UK announces military investment

[Rockstar]

I guess not having to pay E.U. membership fees freed up some cash for home defense. :up:



In a speech to parliament on Thursday outlining the first conclusions from the biggest review of foreign policy and defence in three decades, Johnson will announce an extra 16.5 billion pounds ($22 billion) for the military over the next four years. The defence budget is now just under 42 billion pounds a year.


https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-defence/update-1-post-brexit-uk-announces-largest-military-investment-since-cold-war-idUSL8N2I502H

[Jimbuna]

https://i.postimg.cc/FRvFvgtG/111.png (https://postimg.cc/jW8YQfSJ)
https://i.postimg.cc/Qtq8d9hD/222.png (https://postimg.cc/ftJnHbVq)

[Catfish]

I guess not having to pay E.U. membership fees freed up some cash for home defense. :up: [...]
And this is a good sign?
If i remember right the brexiteers promised to invest 350 millions a week into the NHS when leaving deserting :O: the EU, seems this promise aged like milk.

Which brings me to the question why the US (or Trump, but of course it can't be Trump because congress and so on) invests 740,5 billion dollars this year into "defense" (ahem) while not being able to put up a working healthcare scheme?

[u crank]

Which brings me to the question why the US (or Trump, but of course it can't be Trump because congress and so on) invests 740,5 billion dollars this year into "defense" (ahem) while not being able to put up a working healthcare scheme?

Maybe , just maybe, some of it goes toward protecting countries that refuse to protect themselves.:hmmm:

[Bilge_Rat]

Which brings me to the question why the US ... invests 740,5 billion dollars this year into "defense" (ahem) while not being able to put up a working healthcare scheme?

That one is actually easy to answer since a lot of economists have looked into the issue over the years.

The U.S. could afford a nationwide publicly funded healthcare, BUT they would have to severely cut back on defence spending to do it.

The reason why other countries, like Germany, have been able to afford generous social programs is because they were "freeloading", cheaping out on their defence spending since they knew they could rely on the U.S. defence umbrella.

[Rockstar]

And this is a good sign?
If i remember right the brexiteers promised to invest 350 millions a week into the NHS when leaving deserting :O: the EU, seems this promise aged like milk.

Which brings me to the question why the US (or Trump, but of course it can't be Trump because congress and so on) invests 740,5 billion dollars this year into "defense" (ahem) while not being able to put up a working healthcare scheme?


Congressional control over the purse not only provides a simple yet incredibly important check on the executive, but also ensures that "the government remain[s] directly accountable to the will of the people,"https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/protecting-congress-power-purse-and-rule-law


Either the people are for the most part satisfied with the healthcare system and prefer to spend more money on defense. Or as the U.S. politics thread seems to indicate they dont have a freaking clue what their representatives are doing and would rather just point fingers, gossip over things like comb overs, and the latest headlines.

To be honest, as a beneficiary of the U.S. healthcare system I'm very content. Granted it isn't the shinning example and perfect benevolent utopian system that everyone knows can only be found Europe, but I've always had decent doctors and treatment here.

[MGR1]

I don't disagree with increased spending on the British military, lord knows it can do with it, but where is the money going to come from?


Oh, I know - increased deficit spending......:hmmm:


Mike.

[mapuc]

I thought it wasn't how much you spend, but what you get for your spending.

Markus

[Catfish]

That one is actually easy to answer since a lot of economists have looked into the issue over the years.

The U.S. could afford a nationwide publicly funded healthcare, BUT they would have to severely cut back on defence spending to do it.

The reason why other countries, like Germany, have been able to afford generous social programs is because they were "freeloading", cheaping out on their defence spending since they knew they could rely on the U.S. defence umbrella.
You have a point there, like u crank also said: we have neglected keeping the military up to date and in acceptable condition, since we felt "secure" with the big players threatening each other with total annihilation.

Since the ending of the cold war security seemed to increase with the US being left as the only real superpower, and being on its side. This could have been the time to "re"-think, but we had nothing else to do than trample on the perceived loser of the cold war instead of connecting ties and lose ends of the post WW2 era. So when the next strongman arrived in Russia, the whole unilateralism fell to pieces (revenge!), and then came China.

Adding a Trump that killed the transatlantic ties, while at the same time withdrawing from international influence, for good or bad.

On the other hand, now with Trump steering the US into isolation and withdrawing from the stage, what does the US need the military expences for? Surely not for defending Europe, this ship has sailed long ago.
Also the accomodation and maintenance of US bases and personnel in Germany adds to the german expenses, with that we are way above those 2.x percent military spending.
If Trump pulls back from Afghanistan, and leaves Europe alone abandoning bases, listening stations, drone controlling and all the personnel needed as he is shouting all the time, what is this budget for?

Europe is now at a point that it will build up its military indeed, so what about nuclear bombs for Romania, Poland, Turkey and *gasp* Germany? :hmmm:

[Catfish]

https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/protecting-congress-power-purse-and-rule-law

Either the people are for the most part satisfied with the healthcare system and prefer to spend more money on defense. Or as the U.S. politics thread seems to indicate they dont have a freaking clue what their representatives are doing and would rather just point fingers, gossip over things like comb overs, and the latest headlines.

To be honest, as a beneficiary of the U.S. healthcare system I'm very content. Granted it isn't the shinning example and perfect benevolent utopian system that everyone knows can only be found Europe, but I've always had decent doctors and treatment here.
I tend to agree.. most people also (especially in Europe) have no idea and no clue what their elected politicians do, or have plans for.
The so-called "Buergerbeteiligung" (citizen participation) is a nice buzzword, but nothing more.
I take it the US health system is not as bad as it is often described, in international comparison and as it is shown in the "latest headlines" here. But then all communists here, you know :O:

Must also be hard to be criticised all the time by bloody foreigners about things that are none of their business, my only excuse is the internet that pretends to make international comparison so easy.
I promise betterment. Just not when it comes to an individual like Trump, this man is just mad :D

[Bilge_Rat]

a bit off topic, but the time to implement a new public health care system in a country that does not have one is way past.

Most countries put up their system after the war when the over 65 population was relatively small, about 1 for ever 10 working age adults. Most consumers of health care, not surprisingly, are us old fogeys. As the proportion of "elderly" has increased, healthcare costs have steadily exploded, at the same time as the revenue base has gone down since you have less kids who are becoming adults and entering the work force. You are now looking at 3-4 working age adults for every one over 65 and that proportion should go down to 1-2 in the next 20-30 years. That is what is referred to as the "demographic time bomb".

There is also a limit on how much you can increase taxes to pay for it. "Tax the rich" is a nice slogan, but most of a developped economy's tax revenues comes from the middle/working classes and tax payers have a hard time accepting tax rates that are much above 50%. Young adults entering the workforce are also not interested in paying high taxes to finance services for seniors which they may not have when they turn 65.

"medicare for all" is a nice slogan, but totally unworkable as a practical system in the USA.

[Kapitan]

Hopefully they refit the 45's will get the MK41 VLS and other things we are lacking.

[Sean C]

Maybe , just maybe, some of it goes toward protecting countries that refuse to protect themselves.:hmmm:


I think that may be just a little harsh. Sure, the U.S. contributes a lot to NATO. And to non-NATO countries. But the U.S. is the size of all of Europe. The U.S. population is about 44% that of Europe. We are also the largest economic market on Earth.


Comparing the U.S. contribution to global security to that of any other individual country [except maybe China but ... come on], is - IMHO - a little unfair.

[Jimbuna]

Hopefully they refit the 45's will get the MK41 VLS and other things we are lacking.

I should imagine every General, Admiral and Air Commodore will already be preparing their wish lists.

[Rockstar]

You have a point there, like u crank also said: we have neglected keeping the military up to date and in acceptable condition, since we felt "secure" with the big players threatening each other with total annihilation.

Since the ending of the cold war security seemed to increase with the US being left as the only real superpower, and being on its side. This could have been the time to "re"-think, but we had nothing else to do than trample on the perceived loser of the cold war instead of connecting ties and lose ends of the post WW2 era. So when the next strongman arrived in Russia, the whole unilateralism fell to pieces (revenge!), and then came China.

Adding a Trump that killed the transatlantic ties, while at the same time withdrawing from international influence, for good or bad.

On the other hand, now with Trump steering the US into isolation and withdrawing from the stage, what does the US need the military expences for? Surely not for defending Europe, this ship has sailed long ago.
Also the accomodation and maintenance of US bases and personnel in Germany adds to the german expenses, with that we are way above those 2.x percent military spending.
If Trump pulls back from Afghanistan, and leaves Europe alone abandoning bases, listening stations, drone controlling and all the personnel needed as he is shouting all the time, what is this budget for?

Europe is now at a point that it will build up its military indeed, so what about nuclear bombs for Romania, Poland, Turkey and *gasp* Germany? :hmmm:








Lament about how western powers trampled on Russia. But didnt Trump initially want to better ties with Russia? Then soon afterwards accused of just wanting to build hotels, collusion with Putin and then impeached by political rivals? Also NATO just isn't regulated to cold war fronts anymore. It's expanded into Africa, the Baltic, Afghanistan and Middle east. I think that's where the call for European nations to help with costs comes into play here.

As for Trump steering the U.S. into isolationism, that's another impossibility and very funny. Only thing that could make that happen is an economic collapse. Wuhan anyone? :o

https://www.basenation.us/uploads/5/7/1/7/57170837/edited/vine-bases-map-island-of-shame-2009.jpeg