Biggest spending category - taxes!

[Gin1984]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

I'm guessing single payer health care (and in the EU, a full cradle-to-grave welfare state) is the big reason.  People don't mind paying for tangible security that they can experience on a daily basis.  But a big reason this is possible is that the US is footing the bill for most of the civilized world's military security.  If those countries maintained military expenditures comparable to the US, would they be able to afford their welfare states?

You make an assumption there, that the current level of military spending and might are needed for security.

[tracylayton]

I don't know yet what my income tax bill is for 2014. but my property tax bill for 5 properties was over $18,200.

[Monkey Uncle]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

I'm guessing single payer health care (and in the EU, a full cradle-to-grave welfare state) is the big reason.  People don't mind paying for tangible security that they can experience on a daily basis.  But a big reason this is possible is that the US is footing the bill for most of the civilized world's military security.  If those countries maintained military expenditures comparable to the US, would they be able to afford their welfare states?

You make an assumption there, that the current level of military spending and might are needed for security.

I'm sure there is waste that could be cut from military spending, and there is room for argument about how much military power is really needed.  But some amount of might is needed to counter the megalomaniacal ambitions of militarily powerful dictators like Wilhelm, Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin, Kruschev, Putin, and the Kims.  One thing is certain: were it not for the military power projected by the US, the consequences of each of those dictatorships would have been far worse for the civilized world.  Now, I'm no war monger, and I think the US has certainly blown a lot of money on needless military activities (Vietnam, Iraq, and the last decade or so of involvement in Afghanistan come to mind.  I think the jury is still out on the current IS mess.).  But there comes a time when civilized people have to stand up and defend themselves.  I'm merely arguing that it's time for the rest of the civilized world to start shouldering a little more of that burden.

[rocketpj]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

I'm guessing single payer health care (and in the EU, a full cradle-to-grave welfare state) is the big reason.  People don't mind paying for tangible security that they can experience on a daily basis.  But a big reason this is possible is that the US is footing the bill for most of the civilized world's military security.  If those countries maintained military expenditures comparable to the US, would they be able to afford their welfare states?

Your assumption is that the rest of the world is actually wanting the US to foot the bill for our 'security'.  The truth is that the US has a massive military expenditure, that is self-feeding and based more on wants than needs.  From the outside looking in it is insanity.

You are also assuming that the world needs that much security.  Much of global insecurity and conflict comes from power and wealth imbalances.  If we were to spend less on military 'blow up' stuff and more on solving some of the worlds less martial problems we might actually have a lot less conflict.

No, I don't mean disband the US (or any other) military.  There is a role for them that is important.  But is anyone seriously seeing the US, or Canada, or the UK, under threat of invasion from anywhere?

[Capsu78]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

I'm guessing single payer health care (and in the EU, a full cradle-to-grave welfare state) is the big reason.  People don't mind paying for tangible security that they can experience on a daily basis.  But a big reason this is possible is that the US is footing the bill for most of the civilized world's military security.  If those countries maintained military expenditures comparable to the US, would they be able to afford their welfare states?

Your assumption is that the rest of the world is actually wanting the US to foot the bill for our 'security'.  The truth is that the US has a massive military expenditure, that is self-feeding and based more on wants than needs.  From the outside looking in it is insanity.

You are also assuming that the world needs that much security.  Much of global insecurity and conflict comes from power and wealth imbalances.  If we were to spend less on military 'blow up' stuff and more on solving some of the worlds less martial problems we might actually have a lot less conflict.

No, I don't mean disband the US (or any other) military.  There is a role for them that is important.  But is anyone seriously seeing the US, or Canada, or the UK, under threat of invasion from anywhere?

The USA's biggest gift to the world is securing the worlds maritime lanes  which is how your every "I thing" arrived here, there and everywhere, along with the whole economies of many of first, second and third world countries.  If one thinks that a world without America will be a good place to live, make your case.

[Gin1984]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

I'm guessing single payer health care (and in the EU, a full cradle-to-grave welfare state) is the big reason.  People don't mind paying for tangible security that they can experience on a daily basis.  But a big reason this is possible is that the US is footing the bill for most of the civilized world's military security.  If those countries maintained military expenditures comparable to the US, would they be able to afford their welfare states?

You make an assumption there, that the current level of military spending and might are needed for security.

I'm sure there is waste that could be cut from military spending, and there is room for argument about how much military power is really needed.  But some amount of might is needed to counter the megalomaniacal ambitions of militarily powerful dictators like Wilhelm, Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin, Kruschev, Putin, and the Kims.  One thing is certain: were it not for the military power projected by the US, the consequences of each of those dictatorships would have been far worse for the civilized world.  Now, I'm no war monger, and I think the US has certainly blown a lot of money on needless military activities (Vietnam, Iraq, and the last decade or so of involvement in Afghanistan come to mind.  I think the jury is still out on the current IS mess.).  But there comes a time when civilized people have to stand up and defend themselves.  I'm merely arguing that it's time for the rest of the civilized world to start shouldering a little more of that burden.

Yes, but when we are outspending the next three powers combined, why is THAT amount needed.  I'm not saying we throw out the military all together.  Not at all.  I just think we can cut it down by a lot without others spending more or much more and if there comes a problem we can always start spending again.  It takes times for militaries to increase and that works for us as well as any opposing power.  I want us to have a base and I have no problem with us outspending the rest of world, but not by the degree we are. 

[Gin1984]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

I'm guessing single payer health care (and in the EU, a full cradle-to-grave welfare state) is the big reason.  People don't mind paying for tangible security that they can experience on a daily basis.  But a big reason this is possible is that the US is footing the bill for most of the civilized world's military security.  If those countries maintained military expenditures comparable to the US, would they be able to afford their welfare states?

Your assumption is that the rest of the world is actually wanting the US to foot the bill for our 'security'.  The truth is that the US has a massive military expenditure, that is self-feeding and based more on wants than needs.  From the outside looking in it is insanity.

You are also assuming that the world needs that much security.  Much of global insecurity and conflict comes from power and wealth imbalances.  If we were to spend less on military 'blow up' stuff and more on solving some of the worlds less martial problems we might actually have a lot less conflict.

No, I don't mean disband the US (or any other) military.  There is a role for them that is important.  But is anyone seriously seeing the US, or Canada, or the UK, under threat of invasion from anywhere?

Most people from the US don't seem to be worried about invasions (their issues with immigration from Mexico not withstanding) but about terrorism or with war because a world war/war affecting a too large of population else ware.

[Monkey Uncle]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

I'm guessing single payer health care (and in the EU, a full cradle-to-grave welfare state) is the big reason.  People don't mind paying for tangible security that they can experience on a daily basis.  But a big reason this is possible is that the US is footing the bill for most of the civilized world's military security.  If those countries maintained military expenditures comparable to the US, would they be able to afford their welfare states?

You make an assumption there, that the current level of military spending and might are needed for security.

I'm sure there is waste that could be cut from military spending, and there is room for argument about how much military power is really needed.  But some amount of might is needed to counter the megalomaniacal ambitions of militarily powerful dictators like Wilhelm, Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin, Kruschev, Putin, and the Kims.  One thing is certain: were it not for the military power projected by the US, the consequences of each of those dictatorships would have been far worse for the civilized world.  Now, I'm no war monger, and I think the US has certainly blown a lot of money on needless military activities (Vietnam, Iraq, and the last decade or so of involvement in Afghanistan come to mind.  I think the jury is still out on the current IS mess.).  But there comes a time when civilized people have to stand up and defend themselves.  I'm merely arguing that it's time for the rest of the civilized world to start shouldering a little more of that burden.

Yes, but when we are outspending the next three powers combined, why is THAT amount needed.  I'm not saying we throw out the military all together.  Not at all.  I just think we can cut it down by a lot without others spending more or much more and if there comes a problem we can always start spending again.  It takes times for militaries to increase and that works for us as well as any opposing power.  I want us to have a base and I have no problem with us outspending the rest of world, but not by the degree we are.

I think you and I are in at least partial agreement.  There is room to cut when we stop doing stupid things like invading Iraq to the tune of a trillion or so dollars.  No one but Tony Blair and the US neocons wanted that war.  There is also room to cut out various congresspersons' pet projects, many of which even the pentagon doesn't want.  If we could break the influence of the military-industrial complex, I suspect we could reduce spending without compromising security (ours or anyone else's).  But I'm not sure I can go along with your contention that we could stop being the world's policeman without our allies having to significantly increase their military spending.  Someone else said that the biggest line item in the military budget is health care.  I don't know whether that is true, but I do know a lot of the spending goes to two things: high tech weaponry and personnel.  If our allies were to totally take over their own security, I'm guessing they would really need to beef up their weaponry and the number of people they have under arms.  Neither of those two things comes cheap.

I'd be really interested in hearing from someone who's studied the numbers, if there is such a person on this forum.

[Monkey Uncle]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

I'm guessing single payer health care (and in the EU, a full cradle-to-grave welfare state) is the big reason.  People don't mind paying for tangible security that they can experience on a daily basis.  But a big reason this is possible is that the US is footing the bill for most of the civilized world's military security.  If those countries maintained military expenditures comparable to the US, would they be able to afford their welfare states?

Your assumption is that the rest of the world is actually wanting the US to foot the bill for our 'security'.  The truth is that the US has a massive military expenditure, that is self-feeding and based more on wants than needs.  From the outside looking in it is insanity.

You are also assuming that the world needs that much security.  Much of global insecurity and conflict comes from power and wealth imbalances.  If we were to spend less on military 'blow up' stuff and more on solving some of the worlds less martial problems we might actually have a lot less conflict.

No, I don't mean disband the US (or any other) military.  There is a role for them that is important.  But is anyone seriously seeing the US, or Canada, or the UK, under threat of invasion from anywhere?

Does the EU really want the US to pull out and leave them to negotiate for Russian gas on Putin's terms?

You are correct that no one sees the US, Canada, or UK under serious threat of invasion.  But that is precisely because of US military might, not in spite of it.

[beltim]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

I'm guessing single payer health care (and in the EU, a full cradle-to-grave welfare state) is the big reason.  People don't mind paying for tangible security that they can experience on a daily basis.  But a big reason this is possible is that the US is footing the bill for most of the civilized world's military security.  If those countries maintained military expenditures comparable to the US, would they be able to afford their welfare states?

Your assumption is that the rest of the world is actually wanting the US to foot the bill for our 'security'.  The truth is that the US has a massive military expenditure, that is self-feeding and based more on wants than needs.  From the outside looking in it is insanity.

You are also assuming that the world needs that much security.  Much of global insecurity and conflict comes from power and wealth imbalances.  If we were to spend less on military 'blow up' stuff and more on solving some of the worlds less martial problems we might actually have a lot less conflict.

No, I don't mean disband the US (or any other) military.  There is a role for them that is important.  But is anyone seriously seeing the US, or Canada, or the UK, under threat of invasion from anywhere?

Does the EU really want the US to pull out and leave them to negotiate for Russian gas on Putin's terms?

You are correct that no one sees the US, Canada, or UK under serious threat of invasion.  But that is precisely because of US military might, not in spite of it.

MU is exactly right.  When Russia is putting bombers off the coast of the UK¹, and Germany is painting brooms to look like guns², you can bet that the Baltic states are happy³ that at least one member of NATO is spending as much money on military as obligated by international agreements⁴.


¹ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31530840
² http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19/germanys-army-is-so-under-equipped-that-it-used-broomsticks-instead-of-machine-guns/?tid=pm_world_pop
³ There are many sources for Baltic states being worried about Russian aggression.  For example: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/28/tiny-baltic-states-prepare-hit-back-mighty-russia-285264.html and http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31528981
⁴ The US, UK, Estonia, and Greece are the only NATO members (out of 28) that meet NATO defense spending guidelines: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/nato-summit-members-not-pulling-4156751

[Gin1984]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

I'm guessing single payer health care (and in the EU, a full cradle-to-grave welfare state) is the big reason.  People don't mind paying for tangible security that they can experience on a daily basis.  But a big reason this is possible is that the US is footing the bill for most of the civilized world's military security.  If those countries maintained military expenditures comparable to the US, would they be able to afford their welfare states?

Your assumption is that the rest of the world is actually wanting the US to foot the bill for our 'security'.  The truth is that the US has a massive military expenditure, that is self-feeding and based more on wants than needs.  From the outside looking in it is insanity.

You are also assuming that the world needs that much security.  Much of global insecurity and conflict comes from power and wealth imbalances.  If we were to spend less on military 'blow up' stuff and more on solving some of the worlds less martial problems we might actually have a lot less conflict.

No, I don't mean disband the US (or any other) military.  There is a role for them that is important.  But is anyone seriously seeing the US, or Canada, or the UK, under threat of invasion from anywhere?

Does the EU really want the US to pull out and leave them to negotiate for Russian gas on Putin's terms?

You are correct that no one sees the US, Canada, or UK under serious threat of invasion.  But that is precisely because of US military might, not in spite of it.

MU is exactly right.  When Russia is putting bombers off the coast of the UK¹, and Germany is painting brooms to look like guns², you can bet that the Baltic states are happy³ that at least one member of NATO is spending as much money on military as obligated by international agreements⁴.


¹ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31530840
² http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19/germanys-army-is-so-under-equipped-that-it-used-broomsticks-instead-of-machine-guns/?tid=pm_world_pop
³ There are many sources for Baltic states being worried about Russian aggression.  For example: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/28/tiny-baltic-states-prepare-hit-back-mighty-russia-285264.html and http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31528981
⁴ The US, UK, Estonia, and Greece are the only NATO members (out of 28) that meet NATO defense spending guidelines: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/nato-summit-members-not-pulling-4156751

But if the UK, Estonia and Greece are meeting those guidelines, why is it necessary for us to spend more than the next three highest?  Are we honestly making up for all the other NATO member deficiencies?  Is that honestly reasonable on our part? 

[rocketpj]

Does the EU really want the US to pull out and leave them to negotiate for Russian gas on Putin's terms?

You are correct that no one sees the US, Canada, or UK under serious threat of invasion.  But that is precisely because of US military might, not in spite of it.

I'm not sure.  I don't think anyone in the EU or Russia seriously expects the US to be willing to get into a shooting war with Russia over the price of natural gas.  Your question is absurd on its face. 

And I think the US and Canada are not under serious threat of invasion because they have HUGE OCEANS on three sides of them, and the UK is an ISLAND.  The supply chains to mount an effective invasion of North America are beyond what is possible - not only would they have to cross huge oceans before arriving, they would have to supply their forces once they landed.  It isn't ever going to happen.  And it has very little to do with the MASSIVELY overpowered military might of the US.

[Monkey Uncle]

Does the EU really want the US to pull out and leave them to negotiate for Russian gas on Putin's terms?

You are correct that no one sees the US, Canada, or UK under serious threat of invasion.  But that is precisely because of US military might, not in spite of it.

I'm not sure.  I don't think anyone in the EU or Russia seriously expects the US to be willing to get into a shooting war with Russia over the price of natural gas.  Your question is absurd on its face. 

And I think the US and Canada are not under serious threat of invasion because they have HUGE OCEANS on three sides of them, and the UK is an ISLAND.  The supply chains to mount an effective invasion of North America are beyond what is possible - not only would they have to cross huge oceans before arriving, they would have to supply their forces once they landed.  It isn't ever going to happen.  And it has very little to do with the MASSIVELY overpowered military might of the US.

Russia may not start a war over gas, but they will certainly use gas as a weapon in any conflict.  They are already doing this as a way of intimidating the western European nations to stay out of the current war in Ukraine.

Your comment about the oceans protecting North America makes no sense at all.  Those oceans didn't stop the US from invading Europe in 1917 and 1944, didn't stop the US from invading north Africa in 1943, didn't stop Japan from invading the Aleutian Islands or the south Pacific islands in 1942, didn't stop the US from retaking the south Pacific islands in 1942-1944, didn't stop the US from invading Korea in 1950, Vietnam in 1965, Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and Afghanistan in 2002.  Hell, the oceans didn't even stop the British from burning down the White House in 1814.  And someone needs to time-travel back to 1940 and tell Hitler that the English Channel and North Sea are insurmountable barriers to bombing the shit out of London.  Do you really think the Russian military doesn't have the logistical capabilities to cross an ocean and occupy an undefended continent?

[Unique User]

Yes, but when we are outspending the next three powers combined, why is THAT amount needed.  I'm not saying we throw out the military all together.  Not at all.  I just think we can cut it down by a lot without others spending more or much more and if there comes a problem we can always start spending again.  It takes times for militaries to increase and that works for us as well as any opposing power.  I want us to have a base and I have no problem with us outspending the rest of world, but not by the degree we are.

+1

Someone else said that the biggest line item in the military budget is health care.  I don't know whether that is true, but I do know a lot of the spending goes to two things: high tech weaponry and personnel. 

Last I saw healthcare spending was 9.5% of the DOD budget.  I'd really be interested to know how much of the total US budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, military and federal employee healthcare and what percent of the population it covers.  Heck - throw in all everyone that gets their healthcare from any type of taxes whether city, state, etc.  Has to be a pretty high number and a great argument for single payer (besides the fact that healthcare costs would go down).

[gaja]

Does the EU really want the US to pull out and leave them to negotiate for Russian gas on Putin's terms?

I'm not sure.  I don't think anyone in the EU or Russia seriously expects the US to be willing to get into a shooting war with Russia over the price of natural gas.  Your question is absurd on its face. 

Russia may not start a war over gas, but they will certainly use gas as a weapon in any conflict.  They are already doing this as a way of intimidating the western European nations to stay out of the current war in Ukraine.

Vhy fight you over russian gas? Ve have very good gas. You can buy gas from us. It is much better than russian gas.
Please do not make any sun energy or vind energy or other independence from fossil fuels. It is much better to buy our very good natural gas. It is natural and therefore very environmental. Not at all like russian gas.
Best regards, Norwegian minister of energy.

PS: Also, according to our historical documents, the second world war was won because some Norwegian skiers blew up a H2O2 factory in the mountains. We are training all NATO military in skiing, and do not understand why the US need to spend so much money, when they could just buy skiing equipment. We make good skis too. You can buy from us.

[SF Semi-Mustache]

Last I saw healthcare spending was 9.5% of the DOD budget.  I'd really be interested to know how much of the total US budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, military and federal employee healthcare and what percent of the population it covers.  Heck - throw in all everyone that gets their healthcare from any type of taxes whether city, state, etc.  Has to be a pretty high number and a great argument for single payer (besides the fact that healthcare costs would go down).

This analysis has been done and varies from around 50% to more than 60%.  There are less obvious sources of government funding too (instead of purely "who paid the bill"), such as:

- The gigantic tax subsidy to employer-sponsored healthcare;
- The ACA subsidies;
- The government's funding for all medical residency positions;
- Government subsidies to community health centers, critical access hospitals, etc.;
- The Indian Health Service (over $4bn a year). 

I'm sure there are more.

[rocketpj]

Russia may not start a war over gas, but they will certainly use gas as a weapon in any conflict.  They are already doing this as a way of intimidating the western European nations to stay out of the current war in Ukraine.

You don't seriously think anyone in Europe is willing to get into a shooting war with Russia over Eastern Ukraine?  They have to say things so as not to appear weak, but they are completely toothless (as is the US).

Your comment about the oceans protecting North America makes no sense at all.  Those oceans didn't stop the US from invading Europe in 1917 and 1944, didn't stop the US from invading north Africa in 1943, didn't stop Japan from invading the Aleutian Islands or the south Pacific islands in 1942, didn't stop the US from retaking the south Pacific islands in 1942-1944, didn't stop the US from invading Korea in 1950, Vietnam in 1965, Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and Afghanistan in 2002.  Hell, the oceans didn't even stop the British from burning down the White House in 1814.  And someone needs to time-travel back to 1940 and tell Hitler that the English Channel and North Sea are insurmountable barriers to bombing the shit out of London.  Do you really think the Russian military doesn't have the logistical capabilities to cross an ocean and occupy an undefended continent?

Let me guess, what history you studied was in the US, right?

OK, 1917 and 1944, in both cases, required a significant buildup of troops and resources on the spot before the conflict.  US troops were massing, with all their stuff (and lots of the rest of us as well) for a couple of years before they actually crossed the channel.

The invasion of North Africa is not equal, in logistics or defenses, to a theoretical invasion of the US.  The Germans and Vichy French in North Africa were at the far end of their own extended supply lines, the French didn't want to fight anyway.  A very different prospect from invading a large country on its home turf.

Aleutian Islands and South Pacific - again, isolated locations with minimal defenses, and ditto their retaking, painful and bloody as they were.  A very different prospect than an invasion of California or the Japanese home islands would have been.

Korea and Vietnam both had a local friendly force and a place to land resources without being under fire.  And Korea, despite a massive effort and tremendous losses, was fought to a draw.  Vietnam can only be considered a total disaster, not least because of the distance from the US, extended supply lines (and the fact it was a stupid idea in the first place).  Neither of those are good comparitors to the USA as a defensible location other than to demonstrate how impossible it would be to invade the US when the most powerful countries in the world can't even manage a backwater pisspot war successfully.

Iraq - well, what can I say about that?  Again, massive power imbalance at the start.  And yet, extended supply lines and a committed local opposition meant that the US did not leave Iraq in any better shape than it arrived, and arguably much worse.  Yes, the US invaded, but the logistical complexities and awfulness of it has meant you are bankrupting your nation to do it.  Imagine trying to occupy something the size of the US against a determined resistance?  Not going to happen. 

The same can be said for Afghanistan - a massively unbalanced military operation has still resulted in a thin veneer of victory over what is essentially a draw.  If the Pashtun/Taliban/whatever can prevent a total military victory by the most overpowered military since Ghengiz Khan, how do you think any force on the planet would do trying to occupy North America?

The British who burned the White House were actually Canadians in British uniforms who walked down to Washington.  You're welcome.  The US is in no danger of invasion by Canada, now or really ever.  The ocean is not an issue, and any supply lines were between then Canadian colonies and Britain - and at the time Britain was the preeminent naval power on the globe. 

As for Hitler and England, there is a substantial difference between the English Channel and the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans.  It is possible to swim the Channel and planes can cross it in minutes.  Even the Concorde took a couple hours to cross the Atlantic.  And Hitler still couldn't manage the invasion, much as he wanted to.  If he had it is very unlikely that the US would have been able or willing to participate or mount any counter-invasion of Europe a couple years later.

My point remains.  It isn't like the US would be undefended with, say, half as many carrier groups (any one of which has enough firepower to defeat the next dozen or so nations).  Or perhaps half as many bases, all over the world?  Half as many first tier fighter planes, any one of which is vastly superior to the rest of the world's air forces?  Fewer bombers?

At no point did I make the case that the US, Canada or anyone else should be undefended.  I am only saying that the sheer logistics of invading and occupying a territory, across a huge ocean, in today's tech levels, make it utterly impossible.  If China were to launch an invasion fleet, most or all of it would be at the bottom of the ocean before it got halfway (or even to Taiwan for that matter). We would all know about the preparations, which would have to be enormous and long-term.  If Russia were to try, the same thing would happen - unless they invaded Alaska, in which case they would be stuck in Alaska with a lot of cold mountains to cross before they could actually accomplish much.

So who else is going to invade?  Mexico - hardly.  North Korea- the worst they could do would be a plastic minisub or something.  There is and will be no credible invasion threat to the North American mainland in the next 50 years.  ISIS?  They are bad people, but they are not going to be invading the US and if they did they'd be cut to pieces.  Not that they won't blow something up, but that does not constitute an invasion and occupation.

And there is nothing to say we couldn't focus our expenses on making the continent completely untouchable while still saving trillions.

[dividendman]

It's funny that this has devolved into a discussion about world war 2 and possible invasions of the United States. But since I like geopolitical discussions I'll pile on :)

Just FYI.... there will be no large army to large army conflict happening ever again. It's all asymmetrical warfare from now on e.g. US/World against ISIS, Russia against Crimea/Eastern Ukraine.

I'm willing to make a huge bet (and in fact, I think anyone invested in the market or anything besides canned goods and firearms has made the bet as well) that any single military engagement won't cost more than a few hundred lives. In the world wars you had battles where 10s of thousands died and hundreds of thousands were injured/captured. This ain't happening folks. It's all predator drones and small forces from now on.

If any large nations go to war (US/Chinia/Russia/India etc.) or nations with nukes go to all out war no amount of defense spending is going to help by any nation because even if you win the world will be a total shitshow.

Also, nobody *wants* to occupy other large states. Does anyone really think Russia or China WANTS to invade and occupy the united states? Hahaha... man, this discussion is crazy.

[gaja]

Also, nobody *wants* to occupy other large states. Does anyone really think Russia or China WANTS to invade and occupy the united states? Hahaha... man, this discussion is crazy.

Yes, why bother when it's so much cheaper and easier to just buy the parts you want? That is what the Chinese are doing in large parts of Africa and Greenland. Norway is buying prime real estate in Washington and New York. At the same time we are lending you money at very nice interest rates, so you can fund your military and protect our property. The Chinese tactics are more scary, as they are buying agriculture land, natural resources (mines and ores) and infrastructure.

[beltim]

I'm willing to make a huge bet (and in fact, I think anyone invested in the market or anything besides canned goods and firearms has made the bet as well) that any single military engagement won't cost more than a few hundred lives. In the world wars you had battles where 10s of thousands died and hundreds of thousands were injured/captured. This ain't happening folks. It's all predator drones and small forces from now on.

Are you serious?  Here's just a partial list of military conflicts that this year have resulted in more than a few hundred lives lost:
Eastern Ukraine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine
Syria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War
Iraq: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-in-iraq-25000-iraqi-and-kurdish-troops-prepare-to-reclaim-mosul-from-militants-in-april-10059179.html
Libya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Libyan_Civil_War_%282014%E2%80%93present%29
Yemen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_insurgency_in_Yemen
Burma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Kokang_offensive
Cameroon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram_insurgency_in_Cameroon
Central African Republic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Republic_conflict_%282012%E2%80%93present%29
Nigeria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram_insurgency
Somalia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Somalia_%282009%E2%80%93present%29

[beltim]

But if the UK, Estonia and Greece are meeting those guidelines, why is it necessary for us to spend more than the next three highest? 

Because we also have treaty obligations in other parts of the world besides Europe.  And, because the other 24 members of NATO aren't funding their militaries at agreed-upon levels.  And lastly, because it costs almost every other country less for each member of their military thanks to the high standard of living in the US.  You'll notice that the "the US spends more on its military than the next ___ countries" never takes into account purchasing power parity.  If you look at % of GDP, the US still spends a lot on its military, but all of a sudden it's not an outlier.

Are we honestly making up for all the other NATO member deficiencies?  Is that honestly reasonable on our part?

So far, it appears that we have.  The only time Article 5 (the mutual self-defense provision of the NATO treaty) has been invoked was after September 11.  If there were a war, it's impossible to predict what would happen until it happens.  Hopefully it never does.

[dividendman]

I'm willing to make a huge bet (and in fact, I think anyone invested in the market or anything besides canned goods and firearms has made the bet as well) that any single military engagement won't cost more than a few hundred lives. In the world wars you had battles where 10s of thousands died and hundreds of thousands were injured/captured. This ain't happening folks. It's all predator drones and small forces from now on.

Are you serious?  Here's just a partial list of military conflicts that this year have resulted in more than a few hundred lives:
Eastern Ukraine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine
Syria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War
Iraq: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-in-iraq-25000-iraqi-and-kurdish-troops-prepare-to-reclaim-mosul-from-militants-in-april-10059179.html
Libya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Libyan_Civil_War_%282014%E2%80%93present%29
Yemen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_insurgency_in_Yemen
Burma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Kokang_offensive
Cameroon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram_insurgency_in_Cameroon
Central African Republic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Republic_conflict_%282012%E2%80%93present%29
Nigeria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram_insurgency
Somalia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Somalia_%282009%E2%80%93present%29

Ok...
1) When I said engagement I meant a single battle not entire wars
2) Wholesale slaughters of unarmed folks like what Boko Haram is doing I don't consider to be military engagements
3) All lives are not equal. Show me any battle where > 100 western or russian regulars or chinese or indian or any large state with a significant military presence soldiers have died.

The point remains that although 7000 people may have been killed in the pro-Russian unrest wikipedia article you linked, this "war" has been going on since April 2014 according to that article... so... 700 people per month dying in fighting? About one person an hour.
Let's see, according to wikipedia 72 MILLION people died in WW2 over 5 years = 1700 per HOUR. It's still a very small conflict by those standards, so if anything your articles above prove my point.

[libertarian4321]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

I'm guessing single payer health care (and in the EU, a full cradle-to-grave welfare state) is the big reason.  People don't mind paying for tangible security that they can experience on a daily basis.  But a big reason this is possible is that the US is footing the bill for most of the civilized world's military security.  If those countries maintained military expenditures comparable to the US, would they be able to afford their welfare states?

You make an assumption there, that the current level of military spending and might are needed for security.

I'm sure there is waste that could be cut from military spending, and there is room for argument about how much military power is really needed.  But some amount of might is needed to counter the megalomaniacal ambitions of militarily powerful dictators like Wilhelm, Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin, Kruschev, Putin, and the Kims.  One thing is certain: were it not for the military power projected by the US, the consequences of each of those dictatorships would have been far worse for the civilized world.  Now, I'm no war monger, and I think the US has certainly blown a lot of money on needless military activities (Vietnam, Iraq, and the last decade or so of involvement in Afghanistan come to mind.  I think the jury is still out on the current IS mess.).  But there comes a time when civilized people have to stand up and defend themselves.  I'm merely arguing that it's time for the rest of the civilized world to start shouldering a little more of that burden.

Other countries will NEVER take the load, as long as the US Taxpayer is foolish enough to bear the burden for them.

An example, for 60+ years we've been providing a safety blanket for South Korea, "defending" it against it's much smaller, weaker, poorer neighbor to the north.

South Korea is twice the size of it's impoverished, economically puny northern neighbor.  It's light years ahead technologically (and that includes military tech, btw- North Korea's military is large, but uses mostly obsolete crap that was proven nearly worthless in the first gulf war, almost 25 years ago) and economically.  Yet they still rely on us to spend significant money defending them from an economic basket case that they could, if they chose to, squash like a grape.

It's time we stopped playing global enforcer and started letting some other countries take care of themselves.

[beltim]

What is your point, exactly?  I thought it was:

Just FYI.... there will be no large army to large army conflict happening ever again.

So I guess it depends on what you consider to be a "large army."  If your point is that there hasn't been a world war since the last one, then congratulations, you're right.

If you're trying to argue that there is no longer any significant bloodshed in wars between regional powers, or between groups with large armies, you need to brush up on your recent history. 

[dividendman]

What is your point, exactly?  I thought it was:

Just FYI.... there will be no large army to large army conflict happening ever again.

So I guess it depends on what you consider to be a "large army."  If your point is that there hasn't been a world war since the last one, then congratulations, you're right.

If you're trying to argue that there is no longer any significant bloodshed in wars between regional powers, or between groups with large armies, you need to brush up on your recent history.

My point is that the united states does not need a large standing army to defend itself due to the small nature of all of the conflicts occurring in the world. How does having (according to wikipedia) 1.3 Million active personnel and ~800k reservists (and all the equipment and crap) actually help anything when you're never going to fight a standing army of any significant size?

You were talking about invasions of the U.S. I think this is silly in this day and age because the U.S. CIVILIAN population is more heavily armed than pretty much any state out there and could easily thwart any invasion (not to mention nobody would launch an invasion as i mentioned above).

So, back to the point of this thread, military spending is stupidly high so we might want to look there to cut expenses/taxes. If we are planning on invading Mexico then I can see having a 2 Million person army with all the toys. But if we're just droning people in mud huts or burnt out buildings we can probably get by with 1/100th the spending.

I'm still waiting for any example of any of the.... let's say top 30 military powers fighting each other in the last 20 years.

[beltim]

What is your point, exactly?  I thought it was:

Just FYI.... there will be no large army to large army conflict happening ever again.

So I guess it depends on what you consider to be a "large army."  If your point is that there hasn't been a world war since the last one, then congratulations, you're right.

If you're trying to argue that there is no longer any significant bloodshed in wars between regional powers, or between groups with large armies, you need to brush up on your recent history.

My point is that the united states does not need a large standing army to defend itself due to the small nature of all of the conflicts occurring in the world. How does having (according to wikipedia) 1.3 Million active personnel and ~800k reservists (and all the equipment and crap) actually help anything when you're never going to fight a standing army of any significant size?

You were talking about invasions of the U.S. I think this is silly in this day and age because the U.S. CIVILIAN population is more heavily armed than pretty much any state out there and could easily thwart any invasion (not to mention nobody would launch an invasion as i mentioned above).

So, back to the point of this thread, military spending is stupidly high so we might want to look there to cut expenses/taxes. If we are planning on invading Mexico then I can see having a 2 Million person army with all the toys. But if we're just droning people in mud huts or burnt out buildings we can probably get by with 1/100th the spending.

I'm still waiting for any example of any of the.... let's say top 30 military powers fighting each other in the last 20 years.

You're confusing me with someone else.  I never said anything about invasions of the US.

As for examples of the top 30 military powers fighting each other in the last 20 years, I'd suggest Google.  But one obvious example that jumps to mind is the 2004 Iraq War.

[dividendman]

My point is that the united states does not need a large standing army to defend itself due to the small nature of all of the conflicts occurring in the world. How does having (according to wikipedia) 1.3 Million active personnel and ~800k reservists (and all the equipment and crap) actually help anything when you're never going to fight a standing army of any significant size?

You were talking about invasions of the U.S. I think this is silly in this day and age because the U.S. CIVILIAN population is more heavily armed than pretty much any state out there and could easily thwart any invasion (not to mention nobody would launch an invasion as i mentioned above).

So, back to the point of this thread, military spending is stupidly high so we might want to look there to cut expenses/taxes. If we are planning on invading Mexico then I can see having a 2 Million person army with all the toys. But if we're just droning people in mud huts or burnt out buildings we can probably get by with 1/100th the spending.

I'm still waiting for any example of any of the.... let's say top 30 military powers fighting each other in the last 20 years.

You're confusing me with someone else.  I never said anything about invasions of the US.

As for examples of the top 30 military powers fighting each other in the last 20 years, I'd suggest Google.  But one obvious example that jumps to mind is the 2004 Iraq War.

Yup, I am confusing you with someone else for the invasions! Sorry about that.

Anyhow, I still stand by my statements with you on the size of conflicts. Note that I agree with you that if the United States wants to invade other countries (especially for no reason like they did with Iraq in 2004) then yes, you need a large military budget. I used Mexico in my example.
I would also like to point out that in the 2003 (according to wikipedia) Iraq war there were ~7000 coalition casualties from 2003-2011, most of these were not against the Iraqi army - that army disbanded shortly after the US invaded.

Also note that if the military was 1/10th to 1/100th of today's size we wouldn't be able to conduct such blunders.

[beltim]

The goal posts have shifted so many times here that I think I'll just leave this conversation where it is.  I don't think there's any disagreement that if the US wanted a military whose only purpose was to defend its own borders then they could have a smaller military.

[dunhamjr]

i dont know the percents... but yeah, definitely the largest category in my house as well at nearly $27k... ugh, i kind of hate that the number is that high.

unfortunately that number is as high as it is because i couldnt/didnt convince my wife to up her teacher retirement/403b contributions enough to account for a forced RSU sale.

[gimp]

If your biggest spending category is taxes, I think you've pretty much won life. Either you earn normal amounts and spend very little, or you earn large amounts; in either case, go you!

Taxes are also my biggest spending category (roughly equal to all my other spending combined) so I'm sitting pretty.

[Travis]

For the US tax policy/partisanship side of the discussion - if you took US federal spending over the years and superimposed when there was a Republican or Democratic president or R/D controlled Congress you'd see that spending levels really don't change in comparison to the party.  Even when there have been budget cuts they're on the margins as others have already pointed out.  As far as "tax and spend" Democrats, there have been Republican presidents/Congresses who have spent a hell of a lot more.  While US citizens pay fairly low income taxes compared to the rest of the world, our corporate taxes are fairly high which has caused a lot of money to either leave or not be reinvested back home.  Since corporations pass their tax burdens onto the consumers who buy their stuff individuals are paying that bill anyways.

For the military spending discussion - the value of the dollar and our standard of living means we will always outspend every other country.  We spend more than the next 4 militaries combined just on paychecks.  An all-volunteer military is expensive just on the people side of the budget.  The "welfare states" in Europe ensure comfortable lives for most of their populations, but it also means they have very little flexibility in their budgets and the last decade has been pretty rough for many of them.  Cutting their militaries is one of their easier decisions to make because of their relationship with us.

As far as defending the continent - that's not what we use our military for.  We secure the shipping lanes of the world and assist other nations that either produce or ship the world's energy supplies.  Even if we became energy independent tomorrow, we'd still be concerned with Europe and Africa's energy security.  Our economies absolutely depend on everyone being stable and nobody else can afford to ensure that security.  95% of the world's goods move by sea and a pretty big chunk of that comes from east Asia and the Pacific Rim.  Those small countries produce a ton of goods but are afraid China may bully them around which in a few isolated cases it is trying to do.  China has no desire to fight the US, but rather it wants the political and economic influence we have which makes everyone nervous. 

Despite the international gripes about what the US military does around the world, behind closed doors they either don't mind or support what we do because if we withdrew there'd be a power vacuum.  They have to complain about us in public to settle their citizens, but at the higher levels they actively work with us. 

Getting back on the original topic - I have had a hell of a time keeping straight what a "normal" tax bill looks like for myself.  I've never had two tax years look the same due to military deployments, owning a house for a short time, dramatically increasing investments, and going back to school.  I'll be filing my taxes next week, but I only had one month of taxable income last year.  This year I should be home the whole time, but if I changed my W4 I'm not quite sure how much to set aside to pay the piper next year.

[TheNewNormal2015]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

Due to reliance on income taxes at the federal level, and massive government transfers, the U.S. tax system is one of the most progressive in the world.  Unlike many other developed countries there is no VAT, which is highly regressive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/

[Monkey Uncle]

Russia may not start a war over gas, but they will certainly use gas as a weapon in any conflict.  They are already doing this as a way of intimidating the western European nations to stay out of the current war in Ukraine.

You don't seriously think anyone in Europe is willing to get into a shooting war with Russia over Eastern Ukraine?  They have to say things so as not to appear weak, but they are completely toothless (as is the US).

Your comment about the oceans protecting North America makes no sense at all.  Those oceans didn't stop the US from invading Europe in 1917 and 1944, didn't stop the US from invading north Africa in 1943, didn't stop Japan from invading the Aleutian Islands or the south Pacific islands in 1942, didn't stop the US from retaking the south Pacific islands in 1942-1944, didn't stop the US from invading Korea in 1950, Vietnam in 1965, Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and Afghanistan in 2002.  Hell, the oceans didn't even stop the British from burning down the White House in 1814.  And someone needs to time-travel back to 1940 and tell Hitler that the English Channel and North Sea are insurmountable barriers to bombing the shit out of London.  Do you really think the Russian military doesn't have the logistical capabilities to cross an ocean and occupy an undefended continent?

Let me guess, what history you studied was in the US, right?

OK, 1917 and 1944, in both cases, required a significant buildup of troops and resources on the spot before the conflict.  US troops were massing, with all their stuff (and lots of the rest of us as well) for a couple of years before they actually crossed the channel.

The invasion of North Africa is not equal, in logistics or defenses, to a theoretical invasion of the US.  The Germans and Vichy French in North Africa were at the far end of their own extended supply lines, the French didn't want to fight anyway.  A very different prospect from invading a large country on its home turf.

Aleutian Islands and South Pacific - again, isolated locations with minimal defenses, and ditto their retaking, painful and bloody as they were.  A very different prospect than an invasion of California or the Japanese home islands would have been.

Korea and Vietnam both had a local friendly force and a place to land resources without being under fire.  And Korea, despite a massive effort and tremendous losses, was fought to a draw.  Vietnam can only be considered a total disaster, not least because of the distance from the US, extended supply lines (and the fact it was a stupid idea in the first place).  Neither of those are good comparitors to the USA as a defensible location other than to demonstrate how impossible it would be to invade the US when the most powerful countries in the world can't even manage a backwater pisspot war successfully.

Iraq - well, what can I say about that?  Again, massive power imbalance at the start.  And yet, extended supply lines and a committed local opposition meant that the US did not leave Iraq in any better shape than it arrived, and arguably much worse.  Yes, the US invaded, but the logistical complexities and awfulness of it has meant you are bankrupting your nation to do it.  Imagine trying to occupy something the size of the US against a determined resistance?  Not going to happen. 

The same can be said for Afghanistan - a massively unbalanced military operation has still resulted in a thin veneer of victory over what is essentially a draw.  If the Pashtun/Taliban/whatever can prevent a total military victory by the most overpowered military since Ghengiz Khan, how do you think any force on the planet would do trying to occupy North America?

The British who burned the White House were actually Canadians in British uniforms who walked down to Washington.  You're welcome.  The US is in no danger of invasion by Canada, now or really ever.  The ocean is not an issue, and any supply lines were between then Canadian colonies and Britain - and at the time Britain was the preeminent naval power on the globe. 

As for Hitler and England, there is a substantial difference between the English Channel and the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans.  It is possible to swim the Channel and planes can cross it in minutes.  Even the Concorde took a couple hours to cross the Atlantic.  And Hitler still couldn't manage the invasion, much as he wanted to.  If he had it is very unlikely that the US would have been able or willing to participate or mount any counter-invasion of Europe a couple years later.

My point remains.  It isn't like the US would be undefended with, say, half as many carrier groups (any one of which has enough firepower to defeat the next dozen or so nations).  Or perhaps half as many bases, all over the world?  Half as many first tier fighter planes, any one of which is vastly superior to the rest of the world's air forces?  Fewer bombers?

At no point did I make the case that the US, Canada or anyone else should be undefended.  I am only saying that the sheer logistics of invading and occupying a territory, across a huge ocean, in today's tech levels, make it utterly impossible.  If China were to launch an invasion fleet, most or all of it would be at the bottom of the ocean before it got halfway (or even to Taiwan for that matter). We would all know about the preparations, which would have to be enormous and long-term.  If Russia were to try, the same thing would happen - unless they invaded Alaska, in which case they would be stuck in Alaska with a lot of cold mountains to cross before they could actually accomplish much.

So who else is going to invade?  Mexico - hardly.  North Korea- the worst they could do would be a plastic minisub or something.  There is and will be no credible invasion threat to the North American mainland in the next 50 years.  ISIS?  They are bad people, but they are not going to be invading the US and if they did they'd be cut to pieces.  Not that they won't blow something up, but that does not constitute an invasion and occupation.

And there is nothing to say we couldn't focus our expenses on making the continent completely untouchable while still saving trillions.

I'm not going to respond point by point, as I'm getting tired of this line of discussion.  However, your points largely boil down to the fact that trans-ocean invasions are facilitated by forward operating bases in nearby friendly (or occupied) countries.  I'm not disputing that point.  But such forward operating bases are possible because there is no opposing military power to prevent or contain them.  This is why the U.S. got so worked up over Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.  It's also why the Canadians (British citizens) were able to walk to DC and burn the White House in 1814 - because Britain had an established forward operating base in Canada (which was supported by a trans-ocean supply line) and the US didn't have a strong enough military to contain it.  If the US didn't project power throughout the western hemisphere, forward operating bases could be established nearby to facilitate military actions against the mainland.  I'm not suggesting any current power is planning to invade the US mainland.  I don't think Putin or the Chinese are that stupid.  But I do think it's more than a coincidence that no one has tried since the US instituted the Monroe doctrine.

Note that I never made any claims about the success of such invasions.  I completely agree that the US take-overs of, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were wrong-headed failures.  But the invasions themselves were feasible, were in fact executed, and did wreak considerable havoc on those countries.

I do have to respond to your specific point about Hitler and England.  I only brought that one up because you yourself used the UK as an example of an island country that is protected by its oceans.  Although Hitler never managed a ground invasion, the water certainly didn't stop him from trying and causing a lot of death and destruction in the process.  The point is he felt emboldened to try because he didn't see a superior military power on the other side of the North Sea.

We could argue all day about how much military spending is enough to maintain North American security.  Could we get by with a lot less?  Probably.  But at some point, a country starts to look weak, and that can look inviting to dictators with imperialistic tendencies.  Again, I'm not claiming that any current power has designs on North America.  But one never knows what the future holds.  In 1936, most of the civilized world thought that Hitler's ambitions ended with Czechoslovakia, and in 1937, western nations didn't care much that Japan had invaded Manchuria.

[Monkey Uncle]

General comment/question - where the poster's country can be identified, those of us from Canada/Aus//NZ/EU seem to be relatively OK with our taxes and value the services they provide, whereas those in the US are much more divided in their comments, and the big unhappiness seems to be in the US.  Yet people in the US generally pay much less income tax, so they are complaining more about less.  I don't understand this.  Does anyone have any insights/explanation for this dichotomy?

I'm guessing single payer health care (and in the EU, a full cradle-to-grave welfare state) is the big reason.  People don't mind paying for tangible security that they can experience on a daily basis.  But a big reason this is possible is that the US is footing the bill for most of the civilized world's military security.  If those countries maintained military expenditures comparable to the US, would they be able to afford their welfare states?

You make an assumption there, that the current level of military spending and might are needed for security.

I'm sure there is waste that could be cut from military spending, and there is room for argument about how much military power is really needed.  But some amount of might is needed to counter the megalomaniacal ambitions of militarily powerful dictators like Wilhelm, Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin, Kruschev, Putin, and the Kims.  One thing is certain: were it not for the military power projected by the US, the consequences of each of those dictatorships would have been far worse for the civilized world.  Now, I'm no war monger, and I think the US has certainly blown a lot of money on needless military activities (Vietnam, Iraq, and the last decade or so of involvement in Afghanistan come to mind.  I think the jury is still out on the current IS mess.).  But there comes a time when civilized people have to stand up and defend themselves.  I'm merely arguing that it's time for the rest of the civilized world to start shouldering a little more of that burden.

Other countries will NEVER take the load, as long as the US Taxpayer is foolish enough to bear the burden for them.

An example, for 60+ years we've been providing a safety blanket for South Korea, "defending" it against it's much smaller, weaker, poorer neighbor to the north.

South Korea is twice the size of it's impoverished, economically puny northern neighbor.  It's light years ahead technologically (and that includes military tech, btw- North Korea's military is large, but uses mostly obsolete crap that was proven nearly worthless in the first gulf war, almost 25 years ago) and economically.  Yet they still rely on us to spend significant money defending them from an economic basket case that they could, if they chose to, squash like a grape.

It's time we stopped playing global enforcer and started letting some other countries take care of themselves.

Yes, this was precisely the point I was trying to make before this devolved into a geopolitical security discussion.  Essentially, the US is subsidizing the welfare states of most of the civilized world by paying for the military security that they can't afford.

[Monkey Uncle]

If your biggest spending category is taxes, I think you've pretty much won life. Either you earn normal amounts and spend very little, or you earn large amounts; in either case, go you!

Taxes are also my biggest spending category (roughly equal to all my other spending combined) so I'm sitting pretty.

Ah, back to the real topic.  I fall into the "earn normal amounts and spend very little" category, so I guess it's time for me to claim victory in life!

[tracylayton]

If your biggest spending category is taxes, I think you've pretty much won life. Either you earn normal amounts and spend very little, or you earn large amounts; in either case, go you!

Taxes are also my biggest spending category (roughly equal to all my other spending combined) so I'm sitting pretty.

Just got my taxes back from the CPA...$8,800 in income tax plus $18,200 in property taxes (5 properties) for a total of $27,000. Definitely the biggest piece of my pie, but you're right...I am fortunate!

[CDP45]

If your biggest spending category is taxes, I think you've pretty much won life. Either you earn normal amounts and spend very little, or you earn large amounts; in either case, go you!

Taxes are also my biggest spending category (roughly equal to all my other spending combined) so I'm sitting pretty.

Just got my taxes back from the CPA...$8,800 in income tax plus $18,200 in property taxes (5 properties) for a total of $27,000. Definitely the biggest piece of my pie, but you're right...I am fortunate!

Yup Im here at MMM learning to question every cent I spend, motivated to change the course of my life to find true freedom from work, and I'll just throw my hands up and say how lucky I am to have so much of my hard earned money confiscated to be tossed into the exploding volcano of waste!

There are hundreds of pages on this forum on how to lower spending by mere hundreds of dollars annually, the premise of this blog is to separate spending from happiness by examining the happiness gained from spending on different things, yet there can be no discussion beyond "I'm happy therefore no need to examine taxes, back to cutting cable tv and restaurants." Even worse are those under the false assumption government has provided this wealth and lifestyle too us.

Here's the argument:
I'm happy therefore it doesn't matter I spent $15,000 on XXXX even though there is no evidence that spending had much if anything to bring be happiness.

MMM says, you don't need the Hummer because you'll be just as happy with a Honda CRV or Fit. He is correct. Can this same reasoning apply to government?

There's more here as most mustachian are happy to reduce their tax burden, but then never question if the spending was fruitful or wasteful. Gee, everything else I buy I'm happy to purchase more of, restaurants, cars, housing, yet nobody pays more voluntarily to the government...hmmm....they won't pay more taxes but they will vote for more.

Incredible, never underestimate the power of denial.

[TheNewNormal2015]

If your biggest spending category is taxes, I think you've pretty much won life. Either you earn normal amounts and spend very little, or you earn large amounts; in either case, go you!

Taxes are also my biggest spending category (roughly equal to all my other spending combined) so I'm sitting pretty.

Just got my taxes back from the CPA...$8,800 in income tax plus $18,200 in property taxes (5 properties) for a total of $27,000. Definitely the biggest piece of my pie, but you're right...I am fortunate!

Yup Im here at MMM learning to question every cent I spend, motivated to change the course of my life to find true freedom from work, and I'll just throw my hands up and say how lucky I am to have so much of my hard earned money confiscated to be tossed into the exploding volcano of waste!

There are hundreds of pages on this forum on how to lower spending by mere hundreds of dollars annually, the premise of this blog is to separate spending from happiness by examining the happiness gained from spending on different things, yet there can be no discussion beyond "I'm happy therefore no need to examine taxes, back to cutting cable tv and restaurants." Even worse are those under the false assumption government has provided this wealth and lifestyle too us.

Here's the argument:
I'm happy therefore it doesn't matter I spent $15,000 on XXXX even though there is no evidence that spending had much if anything to bring be happiness.

MMM says, you don't need the Hummer because you'll be just as happy with a Honda CRV or Fit. He is correct. Can this same reasoning apply to government?

There's more here as most mustachian are happy to reduce their tax burden, but then never question if the spending was fruitful or wasteful. Gee, everything else I buy I'm happy to purchase more of, restaurants, cars, housing, yet nobody pays more voluntarily to the government...hmmm....they won't pay more taxes but they will vote for more.

Incredible, never underestimate the power of denial.

The average forum poster skews younger and more liberal, so there shouldn't be any surprise that they will tend to overlook evidence contrary to their belief that serious questioning of government (spending) is for right-wing nuts who should be ignored.  This is of course a cognitive bias that lacks objective and critical thinking.

[Monkey Uncle]

There's more here as most mustachian are happy to reduce their tax burden, but then never question if the spending was fruitful or wasteful. Gee, everything else I buy I'm happy to purchase more of, restaurants, cars, housing, yet nobody pays more voluntarily to the government...hmmm....they won't pay more taxes but they will vote for more.

Incredible, never underestimate the power of denial.

Yeah, but how should we vote?  For Republicans who want to engage in corporate welfare, trash the environment, control your private life, and buy a military that can rule the entire world?  For Democrats who want to "invest" in Keynesian economic stimulus and force equal outcomes for everyone?  For Libertarians who want to enable a corporate plutocracy?  Why aren't there any politicians who make and enforce laws against harming others, help those who truly need a hand up, and then leave everyone else alone?  And don't tell me that's what Libertarians do; they are happy to let wealthy business interests run over everyone else.  I usually end up pulling the lever for the Dems simply because they are the least offensive option, but it would really be nice to have a better choice.  (end rant)

[Capsu78]

Yeah, but how should we vote?  For Republicans who want to engage in corporate welfare, trash the environment, control your private life, and buy a military that can rule the entire world?  For Democrats who want to "invest" in Keynesian economic stimulus and force equal outcomes for everyone?  For Libertarians who want to enable a corporate plutocracy?  Why aren't there any politicians who make and enforce laws against harming others, help those who truly need a hand up, and then leave everyone else alone?  And don't tell me that's what Libertarians do; they are happy to let wealthy business interests run over everyone else.  I usually end up pulling the lever for the Dems simply because they are the least offensive option, but it would really be nice to have a better choice.  (end rant)

Uncle, there is one more group to consider that is completely under represented and never visit this forum...the people who will be forced to pay for whatever version of reckless spending our politics imply.  However they are all still sperm and eggs.  That, in my book, is where the moral ambiguity comes into play.   They "didn't build that" debt and they aren't getting a vote.

[CDP45]

There's more here as most mustachian are happy to reduce their tax burden, but then never question if the spending was fruitful or wasteful. Gee, everything else I buy I'm happy to purchase more of, restaurants, cars, housing, yet nobody pays more voluntarily to the government...hmmm....they won't pay more taxes but they will vote for more.

Incredible, never underestimate the power of denial.

Yeah, but how should we vote?  For Republicans who want to engage in corporate welfare, trash the environment, control your private life, and buy a military that can rule the entire world?  For Democrats who want to "invest" in Keynesian economic stimulus and force equal outcomes for everyone?  For Libertarians who want to enable a corporate plutocracy?  Why aren't there any politicians who make and enforce laws against harming others, help those who truly need a hand up, and then leave everyone else alone?  And don't tell me that's what Libertarians do; they are happy to let wealthy business interests run over everyone else.  I usually end up pulling the lever for the Dems simply because they are the least offensive option, but it would really be nice to have a better choice.  (end rant)

I think you've correctly identified a major enabler of the waste, that they are two sides of the same coin. So imagine you "had" to vote and pick between the Ford excursion or Chevy Tahoe. Say you chose based on gas mileage of 13/17 and 12/18 and you picked the Ford because it got slightly higher city mpg and you lived in a city, and well you'd still be an idiot.

This is real life, don't be tricked by a false illusion of choice. What works in this country are direct democracy ballot measures and lobbiests. Do you waste your time worring about kardahian drama? Stop worrying about  politics, and definitely stop perpetuating the problem by voting and supporting team blue or red.

[Gin1984]

There's more here as most mustachian are happy to reduce their tax burden, but then never question if the spending was fruitful or wasteful. Gee, everything else I buy I'm happy to purchase more of, restaurants, cars, housing, yet nobody pays more voluntarily to the government...hmmm....they won't pay more taxes but they will vote for more.

Incredible, never underestimate the power of denial.

Yeah, but how should we vote?  For Republicans who want to engage in corporate welfare, trash the environment, control your private life, and buy a military that can rule the entire world?  For Democrats who want to "invest" in Keynesian economic stimulus and force equal outcomes for everyone?  For Libertarians who want to enable a corporate plutocracy?  Why aren't there any politicians who make and enforce laws against harming others, help those who truly need a hand up, and then leave everyone else alone?  And don't tell me that's what Libertarians do; they are happy to let wealthy business interests run over everyone else.  I usually end up pulling the lever for the Dems simply because they are the least offensive option, but it would really be nice to have a better choice.  (end rant)

I think you've correctly identified a major enabler of the waste, that they are two sides of the same coin. So imagine you "had" to vote and pick between the Ford excursion or Chevy Tahoe. Say you chose based on gas mileage of 13/17 and 12/18 and you picked the Ford because it got slightly higher city mpg and you lived in a city, and well you'd still be an idiot.

This is real life, don't be tricked by a false illusion of choice. What works in this country are direct democracy ballot measures and lobbiests. Do you waste your time worring about kardahian drama? Stop worrying about  politics, and definitely stop perpetuating the problem by voting and supporting team blue or red.

For people's personal rights there is direct reason to vote democrat.  I like having personal autonomy and as a female having the GOP in control is directly going to harm that (see the attempted at abortion restriction from a GOP congress instead of working on any fiscal issues).  In addition, if you support lack of discrimination, voting for democrats is well worth it (see the GOP voting against equal pay for equal work and ERA and gay rights).  In addition, the Democratic Party has shown a willingness to compromise whereas the GOP has attempted to shut down out our government to get what they want, even at the expense of the general population.  If you don't vote for a candidate that can win, you are saying you are ok with either winning, and for me, rights matter more than finances.  That being said, neither the Dems or GOP have been good with finances, however, the Dems are at least trying.  You don't cut taxes when we have a deficit, you don't start a war we can't win with money we don't have.  I'd rather spend money at home than in a war and the Dems get that. 

[MoneyCat]

There are two ways to think about government in general: 1.)  Government exists to control you and dictate your life, or 2.) Government exists to serve you.  I tend to think the second way, so I vote in terms of which party provides the most to me.  That generally turns out to be the Democratic Party.  I'm sure multimillionaires feel differently, because cutting taxes will save them $50K, $100K, or more, but I haven't reached that level yet, so I like having subsidized healthcare and services.  When it comes down to it, I think people should vote for whatever benefits them the most.  Who cares if that "takes" from someone else?  Not my problem.

[CDP45]

There are two ways to think about government in general: 1.)  Government exists to control you and dictate your life, or 2.) Government exists to serve you.  I tend to think the second way, so I vote in terms of which party provides the most to me.  That generally turns out to be the Democratic Party.  I'm sure multimillionaires feel differently, because cutting taxes will save them $50K, $100K, or more, but I haven't reached that level yet, so I like having subsidized healthcare and services.  When it comes down to it, I think people should vote for whatever benefits them the most.  Who cares if that "takes" from someone else?  Not my problem.

Thank you sir, you have succinctly confirmed my views. This is the opposite view of self-reliance and people who create value, providers.

[MoneyCat]

There are two ways to think about government in general: 1.)  Government exists to control you and dictate your life, or 2.) Government exists to serve you.  I tend to think the second way, so I vote in terms of which party provides the most to me.  That generally turns out to be the Democratic Party.  I'm sure multimillionaires feel differently, because cutting taxes will save them $50K, $100K, or more, but I haven't reached that level yet, so I like having subsidized healthcare and services.  When it comes down to it, I think people should vote for whatever benefits them the most.  Who cares if that "takes" from someone else?  Not my problem.

Thank you sir, you have succinctly confirmed my views. This is the opposite view of self-reliance and people who create value, providers.

So what?  You are free to leave the country whenever you want if you don't like democracy.

[dividendman]

There are two ways to think about government in general: 1.)  Government exists to control you and dictate your life, or 2.) Government exists to serve you.  I tend to think the second way, so I vote in terms of which party provides the most to me.  That generally turns out to be the Democratic Party.  I'm sure multimillionaires feel differently, because cutting taxes will save them $50K, $100K, or more, but I haven't reached that level yet, so I like having subsidized healthcare and services.  When it comes down to it, I think people should vote for whatever benefits them the most.  Who cares if that "takes" from someone else?  Not my problem.

Thank you sir, you have succinctly confirmed my views. This is the opposite view of self-reliance and people who create value, providers.

There's self-reliance and then there is stupidity. I like to always start off any financial choice by assuming I am a business. My goal is to maximize my own profit (savings). Just as businesses lobby (vote) to change the rules in their favor (as it is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do so) that is how I must act in my own business for my shareholder (me). Therefore, if there is more benefit to "taking" tax money in the form of programs I use, I'll vote for that. If there is more benefit to reducing taxes, I'll vote for that. Just like any business.

Now, the argument can be made that "Hey, but you're not a business, you're taking from person X to enrich yourself!" True. But businesses do this all the time in the form of gaining government subsidies/preferential tax treatment.

This should not be a personal values discussion at all in my view. It doesn't matter if it's not self-reliant or I'm on the government dole or I'm begging on a street corner (if that's the best way to increase my profit). Who to vote for (for their fiscal platform - I'm purposefully ignoring social platforms) should be a cut and dry financial decision.

[austin]

I always get a kick out of how libertarians view the world. While they can be annoying, part of me is glad that there are a few here to clown around for our entertainment.

[MoneyCat]

There are two ways to think about government in general: 1.)  Government exists to control you and dictate your life, or 2.) Government exists to serve you.  I tend to think the second way, so I vote in terms of which party provides the most to me.  That generally turns out to be the Democratic Party.  I'm sure multimillionaires feel differently, because cutting taxes will save them $50K, $100K, or more, but I haven't reached that level yet, so I like having subsidized healthcare and services.  When it comes down to it, I think people should vote for whatever benefits them the most.  Who cares if that "takes" from someone else?  Not my problem.

Thank you sir, you have succinctly confirmed my views. This is the opposite view of self-reliance and people who create value, providers.

There's self-reliance and then there is stupidity. I like to always start off any financial choice by assuming I am a business. My goal is to maximize my own profit (savings). Just as businesses lobby (vote) to change the rules in their favor (as it is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do so) that is how I must act in my own business for my shareholder (me). Therefore, if there is more benefit to "taking" tax money in the form of programs I use, I'll vote for that. If there is more benefit to reducing taxes, I'll vote for that. Just like any business.

Now, the argument can be made that "Hey, but you're not a business, you're taking from person X to enrich yourself!" True. But businesses do this all the time in the form of gaining government subsidies/preferential tax treatment.

This should not be a personal values discussion at all in my view. It doesn't matter if it's not self-reliant or I'm on the government dole or I'm begging on a street corner (if that's the best way to increase my profit). Who to vote for (for their fiscal platform - I'm purposefully ignoring social platforms) should be a cut and dry financial decision.

Exactly!  Thank you for summarizing things so well.  Everyone is a business and our goal is to maximize our profits and reduce our expenses.  We try to elect people who will help us reach our goals.  The side with the most votes wins.

[dividendman]

I always get a kick out of how libertarians view the world. While they can be annoying, part of me is glad that there are a few here to clown around for our entertainment.

Aww :(

I identify myself as libertarian. But, as with all ideologies, there are practical limits. I'm a practical libertarian. We should limit government (spending) and increase personal liberties as much as is practicable. What this means for me is that there will always be social safety nets and restrictions on personal liberties, but we should seek to ensure they are the minimum required (in both cases) for society to function.

I also think some things should be outside of the capitalist sphere like medical care and policing... so maybe I'm not a libertarian... biauno!

[SF Semi-Mustache]

I always get a kick out of how libertarians view the world. While they can be annoying, part of me is glad that there are a few here to clown around for our entertainment.

I find it particularly annoying when people insinuate that progressives aren't thoughtful about government spending, but otherwise I'm glad the perspective is out there.