A lot of people bemoan the fact that "nothing ever seems to get done" about this great problem, I know I myself felt this greatly when I first started learning about politics and economics in high school. But doesn't there get to a point when we begin to realize that this supposed day of judgment always seems to be in the future...it never seems to come. Maybe there was some error in our original way of thinking. This isn't to say that there aren't real areas of concern, I believe, in the economy and our future. But when we focus on a number that doesn't even mean what we seem to think it means, it's too easy to ignore the real problems.
The question we should be asking ourselves, always, is whether the current or whatever proposed action is a good use of the resources that it will require.
Healthcare expenditures are up, and a high compared to every other developed nation! That sounds bad, but the real question is whether it helps or hurts. If we have the longest life expectancies, the lowest infant mortality, the shortest wait times, the best outcomes, the most satisfaction with our system, the most innovation or scientific progress, then I'd say "Yes! Our relatively increased health expenditures are worth it to our society!" We don't, so I think it's a concern, but it's not as simple as saying "It's expensive, it's got to be reduced!"
Unfunded liabilities of social security are a bazillion trillion, something must be done! Well, to date, social security has been one of the most successful government programs ever, and it's outcome is the reduction in poverty and destitution of the elderly and disabled. Not to say that more can't be done, but if you tell me that SS is expensive, well then I'm going to tell you that clearly the expense is worth it, because we are all clearly better off for having it for the past 80 years.
Military expenditures are interesting to consider, because ultimately much of that money ends up in the pockets of soldiers and employees of contractors. That's good, that helps create a demand for all sorts of goods and services from a large chunk of the overall population. However, what's the result, the output, the impact on the economy and future. Much more murky. Obviously, without some degree of security or deterrent of war, surely we might expect some external negatives to our economy. And who can doubt that at least some technological and scientific progress is not directly and indirectly tied to the military (flight, computers, internet, etc.). The real question is whether those same end results, the money in the pockets of citizens, the demand for other goods and services in the economy, the safety of our nation and people, the innovation and progress, couldn't be better achieved in other ways? So the question isn't whether we spend too little or too much on the military, but whether we are getting the best overall outcome for the limited resources that have to be tied up in doing things the way that we currently do.
