84
EU says Europe cannot replace U.S. support to Ukraine
(www.cnbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
84 points (94.7% liked)
World News
32285 readers
737 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The US is effectively acting as a guarantor of EU safety, the EU should let us fly our sick people over there for treatment IMO. Because our sick staying sick are the reason we can afford to have a military that could arm the entire world. Their safety is being subsidized by US citizens health.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
A quote from a US President that I think means more than some sourceless internet comments implying the size of US millitary has nothing to do with the US's lack of social servies. Argue with the president.
Never thought I'd get this much flac for arguing that the over funding the US military negatively impacts the US's social welfare on lemmy of all places.
US spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country. The reason why you can't afford medical bills is because of for-profit health insurance companies. They pocket billions every year.
They spend more and get less, look at the deliverables not the money spent. The US also has among the highest costs of healthcare, of course they spend more, it costs 30k to have a baby there, that doesn't mean they're getting child bearing care Europeans are not.
The reason we have companies with this much power is that the government stays out of healthcare and doesn't help negotiate prices. Probably because they're busy finding lower bidders for their Military projects. Theres no world in which US citizens don't incur suffering to fund their military. The US even at peacetime is running more military operations than the next ten militaries if you count all their overseas bases. All of that takes time money and labor away from social needs, necessarily.
Or you could just get rid of predatory insurance companies.
And Europe could pay for its own wars but it doesn't.
Talks about serious military spending increase are on the rise in Europe, because of Trump. US is no longer a reliable ally.
The US could cut its military budget by half and still continue to do what they do
They waste a huge amount of money for literally nothing just like their police force
There are too many ineffective middlemen
Source for that wild claim that half of the largest budget in the US doesn't go to weapons manufacturing, soldiers, or necessary administration? If the US budget was cut in half there would be a West Russia today. If you want safety in your continent to be guarenteed by American citizen suffering just say so like the rest of the Americans who support their own military but acting like the MIC has nothing to do with the state of social services in America is hilarious.
The US military budget (USD 877 bn) is larger than those of the next ten militaries put together (USD 849 bn). Also three of those ten (UK, Germany and France) are NATO members, and another three (Japan, S Korea and Ukraine) are all-weather allies. If the US decided to cut its military budget by 50%, it would still have a larger budget than the next two (China and Russia) combined.
Source: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/2304_fs_milex_2022.pdf
Okay and that means what? That doesn't imply 50% of the money is simply wasted. The US is aiding Ukraine now, posturing to aide Taiwan, also theyre making buzz about operations in Haiti, and have hundreds of bases over the world and you think absolutely none of that comes at the expense of their citizens who live below the QOL of more than most countries as rich as them?
If the US can already outspend both its geopolitical rivals together at 50% of its current expenditure, then it does suggest that the other 50% is not achieving anything more.
I don't. I was replying to the suggestion that the US military needs such a large budget in the first place.
Thats not how militaries work. Money doesn't fight other money. Unless they all develop, order, and make the same tech, and employ the exact same steategies you can't even begin to make that comparison. The US likes to spend its money on things and programs it considers 'deterrants'. Deterrance inherently cost much more than Destruction. Simply spending more money does not win wars and it's assanine to think forces of equal monetary value are necessarily equal. My only point is that the US military funds comes at the expense of the US population. No where have I tried to justify their budget, and simply refusing to believe 50% of it disappears to middlemen is not a support of the military, it's a rebuke of an obviously blown out of proportion claim. Let's take an example, do you think Russia or the US spends more effort on making sure its soldiers come back home, and which option do you think costs more money?
The US spends more than the next two superpowers, and they also occupy/defend more territory than the next 10 since we can now say today European security is dependent on American money and weapons. Not to mention the US collab with Isreal for security in that whole region, and the over 700 military bases across the world. Again this is all money American citizens are giving up, so that people much much closer to a problem that will never effect them dont have to sacrifice as much. People love running to America when they have military needs their country wont fulfill, but no one wants to consider helping Americans with needs their country won't fulfill.
And you blame Europe for America's bad financing and decisions to arm their opponents?
America doesn't do things so that other countries don't have to sacrifice as much... why do people think countries and companies have feelings
America runs on military so they need to keep demand up, US weapons companies spend money on lobbying and politicians who can affect US military outcomes own stocks in those companies
Why would politicians cut down on military budget when every increase in it also increases their net worth?
Never blamed Europe for anyting
Never said thats why they do those things, only that what they do causes those things, which is does. The more burdern of an European war America takes on, means the less Europe has to take on.
Yes those are the problems that keep feeding the majority of the tax Americans have to pay to things that do not improve their welfare, notice how those are both independent of voting and effect the people who fund the parties and candidates themselves, its not like Americans haven't tried anything, the protest against the war in the middle east was the largest protest in American history at the time it happened.
Now that those funds are improving someone else's welfare, instead of someone else profits, I had though, I guess mistakenly, the people who it's benefiting would maybe help the people from which the benefit came with things their country cannot do, just like how their country helped with things the whole of Europe could not do.
I know. Defence expenditure is just a quick and dirty estimate, so I don't have to compare their assets gun by gun and ship by ship. Of course it won't be 100% accurate, but when you are spending double what both your main opponents are spending, it suggests that there is something wrong.
More like '50% or so is unnecessary expenditure authorised by politicians for their friends in business'.
Well that's the problem, isn't it? Recent wars have shown that the defender usually has a strong advantage. The US could keep its borders (and any allied countries) safe for a fraction of its current budget. It's the 'invading random countries' part that costs tons of money.
Yes they could take care of all of their own needs for a lot less, but now they're taming care of Europes needs too. Thats the whole point, there would be a West Russia by now if the US only took care of its own borders. So the exorbitant budgets the citizens have to fund are benefitting average Europeans more than average Americans and of course the capitalist class above all of them. But the conclusion is undeniable, American workers suffering subsidizes the military which is now providing european security.
I love that you believe Russia equals danger. It's just such a perfect snapshot of the brain rot of Western culture. There's literally no ability to imagine a world where Russia is just a secure and developed country that collaborates with the world. It's only possible that Russia is always evil. It's such transparent propaganda for anyone in the world but somehow the "highly educated" white Americans and English just can't see it.
US citizens don't lack access to those things because of a lack of budget. The threat of homelessness, hunger, and health insecurity are all forms of worker discipline. The barrier to solving those things is ideological, not budgetary.
And why do you think the US keeps playing this role in Europe? What possible motive could they have?
To keep spying on their allies like was uncovered years bacn and promoting their corporate interests, same as much of Europe does to Africa, I'm not sure how that diminishes the fact that US citizens suffering is fuling the budgets that Ukraine gets, I got no problem they get that money, but Europe could stand to give what they can and they have a robust health network, not a robust military complex. You act like the corporate neo colonialism is benefitting US citizens and easing their suffering when all it does is boost the stock market lining the pockets of those who funded the economic colonialism in the first place. The US is the last country on earth this Russian Invasion would materially effect yet they're doing more legwork than countries that can heard the missle blasts.
The global ruling U.S capitalists, and their compradores, plus their total professional managerial classes and small propertarians would benefit by that logic.
But if you work and live for just a wage, or are the lumpenproles, or "the poors, especially the homeless drug users", who, coincidentally make up our majority, well, that's utter piss for ye guys...
How very nice for the 10% or so of the population that benefits and was never suffering in the first place. It's nice to know that the rich in the US still get a piece of the pie.
Also, thats how every capitalist country works though, look at the industry in France or even countries in Scandinavia do the same thing to Africa. Their populations dont get much if anything from it, but their capitalist class does. None of that diminishes the problems either population feels, and we all know these capitalists are barely paying tax if at all. They practically not even citizens of wherever they choose to be.
Oh... ogey then, I think I got my mind in a twist of what I intended to say about them... (WTF was I saying)
Id like to see more of that type of internationalism in the world. I think thats a great idea.
Theres no way it will ever happen tho, because neither us nor our votes decide these things. Its the capitalists who decide, and they chose a private for profit model of health insurance.