Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I find that the hardest contradiction about living in America. The poverty, and inequality. The massive disparity in school quality. The healthcare system that'll bankrupt you for a broken arm. And for-profit prisons jam-packed to meet quotas. And all the while the state throws that sort of money to maintain a military force bigger than the rest combined.
I get the need for a strong deterrent, but it seems way out of proportion. Particularly when it's there in case it's required to protect their people - when in reality just a portion of that money could go so much further toward protecting their people domestically. Both for those who are already in trouble, and to stop the next generation of homeless or ill from falling through the cracks in the first place.
To an extent, this is a remaining callback to the lessons learned in the 1940s. The US had a policy of isolationism, with all the defense money going to the Navy as the branch which protected US commercial interests abroad, and on the basis that Canada and Mexico were unlikely to be major threats, any likely enemy attack would have to come over the ocean.
Then it was concluded that the prosperity and security of the US is tied with the prosperity and security of other countries. The US had to have an expeditionary capability, especially given no other country could do the job. Indeed, on a relative basis, the US is not as strong as it used to be. For most of the Cold War, the policy was to maintain the capability to fight two wars at once (read Warsaw Pact in Germany and Korean Peninsula), noawadays the stated goal is one war and one intervention. If one agrees that the US’s prosperity is tied to the security of its allies (and trading partners) then the military expenditure is justifiable.
With respect to the argument about how we could better spend the money on healthcare, education, and so on, it’s worth noting that the US spends a shed load of money on such things. We may spend a trillion dollars a year on defense, but the government spends nearly $2trn a year on healthcare. And a half trillion on welfare. And that’s government spending, before you add private expenditure like my paying my bills or insurance premiums.
We don’t seem to be getting good value for the money, that’s a different problem to not spending the money in the first place.
The other minor detail is that there is a school of thought (which I ascribe to) that things like healthcare or welfare shouldn’t be the Federal government’s problem anyway. Defense is specifically given as a task to the federal government, it should take in enough in taxes to cover it. Indeed, historically, up until about a century ago, defense was the -only- major federal government expenditure. Healthcare is not a federal government problem, so merely reducing federal military expenditure should not divert more money to healthcare. On the other hand, if the States want to increase their tax income for even more money on healthcare/welfare/whatever, that is an entirely unconnected issue to federal taxation and expenditure.
It’s not like Ireland where there is a centralized budget for all these things.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement