4 ms·

Not sure how this relates to what I wrote? Apparently USA voters do think the spending is adequate... or do you have a better way to decide on this? On a tangen

Not sure how this relates to what I wrote? Apparently USA voters do think the spending is adequate... or do you have a better way to decide on this? On a tangential: We can also try to compare the cost of 1 mile of subway in NY vs 1 mile in Shanghai. I didn't check but I would assume NY cost would be more than double. Services in US cost a lot. US innovates and a lot of other countries copy... while it seems that China spending is not that far behind US.

smegger001 5y ago
do they? is there a transparent way to vote against it when both parties big parties support it tacitly if not publicly. I vote third party every election but they never when because they don't have the money that comes from donations of big lobbying industries like military contractors oil pharma etc
- sgregnt 5y ago
  Lobbying is only so much effective as the benefits outweigh the damage to a politician. In our tight election cycles the marginal differences are important, I would believe that politicians would jump to grab as much votes as possible to tilt the balance only even slightly. Maybe there is actually more support for large military spending than it appears to you?
  - smegger001 5y ago
    Nope its not a wedge issue so they wont fight over it especally as they profit from it. The left will pay lip service to halting forever wars, but will sign the next military procurement bill because it ostensibly brings in vague nonspecific 'jobs' to their district. The right on the other hand, just gets hard at the idea of more and bigger guns and signs it without needing a excuse.
    - sgregnt 5y ago
      So to summarize: your are saying on the one hand, for one or the other reason, the voters decide not to punish politicians that support military spending, on the other hand, politician rely onobbist to help them get elected and so don't do much about spending. I think we agree.
azurezyq 5y ago
I don't think 1/3 is "not far behind". https://www.statista.com/chart/16878/military-expenditure-by-the-us-china-and-russia/ https://www.statista.com/chart/16878/military-expenditure-by... Actually you don't need US's level of spending if you are not "actively" into wars like ones in the middle east.
- sgregnt 5y ago
  "Actually you don't need US's level of spending if you are not "actively" into wars like ones in the middle east." That's your believe but sorry, I don't want to take this claim on the face value. Maybe you're right, maybe not, I believe that's a complicated issue for sure... One could claim you would need to spend much more were you not involved in these conflicts... each war has it's own reason and own goals and the decision to enter a war is weighted in geopolitically economically etc..and then the elected president makes this decision. Now, what I do have an evidence for, is that politically, the votes are probably split since there is pretty much status quo on that for many years and many administrations...
mikem170 5y ago
> Apparently USA voters do think the spending is adequate I'm not sure how well the federal government reflects the will of the people, given how campaigns are funded here, using means which are illegal in most other countries. Not to mention the gerrymandering, where politicians are choosing voters instead of the other way around. I don't know if the federal government was originally meant to be responsive to the people. That's why there's no facility for the people to directly propose amendments or vote on referendums at the federal level, like there is in other more democratic countries. For a long time state legislators elected members of congress and the president, not the people. You mentioned U.S. voters... Perhaps it is a good idea to have a national referendum before launching a war. Democracy is a good thing, right? I believe other countries would do this, Switzerland for example. Maybe even go one better, and have a GoFundMe to pay for it. And volunteer soldiers to fight. It would then be interesting to see how many people want to waste their money and lives halfway across the world killing people who just want to be left alone, but are in the way of someone over here making more money.
- sgregnt 5y ago
  Some say, democracy is very bad, yet it is still better than any other alternative. So, for the lack of a better alternative I have only so much data points. Yes, referendums etc.. could be a reasonable propose, things evolve so maybe one day we will have something of this sort in the US as well. Time will show!
banannaise 5y ago
It's manufactured consent. The voters don't have a meaningful choice on this axis.

smegger001 5y ago

do they? is there a transparent way to vote against it when both parties big parties support it tacitly if not publicly. I vote third party every election but they never when because they don't have the money that comes from donations of big lobbying industries like military contractors oil pharma etc

sgregnt 5y ago
Lobbying is only so much effective as the benefits outweigh the damage to a politician. In our tight election cycles the marginal differences are important, I would believe that politicians would jump to grab as much votes as possible to tilt the balance only even slightly. Maybe there is actually more support for large military spending than it appears to you?
- smegger001 5y ago
  Nope its not a wedge issue so they wont fight over it especally as they profit from it. The left will pay lip service to halting forever wars, but will sign the next military procurement bill because it ostensibly brings in vague nonspecific 'jobs' to their district. The right on the other hand, just gets hard at the idea of more and bigger guns and signs it without needing a excuse.
  - sgregnt 5y ago
    So to summarize: your are saying on the one hand, for one or the other reason, the voters decide not to punish politicians that support military spending, on the other hand, politician rely onobbist to help them get elected and so don't do much about spending. I think we agree.

azurezyq 5y ago

I don't think 1/3 is "not far behind". https://www.statista.com/chart/16878/military-expenditure-by-the-us-china-and-russia/ https://www.statista.com/chart/16878/military-expenditure-by... Actually you don't need US's level of spending if you are not "actively" into wars like ones in the middle east.

sgregnt 5y ago
"Actually you don't need US's level of spending if you are not "actively" into wars like ones in the middle east." That's your believe but sorry, I don't want to take this claim on the face value. Maybe you're right, maybe not, I believe that's a complicated issue for sure... One could claim you would need to spend much more were you not involved in these conflicts... each war has it's own reason and own goals and the decision to enter a war is weighted in geopolitically economically etc..and then the elected president makes this decision. Now, what I do have an evidence for, is that politically, the votes are probably split since there is pretty much status quo on that for many years and many administrations...

mikem170 5y ago

> Apparently USA voters do think the spending is adequate I'm not sure how well the federal government reflects the will of the people, given how campaigns are funded here, using means which are illegal in most other countries. Not to mention the gerrymandering, where politicians are choosing voters instead of the other way around. I don't know if the federal government was originally meant to be responsive to the people. That's why there's no facility for the people to directly propose amendments or vote on referendums at the federal level, like there is in other more democratic countries. For a long time state legislators elected members of congress and the president, not the people. You mentioned U.S. voters... Perhaps it is a good idea to have a national referendum before launching a war. Democracy is a good thing, right? I believe other countries would do this, Switzerland for example. Maybe even go one better, and have a GoFundMe to pay for it. And volunteer soldiers to fight. It would then be interesting to see how many people want to waste their money and lives halfway across the world killing people who just want to be left alone, but are in the way of someone over here making more money.

sgregnt 5y ago
Some say, democracy is very bad, yet it is still better than any other alternative. So, for the lack of a better alternative I have only so much data points. Yes, referendums etc.. could be a reasonable propose, things evolve so maybe one day we will have something of this sort in the US as well. Time will show!

banannaise 5y ago

It's manufactured consent. The voters don't have a meaningful choice on this axis.