As Obama just announced an increase in our military expenditures in Europe, I was wondering how our total military budget compares to the rest of the world. Here is the answer from the CIA. The biggest spenders are all in the Middle East (surprised?). The European countries generally trail the pack.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html
I found it interesting that Iran doesn't appear. According to the World Bank, Iran spends 1.9% on military expenditures. I wonder if that includes their nuclear program, which we all know is non-military (wink wink nudge nudge).
ReplyDeleteEurope is lower than it should be because the US is pulling their load. I'm for cutting them loose. But they have a tendency of dragging us into stuff anyways.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that we outspend percentage wise all three of our world cup opponents combined.
ReplyDeleteWilliam, some folks say we sould stop being the world's policeman. I'm not sure we actually are. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteMick you know what I think. I think all budgets should be cut across the board to balance our budget and yes that includes defense.
DeleteWe don't need to be protecting Germany, Japan, and S.Korea for starters. Paring just those budgets by half to start would get us a long way towards fiscal sanity.
1773-2009
William, I agree, we have had a huge military presence in Europe since WWII, it's past time to say adieu. We rebuilt Japan and now it's time to say sayonara. We saved South Korea, now let them take over on their own. I believe I read recently that we have a military presence in over 100 countries. Why?
DeleteMick and William. The question is "WHY" from Mick and the answer is because you could. Look to history, always the best teacher. Post WW2, the US was the only thing standing between Russian communism and the rest of the world. Beginning with the Yalta conference and then the Potsdam meeting the future of Germany was decided. Interestingly the Socialist leader in Britain replaced Churchill at the Potsdam meeting. Germany and Europe were divided and the Iron curtain came down over more than half of Europe.
DeleteWith the German capital divided and the Russians flexing muscles we saw the Berlin blockade and the implementation of the Marshall plan. All well known and the ideological conflict escalated as spot fires throughout the world were ignited for the next four decades.
During these turbulent times there was only the US to hold the line of so called democratic sanity. Britain and the remnants of the empire were broke as was free Europe. US of course, having remained aloof until Pearl Harbor was in a far better position and the industrial might remained intact after the war. The lend Lease program had decades to run so bases which were part of that program were occupied throughout the Western World (Including UK and Australia.) We still have joint bases here and I believe there remain some in UK.
All the bases mentioned above required manpower and supplies and as each base became established more and more spot fires were ignited, often by the anti communist paranoia generated within America. These were often perceived rather than actual threats but the American way was always to send troops to the area for a quick fix. This tendency continued up to and including Iraq with the “fixes” becoming more protected and expensive. Afghanistan is a different story and the cost of the “war on terror” has finally caused a rethink on US foreign Policy which was formulated by the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt corollary a century later.
So here we are and today the situation is that US is still the de facto policemen of the world but with an increasing reluctance to prosecute foreign wars, pretty much in line with the dictum of James Munroe in his speech to Congress two centuries ago ( by the way, Jefferson helped Monroe with that plan).
So, in conclusion; Obama proclaims “yes we can” but the people are saying no we can’t and the world is saying thanks for the past sixty years.
Cheers from Aussie
Thanks Kingston, yes, the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan were necessary actions. But the world has changed, an probably for the better, as globalization has become the theme. I remember well the iron curtain and the Berlin air lift, and the eventual fall of the USSR due to the actions and resolve of the U.S. Let us never forget, but let us move on.
DeletePairing back will be difficult of course. Locally in Monmouth Cty NJ we had a military base (mostly electronics) listed for closing over a decade ago. The productive people have all been relocated, mostly to Maryland, but the remnants remain with the real estate still being supported by the government.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows goring someones ox comes with much carrying on. We in the Tea Party know it must be done and are committed to taking as much heat as necessary, for as long as necessary so these remnants won't remain on the books for our grandchildren to still be paying for.
Basically William, what you are saying is that we need to start dismantling the well entrenched entitlement program we have created for the military industrial complex. I can't help but think that if the Teas in congress really wanted to get something done here, they could do so by forging a few alliances with Democrats because they sure as hell are not going to get Republican support. This is one subject that even a person like myself can find quite a bit of agreement with Rand Paul on. The tea party is committed to itself and its talking points, not much else.
DeleteAs for the rest of this thread, I am very cynical about those numbers. Ever since Reagan, military spending has been one of the biggest food stamps programs in this country. Why do we keep all the bases around the world? It's simple, we do so to protect our empire and to protect the flow of cheap goods into our country from oil to apples to lethal dog food from China. We are not really policing anything and when you factor in the human rights abuses that occur to make what we consume, I think you could make a fair argument that our military is contributing to and abetting the subjugation of the inalienable rights of others all over the world who have the misfortune of having been born into a shitty country that is full of resources.
Lofty as that historical perspective is King, it is like most historical views in that it just doesn't ask any question of why things are the way they are TODAY. After all the shit that just happened in the Ukraine, why would anyone be remotely surprised or even annoyed by increased spending in Europe? This is what is expected.
Keep in mind Max my friend the Tea Party did not help to create this massive military industrial complex. Nor are a minority of Teas in the Congress able to control proposed spending legislation. The Repubs have had a hundred and fifty year start on refining their, and their Demo friends strangle hold on the treasury and it's never ending largess.
DeleteWhen government shut downs are advocated by Tea's (See Ted Cruz last Autumn) to try and put a road block on future debt increases the piggies in Congress squeal and grovel for never ending pieces of eight.
Those in power put barricades in front of national monuments so WWII vets can't have access, they hold up permits on everything from water usage to crab fishing. In other words, they are experts in dealing out pain for everyone but themselves. Naturally once the temporary disturbance of the Tea's or any other responsible movement dies out they go on their merry way inflating their way to centralized nirvana.
Ironically Max the Tea's and your side do really coincide in many different ways. Nader is not that much different than Paul. Kucinich to Cruz. Things are changing. For the better at this point I am not sure. But things will change because the pain felt by the boomers in paltry retirement, and 32 year old millenniums still living in debt with their parents will not last forever. Pain will bring change. The weak store of value of our inflated dollar will be catalyst for reformation.
Your third para I agree with quite a bit, except the Kucinich to Cruz comparison. Thus far, Cruz has done little but raise money and give a lot of a speeches, which, using the Obama model, is apparently the new way to climb to the top. Kucinich, on the campaign trail, could cite countless areas of waste and figures. Cruz has just the typical, "Gubmint bad" schtick. Nader of course would have a much different take on regulation than Paul, but when it comes to corporate welfare, wasteful spending and military adventures overseas, I suspect they see quite a bit eye to eye.
DeleteAs for the first two para's, that spiel has gotten old and libertarians of all stripes abuse it endlessly. It's sort of like people who don't vote claiming they aren't responsible for the mess in Washington. Your response, to some degree, hits on what I mentioned. Namely that the tea party is intoxicated with its view of purity and they select only the most recalcitrant and least willing to compromise people they can find to run for office. Give a tea candidate a choice between simply voting NO on everything versus actually sitting down with a group of Democrats and finding ways to cut wasteful spending, I personally believe they will choose the former every time and claim that everyone but them is whacked in the head.
Now that we have done some comparisions Max let's get into differences. Using our small State of New Jersey where I have spent the majority of my life I can reflect upon the vast chasm that exists between the liberal and conservative factions who live side by side, town by town, county by county.
DeleteYour suggestion that Tea's reach out to the entrenched democrats strikes my funny bone. Sort of like a second grader asking a senior for a date. The demo's control two thirds of decision makers presently versus the Tea's having a small influence in one body. Despite this fact the Tea's like your favorite whipping boys the Koch's are the target of the MSM and their never ending blame game.
Two things Max. The Tea's didn't cause the horrendous national debt. And secondly, and this is largely the crux of our national quandary, Tea's and progressive/ liberal/democrat/socialists speak two distinctly different languages totally incoherent from one another.
There are any number of reasons for this but it is a fact.
The two thirds argument is specious at best. I'm not going to bother rehashing that anymore. Not reaching out to the "entrenched" Democrats is basically a Saul Alinski tactic. Teas that come from protected districts, who have the support of money from outside their district, have no reason to participate, and they don't. The Republicans can count on them every time to simply vote against Democrat proposals. In short, they are simply a group of protected loud mouths who enjoy their status of not being part of any solution while retaining the ability to say, none of this is our fault. If they banded with Democrats once in awhile, they might actually get something done. But, they enjoy their "outsider" status and sense of self importance.
DeleteIn the eyes of the Tea party, or at least in the eyes of persons like yourself, Ronald Reagan is a mythical saint. Yet, you can look at any chart of our debt and note that starting with Reagan, we made a proclamation that there is no consequence to running deficits and growing our debt. It doesn't matter that they Tea Party didn't exist back then, there is no doubt they would have backed Reagan and his profligate spending and tax cuts.
Now that you have repeated the claim that the Teas didn't create the debt and now that you have pulled out your favorite claim that Democrats are socialists, you have indicated you have nothing more to say. It's the Spinal Tap moment of the conversation where you just keep repeating, "It goes up to 11". Fundamentally, of course the Teas and Democrats have different long term views. This does not mean, however, that they do not agree on anything.
"In short, they are simply a group of protected loud mouths who enjoy their status of not being part of any solution while retaining the ability to say, none of this is our fault."
DeleteMax, you simply don't understand that they disagree with the democrat tax and spend positions. They are both speaking two different languages.
"It doesn't matter that they Tea Party didn't exist back then, there is no doubt they would have backed Reagan and his profligate spending and tax cuts."
This is a supposition. You have no evidence supporting this.
We discussed earlier common elements shared by both factions. The fact remains, we are speaking two different languages. We will see how this plays out the long term. Right now we are a tax and spend nation. Will this remain so until the entire endeavor collapses of it's own weight under massive debt and inflation?
Both sides can't win. Only history will tell.
Near as I can tell William, the Teas disagree with everyone. The tax and spend epithet is tired and meaningless. We are not going to return to the 1700's and while it's clear people have different visions, as they always have, it also seems people want things done. Nobody, from liberals to teas wants to see endless spending or taxing. But when it came down it, and the idiots launched the sequester that just lopped x% out of everything, people were not happy. Many people right of center like to postulate that the spending is so ridiculous, you can just whack off 20% and no one will know the difference. This is a lie.
DeleteIn the Clinton/Gingrich period, we had ugly battles but we had genuine forced compromise that matched the electorate. What we have today are cock fights and use of procedure to deny the majority the right to govern. Your last sentence there is grandiose. Is this a real life version of the Highlander where "There can be only one"?
The teas are speaking a language that THEY believe no one understands. Just because people don't agree with all of it doesn't mean they don't understand it.