Reply With Quote
Libya? That was supposed to be over a couple of days ago.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...-spending-5091It seems that a combination of factors—including war fatigue, massive budget deficits, and long-term fiscal imbalance—are not enough to convince Republican leaders to get serious about military spending cuts. The appeals from traditional conservatives and Tea Party activists don't register. Polling which shows support for cuts, even among rank-and-file Republicans, can't budge the "find cuts elsewhere" caucus. There is even a growing appreciation that, in the words of Sen. Tom Coburn’s spokesman John Hart: “By subsidizing our allies’ defense budgets, American taxpayers are essentially subsidizing France’s 35-hour workweek and Western European socialism.” Hart told Politico, “Taking defense spending off the table keeps American taxpayers on the hook for more government at home and abroad.” So far, not even this line of argument has moved the needle very far.
Think about our military in Libya protecting European energy sources and chew on that line for a second.
Libya? That was supposed to be over a couple of days ago.
Yes. The Cold War led to the US essentially subsidizing the social democratic states of Western Europe. So it's nothing new, but one would think that by now it would be over.
Whatever peace dividend came out of the end of the Cold War, it is long gone.
I just never thought of it in those terms. That really hit home for me.
In B4 the VWRC.
Fiscal sanity would be easier to attain without such a subsidy. But Americans cannot kick the war habit. This is the legacy of the Cold War, if not WWII. In many respects this country has been on a war footing since 1941.
A return to a military of the scale and scope of 1940 would be a fiscal windfall, and, IMO, the impact would be much less worse than is used to scare the populace into submission in funding it at current levels.
IMO, irrespective of the ins utional inertia of the military, the power that attains having the mightiest national military on Earth is far too attractive for politicians and the complex of think tanks and foreign policy 'thinkers' to ever be significantly reduced.
I'm surprised it didn't hit you earlier.There's a reason why America's military funding is so large... frankly because most other modern nations aren't pulling their fair share. Think about how much more they'd spend if they carried an equal load.
Yeah I'd thought about it as us subsidizing their defense before, but never as subsidizing their longer vacations, shorter work weeks, and national healthcare.
Yeah, another case of the Boomers getting the spoils (in this case, a great manufacturing economy with Europe and Japan decimated post WW2) and then passing the bill on to the next generations.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
