5 ms·

Bang on. Across the globe, citizens of every other nation cannot fathom why the US prioritizes military spending above all else. It just doesn't make sense.

Noos 9y ago
because we're subsidizing europe, which is a huge free rider on the US military. If Putin for whatever reason decided to become an expansionist power and the US had an european level military, no one could stop him. Europe in general has been massively subsidized in different ways by the USA from the end of WW2. They turn around and love to show off their moral superiority while someone else picks up the bill.
- kbart 9y ago
  I agree with that (though things are slowly getting better in Europe), but then why average Joe from USA is OK with government subsidizing Europe with his tax money, but freaks out on the idea of paying for his own healthcare from the same tax money?
  - dalacv 9y ago
    Because the average joe can't afford to pay any more in taxes. If only Europe would build up their own military, and help out a little.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > why average Joe from USA is OK with government subsidizing Europe with his tax money Where do you get the idea that "average Joe" is okay with that? It's been a huge talking point for Trump and his supporters for the past two years.
    - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
      Also, the majority of American's are actually in favor of having some kind of sane medical system, like other first world countries. That's well supported by polling (though interestingly they don't like "Obamacare" but do like all the policies that make up the Affordable Care Act) This was also a talking point for Trump and his supporters for the past two years. ("we're going to have insurance for everyone", "No cuts to medicaid", "No one will lose coverage", "Nobody will be worse off financially", "I am going to take care of everybody … Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.") Of course, in that case as well, he took them for the rubes they are and likely had no plan for delivering on his promises.
  - Noos 9y ago
    Government programs can be victim to massive amounts of fraud and waste, as well as put people through a lot of hoops in order to gain the same benefits or less you had before. It has no real pressure day to day to do well, and is very slow in accepting innovations or changes. We simply don't trust government to provide good service overall. And a lot of experiences tend to come from this; trying to get a local government to do anything to benefit a community is like pulling teeth. We'll be in the middle of economic decline, and they'll be repurposing land into dog parks.
- AsyncAwait 9y ago
  > because we're subsidizing europe, which is a huge free rider on the US military. Even given that, the budget is massively overblown. > If Putin for whatever reason decided to become an expansionist power and the US had an european level military, no one could stop him. You seem to appeal to extremes. Ignoring how unlikely for that is to happen, you still don't need ~1000 military bases around the world, or would 500 be too little to stop Putin? > Europe in general has been massively subsidized in different ways by the USA from the end of WW2. They turn around and love to show off their moral superiority while someone else picks up the bill. That is the cost of being as global superpower and the world police, you pick up some bills, but you also get away with a lot of crap that others wouldn't.
- glenstein 9y ago
  The thing I don't understand about the subsidization argument is that it suggests Europe would choose to spend what America is spending, if America wasn't doing so already. I think Europe has fundamentally different ideas about the cost/benefit of investment in military. If the US went all-in on isolationism and drastically cut back military spending, Europe likely wouldn't replace American spending dollar-for-dollar. Instead they would spend more on other things, such as health care.
- bb611 9y ago
  > because we're subsidizing europe, which is a huge free rider on the US military. The vast majority of US spending since 2001 has been wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have nothing to do with the defense of Europe. This article has a good example of the spending increases specifically earmarked for Iraq/Afgahnistan: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/07/every... That ignores things like the excessively high hours on F-18 airframes from a higher than anticipated rate of deployment, causing increased repair/replacement costs and lower airframe availability, even after: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/62-of-f-18-hornets-unfit-to-fly-dod-hill-focus-on-readiness/ http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/62-of-f-18-hornets-unfit-... > If Putin for whatever reason decided to become an expansionist power and the US had an european level military, no one could stop him. There are other, much cheaper solutions to this - note that the US and EU have made it politically untenable for Russia to resolve the invasion of Ukraine in their favor, with extremely minimal deployments of military forces (a few show of force exercises in eastern Europe with NATO members or partners).
dahdum 9y ago
"Bang on. Across the globe, citizens of every other nation cannot fathom why the US prioritizes military spending above all else. It just doesn't make sense." The goal is to maintain the Pax Americana. The power and influence leads to a strong economy, which helps offset the cost.

Noos 9y ago

because we're subsidizing europe, which is a huge free rider on the US military. If Putin for whatever reason decided to become an expansionist power and the US had an european level military, no one could stop him. Europe in general has been massively subsidized in different ways by the USA from the end of WW2. They turn around and love to show off their moral superiority while someone else picks up the bill.

kbart 9y ago
I agree with that (though things are slowly getting better in Europe), but then why average Joe from USA is OK with government subsidizing Europe with his tax money, but freaks out on the idea of paying for his own healthcare from the same tax money?
- dalacv 9y ago
  Because the average joe can't afford to pay any more in taxes. If only Europe would build up their own military, and help out a little.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > why average Joe from USA is OK with government subsidizing Europe with his tax money Where do you get the idea that "average Joe" is okay with that? It's been a huge talking point for Trump and his supporters for the past two years.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    Also, the majority of American's are actually in favor of having some kind of sane medical system, like other first world countries. That's well supported by polling (though interestingly they don't like "Obamacare" but do like all the policies that make up the Affordable Care Act) This was also a talking point for Trump and his supporters for the past two years. ("we're going to have insurance for everyone", "No cuts to medicaid", "No one will lose coverage", "Nobody will be worse off financially", "I am going to take care of everybody … Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.") Of course, in that case as well, he took them for the rubes they are and likely had no plan for delivering on his promises.
- Noos 9y ago
  Government programs can be victim to massive amounts of fraud and waste, as well as put people through a lot of hoops in order to gain the same benefits or less you had before. It has no real pressure day to day to do well, and is very slow in accepting innovations or changes. We simply don't trust government to provide good service overall. And a lot of experiences tend to come from this; trying to get a local government to do anything to benefit a community is like pulling teeth. We'll be in the middle of economic decline, and they'll be repurposing land into dog parks.
AsyncAwait 9y ago
> because we're subsidizing europe, which is a huge free rider on the US military. Even given that, the budget is massively overblown. > If Putin for whatever reason decided to become an expansionist power and the US had an european level military, no one could stop him. You seem to appeal to extremes. Ignoring how unlikely for that is to happen, you still don't need ~1000 military bases around the world, or would 500 be too little to stop Putin? > Europe in general has been massively subsidized in different ways by the USA from the end of WW2. They turn around and love to show off their moral superiority while someone else picks up the bill. That is the cost of being as global superpower and the world police, you pick up some bills, but you also get away with a lot of crap that others wouldn't.
glenstein 9y ago
The thing I don't understand about the subsidization argument is that it suggests Europe would choose to spend what America is spending, if America wasn't doing so already. I think Europe has fundamentally different ideas about the cost/benefit of investment in military. If the US went all-in on isolationism and drastically cut back military spending, Europe likely wouldn't replace American spending dollar-for-dollar. Instead they would spend more on other things, such as health care.
bb611 9y ago
> because we're subsidizing europe, which is a huge free rider on the US military. The vast majority of US spending since 2001 has been wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have nothing to do with the defense of Europe. This article has a good example of the spending increases specifically earmarked for Iraq/Afgahnistan: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/07/every... That ignores things like the excessively high hours on F-18 airframes from a higher than anticipated rate of deployment, causing increased repair/replacement costs and lower airframe availability, even after: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/62-of-f-18-hornets-unfit-to-fly-dod-hill-focus-on-readiness/ http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/62-of-f-18-hornets-unfit-... > If Putin for whatever reason decided to become an expansionist power and the US had an european level military, no one could stop him. There are other, much cheaper solutions to this - note that the US and EU have made it politically untenable for Russia to resolve the invasion of Ukraine in their favor, with extremely minimal deployments of military forces (a few show of force exercises in eastern Europe with NATO members or partners).

dahdum 9y ago

"Bang on. Across the globe, citizens of every other nation cannot fathom why the US prioritizes military spending above all else. It just doesn't make sense." The goal is to maintain the Pax Americana. The power and influence leads to a strong economy, which helps offset the cost.