With that said, what you see in San Francisco is largely a product of the combination of homeless friendly policies and tolerable weather. Many of the 'homeless' you see during the day don't actually sleep on the street (although a decent number do) and actually reside in SRO's, subsidized housing, and shelters (One complaint I have heard about SF, you can only afford to live here if you are really rich, or if you are really poor).
Fact is the homeless situation may be a bit ugly, but it exists everywhere, it just may not be as visible. At least in SF, it's harder to ignore.
I never hear discussions about Iran or Russia being a possible threat in Europe. I do in the US. Which is funny because it really is much bigger problem for Europeans to have guys like Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at their door steps. Never happens. The US bases and military spending is taken for granted. They prefer to talk about universal healthcare and help for the poor instead. As security is non-issue with the US soldiers deployed to this continent.
The thing that really gets on my nerves is that some politicians even want the US bases to be moved out from Europe. They simply don't understand the world in which they are living. Talking distances Syria is closer to Greece than Greece to Germany. Nobody thinks about it that way though.
The US pays the military bills for the whole of Europe and this amounts to money that can and is spent on social services.
European nations that provide universal healthcare spend less (as a share of GDP and per capita) on healthcare than the US does. So, while they may get a "security subsidy" from the US, it doesn't make sense to say they wouldn't be able to afford universal healthcare without it, since the universal healthcare they have is less expensive, as a share of GDP, than the non-universal healthcare the US pays for while providing the security subsidy.
Besides, having US base on your territory is not a guaranty of security - South Vietnam had a lot of them and it didn't help them.
If you study Russian expansionism since its inception hundreds of years ago, their strategy has always been the same. Russia strategy for centuries has been always the same: start weakening countries you want to invade decades before military action by the means of exporting intellectual fashions that will destroy country's defense system. They use spies and agents heavily for that. Polish kings used to be Russian agents way before Russia invaded Poland. Isn't that genius? Sponsor some crazy parties that want to cut military spending or some other that will introduce social chaos and not talk about real issues (i.e. "rights" of different groups of people, introduce heavy political correctness to avoid important topics), all the stuff to rotten country from inside first. In XX/XXI century this means helping create in targeted country via KGB socialistic elites, socialistic media, education creating weak confused people. So they will never vote for parties advocating strong military and patriotism.
So, this much better for Russia, this much worse for Finland. First thing KGB does is to make sure you (as a country) loose your common sense. Military spending when neighboring Russia? What for, right? No, we'll spend it all on help for the poor. Well, what I can say: Good Luck!
BTW: http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/04/putins-russia-to-make-...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union
Possibly also worth mentioning the tens of billions of dollars (and many hundreds of lives) that countries like the UK have spent in fighting mainly US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Given the military spend is 4.7% of US GDP it is patently untrue that military spending means that more couldn't be spent on healthcare. You could have a healthcare system that is 50% better than any other Western country, for everyone, just by reallocating the money already spent on healthcare.
Yes, money != outcomes, but it works roughly. Especially as there is so much low hanging fruit in the USA due to the shocking state of healthcare provision for the poor.
Bullshit. Not only are there examples of military independent countries (ever heard of France?) with better healthcare systems, but your whole theory about military expenses being the root cause for USA's less than ideal healthcare system is far too simplistic.
While Americans certainly tend to overstate the case, I've seen a lot of very proud Europeans claiming the US has had no stake in defending them, after half a century of Cold War left the US the sole standing military hegemon, maintaining an extraordinarily expensive reserve capacity to wage warfare on behalf of the West when it's not directly against their interests.
Universal healthcare is preferable because it's cheaper. The rest of the European-model social welfare state would be possible in the US if we didn't blow so much more than putatively 'military independent' allies on our military, and if we hadn't developed the popular culture we needed to justify that spending in opposition to "Communism". Guess what? We're kind of broke. Europe is going to need to buck up and raise its military spending as a proportion of GDP if it wants to remain in its comfortable non-tenuous position for the rest of the 21st century.
This is the kind of statement that only an American, and a very naive and ignorant of world matters at that, would ever make. US bases in Europe are no security at all.
They are a pest, relics of the cold war and unwelcome by the people of Western Europe. The US took advantage of the battered post-WWII European states and the (then real) threat of USSR, to promote NATO and establish army bases in Europe.
>I never hear discussions about Iran or Russia being a possible threat in Europe.
That's because a lot of Europeans actually follow world news and foreign policy and are not spoon fed the latest "enemies" by their media. Oh, and they travel to those "enemy" places and have been dealing with them, culturally, diplomatically and otherwise, for a millennium of so, instead of just hearing about them whenever their media gets its war mood on.
People in America can think that Iran or Russia are "a possible treat" because they rarely follow what's happening outside their hometown, and because all those ludicrous hollywood movies (I've seen tiny nations in Eastern Europe that their military couldn't hurt a fly even if they tried being portrayed as epicenters of plans to attack the US).
Discussing Iran as a (non terrorist) threat to Europe or the US is the kind of thing that only people needing advice from their Media to not conflate Chechnya and the Czech republic would consider.
>The thing that really gets on my nerves is that some politicians even want the US bases to be moved out from Europe. They simply don't understand the world in which they are living.
Oh, the irony.
by KGB Propaganda Specialist.
This is pretty cool too: http://www.amazon.com/Deception-Testimony-Yuri-Bezmenov-Prop...
I think they already won. Marxist at the White House. Isn;t indoctrination of the education system working wonders for them now?
You are the one who should learn more about Iran or Russia. You are the one naive like a child who thinks everybody's nice, while they are playing you. It was the same with Hitler (who some of you still claim was a great leader). It was the same with Stalin (who many of you still love in Europe). It's the same with Iran now. Seeing world in white & black only isn't good, but going deep into color spectrum so much that you don't see obvious is not too smart neither. Especially given your history of ignorance in the face of threats.
EDIT: "argument" instead of "voice" from here: "country and your only argument"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Europe
So, any attack on the German soil must result in dead American soldiers. Now, who sane would risk doing so?
Yeah, very convenient preaching universal healthcare and welfare for the poor when somebody else pays your security bill while you are sitting between Arab Spring and Russian Autocracy.
I think you left out a "think" between "really" and "the NHS" there. And, yes, the UK's public expenditures per capita on healthcare are less than the US's. In fact, the UKs public and private expenditures on healthcare combined are, per capita, less than the US's public expenditures (which, in turn, are less than the US's private expenditures). The UK's public expenditures on health care are also less than the US's public expenditures on health care as a share of GDP.
