The U.S. Public Funding Joke

The U.S. hate the idea of public spending preferring money to come from private spenders/investors.

Contrary to this idea however is the military. Apparently something like 4% of GDP is spent on the military each year. In the crudest possible way that means that 4% of jobs in the U.S. come from government military spending. We know that the figure is substantially larger because off shore spending isn't included in the figure. But at 4% it means that at least 1 in 25 people in the U.S. get their money entirely from federal military spending (and that ignore everyone employed by other parts of the state apparatus etc) - i.e. public spending.

Now America could bin its military and become a neutral country and just pay these people that money for nothing. Or pay people to do something like paint pictures or council drug addicts or build housing for the homeless... the list is endless, but would build a better America by far than any bomb dropping could do. I Can't see what war actually brings America apart from reducing the unemployment rate in a disguised way? So much for the hypocritical U.S. aversion to public spending!

Alternatively if America is serious it could find private owners to take over the reigns of the U.S. Military ... always tickles my sense of humour that thought :D

===

Just realised the previous post is precisely linked to this. Rather than spend a fortune trying to drop a bomb on every drug farmer in the world, and then having to drop a bomb on every farmer that comes up underneath to take over the lucrative business hole left behind, a very simple observation is required.

Given the current availability of drugs some people become a problem and other people have no problem at all. I for one have no interest in taking drugs (not even prescribed pharmaceuticals) yet I have the same access to them as the drug users who visit the dealer at the end of my street. If we have the same access but I don't do drugs and they do, then it seems that the drug supply isn't the problem and so no number of bombs will solve the problem. Actually people in the U.S. probably know this but the very fact it doesn't work keeps the military going and keeps people in jobs for life. But if anyone ever wanted to stop drugs they only need analyse why I don't do drugs and some people become dependent and then start solving the problem there. I believe for starters social class has a lot to do with what drugs you do and the dependency levels. I don't do drugs because I get my kicks a million other ways - including trying to come off kicks all together (see much older posts in this blog). Throw a few trillion at the class structure in U.S. rather than flattening foreign countries seems a grown up way forward. But as analysed in great depth in this blog the very last thing humans will/may be able to create is a flat social structure. Everything about life (as we know it) is built on inequality.

This links to the previous post because rather than try and escape the box of drug abuse in Western societies the right solution is to find out what the people who are creating that box for society are trying to achieve and help them out of the box by generosity. Problem is it probably goes to the core of the vast problems in social conception that this blog at least is free to explore,and which no one in power will benefit from realising.

For drugs any of the U.S. military targets can be inserted. What was clever about Iraq and we hope Afghanistan is that (eventually after the red-necks like Rumsfeld/Cheney etc stepped out of the military "planning") the country was reconstructed. What is extraordinary is that the U.S. didn't pay Bechtel the billions of dollars required to reconstruct their own country first. More of a joke they gave even larger sums to the banking sector a few years later. I mean who starts renovating the neighbours house before their own? It is this perverted thinking - which means that the U.S. people willingly pay for other countries to be rebuilt while they criticise their own government as Communist for spending even a dime on their own country - which I find absurd to the point of comical. Yes a friendly Iraq is good for the U.S. because it secures oil supply but if it is acceptable to spend tax payer money on this, then why not directly on social spending? Though of course the Rumsfelds and Cheneys are laughing all the way to the bank with this paradoxical set up since they are being told by the people to have no social responsibility at all and spend all the tax money on anything but U.S. home policy - utterly extraordinary.