America is fundamentally broken

Author: Swagnarok

Posts

Total: 40
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,343
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
On March 5 of this year Brandon Johnson, current Mayor of Chicago, issued a tweet bragging about how the city has invested $11 billion to build 10,000 new low-income housing units. It costs $1.1 million for the Chicago municipal government to build a single "cheap" apartment.

In 2015, California commenced phase one its high-speed rail project, with the aim of constructing 776 miles of rail infrastructure. Phase one, which only covers 171 miles and less than half of which has been completed a decade later, will have a projected total cost of $106 billion, which comes up to about $620 million per mile.

In 2023 the US spent $1.9 trillion between Medicare and Medicaid, or between $5K-6K per US citizen, which in the same year was above the OECD38 average for total healthcare expenditures per capita. As you can probably guess, this is less than half of the total of what each person spends on healthcare. And for all that, we were ranked 55th in life expectancy, behind Albania and Panama.

Speaking of OECD, in 2021 we came in 6th place when it came to education spending at the primary and secondary (K-12) level, and 1st place when it came to spending at the tertiary (college/university) level. And what bang do we get for our buck? We are currently ranked 19th (out of 41 countries) when it comes to student performance. Which is admittedly better than I expected going into this post, but still.

Last year childcare, which is literally just babysitting infants, toddlers, and young children, cost the typical household between $5,940 and $19,040 a year.

When a country threatens to pick a fight with the US, Americans often half-jokingly threaten back to "show them why we don't have free healthcare". War is the one thing we're good at, right? Well, at present Russia's factories are churning out 3x as many artillery shells as the US and Europe combined, and reportedly 10x as many tanks as us. China's shipbuilding capacity is over 230 times greater than that of the US.
In the field of drones the MQ-25 Stingray, whose only mission is aerial refueling,  will have an estimated price tag of $136 million. Yes, to reiterate, we proved unable to build a drone that didn't cost more than the F-35. What was supposed to be the ultimate cost-saving technology didn't do that for us.

In short, the US can't build anything that doesn't face massive cost overruns and quality issues. But this isn't even the worst part: no matter what the measure, prices are steadily compounding year after year, growing faster than the rate of economic growth or wage increases.

And every word of this was true before Trump took office this second time. Many people allege he will break America. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, he will simply make the inevitable happen a few years or at best a few decades faster than would otherwise be the case. I don't mean to say that this is a trivial thing, but it's true nonetheless. Someone with a 3rd grader's understanding of math can see that the path we're on is mathematically unsustainable.
No one who's been president in the last 25 years has seemingly made even a dent in any of these problems. They sign a bill that throws more money at Problem A or Problem B, and in the long run that problem gets more expensive to treat. There's been a lot of talk, but when it came down to it no one has offered us a genuinely hopeful and optimistic vision for America's future.

Trump himself is inept, that should go without saying. But he has empowered technocrats who know how to run organizations efficiently. Even cabinet officials with no such experience, like Hegseth, and perhaps those with genuinely insane beliefs like RFK Jr., may be more inclined to give competent outsiders a seat at the decision-making table and break through intergenerational cycles of groupthink.
They might make everything worse. But for the first time since this crisis began, our chances of staving off civilizational collapse by the middle of the 21st century are greater than zero. By analogy, America is a patient with otherwise untreatable cancer and a firm offers them an experimental drug that'll either cure them or kill them faster. That's our current predicament.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 404
2
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
2
3
5
-->
@Swagnarok
I have already told you. Make me a dictator and I will fix USA in 3 days. You guys will never figure it out on your own.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 404
2
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
2
3
5
-->
@Swagnarok
But yes, you finally see that USA is very much doomed to fail. I cant really say that I feel sorry that USA will collapse. Lets face it. A country run by retarded government rarely has a bright future.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,852
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Swagnarok
Well, at present Russia's factories are churning out 3x as many artillery shells as the US and Europe combined, and reportedly 10x as many tanks as us.
Yep, that's why they conquered Ukraine in just a few months.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,343
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Savant
I never said or meant to insinuate that the Russian army is competent. My point was to illustrate how feeble the US military industrial complex is despite its bloated budgets. If this were the middle of WW2 our factories would be popping out as many shells in like a month as the US at present is able to make in 2 or 3 years.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,852
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Swagnarok
My point was to illustrate how feeble the US military industrial complex is despite its bloated budgets. If this were the middle of WW2 our factories would be popping out as many shells in like a month as the US can make in 2 years.
WW2 was a century ago. In the current conflict, number of shells clearly doesn't equal military strength. I know some of Obama's takes aged badly, but his point about "horses and bayonets" seems relevant here.
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,185
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Swagnarok
Or look at the infrastructure program biden passed to get high speed internet into rural areas. They barely made any progress and were already going over budget. I heard they're trying to just use funds to pay off Elon to use his starlink in remote areas. Now it's at the mercy of an autocratic oligarch. 

I didn't fact check these. But I wouldn't be surprised 
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 404
2
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
2
3
5
-->
@Savant
In the current conflict, number of shells clearly doesn't equal military strength.
Russia alone manages to drain both EU and USA together. This is a great victory for their Soviet motherland.
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,185
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
I think the solution is to promote smart policy. Politicians have lost the policy is politics. We shouldn't go full retard libertarian and have no policies and a wild west. But we should be selective of what policies we allow to be passed and work to promote what are essentially just 'good ideas' at their core
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,852
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Russia alone manages to drain both EU and USA together.
Not true. Russia is spending much more relative to their GDP. The US is barely feeling the effects of the war in comparison.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 404
2
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
2
3
5
-->
@Savant
Russia is spending much more relative to their GDP.
Ukraine gets over 100 billion dollars per year from Europe and USA. Russia's entire yearly military budget now is 100 billion dollars, but not all of it is spent on war in Ukraine. So dollar to dollar trade, Russia wins. This is even a bigger issue because it means Russia is achieving more than USA and EU combined per same amount of dollars.

The US is barely feeling the effects of the war in comparison.
I seriously doubt that, given that US debt to GDP is highest ever, while Russia's debt is rather low.

Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,852
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
debt to GDP is highest ever
Debt to GDP doesn't matter as much as standard of living. One reason being that GDP is an annual metric while debt isn't. Another being that the US has trillions in infrastructure and a huge tax base, allowing it to sustain a large national debt.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,343
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Savant
I know some of Obama's takes aged badly, but his point about "horses and bayonets" seems relevant here.
While this is ostensibly true, I'd say it only applies if we're talking about a means of warfare that is obsolete. Our main rivals across the world aren't fast at work building up their cavalry forces and stockpiling bayonets. But the PLA, seeking to modernize, has been fast at working laying down warships armed with 21st century weapons and sensors. You know, the kind of platforms that the US Navy of 2025 is built upon. And they're able to build these a looooot faster than we can. Even if you claim that these ships aren't quite as advanced as their American counterparts, isn't there some point at which this quantitative advantage matters?

As for artillery, it's not just Russia. The Ukrainians are also heavily reliant on these weapons. High-end stuff like tanks and fighter jets have been strangely irrelevant this whole conflict, even though both sides do possess such. Stalin's old maxim that "artillery is the god of war" hasn't lost its edge just yet.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,852
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Swagnarok
Stalin's old maxim that "artillery is the god of war" hasn't lost its edge just yet.
The point isn't really that artillery is obsolete, it's that differences in quality often matter more than quantity. Even looking at quantity, the US is sending Ukraine a lot of older equipment, which means that producing shells doesn't matter as much for getting a head start. Also account for the US having a much larger yearly budget, and Russia has a big economic disadvantage. So while the US might be spending more, metrics like GDP (7th in the world) per capita or total revenue (1st in the world) paint a much more favorable picture.

High-end stuff like tanks and fighter jets have been strangely irrelevant this whole conflict
Not totally irrelevant. You've got Abrams tanks, and the main challenge to those are drones. Also Patriot Air Defense Systems, which don't use traditional shells. So a lot of newer technology pushing the tide of the war in either direction.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 404
2
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
2
3
5
-->
@Savant
Dollar to dollar trade, USA and EU have lost against Russia. They have spent 2x more in that war than Russia did while Russia still wins the war and gains territory. Russian GDP also grows faster than that of EU and USA.

Debt to GDP doesn't matter as much as standard of living.
What does standard of living have to do with draining the enemy? The fact is, Russia takes more from you than you take from Russia.

One reason being that GDP is an annual metric while debt isn't.
Russia can go in debt much more. USA cant afford more debt. Russian debt is only 15% of GDP. US debt is over 120% of GDP. So Russia has more available resources to use.

Another being that the US has trillions in infrastructure and a huge tax base, allowing it to sustain a large national debt.
Thats the point. You already have crushing debt. Russia has almost no debt. So Russia is the only one who can afford to increase spending greatly, while USA and EU are at their limit.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,551
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
Yep, that's why they conquered Ukraine in just a few months.

You mean the Donbas, and they had that area taken in about 5 months and held it longer against Maidan aggression than 3 years.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,438
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Theft is fundamentally wasteful, always has been.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,852
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Greyparrot
You mean the Donbas, and they had that area taken in about 5 months and held it longer against Maidan aggression than 3 years
A far cry from the whole of Ukraine, and they have boots on the ground while the US doesn't.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,770
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Swagnarok
Age of the middleman and contractor. If you secure some C-SUITE manager position at a big contractor you will be very wealthy in the America in the coming 20 years.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,551
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
Russia can and will never take all of Ukraine. That they possibly could or would is propaganda. You were lied to.

Russia will never take all of Ukraine. Not now, not ever. The same reason USA will never take Cuba. It's all war propaganda, pure and simple, designed to keep the weapons flowing and justify the budgets to the people. You were lied to.

European leaders know this. That’s why they’ll never send ground forces in numbers big enough to retake the Donbas. That’s why they’re stalling on security guarantees. And it’s exactly why Ukraine was never actually allowed into NATO, because everyone at the top knew the war was never about saving Ukraine.
It was about saving the money laundromat.

IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,716
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
The problem with the US military budget is that there are too many soldiers there where nobody called them. 

If you withdrew the soldiers from the middle east, just to mention one the many places where there are US soldiers around the world, your expenses would drop significantly. That's why Trump is trying to bring peace instead of keeping conflicts unresolved and demand all Europe chip in more money for their military budget. 
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,438
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
If you withdrew the soldiers from the middle east, just to mention one the many places there are US soldiers around the world, your expenses would drop significantly. That's why Trump is trying to bring peace instead of keeping conflicts unresolved and demand all Europe chip in more money for their military budget. 
You're right in one sense, that more bases and more logistics ought to cost more money.

You're wrong in the more critical sense: The assumption that the expenditures of the US federal government are proportional to the achievement of the federal government.

In other words: if they spend a trillion dollars that must just be how much it costs to have soldiers everywhere and the best weapons. If there weren't soldiers everywhere and the weapons were a little less advanced then it would be cheaper.

That false premise here is that the federal government is fundamentally an honest organization where success is rewarded and failure is not. If the federal government is a money laundering scheme (and it is) then the troops everywhere and the advanced weapons are a by product. An excuse.

One excuse works as well as another. If they close a base in Europe, they can introduce a new project to blow people's brains out with X-ray beams on drones, it will only cost 500 billion and the end prototype will not work, nobody is to blame, same investors and corporations just get the next contract.

All governments struggle with this because it is inherent in taxation, but I assert that in all probability the US federal government is the most wasteful and most amoral of them all. Power corrupts, and the US hegemony after the fall of the soviet union has been unchecked except by the American voter; and we haven't been doing a very good job on average.

No one steals more, no one threatens more, no one infiltrates more, no one subverts more, no one lies more.

This problem won't be fixed by shuffling logistics around or firing a few park rangers, but I guess you have to start somewhere. Open the curtains and see who hides from the light.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,716
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In other words: if they spend a trillion dollars that must just be how much it costs to have soldiers everywhere and the best weapons. If there weren't soldiers everywhere and the weapons were a little less advanced then it would be cheaper.
Yes, it definetly would because the developement of the most advanced weaponry technology comes at a very high cost. I mean, as far as I know the US have the most powerful weapons of the world, right? That is not cheap at all. R&D is a very expensive area that companies should spend on because it involves a lot of trial-and-test procedures that nobody knows if it's going to work. It's very risky but if they don't do it they are left behind. I guess that's why the US can't stop developing weapons, they have too many enemies to deal with. It's a survival issue that shouldn't be limited by money.

I guess there's corruption in the weaponry industry because from what I heard the owners of these big corporations are part of the deep state but I think there is more in the operational expenses. It's well known, for example, that Biden and son have been laundering a lot of money in Ukraine. So, I would get rid of the unnecessary expenditure which is the operational expenses but never the R&D, at least not for the defensive weapons like an iron dome or something of that sort.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,438
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
In other words: if they spend a trillion dollars that must just be how much it costs to have soldiers everywhere and the best weapons. If there weren't soldiers everywhere and the weapons were a little less advanced then it would be cheaper.
Yes, it definetly would because the developement of the most advanced weaponry technology comes at a very high cost.
How do you know?


I mean, as far as I know the US have the most powerful weapons of the world, right?
Yes


I think there is more in the operational expenses.
In every category and at every level the difference between the base cost and what was paid cannot be accurately gauged.

You cannot separate logistics from government contracts and contractors. The base resources and every piece of equipment developed and manufactured.


So, I would get rid of the unnecessary expenditure which is the operational expenses
I would get rid of all unnecessary expenditure, but I'm saying it's 85% waste and 40% of that waste is subtle corruption.

There is no limit to how much of it can be wasteful so it's not like I (as a victim of the taxes) have any interest in discussing the relative priority of bases, R&D, or division count.

That would be like looking at a $1500 pastry and wondering if it might be cheaper to use pears instead of raspberries. There is something horribly wrong with the cost and the difference in cost of pears and raspberries ought to only be a $1.

In other words the people who will charge you $500 for three raspberries will have no problem charging $400 for a pear.

IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,716
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I think the best metric to know how much a country is spending on their defense and therefore in their R&D is this one based on the GDP. The US spends around 3.40%. Russia, by contrast, spends 6.3%. China spends even less.

In absolute terms the US spends the most because it has an enormous GDP but if you analyse it carefully the numbers square considering the US has the best weapons and is patrolling other countries as if it were the police of the world. So I think there is room to optimize the expenditure without neglecting the R&D area. 

I'm not saying there is no corruption at all levels of the military, this is something Trump's team should find out. What I'm saying is that the US can cut costs if they stop being the police of the world. I guess this is the plan Trump has in mind.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,852
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Russia can and will never take all of Ukraine. 
Maybe not. Didn't stop them from throwing away a bunch of lives and money.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,551
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
Maybe saving ethnic Russians in the Donbas from murderous Maidan fanatics was worth it. Maybe not. Doesn't matter to me. We shouldn't pay one dime to support or oppose such heroism.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,852
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Doesn't matter to me. We shouldn't pay one dime to support or oppose such heroism.
The point is that we can, and for a fraction of our annual budget. Swagnarok was implying that America has a deficient military capability.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,551
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
we can what... waste a ton of money on a battle line that never moves over 3 years in a war that is based on the false premise that Russia would commit nuclear suicide by taking all of Ukraine instead of the stated goal of Donbas from the Maidan rebels? Some military capability....

Your argument that Russia hasn't taken all of Ukraine solely because of the U.S. military’s capabilities is like saying a duck stays dry only because we spent billions researching ducks. It confuses correlation with causation. Just because the U.S. exists and is powerful and spends a lot of money doesn’t mean it’s the reason something didn’t happen, especially when we’ve (and the rest of the world) deliberately avoided direct military engagement.

Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,852
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Some military capability
Military capability has nothing to do with whether the war is worth fighting.

Just because the U.S. exists and is powerful and spends a lot of money doesn’t mean it’s the reason something didn’t happen, especially when we’ve deliberately avoided direct military engagement.
Ukraine is fighting with a lot of foreign weapons. You can assign a big portion of Russian deaths to American equipment.