Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Rodney · 12-15-2005, 07:25 AM

There is an old maxim in government: "Guns or butter?" Meaning, does the government give domestic programs a high priority, or military programs? In the old days, 1950 and earlier, the common wisdom was that you couldn't do both because there wasn't enough money; you had to choose. And in those days, military forces were usually cut to the bone between wars.

In Europe, after the two great wars that nearly ruined them all, they put butter first. Makes sense; they had much to rebuild (with U.S. help), and the U.S. occupation provided security. The United States, as the sole undamaged _economic_ superpower, could afford guns _and_ butter for several decades. Partly because much of the social spending that government had to take care of in Europe was handled here by employer-funded benefits.

Now, we're not so rich anymore -- or at least the wealth is increasingly distributed in a way that the old employer-funded social services are not as available. But we're the only major power currently putting guns above butter. Even the Chinese gov't is putting a lot more emphasis on economic development (arguably butter) than guns.

So in my mind that is our major difference -- not touching on any of the reasons why guns have been a priority for the U.S. I personally think that without more spending on butter, we'll be unable eventually to care for and maintain the guns that we have bought, much less lift them and aim them inaccurately.

So in the end I think that both the U.S. and the European nations and Canada are -- well, not anachronisms. But unbalanced in a way that cannot continue. We will not be able to spend so much on guns indefinitely. And they should find a way to fund some of their own, instead of depending on an outside source. If they could give up their individual national pride and field a single continental defense force, they could probably afford to do it without spending much more. Just as we, if we really looked at an intelligent redesign of the U.S. health services and educational establishments, could probably deliver sterling services to all without spending much more, to a net economic gain for America.

12-15-2005, 07:25 AM	#13 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	There is an old maxim in government: "Guns or butter?" Meaning, does the government give domestic programs a high priority, or military programs? In the old days, 1950 and earlier, the common wisdom was that you couldn't do both because there wasn't enough money; you had to choose. And in those days, military forces were usually cut to the bone between wars. In Europe, after the two great wars that nearly ruined them all, they put butter first. Makes sense; they had much to rebuild (with U.S. help), and the U.S. occupation provided security. The United States, as the sole undamaged _economic_ superpower, could afford guns _and_ butter for several decades. Partly because much of the social spending that government had to take care of in Europe was handled here by employer-funded benefits. Now, we're not so rich anymore -- or at least the wealth is increasingly distributed in a way that the old employer-funded social services are not as available. But we're the only major power currently putting guns above butter. Even the Chinese gov't is putting a lot more emphasis on economic development (arguably butter) than guns. So in my mind that is our major difference -- not touching on any of the reasons why guns have been a priority for the U.S. I personally think that without more spending on butter, we'll be unable eventually to care for and maintain the guns that we have bought, much less lift them and aim them inaccurately. So in the end I think that both the U.S. and the European nations and Canada are -- well, not anachronisms. But unbalanced in a way that cannot continue. We will not be able to spend so much on guns indefinitely. And they should find a way to fund some of their own, instead of depending on an outside source. If they could give up their individual national pride and field a single continental defense force, they could probably afford to do it without spending much more. Just as we, if we really looked at an intelligent redesign of the U.S. health services and educational establishments, could probably deliver sterling services to all without spending much more, to a net economic gain for America.