a reply to: Flavian
Calm down. I already said that I agree that we over-spend on the military (and I'm a veteran and see this truth). But, the founding fathers never
intended a lot of things, like social security, or Medicare/Medicaid, or bank bailouts, or car-industry bailouts, or housing bailouts, or meddling in
other countries' elections, or the rise of crony capitalism, or all of the limitations being applied to the second amendment, or political office
being a career with a retirement, or myriad other things that are not prescribed in the Constitution as something that the federal government should
do or how government should function.
Yet, here we are.
Seriously, Flavian, what is going on? Trump wins an election and all of a sudden you only want to cherry-pick items that were never intended by the
founding fathers to try and make some crude point about rational/logical thought? It's very easy to sit back way over across the pond and pass
judgment about America--and it's relatively easy to do from within her borders, too--but it's not as if the UK isn't in the
who spend the largest percentage of their GDP on the military. Just because America spends the most in the world doesn't mean that it
does so in a massively disproportionate way to what the nation produces (wealth-wise). We (America) comes in at 3.5% of GDP, whereas the UK comes in
at 2.2%. Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Russia all beat the U.S. at 10.4%, 5.2%, and 4.5%, respectively. So, in absolute amount, we drastically spend more,
but when looking at the priority of spending of GDP on the military, I think that we have a fairly healthy balance compared to a few other countries
(Saudi Arabia is out of control!).
My point still stands: Defense spending is constitutionally mandated, whereas foreign aid is not. We cannot even afford to keep our own house in
order, yet we sent billions upon billions of dollars trying to help other countries keep themselves in order. I'm out here with a big magnifying
glass, but I can't seem to locate the implied logical thinking in that sort of policy.
ETA: And another difference is that, after seeing the second world war happen (and our influence once again turn the tide of the war and aid in a
victory), we, along with many other countries, realize that it's very important to have a strong, powerful, standing military. But, again, I know that
we overspend, but comparing military spending to foreign aid is a false equivalency--a logical fallacy--on which to base an argument, and that's what
the person to whom I responded did.
edit on 31-1-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)