ladajo wrote:Ironically, the US Government's primary purpose is to provide security for the nation
skipjack wrote:The question is what is killing more Americans? The lack of proper health care, especially preventative medicine that can elongate the life, but is often not covered or affordable to American citizens.
Everyone dies eventually. And you need to define what you mean by preventative medicine.
Or some virtual enemy that is painted on the wall as the big evil boogie man all the time?
The "enemy" is certainly not virtual. If he was, the the deaths would be virtual as well. Maybe you should go ask an Iraqi about his "virtual" enemy. They, with a little help from Iran and Saudi, are killing each other off every day in a fanatical way. In case you didn't notice, the US left.
They were killing each other (and taking shots at whoever else was there) while the mission was going, and they are still killing each other off since everyone has left. They do not have anything better to do. Eventually, someone will kill off enough of the other guys, and then start in on killing neighbors. Which way do you think they will go?
IMHO it is the former and preventing that is a type of security too.
Social stability also increases security.
Yup. An din the long run, creating a "free-stuff" social structure does not a stable social structure or nation make. I thought you Europeans finally figured that out. Maybe not. If you have any doubt, ask the Haitians about how it works.
But then again, the lobbies (usually) favored by the republicans dont benefit from these types of security, so they are against it. They prefer spending on other things.
You do not understand republicans. I am guessing you also do not understand democrats. Maybe you should look into the history of both parties, it may surprise you.
Fundamentally, the US is in the same struggle it has been in since birth. Big government mothering all, or small government leveling the field betweens states, and taking care of external business. The big government types figured out that buying votes is easy, especially when you do it with the productive taxpayer's money.
America already has more than double the spending of anybody else in the world and nobody would be foolish enough to attack you,
It would seem a few folks didn't get the memo. BTW, for the record, the US also has the largest economy. So spending more should not be a surprise. And thank god it is the US that has the lead, things might be a little painfully different if it was someone else. Gosh, you might not even being enjoying your free(ish) speach on the global internet.
because the US has proven in the past that it would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons. So nobody would be stupid enough to attack you openly.
Really, we do not hesitate ever? I guess I should make a count of smoking craters dotting the landscape of our enemies. Oh, I can't even count two. The
two we used almost seventy years ago are now well decorated parks in the land of one of our closest and most dependable allies. And the use of the
two is still debated today at all levels of government and public. I guess that makes us un-hesitant. Maybe we shold have tossed around a few more during the cold war, and especially these last few years in your measure. IMO, that would be irresponsible, and we well know it. The sad part is that you fail to see that the US restraint and responsibility has kept much less responsible nuclear armed folks from tossing them around. I would even argue that it has encouraged a few to give them up.
And the rest of what you have should be more than capable of dealing with a few sandal wearing shepherds.
Yes you are correct. If we went to war with full capability we would literally anihilate any opponent. And more than likely without the need for nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, as a nation, we have been burdened with this thing called morality and fairplay. It helpd us give birth to ideas like just war, and ROE. But, I understand as a European, these things are still a little foreign to you, and certainly, you struggle with them occasionally with pretty widespread impact.
Instead you are building new air craft carriers (with the old ones already being better and more numerous than anybody elses) and other expensive vehicles all the time.
Oh yes, the count of our aircraft carriers has been climbing steadily. Not.
BTW, it is very normal to replace ships that are 50 years old, and more than 10 years past design lifetime. I guess if Austria had a navy you would know that.
And if that was not enough, you are subsidizing weapons manufacturers with billions in earmarks through non military programs.
Like...??? and how much again...??? Please feel free to elaborate and cite references.
And that has gone waaay out of hand lately (and caused my anger) with the demand of certain congress people to cut NASAs budgets
I am also not happy about NASA's woes. But I would also argue that NASA has to some measure brought it on themselves with incredibly stupid management practices.
(to make up for the increase in military spending)
Really??? Last I checked the military budget was going down.
and then on top of that with their absolutely irrational and counter productive insistence on spending billions on a heavy lifter with no mission that nobody needs simply to earmark money to an important defense contractor.
Really? Not that I have made up my mind about the need or not for SLS, but here is a consideration for you. One of the dilemmas in having a large industrial base with specific skill sets is the ability to maintain it. This is a dilemma that results in hard decisinos and policies. One result of this is that the US no longer has the ability to build armored warships. Some would argue that it was a good call to lose that skill and knowhow. Some would argue that it was really stupid to let it go.
It is socialism at its best!
Well, no, not really. There is no such thing as good socialism.