could be said of reading material among free market types.

Look, I'm no punk fan, nor are my combination of political views capable of being pigeonholed into a label like liberal.  I'm not exactly a liberal regarding immigration policy, for example.  I'd like to phase out SS.  I think affirmative action is bullshit.

I choose not to conform to any particular party not for the sake of being "rebellious" but because I prefer to view things issue by issue.  If you want to label me, then call me a cynic, because that's about the only stereotype I fit.
Nah, you're all over the place on issues which is a joy to see but the overriding theme of your posts seems to be pointing out what other countries do and saying we should follow them. We agree on a lot of stuff, I just hate to see stuff like that written, not out of some national pride, but because I prefer original thought and 'thinking outside of the box' instead of copying other peoples failed systems.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-22 11:42:28)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-05-22 12:00:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Nah, you're all over the place on issues which is a joy to see but the overriding theme of your posts seems to be pointing out what other countries do and saying we should follow them. We agree on a lot of stuff, I just hate to see stuff like that written, not out of some national pride, but because I prefer original thought and 'thinking outside of the box' instead of copying other peoples failed systems.
Well, if they were all failed, I'd agree.

Still, I think we can learn a lot from other countries -- not only in their failures, but in their successes.

For example, South Korea cultivated a very impressive internet infrastructure in a very different way than we developed ours.  France has one of the most impressive healthcare systems in terms of affordability and access to basic care.  Canada has an impressive nuclear power infrastructure that has allowed them to have much cleaner air than ours when comparing our metropolitan areas on average.

Every country has its strengths and weaknesses.  I just believe one of our weaknesses is this outdated Cold War mentality of maintaining a massive military.  I think we need to move away from interventionism and more towards improving our own country internally while cutting down debt.  A little border security couldn't hurt either.
2010-05-22 12:07:41
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Nah, you're all over the place on issues which is a joy to see but the overriding theme of your posts seems to be pointing out what other countries do and saying we should follow them. We agree on a lot of stuff, I just hate to see stuff like that written, not out of some national pride, but because I prefer original thought and 'thinking outside of the box' instead of copying other peoples failed systems.
Well, if they were all failed, I'd agree.

Still, I think we can learn a lot from other countries -- not only in their failures, but in their successes.

For example, South Korea cultivated a very impressive internet infrastructure in a very different way than we developed ours.  France has one of the most impressive healthcare systems in terms of affordability and access to basic care.  Canada has an impressive nuclear power infrastructure that has allowed them to have much cleaner air than ours when comparing our metropolitan areas on average.

Every country has its strengths and weaknesses.  I just believe one of our weaknesses is this outdated Cold War mentality of maintaining a massive military.  I think we need to move away from interventionism and more towards improving our own country internally while cutting down debt.  A little border security couldn't hurt either.
The SK model you are talking about would be really easy to mimic in the private sector. Found a company, buy up the poles and then charge rent based on usage to any companies that want to use your cables. It's a simple business with a stable market structure which is why it doesn't exist. For some reason, executives are in love with complex mega-companies that do nothing in a superior manner. No, I'm not advocating the breakup of big corporations or anything like that, I just wish people were more willing to focus on one small thing and make it fantastic than pushing out a series of mediocre products each designed to be disposable. But... the people want Wal-Mart... c'est la vie.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-05-22 13:35:49
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


This is true.  I support cutting both.
Current defense spending is less than it was during the Cold War, as a percentage of GDP. Far less than it was during Vietnam and WW2 by that metric, as well, IIRC.
True, but if we're going by that measure, then maybe we should compare what percentage of the GDP other countries spend on their military vs. other things.

For example, I'd be willing to bet that Canada spends more on their social safety as a percentage of their GDP and less on their military by the same measure.
Who said anything about that?

We should be looking at what we spend on all major programs as a percentage of our GDP and prioritize based on that. I agree with [email protected] shouldn't cut defense just to plus up other bloated, inefficient entitlements.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-05-22 13:39:41
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

BLdw wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Current defense spending is less than it was during the Cold War, as a percentage of GDP. Far less than it was during Vietnam and WW2 by that metric, as well, IIRC.
This is true and I was about to write my own text but I'm slightly tired now, so I'm just gonna quote something from wikipedia (as my only source at the moment) like a parrot:

wikipedia wrote:

For FY 2010, Department of Defense spending amounts to 4.7% of GDP.[22]  Because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP. For example, the Department of Defense budget is slated to be $664 billion in 2010 (including the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan previously funded through supplementary budget legislation[23][24]), higher than at any other point in American history, but still 1.1–1.4% lower as a percentage of GDP than the amount spent on defense during the peak of Cold-War military spending in the late 1980s.[22]  Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called four percent an "absolute floor".[25]  This calculation does not take into account some other defense-related non-DOD spending, such as Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and interest paid on debt incurred in past wars, which has increased even as a percentage of the national GDP.
Now you should just find out how much earnings of individual workers (in US) have increased in %'s and compare that to how much GDP has increased over the same period of time. Then you should be able to see what is the true increase/decrease of defense spending costs for individual US worker compared to 50-, 40-, 30-, 20-, 10-years ago.
Per capita inflation-adjusted US defense spending, 1962-today:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG/800px-PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-05-22 14:27:51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Nah, you're all over the place on issues which is a joy to see but the overriding theme of your posts seems to be pointing out what other countries do and saying we should follow them. We agree on a lot of stuff, I just hate to see stuff like that written, not out of some national pride, but because I prefer original thought and 'thinking outside of the box' instead of copying other peoples failed systems.
Well, if they were all failed, I'd agree.

Still, I think we can learn a lot from other countries -- not only in their failures, but in their successes.

For example, South Korea cultivated a very impressive internet infrastructure in a very different way than we developed ours.  France has one of the most impressive healthcare systems in terms of affordability and access to basic care.  Canada has an impressive nuclear power infrastructure that has allowed them to have much cleaner air than ours when comparing our metropolitan areas on average.

Every country has its strengths and weaknesses.  I just believe one of our weaknesses is this outdated Cold War mentality of maintaining a massive military.  I think we need to move away from interventionism and more towards improving our own country internally while cutting down debt.  A little border security couldn't hurt either.
The SK model you are talking about would be really easy to mimic in the private sector. Found a company, buy up the poles and then charge rent based on usage to any companies that want to use your cables. It's a simple business with a stable market structure which is why it doesn't exist. For some reason, executives are in love with complex mega-companies that do nothing in a superior manner. No, I'm not advocating the breakup of big corporations or anything like that, I just wish people were more willing to focus on one small thing and make it fantastic than pushing out a series of mediocre products each designed to be disposable. But... the people want Wal-Mart... c'est la vie.
Perhaps, but that mentality is precisely why it takes government involvement instead.  Granted, it's not going to happen here, because telecoms spend more on lobbyism than any other industry.
2010-05-22 14:30:36
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Current defense spending is less than it was during the Cold War, as a percentage of GDP. Far less than it was during Vietnam and WW2 by that metric, as well, IIRC.
True, but if we're going by that measure, then maybe we should compare what percentage of the GDP other countries spend on their military vs. other things.

For example, I'd be willing to bet that Canada spends more on their social safety as a percentage of their GDP and less on their military by the same measure.
Who said anything about that?

We should be looking at what we spend on all major programs as a percentage of our GDP and prioritize based on that. I agree with [email protected] shouldn't cut defense just to plus up other bloated, inefficient entitlements.
Your last paragraph is sort of what I was already saying.  For example, if our allocations of funds were identical to Canada's, our military would be much smaller, but our social amenities would be better.

Granted, I would suggest replacing SS with an NHS.  Of course, that's not going to happen, and our military budget as a proportion of the budget is likely to remain the same for the next decade or so due to our liabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2010-05-22 14:40:18
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6886|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


The Irish Republican Army?

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w286 … H/ira_.jpg
I think he meant IRS.
Well, you could beef up your Roth IRAs and avoid taxes more... 
I believe there are very small limits and it is based on your income. If you make over 120k(?) I don't even think you can contribute to a Roth IRA. OFC if you take it out before you are 59 1/2 you will indeed pay taxes on it.. out the ass.

I'm not entirely sure on the caps. They change almost every year. It was 5k when I started mine years ago. Roth is pretty much just to get people thinking about retirement early.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-05-22 14:47:28
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:


I think he meant IRS.
Well, you could beef up your Roth IRAs and avoid taxes more... 
I believe there are very small limits and it is based on your income. If you make over 120k(?) I don't even think you can contribute to a Roth IRA. OFC if you take it out before you are 59 1/2 you will indeed pay taxes on it.. out the ass.

I'm not entirely sure on the caps. They change almost every year. It was 5k when I started mine years ago. Roth is pretty much just to get people thinking about retirement early.
True.  I was thinking about that because my brother was suggesting it to me the other day.  So far, I don't have one, but they seem like one of the few things that are safe to invest in these days.
2010-05-22 14:55:03
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6886|132 and Bush

Depends on how much you are putting in. Right now I am just buying CD's. The return isn't great, but you will know exactly how much you will have at the end of it's term (you will also have access to it at the end of the term .. 6 months/ a year/ whatever). If nothing else start a money market. Some work just like a checking account.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-05-22 20:45:24
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Depends on how much you are putting in. Right now I am just buying CD's. The return isn't great, but you will know exactly how much you will have at the end of it's term (you will also have access to it at the end of the term .. 6 months/ a year/ whatever). If nothing else start a money market. Some work just like a checking account.
True...  CDs are pretty stable, and the payout is pretty good when you buy them from small banks.
2010-05-22 22:55:36
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land
So can anyone explain why, if there's all these threats to the US, America spends so much MORE than other countries on defence? I could understand it if they spent the same, or other countries spent the same, but why the hell is it so much more? It's totally fucking insane tbh.
2010-05-22 23:03:13
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7002

ruisleipa wrote:

So can anyone explain why, if there's all these threats to the US, America spends so much MORE than other countries on defence? I could understand it if they spent the same, or other countries spent the same, but why the hell is it so much more? It's totally fucking insane tbh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … penditures

Also remember the US has 300 million people and a 14 TRILLION dollar GDP... And pretty much America is the world police. Sucks for America on the whole damned if you do and damned if you don't.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-05-22 23:38:25
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

Cybargs wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures

Also remember the US has 300 million people and a 14 TRILLION dollar GDP... And pretty much America is the world police. Sucks for America on the whole damned if you do and damned if you don't.
well yeah exactly..

US 548,531,000,000 USD in 2008

next biggest is china with 63,643,000,000 USD in the same year. And China has four times the number of people as the USA.

Spending all that money on 'defence' is mental. Especially when there's not really anyone they're needing defence FROM.

As for the 'world police'...often that just means sticking their nose in to 'defend' US interests...so maybe thats where the defence comes from? Still...madness.
2010-05-23 00:33:22
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7002

ruisleipa wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures

Also remember the US has 300 million people and a 14 TRILLION dollar GDP... And pretty much America is the world police. Sucks for America on the whole damned if you do and damned if you don't.
well yeah exactly..

US 548,531,000,000 USD in 2008

next biggest is china with 63,643,000,000 USD in the same year. And China has four times the number of people as the USA.

Spending all that money on 'defence' is mental. Especially when there's not really anyone they're needing defence FROM.

As for the 'world police'...often that just means sticking their nose in to 'defend' US interests...so maybe thats where the defence comes from? Still...madness.
It's still in America's interest to keep the world stable. You going to give America shit as well for funding 25% of the UN? Whenever shit happens, the UN always calls upon the US to do shit because 1. they the logistics and 2. they are willing to do it.

You are also forgetting that China does not have a GDP the size of America... And shit, China spends less because they either buy low quality shit or make cheap copy cats. India is also beefing up as well...

Sure America could be fine on only funding a defence programs that protects the US physically, but you're forgetting the US's commitment to defend their allies in SE Asia and Europe.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-05-23 00:51:08
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

ruisleipa wrote:

So can anyone explain why, if there's all these threats to the US, America spends so much MORE than other countries on defence? I could understand it if they spent the same, or other countries spent the same, but why the hell is it so much more? It's totally fucking insane tbh.
Well, it started with the Cold War.  In the beginning, we were the counter to the Soviet Union and Communist China.  At the time, we needed a badass military.

After a few decades of maintaining that, the Cold War ended, and we were stuck with a bloated military.  So, we just shifted some of our might towards entering conflicts that were either based on humanitarian efforts or strategic interests.  After invading Iraq and Afghanistan, we focused a lot of our forces on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism tactics.  Obviously, asymmetrical warfare is fought very differently from conventional wars, so size doesn't matter as much now.

If we start cutting our military now, other countries will start spending more on their military.  The only reason other Western countries don't spend as much on the military as we do is because we essentially did that for them.  As a result, they were able to focus on other things like universal healthcare and completely socialized education.
2010-05-23 02:15:05
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land
So is any of the defence spending to do with the undoubted vested interests re defence contractors in governemtn/politicans entering defence industries etc rather than actual neccesity? Cos a cynic like myself might consider all that money better spent clothing and feeding the poor of the world rather than upkeeping a bloated military that seems to spend a lot of time fuelling conflicts rather than preventing them.

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard