09-08-2004, 10:24 AM
First off, I'd like to say thanks for the input regarding this debate. Everybody has made some very good points.
Many have taken issue with the BMW phrase. I will address this at the end of this post.
Here I will try to say as plainly as I can my previous points, because I do not feel I have communicated them clearly. I DEFINATELY do not feel that they have been adequately countered in debate, perhaps due to my own communication errors.
1) America's spending on its military is not that large. There seems to be a common agreement to use %GDP as a measure of how much of society's effort is invested in its military. My link to the CIA World Factbook provides a comparison for such numbers; such a comparison shows that America's investment in its military is not exceptional. Exceptional military spending is better illustrated by the examples of China and North Korea. In these cases you do see a phenomenon of military spending negatively influencing the standard of living in a profound way. However, America's relative affluence is a counter to the idea that such a phenomenon is at work in that nation.
2) America's mediocre military spending is all the more impressive given the greater role of its military. I challenge anyone to point to another state's military which is as active around the world as America's. From Bosnia to Somalia to Haiti to Liberia, America plays the role of global policeman. There may be argument over whether or not this is out of noble intent or simple self-interst, but that is a side issue; and the global enforcer role of the US military cannot be doubted. There is no military more active than America's, and the world has come to depend on it for stability. Even when not acting unilaterally, the majority of troops, equipment, or logistical support of most regional or UN interventions can be traced back to US support. For an example of what happens when the US withholds its resources, look at Rwanda. Again, all this is accomplished with a modest investment in its military; so the idea of America's military "may or may not be used" is absurd.
3) Because America is out there (usually--see Rwanda, above as an example of the consequences of American isolationism) to promote stability and forestall regional aggression, other states can spend less money on defense. Japan is the classic example of this--for about half a century, Japan has relied almost entirely on American protection and was therefore able to build a powerful economy. The world relies on the United States as a global policeman.
A few more words on the relationship between America's military spending and its spending on social programs. I have maintained that cutting back America's military not only will have a negative effect on other nations as well as world stability; but the social benefits from the reallocation of funds would not be profound. This link is to the summary of the budget for 2005. Table S-14 represents "Current Services Baseline Summary by Category," and offers a comparison between spending on Defense and spending on such social programs as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and SCHIP (State Childrens' Health Insurance Program).
Compare the value of the DoD spending with the sum of the social programs listed. In 2004, the year with the greatest DoD spending listed, the budget alotted $433 billion on defense. That same year the social sevices listed above aggregated $940 billon. So it would seem that the preoccupation with spending so much on defense vis a vis social services is not realistic.
Additionally, there were comments on the ineffeciency of the military's use of funds. My response would be to refer to the global role the US military fulfills, and the relatively modest funding they recieve. As a counterpoint, I have referenced how social programs recieve significantly greater funds, and yet critics of the military seem to believe we need better social programs. There is a paradox in these positions; and the evident solutions to the paradox is that either 1) the military isn't as big of a drain as it is made out to be, or 2) American social programs aren't as lousy as they are made out to be. I personally believe a little of both is true.
*********
BMWs--
Yes, you called me out on the whole BMW thing. I personally think they are great cars--very well made, very well- supported; and I have nothing against those well enough to buy them. However, the fact that they are a status symbol cannot be denied. Of course, its less of a status symbol than a Mercedes perhaps; but more of one than my poor abused example of Ford. In my book, if you can afford to spend money on a nice car, go right ahead. I have nothing against people making an honest living and accumulating wealth (barring TR era monopolistic abuses, but those aren't at issue here). I one day hope to personally accumulate more wealth than I now possess. It is the fact that they are status symbols that led me to sue them in my claim that we really do have it good in America, if you look on an international scale. Again, I do not hold the desire for wealth or personal betterment against anyone.
This is your claim. If we increase funds to social programs, by your own estimations, the standard of living goes up. And when that happens, people who were driving Fords will perhaps be driving better cars. This is my point. The average American already owns a car, even if it is a junky one like mine. The average citizen in other countries does not. Thus, we have it pretty good in America, do we not?
I.e. my point was to use a metaphor to illustrate the relative affluence of America vis a vis other nations. I apologize if anyone was offended by this.
Many have taken issue with the BMW phrase. I will address this at the end of this post.
Here I will try to say as plainly as I can my previous points, because I do not feel I have communicated them clearly. I DEFINATELY do not feel that they have been adequately countered in debate, perhaps due to my own communication errors.
1) America's spending on its military is not that large. There seems to be a common agreement to use %GDP as a measure of how much of society's effort is invested in its military. My link to the CIA World Factbook provides a comparison for such numbers; such a comparison shows that America's investment in its military is not exceptional. Exceptional military spending is better illustrated by the examples of China and North Korea. In these cases you do see a phenomenon of military spending negatively influencing the standard of living in a profound way. However, America's relative affluence is a counter to the idea that such a phenomenon is at work in that nation.
2) America's mediocre military spending is all the more impressive given the greater role of its military. I challenge anyone to point to another state's military which is as active around the world as America's. From Bosnia to Somalia to Haiti to Liberia, America plays the role of global policeman. There may be argument over whether or not this is out of noble intent or simple self-interst, but that is a side issue; and the global enforcer role of the US military cannot be doubted. There is no military more active than America's, and the world has come to depend on it for stability. Even when not acting unilaterally, the majority of troops, equipment, or logistical support of most regional or UN interventions can be traced back to US support. For an example of what happens when the US withholds its resources, look at Rwanda. Again, all this is accomplished with a modest investment in its military; so the idea of America's military "may or may not be used" is absurd.
3) Because America is out there (usually--see Rwanda, above as an example of the consequences of American isolationism) to promote stability and forestall regional aggression, other states can spend less money on defense. Japan is the classic example of this--for about half a century, Japan has relied almost entirely on American protection and was therefore able to build a powerful economy. The world relies on the United States as a global policeman.
A few more words on the relationship between America's military spending and its spending on social programs. I have maintained that cutting back America's military not only will have a negative effect on other nations as well as world stability; but the social benefits from the reallocation of funds would not be profound. This link is to the summary of the budget for 2005. Table S-14 represents "Current Services Baseline Summary by Category," and offers a comparison between spending on Defense and spending on such social programs as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and SCHIP (State Childrens' Health Insurance Program).
Compare the value of the DoD spending with the sum of the social programs listed. In 2004, the year with the greatest DoD spending listed, the budget alotted $433 billion on defense. That same year the social sevices listed above aggregated $940 billon. So it would seem that the preoccupation with spending so much on defense vis a vis social services is not realistic.
Additionally, there were comments on the ineffeciency of the military's use of funds. My response would be to refer to the global role the US military fulfills, and the relatively modest funding they recieve. As a counterpoint, I have referenced how social programs recieve significantly greater funds, and yet critics of the military seem to believe we need better social programs. There is a paradox in these positions; and the evident solutions to the paradox is that either 1) the military isn't as big of a drain as it is made out to be, or 2) American social programs aren't as lousy as they are made out to be. I personally believe a little of both is true.
*********
BMWs--
Yes, you called me out on the whole BMW thing. I personally think they are great cars--very well made, very well- supported; and I have nothing against those well enough to buy them. However, the fact that they are a status symbol cannot be denied. Of course, its less of a status symbol than a Mercedes perhaps; but more of one than my poor abused example of Ford. In my book, if you can afford to spend money on a nice car, go right ahead. I have nothing against people making an honest living and accumulating wealth (barring TR era monopolistic abuses, but those aren't at issue here). I one day hope to personally accumulate more wealth than I now possess. It is the fact that they are status symbols that led me to sue them in my claim that we really do have it good in America, if you look on an international scale. Again, I do not hold the desire for wealth or personal betterment against anyone.
Quote:Extra money does not just go for BMW's, it goes for extra employment, education, health, better living conditions in general, which get thrown out when being sarcastic about "BMW"s.
This is your claim. If we increase funds to social programs, by your own estimations, the standard of living goes up. And when that happens, people who were driving Fords will perhaps be driving better cars. This is my point. The average American already owns a car, even if it is a junky one like mine. The average citizen in other countries does not. Thus, we have it pretty good in America, do we not?
I.e. my point was to use a metaphor to illustrate the relative affluence of America vis a vis other nations. I apologize if anyone was offended by this.
Out here,
--Ajax
--Ajax