This may get a resounding "DUH", but I'll say it anyway. The US government has argued that we (or they) do not have money to create an universal health care system, upgrade our schools (especially urban areas), or handle Social Security and/or Medicaid in the next 50 years. Yet, we have the resources to spend half of a trillion dollars on Iraq and by the time the war is actually over, we will have spent very close if not just over a trillion dollars. Maybe our resident economics expert can clarify things for me, but I'm not understanding our government spending policy (Republican or Democrat). How can you allocate funds for that? And not allocate funds for our domestic issues? After the war how are we going allocate any worthwhile funds? Borrow from China? [headshake]

isn't the point basically that commi stuff like health care or education don't get funded for ideological reasons? it's pretty contrary to the "american way of life", in contrast to going to war, isn't it?

Quote:Original post by maximAL
isn't the point basically that commi stuff like health care or education don't get funded for ideological reasons? it's pretty contrary to the "american way of life", in contrast to going to war, isn't it?

It's partly ideological in that many Americans believe in a self-reliant work ethic and favorably view those who put in the effort needed to support themselves. Yes, it's an oversimplified viewpoint, but so is the idea of completely government-funded care.

You Europeans would be in a better position to argue against US military spending if you had self-sufficient militaries of your own. I realize European nations have capable and advanced military forces but during the Cold War (which has been most of the time since WWII), the US was largely responsible for putting up any real defense of Europe against the Soviets. I wonder whether your social programs would be as expansive had you been solely responsible for your own defense. The amount of military spending to accomplish this would have been enormous.

A trade-off between military and social service spending is not unique to the US. The Chinese have recently increased their military spending (which, as a percentage of their national budget, is still far behind the US) while their veterans complain about inadequate pension payments. I've also heard that Britain may be significantly reducing the size of their naval fleet soon.


As for why the money spent on Iraq couldn't have been better spent elsewhere, I agree in principle, but I'm not sure the money was entirely there to spend in the first place. Isn't the US government heavily in debt?

The Republican reasoning is that spending on the Iraq war is necessary, because "if we don't fight them over there, they'll follow us home and we'll have to fight them over here." I guess terr'ists don't have mapquest? They say universal health care is not necessary, but I would disagree.

It also sounds like you're only counting direct spending on the war. Your cost estimate probably does not include pensions for families of soldiers KIA, healthcare for the wounded, psychological care for the vastly underreported cases of PTSD, or the tremendous interest we pay to the Chinese for all the borrowing we do in the meantime.

Even Reagan reduced the tax cuts when it was clear they didn't work. I figure that will balance out our deficit if they repeal them quickly enough. If it's too late, we'll need an actual tax hike just to keep up with interest.

Quote:Original post by tstrimp

Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
After the war how are we going allocate any worthwhile funds? Borrow from China?

Print more money, duh!

Well, its been a while since I've taken an economic class, but just printing more money would not help the situation. If I'm remembering correctly, having more dollars printed up would lessen the value of the dollar. This is why the Federal Reserve Board manages the circulation of money in the first place.

Also, when the onset of the great depression happened in the US, I remember learning that they tried printing more money thinking that would help everyone but yet that just made the country's ecomony fall deeper. My history may be off a bit here and there, but as I understand "supply and demand" just printing more money isn't the answer.

Quote:Original post by nsmadsen

Quote:Original post by tstrimp

Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
After the war how are we going allocate any worthwhile funds? Borrow from China?

Print more money, duh!

Well, its been a while since I've taken an economic class, but just printing more money would not help the situation. If I'm remembering correctly, having more dollars printed up would lessen the value of the dollar. This is why the Federal Reserve Board manages the circulation of money in the first place.

Also, when the onset of the great depression happened in the US, I remember learning that they tried printing more money thinking that would help everyone but yet that just made the country's ecomony fall deeper. My history may be off a bit here and there, but as I understand "supply and demand" just printing more money isn't the answer.

I...I want to tell you that he's joking, but I don't know if you're in on it.

EDIT:
:-S

Ah...well... then.... (looks around awkwardly)...I feel stupid.

:) No problem, then but it is kinda hard to tell sometimes when just reading posts.