No. Especially health care is solved much better in most of Europe then in the US, where it is approaching 20% of GDP.
1. Higher wages but this is a tricky thing. Germany exports too much, both, goods AND capital https://thewisemansfear.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/dland_ku...
2. Lower taxes, especially income taxes.
3. Much lower spending on "social" which is approaching a staggering and unsustainable 1 Trillion Euro in Germany. http://www.preussische-allgemeine.de/nachrichten/artikel/soz...
As the first steps I would do:
1. Invest money into infrastructure which is crumbling
2. Invest in military. If you invest 1.2% of GDP in your military, as Germany does, you don't have a military, you have a museum. Actually, an argument that Trump got right in regards to Germany. (Hey, let the Americans pay)
3. European border defense. Germany has taken millions of illegal immigrants (illegals since none of them would have the right to be an immigrant based on Dublin III regulations). Most of them can't even read. They immigrate into the welfare state. I don't judge this, I would to the same in their position. Immigration should be strictly handled like in Canada or Australia.
We were not talking about "propping up the economy", we were talking about sustaining it.
"You get more for your buck by giving the money to the people who will immediately spend it."
This is true. But by "importing all of India we don't make Calcutta rich, we make Germany a Calcutta" as somebody said.
"Germany doesn't need to increase the military."
Indeed it does not. Germany is in violation of her NATO contractual obligations. As long as she can "outsource" her defense and make the US defend her, maybe. In fact, Germany has no military anymore, Germany has a military museum.
"It's not running an empire like US."
She is unable to defend herself. Even Switzerland would be a formidable opponent in the current state. How many working tanks are left? 200 Tanks? How many helicopter pilots? http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Bundeswehr-fehlen-Hubschrauber-Pi... There is nothing anymore. And if you are German you will likely be able to understand the Latin saying: "Si vis pacem, para bellum"
"And doesn't need to find that kind of employment for the uneducated lower class."
What other options do you see for the millions of uneducated, low IQ (please refer to Wikipedia) immigrants do you have in mind? Most of them (75%) are supposed to be illiterate. Just social welfare and mosques?
"And Germany is what it is because of migrants."
Because of immigrants with a cultural similar background. Not because of a massive invasion of uneducated people from violent and tribal societies with a very different religion (I am agnostic). Why did the population of Christians in Turkey fall from 23% to below 1% in the last 100 years? Some things don't match and mix well.
"Do believe. And Japan is fucked because it's not accepting any."
Japan is a highly educated, highly industrialized, non violent, non tribal, quite egalitarian society with a tolerant religion. Yes, they are over-aging. But all industrialized countries are over-aging. So far it seems to me that the Japanese are doing the best for a soft landing. By the way, they are extremely restrictive to Muslim immigration. http://allfourestates.com/why-japan-has-no-islamic-terrorism...
You may also want to read this: http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/monsters-ii/
Perhaps because 100 years ago it was still the Ottoman Empire, which was a far larger state incorporating many Christian-majority regions?
[citation needed] Unless you meant "can't read German when they arrive"? What group/period are you even taking about?
They also quote, 70% of refugees that started a "trainee" quit.
In general I would say that most of social safety net benefits should be applied to citizens, and then be scaled down for the other groups of people living there.
If you restrict services to permanent residents than restrict the taxes we pay as well (btw I'm 100% certain I pay more in taxes than I consume in benefits, and Germany didn't even have to pay for my education or early life).
This is one easy way that the government could cut health related costs.
You're delusional if you think your 40% base tax is being mainly spent on education and the health system.
What is the bigger problem is that gross dev salaries are maybe half of what they are in the US.
Those $600+ billion have to come somewhere, don't they? And that doesn't even account for the unaccountable [0].
It doesn't look that bad in % of GDP because of the US's massive GDP, but in pure numbers, the US spends more money on it's military than the next 8 countries on the list combined.
[0] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army-idUSKCN10U1...
[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/the-us-spends-more-on...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-oba...
""" “Free riders aggravate me,” he told me. Recently, Obama warned that Great Britain would no longer be able to claim a “special relationship” with the United States if it did not commit to spending at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense. “You have to pay your fair share,” Obama told David Cameron, who subsequently met the 2 percent threshold.
Part of his mission as president, Obama explained, is to spur other countries to take action for themselves, rather than wait for the U.S. to lead. The defense of the liberal international order against jihadist terror, Russian adventurism, and Chinese bullying depends in part, he believes, on the willingness of other nations to share the burden with the U.S. """
What are countries supposed to "chip in" for? The deterrence of a future alien invasion like in Independence Day?
Why should the world chip in for US Ambitions that result in massive destruction, like destabilizing the Middle East, while dealing with most of the brunt of the blowback of such US foreign policy decisions, in the form of refugee waves?
Nobody asked you to be "the world police" no matter how much you keep telling yourself that, "the people there asked for US interventions", is a tale many US Americans keep telling themselves to keep the "We are the good guys" narrative intact, but it has little to nothing to do with reality.
Because reality knows no "good guys" or "bad guys", in reality such terms are purely subjective. As much as I like the US as a country and it's people, there's a huge difference in perception in how US Americans see their country vs how the rest of the world perceives their country's actions.
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"
No place is perfect and how "bad" a place ends up, always depending on how much an individual adapts to the given circumstances of said place. This holds true regardless of where you are, a democracy, a dictatorship or anything in-between.
Btw: If you want to talk about Crimea then we first need to start talking about Kiev [0]. Of course, that won't happen because then the whole "Russia as aggressor" narrative wouldn't fit as neatly.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
That "better" is worth defending against the encroachment of the "worse".
does that get paid to the US directly or do we all fund our own militaries that work...under US control? or based on our own ideas?
i'm just trying to figure out how this is supposed to work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
EDIT: Keep in mind that this is just the budget of the national government. Each state has its own budget that barely goes to military spending at all, instead focusing on entitlements, especially healthcare costs.
As a german, of course I don't enjoy paying high taxes, but that changes quickly once you actually get sick. Your health and education should be taken care of regardless of whether you're a janitor or an engineer - or their child, which can't change that status yet.