|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 13 2018 01:31 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:29 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:16 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:07 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 00:59 bo1b wrote:
Just to be clear, are you advocating that both the spending on military during peace time is welfare, and that a massive reduction in welfare would be better? it's not exactly welfare, but it's not necessarily dissimilar (though it's not well-aimed as a welfare program, other programs do a far better job of being welfare programs). It's not economically productive activity, so it's loss would not result in horrible economic consequences; not sure it should even effect gdp at all. it's not a very good welfare program, so if the only point of it is welfare spending it'd be FAR better spent in other ways, or simply not spent at all to reduce debt. remember - this is ultimately all from me disputing your claim of disastrous economic consequences from cutting US military spending. That's fair, to be honest we don't have a particularly good way of predicting the outcome of such an event so we're both shooting in the dark a little bit aren't we? I'd personally say the economic benefits (or not) of the military spending are a side effect of the greater goal of maintaining a military. As nice as it is having NASA be funded by the defense force, the ultimate goal is to maintain a level of discipline and up keep on the military itself, I think. It just has the side effect of putting a lot of young men and women through college, providing a decent enough income, providing a way of gaining a green card, and just generally being a pretty decent way of moving up socioeconomically. While I personally believe the damage to the global economy would be fairly dramatic if Russia was able to fulfill it's colonial plans, and China too, I have no way of quantifying that. Just like I have no way of quantifying what changing the spending direction of 540 billion dollars or so would do to the world. It is just conjecture at this point  the greater goal of the military is unnecessary, at least unnecessary at the current highly wasteful spending levels. the goals could easily be achieved at far lower cost. the spending is mostly a result of politics rather than actual need. the side effect doesn't mean much when there's other far cheaper ways to get those effects. while we can't perfectly predict it, there's enough data to make some fairly clear conclusions on it, so we're not just shooting in the dark (or at leas ti'm not, dunno about you, but I'm assuming you have similar knowledge). and as I said, a 90% cut would be a bit much, but 50% would be fine. Could you illuminate me as to those other ways please?
it's not a question of other ways; the goals were simply already achieved at a far lower cost. the extra spending is simply unnecessary.
i.e. all the actual international security goals were achieved at half the current spending.
how familiar are you with the actual conflict scenarios and military spending levels worldwide?
|
It seems American government spending as a whole has this problem though, how do you suggest cutting through it? Could dramatically improve U.S health care per dollar spent if you solve it.
I'm no where near an expert, I like to keep up to date on events but you couldn't rely on me to tell you anything about spending outcomes.
|
On January 13 2018 01:24 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:22 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Second, if you reduce the scale of the military's mission, you will see profound consequences for both the U.S. and the world as a whole.
Quite the overstatement, if I've ever seen one. We're actively seeing expansionist policy from China and Russia in their respective areas of interest, mind explaining whats an overstatement about what he said?
Are you claiming China and Russia would be outright invading their neighbors if it wasn't the size of big brother USA's military spending?
|
On January 13 2018 01:30 Uldridge wrote:
We were savages with pretty high tech pre 1950. We've come a long way in becoming more civilized since then. We've become more dependent on each other since ever and every passing day we're more and more intertwined.
New plan: give everyone one nuke they get to point at someone if they feel danger looming from that side.
Why do you guys think we still have this distrust (well Russia's pretty thinly veiled) between the US and China?
Maybe we need an alien invasion to overcome our distrust of each other.
I would caution against deluding ourselves that we are better than the people in the 1950s when it comes to the desire to go to war. They had their entire power structure of the world turned upside down, reshaped the world order and lost millions of lives in the process. They build all these systems and spent money on armies because they knew the world would try it again. And very soon they will all be gone.
On January 13 2018 01:37 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:24 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:22 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Second, if you reduce the scale of the military's mission, you will see profound consequences for both the U.S. and the world as a whole.
Quite the overstatement, if I've ever seen one. We're actively seeing expansionist policy from China and Russia in their respective areas of interest, mind explaining whats an overstatement about what he said? Are you claiming China and Russia would be outright invading their neighbors if it wasn't the size of big brother USA's military spending?
Is there any doubt? Putin’s Russia totally would if they could get away with it.
|
United States44283 Posts
On January 13 2018 01:37 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:24 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:22 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Second, if you reduce the scale of the military's mission, you will see profound consequences for both the U.S. and the world as a whole.
Quite the overstatement, if I've ever seen one. We're actively seeing expansionist policy from China and Russia in their respective areas of interest, mind explaining whats an overstatement about what he said? Are you claiming China and Russia would be outright invading their neighbors if it wasn't the size of big brother USA's military spending?
They both already are. Ukraine and Tibet.
|
On January 13 2018 01:36 bo1b wrote:
It seems American government spending as a whole has this problem though, how do you suggest cutting through it? Could dramatically improve U.S health care per dollar spent if you solve it.
that's a tricky one; I'm only good at figuring out and identifying good/bad policy. i'm very bad at the politics of convincing people and getting it implemented (some of which depends on catering to and abusing the irrationalities of voters).
|
On January 13 2018 01:37 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:24 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:22 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Second, if you reduce the scale of the military's mission, you will see profound consequences for both the U.S. and the world as a whole.
Quite the overstatement, if I've ever seen one. We're actively seeing expansionist policy from China and Russia in their respective areas of interest, mind explaining whats an overstatement about what he said? Are you claiming China and Russia would be outright invading their neighbors if it wasn't the size of big brother USA's military spending?
I'm outright stating they are yes. Look up whats happening in the South China Sea, Tibet, and the Silk Road for China, and then look up what's happened recently in Crimea, and across the old soviet bloc in general for Russia.
|
On January 13 2018 01:38 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:36 bo1b wrote:
It seems American government spending as a whole has this problem though, how do you suggest cutting through it? Could dramatically improve U.S health care per dollar spent if you solve it. that's a tricky one; I'm only good at figuring out and identifying good/bad policy. i'm very bad at the politics of convincing people and getting it implemented (some of which depends on catering to and abusing the irrationalities of voters).
I'm not sure how to combat government waste at that size, which to me seems a bit of an intractable problem.
|
On January 13 2018 00:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 00:29 Ghostcom wrote:On January 13 2018 00:13 Plansix wrote:On January 13 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:On January 12 2018 07:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Someone finally said it.
We are the shithole country. Finally? Someone finally said it? There weren't people constantly talking about rebuilding infrastructure, jobs, stopping people from dying in the streets, staying out of pointless wars? Even just one person talking about all of them, except student loan debt which is an actual first world problem, like it's something that only happens to people who can go to universities and more Bernie's signature I guess. Anyway, it's perplexing to see such a compartmental view of the world, I wonder if StealthBlue has been paying attention the past few years. On January 12 2018 23:57 brian wrote:
can’t wait to be lectured again about how trump isn’t a racist and it’s the liberals fault we’re here. yawn. We want to help the poor and underprivileged of the world but their countries are already fantastic? no, they're not good places to be which is why people all over the world want to go to the US even illegally. This is the whole point. This isn’t about illegal immigration. Trump was saying he didn’t want people from those countries to legally immigrate to the US. Also you should read up on immigrants from those “shithole” nations, they do very well in the US. There is no real data to support not taking that I have seen. Out of curiosity: As I understand your statement you are merely stating that legal African immigrants do better than the average American citizen right? Do you happen to know if those legal African immigrants do better than legal Norwegian immigrants? I am not sure if such data is available in the US and was hoping you could point me in the right direction. It would be interesting to compare such data with the Danish data. My understanding of the data is that legal immigrants all do reasonably well in the US and on average have a slightly higher than standard of living than most Americans. I don’t know if we compare achievement based on nation of origin, but it does not seem to be a huge factor if someone can obtain legal status. But that creating a system based on nation of origin would really run counter to our national identity, since we are a nation of immigrants. We only limit immigration based on nation of origin for security reasons. I can’t find the studies with a quick google search, because immigration is a pretty saturated topic on the internet. I would link them if I could get them quickly.
Yeah I couldn't find anything quickly either which was why I asked. Thanks though.
On January 13 2018 00:42 Jockmcplop wrote:Here's a study that's relevant, seems to have some surprising-ish results: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23548Show nested quote +Success of immigrants in the US measured by earnings or education varies dramatically by country of origin. For example, average educational attainment among immigrants ranges from 9 to 16 years, depending on origin country. Perhaps surprisingly, immigrants from Algeria have higher educational attainment than those from Israel or Japan. Also true is that there is a strong inverse relation of attainment to number of immigrants from that country. There is excess supply of potential immigrants to desirable destination country like the US and the rationing rule results in selection from the top of a source country’s ability distribution. As a consequence, average immigrant attainment is inversely related to the number admitted from an origin country and positively related to the population of that country. The results are supported by results from the American Community Survey. The model’s three variables explain 73% of the variation in educational attainment of immigrant groups. Additionally, a structural model that is more explicit in the assumptions and predictions also fits the data well. You have to pay to read the whole study though. I don't think this is measuring success in the US as much as education before arriving in the US.
Nah I have access due to the socialist government of Denmark  Reading it now, will update if I find anything interesting.
|
On January 13 2018 01:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:37 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:24 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:22 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Second, if you reduce the scale of the military's mission, you will see profound consequences for both the U.S. and the world as a whole.
Quite the overstatement, if I've ever seen one. We're actively seeing expansionist policy from China and Russia in their respective areas of interest, mind explaining whats an overstatement about what he said? Are you claiming China and Russia would be outright invading their neighbors if it wasn't the size of big brother USA's military spending? They both already are. Ukraine and Tibet.
Then it sounds like the US is powerless in either case, in spite of wasting money on the world's biggest military.
|
On January 13 2018 01:43 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:38 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2018 01:37 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:24 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:22 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Second, if you reduce the scale of the military's mission, you will see profound consequences for both the U.S. and the world as a whole.
Quite the overstatement, if I've ever seen one. We're actively seeing expansionist policy from China and Russia in their respective areas of interest, mind explaining whats an overstatement about what he said? Are you claiming China and Russia would be outright invading their neighbors if it wasn't the size of big brother USA's military spending? They both already are. Ukraine and Tibet. Then it sounds like the US is powerless in either case, in spite of wasting money on the world's biggest military.
Interesting conclusion. That's me trying to avoid moderation for what it's worth.
|
United States44283 Posts
On January 13 2018 01:43 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:38 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2018 01:37 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:24 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:22 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Second, if you reduce the scale of the military's mission, you will see profound consequences for both the U.S. and the world as a whole.
Quite the overstatement, if I've ever seen one. We're actively seeing expansionist policy from China and Russia in their respective areas of interest, mind explaining whats an overstatement about what he said? Are you claiming China and Russia would be outright invading their neighbors if it wasn't the size of big brother USA's military spending? They both already are. Ukraine and Tibet. Then it sounds like the US is powerless in either case, in spite of wasting money on the world's biggest military.
Lisa, I would like to buy your rock.
|
On January 13 2018 01:41 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:38 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:36 bo1b wrote:
It seems American government spending as a whole has this problem though, how do you suggest cutting through it? Could dramatically improve U.S health care per dollar spent if you solve it. that's a tricky one; I'm only good at figuring out and identifying good/bad policy. i'm very bad at the politics of convincing people and getting it implemented (some of which depends on catering to and abusing the irrationalities of voters). I'm not sure how to combat government waste at that size, which to me seems a bit of an intractable problem.
it is hard indeed; the problem is it's an outgrowth of misleading voters and/or other aggregate effects of human behavior. it's hard to get leaders focused on actually sensible thoughtful policy. and i'm certainly not gonna manage to win any elections.
some of it is an unfortunate but inevitable outcome of democracy.
|
On January 13 2018 01:44 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:43 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:38 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2018 01:37 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:24 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:22 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Second, if you reduce the scale of the military's mission, you will see profound consequences for both the U.S. and the world as a whole.
Quite the overstatement, if I've ever seen one. We're actively seeing expansionist policy from China and Russia in their respective areas of interest, mind explaining whats an overstatement about what he said? Are you claiming China and Russia would be outright invading their neighbors if it wasn't the size of big brother USA's military spending? They both already are. Ukraine and Tibet. Then it sounds like the US is powerless in either case, in spite of wasting money on the world's biggest military. Interesting conclusion. That's me trying to avoid moderation for what it's worth.
Hey, it's your money, not mine.
Edit: oh wait, you're from australia, my bad
|
On January 13 2018 01:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:41 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:38 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:36 bo1b wrote:
It seems American government spending as a whole has this problem though, how do you suggest cutting through it? Could dramatically improve U.S health care per dollar spent if you solve it. that's a tricky one; I'm only good at figuring out and identifying good/bad policy. i'm very bad at the politics of convincing people and getting it implemented (some of which depends on catering to and abusing the irrationalities of voters). I'm not sure how to combat government waste at that size, which to me seems a bit of an intractable problem. it is hard indeed; the problem is it's an outgrowth of misleading voters and/or other aggregate effects of human behavior. it's hard to get leaders focused on actually sensible thoughtful policy. and i'm certainly not gonna manage to win any elections. some of it is an unfortunate but inevitable outcome of democracy.
If that's the case is it really possibly to cut spending by 50%?
|
Flint STILL doesn't have clean water, Americans in Puerto Rico are going months without power and basic services, Kids in Baltimore had to skip school because temperatures were near freezing in their schools, we pay more for less in health care, education, and military (though with the military we pay sooo much more than anyone else it's hard to tell), yet veterans go hungry, without homes, and/or insane (they are a significant number of recent terrorist/mass shooters), but we're sooner to find another country to "democratize" than make sure the people we send are capable of reintegrating into the society we told them they were risking their lives for.
I know people like to make endless excuses, but in the wealthiest country on earth, that throws out nearly half of our consumable food, it's shamefully embarrassing that we have hungry children and parents in debt trying to pay for their school lunches.
Stop letting people tell you that there's no reasonable alternative to hungry kids, homeless mentally ill veterans, more people in prison than ANY other country, more than 1000 people killed by police every year, working poor, bankruptcy from healthcare, and so on.
EDIT: It dawned on me that while I know dozens of people that fall into those descriptions most posters here probably don't know any or just a couple. I don't think that's unrelated to why in this case and others it doesn't strike people here as big of a problem.
|
I agree Gh, completely. It's a tragedy of the first order that America is not a borderline utopia, and that some of the problems it has, it really really has.
|
But we need that influence in every country on the planet, bro. We need that influence so that we can't be influenced ourselves.. oh wait.
|
I'd consider doing some reading into the subject of Pax Americana before writing a series of stupid posts on holding hands in a post nuclear war, and boiling it down greedy leaders wanting more influence.
|
On January 13 2018 01:47 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:44 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:43 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:38 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2018 01:37 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:24 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:22 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 13 2018 01:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Second, if you reduce the scale of the military's mission, you will see profound consequences for both the U.S. and the world as a whole.
Quite the overstatement, if I've ever seen one. We're actively seeing expansionist policy from China and Russia in their respective areas of interest, mind explaining whats an overstatement about what he said? Are you claiming China and Russia would be outright invading their neighbors if it wasn't the size of big brother USA's military spending? They both already are. Ukraine and Tibet. Then it sounds like the US is powerless in either case, in spite of wasting money on the world's biggest military. Interesting conclusion. That's me trying to avoid moderation for what it's worth. Hey, it's your money, not mine.
Kind of funny that you say that when Navy medicine just spent quite a bit of money to send a team of Navy doctors up the Amazon on a humanitarian mission in Brazil to rural indigenous populations, assisting your military medicine in doing so.
Meanwhile, American service members train for combat with faulty equipment, live in dilapidated barracks, and continue to have their benefits cut. Don't get me started on work hours, on the job health, mental health support, etc.
I'm a foremost supporter of all of the aid we give countries around the world, but it's ironic and kind of sad to see how ignorant some people are to the wide variety of missions and geopolitical effects that our military has on the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
157
113
EPT
