11 ms·

The US has begged for years for the EU to take their national security more seriously, even just the bare minimum required under the NATO treaty which most nati

by syshum 5y ago

The US has begged for years for the EU to take their national security more seriously, even just the bare minimum required under the NATO treaty which most nations have not actually done. instead they used that money to increase social spending happy to allow the US Tax Payer to fund their security...

vmception 5y ago
I was really surprised how that was seen as a "far right" view well because the guy that would actually say it ran on a far right platform, but I think its still odd how people aren't willing to separate various causes or more so that its disappointing that we don't have a consensus mechanism that allows us to express interest in some causes while rejecting others and still getting a head of state that represents all of the chosen platforms
- richardwhiuk 5y ago
  US asks European countries to increase defense spending has been a bipartisan issue for ages.
- syshum 5y ago
  These days "far right" has lost all meaning when people commonly label even people that share what was mainstream 1990's democrat policy platform views as "far right" What is considered "right" in US Politics is sooo encompassing that it likely include 80% of the population. As the people that label everyone "far right" do not realize just how out of touch they are in their twitter echo chamber
  - patmorgan23 5y ago
    That's because compared to the rest of the developed world the US is kinda on the right.
    - syshum 5y ago
      No, compared to the Rest of the world the US is on the Libertarian / Federalism side of politics. I like that I like liberty, I like freedom, I like federalism. I oppose central government, I oppose social democracy, I oppose authoritarianism
      - vmception 5y ago
        Federalism has been finished since the national government discovered that all commerce is interstate commerce Any activity of a state or individual is merely tolerated for the sake of future consensus making, but when more convenient the national government will curb stomp any state into compliance as if that state were a middle eastern country enriching uranium
        ROTMetro 5y ago
        This! I too am having to come to terms with being a fellow libertarian cosplayer. It sucks. But at this point I am willing to give up dogma to try and make this country better because whatever is going on now is not working, and is not making things any more small L liberal, from either side of the isle.
        vmception 5y ago
        (I don’t subscribe to libertarian affiliation) I’m more of a consensus maker, ideas I suggest and the way I present them results in all-partisan support, including in the US. I think we overlap in the observation that disunity is unproductive. For me its been a great opening that entrenched special interests moved to far extremes of their parties and ideologies, opportunity of a lifetime since the center became unguarded. So I do have an uncommon view of what reality could be, but I’d rather not have that taken as libertarian. That assumption undermines my consensus making ability :)
vkou 5y ago
Eastern EU has been taking national security very seriously. Western EU has not, because Eastern EU serves as a set of buffer states for it. The US can complain about this state of affairs all it wants, but it needs to remain in EU's good graces, if it wants to maintain its hegemony.
- syshum 5y ago
  >> but it needs to remain in EU's good graces, if it wants to maintain its hegemony. I dont think that is true, and in reality hitching our (the US) future to the EU's idiosyncrasies will likely lead to the US losing power not keeping it EU is at best a Fair weather ally to the US. UK rightfully saw the problem with the EU and pulled out, I personally that that was the right move for the UK. I think NATO is a better organizing body, and alliance than the EU. I think we will continue to see EU as a governing body reduce in power. Economic Free Trade and NATO will remain but there are structural issues with the EU as a Federation or what ever they consider themselves
  - vkou 5y ago
    > I dont think that is true, and in reality hitching our (the US) future to the EU's idiosyncrasies will likely lead to the US losing power not keeping it Hard disagreement. The US is becoming less and less economically relevant, with the rise of the developing world. It used to be nearly half of the world's GDP - over two thirds, when combined with Western Europe. It's now at under a quarter (much lower when adjusted for PPP), and is utterly reliant on developing world supply chains for its most basic products - and its not doing so under the kind of gunpoint trade terms that the colonial empires of the 19th and 20th centuries could impose on their subjects. If Europe's status drops to being an ally of convenience, I expect the sun to set on the American empire in about two decades.
    - syshum 5y ago
      I think that is likely going to happen anyway, The political leadership of the US has no desire do to what is required to keep power. They like the business world are too focused on the short term, in the case of politicians it is the next election, in the case of business it is the quarterly earning statements Neither are looking at a 20, 10 or even 5 year picture.
UncleSlacky 5y ago
That's...not how any of this works. The NATO 2% guideline doesn't apply until 2024, and European countries don't need to skimp on defence in order to fund social services, in fact things like universal healthcare actually work out cheaper (the US pays something like double what European countries pay as a proportion of GDP, while getting worse outcomes). Ironically, if the US adopted "socialized" medicine, it would actually have more money to spend on defence. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_171458.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_171458.htm https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-healthcare-expenditure-gdp https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-healthcare-expendit...
- syshum 5y ago
  Soo much wrong here.. One the "better outcomes" is actually debatable due to a whole host of factors, including that American are generally less healthy not because of our healthcare system but because we have large amounts of high processed high carb food with little excersise which is not the case in the EU. The only way the US would "save" money on socialize care is if they highly regulated and heavily taxed "bad food" which I am sure you would support but I dont as I oppose using the tax code for social goals If you look at stats that take into account these factors the US health system is the best in the world. better Cancer Survivor rates, Lower wait times, faster times to specialists, lower Doctor to Patient counts, Semi-private hospital rooms standard, etc, etc. Also looking a Total spend as a % of GDP is completely moronic statistic to compare as well, and there is NO WAY the government could socialize health care and capture anywhere near the amount of money to pay for it in taxation. Not even close, to believe that you have to ignore all of recorded tax history.
  - ROTMetro 5y ago
    First, the USA has socialized medicine, but in the most expensive yet most ineffective way, and that is in the ER. American ERs can not legally turn patients away for inability to pay. Anyone that tries to argue against socialized healthcare in the USA is making a pointless argument, we already have it. They are just arguing against "effective" socialized medicine. If I take the opinion of McDonalds customers, they will tell me McDonalds has much better food than if I include the opinion of McDonalds customers AND the people that don't go there. There is what the USA numbers show, outcome for people for whom the USA medical system works. The US numbers are self selecting, because many poorer people in bad health don't make it to the starting point to even be included in the numbers for "Cancer Survivor", they just don't receive any treatment and are invisible to you syshum. When you have a whole section of society (the section that happens to be less healthy, exposed to more chemicals, harsher working conditions, poorer diet on average) excluded from the numbers you use you can't really use your statistics for any valid comparison. My grandfather who had VA benefits had great healthcare. My grandmother, well, she was just invisible in your statistics because she had no healthcare. For lower wait times, are you conflating elective surgery with non-elective? Please show me the USA vs other countries statistics that you are using broken out by elective and non-elective. I would say a better measure of healthcare would be wait time for non-elective treatment, while elective wait time is more a quality of life measurement, two different things. Kind of like medications versus vitamins, they are booth pills, but you don't die if you don't have access to vitamins. Take out elective (and highly profitable in USA but lower priority than saving lives under other forms of healthcare) and I think your statistics are going to show no advantage for USA healthcare. Yes, the USA healthcare system is best in the world for rushing people into high profit surgery/treatment. But is that truely a healthcare metric, or is that more a quality of life metric? Your last argument where you state the prior poster is moronic is purely opinion with no attempt at persuasion or presentation of reasons for the opinion.
JAlexoid 5y ago
This is offtopic, but social spending isn't dependent in many NATO member states on defense spending. Germany literally can spend 4% of GDP on defense, without serious impact on socials pending. There's also the other side of the issue - US has been unwilling to sell weapons and very willing to denounce nations who didn't buy outdated and overpriced US armaments. You should also remember that after WW2 allies forced Germany into a particular mindset. And fall of the Soviet block - Germans are very much against "secret police" of any kind.
- Melatonic 5y ago
  The US is the biggest arms dealer in the world and recent events have led to a lot more EU countries buying fancy jets

by syshum 5y ago

vmception 5y ago

I was really surprised how that was seen as a "far right" view well because the guy that would actually say it ran on a far right platform, but I think its still odd how people aren't willing to separate various causes or more so that its disappointing that we don't have a consensus mechanism that allows us to express interest in some causes while rejecting others and still getting a head of state that represents all of the chosen platforms

richardwhiuk 5y ago
US asks European countries to increase defense spending has been a bipartisan issue for ages.
syshum 5y ago
These days "far right" has lost all meaning when people commonly label even people that share what was mainstream 1990's democrat policy platform views as "far right" What is considered "right" in US Politics is sooo encompassing that it likely include 80% of the population. As the people that label everyone "far right" do not realize just how out of touch they are in their twitter echo chamber
- patmorgan23 5y ago
  That's because compared to the rest of the developed world the US is kinda on the right.
  - syshum 5y ago
    No, compared to the Rest of the world the US is on the Libertarian / Federalism side of politics. I like that I like liberty, I like freedom, I like federalism. I oppose central government, I oppose social democracy, I oppose authoritarianism
    - vmception 5y ago
      Federalism has been finished since the national government discovered that all commerce is interstate commerce Any activity of a state or individual is merely tolerated for the sake of future consensus making, but when more convenient the national government will curb stomp any state into compliance as if that state were a middle eastern country enriching uranium
      - ROTMetro 5y ago
        This! I too am having to come to terms with being a fellow libertarian cosplayer. It sucks. But at this point I am willing to give up dogma to try and make this country better because whatever is going on now is not working, and is not making things any more small L liberal, from either side of the isle.
        vmception 5y ago
        (I don’t subscribe to libertarian affiliation) I’m more of a consensus maker, ideas I suggest and the way I present them results in all-partisan support, including in the US. I think we overlap in the observation that disunity is unproductive. For me its been a great opening that entrenched special interests moved to far extremes of their parties and ideologies, opportunity of a lifetime since the center became unguarded. So I do have an uncommon view of what reality could be, but I’d rather not have that taken as libertarian. That assumption undermines my consensus making ability :)

vkou 5y ago

Eastern EU has been taking national security very seriously. Western EU has not, because Eastern EU serves as a set of buffer states for it. The US can complain about this state of affairs all it wants, but it needs to remain in EU's good graces, if it wants to maintain its hegemony.

syshum 5y ago
>> but it needs to remain in EU's good graces, if it wants to maintain its hegemony. I dont think that is true, and in reality hitching our (the US) future to the EU's idiosyncrasies will likely lead to the US losing power not keeping it EU is at best a Fair weather ally to the US. UK rightfully saw the problem with the EU and pulled out, I personally that that was the right move for the UK. I think NATO is a better organizing body, and alliance than the EU. I think we will continue to see EU as a governing body reduce in power. Economic Free Trade and NATO will remain but there are structural issues with the EU as a Federation or what ever they consider themselves
- vkou 5y ago
  > I dont think that is true, and in reality hitching our (the US) future to the EU's idiosyncrasies will likely lead to the US losing power not keeping it Hard disagreement. The US is becoming less and less economically relevant, with the rise of the developing world. It used to be nearly half of the world's GDP - over two thirds, when combined with Western Europe. It's now at under a quarter (much lower when adjusted for PPP), and is utterly reliant on developing world supply chains for its most basic products - and its not doing so under the kind of gunpoint trade terms that the colonial empires of the 19th and 20th centuries could impose on their subjects. If Europe's status drops to being an ally of convenience, I expect the sun to set on the American empire in about two decades.
  - syshum 5y ago
    I think that is likely going to happen anyway, The political leadership of the US has no desire do to what is required to keep power. They like the business world are too focused on the short term, in the case of politicians it is the next election, in the case of business it is the quarterly earning statements Neither are looking at a 20, 10 or even 5 year picture.

UncleSlacky 5y ago

That's...not how any of this works. The NATO 2% guideline doesn't apply until 2024, and European countries don't need to skimp on defence in order to fund social services, in fact things like universal healthcare actually work out cheaper (the US pays something like double what European countries pay as a proportion of GDP, while getting worse outcomes). Ironically, if the US adopted "socialized" medicine, it would actually have more money to spend on defence. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_171458.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_171458.htm https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-healthcare-expenditure-gdp https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-healthcare-expendit...

syshum 5y ago
Soo much wrong here.. One the "better outcomes" is actually debatable due to a whole host of factors, including that American are generally less healthy not because of our healthcare system but because we have large amounts of high processed high carb food with little excersise which is not the case in the EU. The only way the US would "save" money on socialize care is if they highly regulated and heavily taxed "bad food" which I am sure you would support but I dont as I oppose using the tax code for social goals If you look at stats that take into account these factors the US health system is the best in the world. better Cancer Survivor rates, Lower wait times, faster times to specialists, lower Doctor to Patient counts, Semi-private hospital rooms standard, etc, etc. Also looking a Total spend as a % of GDP is completely moronic statistic to compare as well, and there is NO WAY the government could socialize health care and capture anywhere near the amount of money to pay for it in taxation. Not even close, to believe that you have to ignore all of recorded tax history.
- ROTMetro 5y ago
  First, the USA has socialized medicine, but in the most expensive yet most ineffective way, and that is in the ER. American ERs can not legally turn patients away for inability to pay. Anyone that tries to argue against socialized healthcare in the USA is making a pointless argument, we already have it. They are just arguing against "effective" socialized medicine. If I take the opinion of McDonalds customers, they will tell me McDonalds has much better food than if I include the opinion of McDonalds customers AND the people that don't go there. There is what the USA numbers show, outcome for people for whom the USA medical system works. The US numbers are self selecting, because many poorer people in bad health don't make it to the starting point to even be included in the numbers for "Cancer Survivor", they just don't receive any treatment and are invisible to you syshum. When you have a whole section of society (the section that happens to be less healthy, exposed to more chemicals, harsher working conditions, poorer diet on average) excluded from the numbers you use you can't really use your statistics for any valid comparison. My grandfather who had VA benefits had great healthcare. My grandmother, well, she was just invisible in your statistics because she had no healthcare. For lower wait times, are you conflating elective surgery with non-elective? Please show me the USA vs other countries statistics that you are using broken out by elective and non-elective. I would say a better measure of healthcare would be wait time for non-elective treatment, while elective wait time is more a quality of life measurement, two different things. Kind of like medications versus vitamins, they are booth pills, but you don't die if you don't have access to vitamins. Take out elective (and highly profitable in USA but lower priority than saving lives under other forms of healthcare) and I think your statistics are going to show no advantage for USA healthcare. Yes, the USA healthcare system is best in the world for rushing people into high profit surgery/treatment. But is that truely a healthcare metric, or is that more a quality of life metric? Your last argument where you state the prior poster is moronic is purely opinion with no attempt at persuasion or presentation of reasons for the opinion.

JAlexoid 5y ago

This is offtopic, but social spending isn't dependent in many NATO member states on defense spending. Germany literally can spend 4% of GDP on defense, without serious impact on socials pending. There's also the other side of the issue - US has been unwilling to sell weapons and very willing to denounce nations who didn't buy outdated and overpriced US armaments. You should also remember that after WW2 allies forced Germany into a particular mindset. And fall of the Soviet block - Germans are very much against "secret police" of any kind.

Melatonic 5y ago
The US is the biggest arms dealer in the world and recent events have led to a lot more EU countries buying fancy jets