Instead of buying cool toys from American defense contractors, European countries have wasted their money on stupid things like health care for their citizens. Suckers!
And relying on the US to cover their asses so they don't have to learn how to exist under a Russian government.
I already watched it and have always agreed with his comments regarding the importance of US leadership in the world. That doesn't negate the fact that European countries have enjoyed the benefits of the US military protection afforded by our participation in NATO. Comments about how nifty European health care is, particularly when accompanied by statements about the money we spend on our military, should at least be honest about the fact that if Europeans had to carry the full weight of the cost of Europe's defense, they'd likely not have the money to afford universal health care.
That's BS and you're one of the few on here smart enough to realize it. .2 and .3, .7 of a percentage of the GDP is not the difference of them having health care or not. And more importantly, the 2% of GDP is and always has been a guideline, not a requirement.
Care to provide a little context for the percentages you quoted. They are really nice sounding numbers, though.
We would nuke Russia and China out of existence before we would let them take over the United States. That would mean we would also die but fuck it! I'm sure they would do the same if we ever tried to invade them. I would live because I have reservations in @MARIS61's bunker.
That's nice. I hear that MARIS61 likes dogs...particularly once the food supplies run short. But to your larger point, yes, there is little likelihood of a direct war with those countries for the reason you mention. Nuclear weapons make a very big BANG! But relying largely upon the nuclear arsenal for military defense means that we don't have the ability to deter Russia or China from things like invasion of Ukraine or China building islands in the South China sea.
The amount they contribute to NATO is pocket change in comparison to what the actual cost of military defense would be if they couldn't rely on our military assets and had to build all of the tanks, planes, submarines, aircraft carriers, etc. that they would need if the US struck a pure isolationist policy.
And you honestly don't think our economy would suffer if Russia were to take over all of Europe? It's in our economic interest to have a free Europe. It would be cool to see the mental gymnastics we come up with to prevent French, German and English immigrants from coming here.
Of course not. I don't object to defense spending needed to protect our country and our allies. I do get tired of the argument that if European countries can afford universal health care then we can too. Throwing in defense spending as the reason we can't do it is ridiculously simplistic and ignores huge disparities in circumstances.
So which is it, do you want a military that is capable of being able of being effective in supporting our allies and our own interests or do you want a military on a par with Saudi Arabia's? Of course, I'm not saying that there hasn't been a lot of pissing away of defense spending on needless wars and boondoggle projects. But you can't be the leader of the free world without having the military to back up what you say. I also don't think that there's a direct correlation between military spending and our ability to have a solid healthcare system. What's lacking, more than anything else with respect to the healthcare issue, is any kind of agreement on what that healthcare should entail and who should pay for it. The current liberal push is that healthcare is a basic human right. Of course, there's nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights to support that notion, anymore than there is that access to housing or food or any other commodity is a basic human right. Before we can get healthcare "right" we're going to have to come to some basic agreement about what "right" consists of. Those European countries with universal healthcare have a pretty good agreement among the populace that social services are worth having, even at the expense of 50 to 60% tax rates. Think that will fly here? Coming to some sort of agreement ought to be easy in today's political climate, right?
We spend more per capita on healthcare than any other nation. Way more. The government already spends as much per capita on healthcare than other nations. Our system is inefficient. We are the hardest working industrial nation in the world. We work longer hours and have less time off. That's a fact. So we can have the greatest military and provide all citizens with the best health care in the world and that doesn't mean a 5o to 60% tax rate. And I would argue that the Declaration of Independence does address health care as a right of all citizens. We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...
Ha! All right! I volunteer to provide you with the health care you have a right to receive if you believe it is spelled out there. I suspect they didn't include it in the Constitution to close the deal tho, because it never popped up as a priority like the right to defend yourself. But hell, I will perform the deed for you. The best treatment of the day for what ails you was Bleeding. Come on down when ever you need. I think that covers the original intent. Ha! I assumed you actually quoted. Now I see my error.
