More Americans Die of Poverty than Terrorism

[Drolefille]

Source

t's obscene that our country is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the military when so many of our neighbors are suffering from poverty, hunger and the inability to meet their basic needs. Can we really justify this in the name of "National Security"? I don't think we're very secure at all when one in seven Americans lives below the poverty line.

The reality is that many more Americans die of poverty than terrorism. According to the U.S. State Department, 56 American civilians died due to terrorism worldwide in 2005. That same year, 472 lives were cut short due to homelessness (pdf) in Los Angeles County alone.

The rest is at the source. Even adding in our soldiers deaths to those of civilians, it appears that poverty would 'win' any numbers battle.

The author blames military spending, I'm not sure I know what the answer is. I'm not really surprised at the numbers, but this is the first time I'd seen the comparison.

[PiKA2001]

Meh, too bad the military isn't just for fighting terrorism or he'd have a better case. I'm a fan of cutting off all international aid and spending the money here on our own people instead.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Meh, too bad the military isn't just for fighting terrorism or he'd have a better case. I'm a fan of cutting off all international aid and spending the money here on our own people instead.

Yeah that disconnect made the point not work for me as well, although it tends to be lumped under "war on terror."

I did find this if anyone else has the patience for 5 parts. But essentially our cost overrun alone is more than the entire EU's defense budget and something like 3x China's military budget.

Even if the military doesn't just fight terrorism, it's still a good place to look at cutting funding.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Even if the military doesn't just fight terrorism, it's still a good place to look at cutting funding.

And they do, but the question of how much should we cut always comes into play. The U.S. military has a much smaller footprint now then we had during the Cold War, but the fact that a current gen fighter jet or Navy ship costs about 8x more to develop and build today then it did 30 years ago negates any sort of cost savings there.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

But essentially our cost overrun alone is more than the entire EU's defense budget and something like 3x China's military budget.

I've heard speculation that China's military spending is slated to exceed the U.S.'s within 15 years.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

And they do, but the question of how much should we cut always comes into play. The U.S. military has a much smaller footprint now then we had during the Cold War, but the fact that a current gen fighter jet or Navy ship costs about 8x more to develop and build today then it did 30 years ago negates any sort of cost savings there.

But you recall when there was a big to do about cutting old planes from the budget that no one uses anymore? The military didn't want them but Boeing(?) and others fought to keep them in the budget. I think there's more obvious fat there then we give credit for, but the congressmen and senators from those states don't want to lose the business. I get that, but that's not a good way to budget military money.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I've heard speculation that China's military spending is slated to exceed the U.S.'s within 15 years.

Possible, but that's a HUGE step. If, per Mother Jones' analysis our overrun is about 15% of our budget, then we spend 20x China does on the military (not including Homeland Security, classified intelligence budgets, or Veteran's Affairs.) That's beyond huge. I wonder what numbers are being used. The Mother Jones analysis points out that the official budget is around 500 billion but Congress authorizes another 300+billion on top of that. We're closer to 1trillion on defense spending than anyone would like to be I think.

This article states that China's growth is about 10% a year although this year it was only about 7.5%. Even arguing that it's really at least 10% a year, they couldn't come close to us. Is China big bunch of liars? Well that's possible too I suppose.

[KSig RC]

I think, somewhat bizarrely, that military budget issues are kind of in the same boat as bank bailouts and health care: the issues are so deep and the structure so entwined with everything else that it would be very difficult to scrap it and start over with something more efficient and effective (even if that would be the ideal solution).

So we're kind of left polishing the turd that is the military/industrial complex. I can't imagine there isn't a bunch of fat in the military budget (really, in any 800+ billion budget), but I'm not sure what can be done about it.

As far as the article: it's kind of like saying more Americans die of poverty than from falling off cliffs, since there just aren't that many military deaths in comparison to the larger population (even in wartime), but I hadn't seen the argument put to the numbers like this before so it's definitely interesting. I'm sure throwing money at poverty problems isn't the ideal solution, but (ironically) if I had the actual answers to the deep-rooted causes of poverty, I'd be a richer man.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think, somewhat bizarrely, that military budget issues are kind of in the same boat as bank bailouts and health care: the issues are so deep and the structure so entwined with everything else that it would be very difficult to scrap it and start over with something more efficient and effective (even if that would be the ideal solution).

So we're kind of left polishing the turd that is the military/industrial complex. I can't imagine there isn't a bunch of fat in the military budget (really, in any 800+ billion budget), but I'm not sure what can be done about it.

As far as the article: it's kind of like saying more Americans die of poverty than from falling off cliffs, since there just aren't that many military deaths in comparison to the larger population (even in wartime), but I hadn't seen the argument put to the numbers like this before so it's definitely interesting. I'm sure throwing money at poverty problems isn't the ideal solution, but (ironically) if I had the actual answers to the deep-rooted causes of poverty, I'd be a richer man.

I'd like to see some way to divorce the politics from the budgeting. I know it's impossible, but we shouldn't be fighting to keep bases or planes purely on the grounds that it affects someone's constituency or major donors. I think that's a bad way to run the military budget.

I think there are people who do know where that fat is, and they're either not interested, or hamstrung from the politics or not in the position to affect it.

The numbers are what made the point strike home for me, and I know there's not a single answer or an easy answer, but surely there's something we can do differently. Honestly I find it appalling that people in this country die of hunger or because they couldn't afford medical treatment. Poverty shouldn't be the reason people die. Despite the fact that it happens the world over, we actually have the resources to do something about it.

[KSUViolet06]

Poverty is VERY complex. While it sounds like a good idea, throwing money at it doesn't even BEGIN to solve the problem of poverty.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

Poverty is VERY complex. While it sounds like a good idea, throwing money at it doesn't even BEGIN to solve the problem of poverty.

Of course not, but there's something between where we are now and "throwing money at it" isn't there? Even if we personally don't have the answers.

[EE-BO]

"Nickel and Dimed" is a good read when considering poverty in America. It is key to note that the poverty line is calculated on food and clothing costs primarily- it does not take into account housing costs. And with the recent housing crisis- demands on rental properties are extremely high, making it even worse for renters. Suffice to say, the number of people living in poverty is far greater than the official numbers tell.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

"Nickel and Dimed" is a good read when considering poverty in America.

Co-sign.

[KSUViolet06]

^^^Yes. I loved Nickled and Dimed.

[PiKA2001]

How bout we combine the two subjects? Let's draft the poverty stricken into the military thereby using military funds to house/clothe/feed/pay the poor. Yay. I win. Me for president in 2010.

But in all seriousness I agree with what KSUViolet says, just sending someone a food stamp or a stipend every month isn't going to end poverty; To start we need better paying jobs for people.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

How bout we combine the two subjects? Let's draft the poverty stricken into the military thereby using military funds to house/clothe/feed/pay the poor. Yay. I win. Me for president in 2010.

But in all seriousness I agree with what KSUViolet says, just sending someone a food stamp or a stipend every month isn't going to end poverty; To start we need better paying jobs for people.

Terribad idea.

We really need the whole gamut in my opinion, services, jobs, education, healthcare, all of it.