Oh, it gets better. Many of our allies have so little military spending precisely because of our military bases on their territory, and our resulting ability to respond to threats with the same speed as their own military. So in some ways, we are, for better or worse, the world's policeman. And if we downsized our military, those nations would need to step theirs up (with accompanying spending increases on their end). Which makes me wonder if the U.S. is getting paid enough for our military services to those allies.
Re:The Case Against a Basic Income
by XR0CSWV3h3kZWg on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @05:39PM
(#16119815)
Heavy Lies the Crown
Re:The Case Against a Basic Income
by XR0CSWV3h3kZWg on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @04:59PM
(#16119530)
Not to mention that arguing for funding something by defunding an unrelated service only serves to complicate the debate. Modern US govt spending does not need to be balanced, the US govt has shown the ability to run insanely high deficits without US bonds being significantly downgraded.
If the argument was that the US can afford UBI because we can afford the military then that's more reasonable (although not quite correct as you pointed out).
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2018USbf_...
The article talked about a totally inadequate UK proposal that would cost over 6% of GDP to implement. The US spends more on the military as a percentage of GDP than virtually any other first world nation, but even it only spends 4.5%. If the US eliminated all it's military spending completely, it would still be many hundreds of billions short of the amount needed for the most barebones basic income plan.