Defense Spending vs. Children

[Mickey'snewestfan]

Some nations that have provided "free" health care and a "free" education include the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cuba. They also limit or completely outlaw religious expression and free speech and in many instances determine where you will live and what your job or profession will be.

And some nations that haven''t provided free health care and free education include apartheid era South Africa, Hitler's Germany etc . . .

Canada, England, France, Japan, Sweden, and many other democratic nations where people have personal and religious freedom all provide more in the way of health care and education than we do.

 

[Bob Slydell]

How exactly does one measure "efforts to lift children out of poverty"?? Just curious where some of the "data" mentioned in the OP is coming from?

 

[rayelias]

I question the definition of "poverty" used here, as well.

In the evil, horrible US of A, those living in "poverty" still get free education, free food, free/subsidized housing, free/subsidized utilities, free/subsidized healthcare, etc, etc.

AND, many of the "impoverished" have TV, cable, cell phones, VCR's/DVDs, cars...

In the big bad USA, our minimum wage per hour is more than some countries make in a whole day!

"Poverty" in the US is NOT the same as REAL poverty in third world countries.

I don't recall seeing Sally Struthers in Peoria surrounded by starving children with distended bellys and flies all over them.

Living in "poverty" in the USA is still better than I'd guess 30-40% of the average citizens of the world. The "poor" in America are much better off being "poor" here than "middle class" in China, Cuba, North Korea, Afghanistan, Chad, Cambodia...

This is, without a doubt and despite our "problems", the best country in the world where, if you work hard, learn, and try, you can do anything and become anything your heart desires.

 

[Spoodleink]

How exactly does one measure "efforts to lift children out of poverty"?? Just curious where some of the "data" mentioned in the OP is coming from?

The whole OP is from a pamphlet from Ben and Jerry's. I saw them there yesterday it comes with a liitle post card where you can fill in your senators name and mail to them saying you want to increase "efforts to lift children out of poverty"

 

[SadieDog]

And some nations that haven''t provided free health care and free education include apartheid era South Africa, Hitler's Germany etc . . .

Canada, England, France, Japan, Sweden, and many other democratic nations where people have personal and religious freedom all provide more in the way of health care and education than we do.

I wanted to thank you for your responses. I just don't have the energy to "get into it" tonight. Thanks again; there are others that share your views.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Singapore, Sweden, Hong Kong, Japan, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Malta, Czech Republic, Andorra, Germany, France, Macau, Switzerland, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Guernsey, Canada, Luxemborg, Netherlands, Portugal, European Union, Gibraltar, United Kingdom, Jersey, Ireland, Monaco, Greece, San Marino, New Zealand, Aruba, Isle of Man, Italy, Faroe Islands, South Korea, Cuba, and Taiwan all have lower rates of infant mortality that the United States.

 

[PrincessKitty1]

Thanks to our health care system, health care is so expensive that NOBODY without insurance can afford to be sick. Really, how many people are wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for cancer treatment? Or for family policies that cost $800 per month (the amount I would have to pay if I COBRA'd my insurance)?

Currently my favoirte bumper sticker: What would Jesus bomb?

 

[FreshTressa]

It's the Federal Government's responsibility to provide for the common defense. It's the responsibility of parents to provide for their children. If the United States didn't have a strong defense, it wouldn't matter how much was spent on children, would it?

Exactly :nod

 

[FreshTressa]

Singapore, Sweden, Hong Kong, Japan, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Malta, Czech Republic, Andorra, Germany, France, Macau, Switzerland, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Guernsey, Canada, Luxemborg, Netherlands, Portugal, European Union, Gibraltar, United Kingdom, Jersey, Ireland, Monaco, Greece, San Marino, New Zealand, Aruba, Isle of Man, Italy, Faroe Islands, South Korea, Cuba, and Taiwan all have lower rates of infant mortality that the United States.

Then why don't they have people running through firing lines to live in their country? Why don't they have immigration problems? Why aren't people jumping all over themselves to live in those places?

Why don't YOU move to one of those places if it bugs you so much????

 

[Galahad]

Singapore, Sweden, Hong Kong, Japan, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Malta, Czech Republic, Andorra, Germany, France, Macau, Switzerland, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Guernsey, Canada, Luxemborg, Netherlands, Portugal, European Union, Gibraltar, United Kingdom, Jersey, Ireland, Monaco, Greece, San Marino, New Zealand, Aruba, Isle of Man, Italy, Faroe Islands, South Korea, Cuba, and Taiwan all have lower rates of infant mortality that the United States.

Many of them define "mortality" differently than we do as well. There are many reasons for the difference in that rate that have nothing to do with failings of the U.S.

 

[BuckNaked]

The whole OP is from a pamphlet from Ben and Jerry's. I saw them there yesterday it comes with a liitle post card where you can fill in your senators name and mail to them saying you want to increase "efforts to lift children out of poverty"

And therein lies the reason I don't buy Ben & Jerry's.

 

[LindsayDunn228]

I question the definition of "poverty" used here, as well.

In the evil, horrible US of A, those living in "poverty" still get free education, free food, free/subsidized housing, free/subsidized utilities, free/subsidized healthcare, etc, etc.

AND, many of the "impoverished" have TV, cable, cell phones, VCR's/DVDs, cars...

In the big bad USA, our minimum wage per hour is more than some countries make in a whole day!

"Poverty" in the US is NOT the same as REAL poverty in third world countries.

I don't recall seeing Sally Struthers in Peoria surrounded by starving children with distended bellys and flies all over them.

Living in "poverty" in the USA is still better than I'd guess 30-40% of the average citizens of the world. The "poor" in America are much better off being "poor" here than "middle class" in China, Cuba, North Korea, Afghanistan, Chad, Cambodia...

This is, without a doubt and despite our "problems", the best country in the world where, if you work hard, learn, and try, you can do anything and become anything your heart desires.

GREAT post!!

 

[kelleigh1]

Yes, this came from Ben & Jerry's. It was actually part of an email that I'd received from the company.

When I posted it, I didn't have an opinion one way or the other about the subject. I was just curious to hear what others had to say. And I'd say there was some very interesting feedback.

One thing I can say is that nothing is cut-and-dry or black-and-white. While this "flyer" can say if we didn't spend on defense we could provide everything for our children, it doesn't say anything about the consequences of what would happen if we really did take the money from defense. And one thing that got me wondering is this "defense spending"...does that include pay for our military? I don't know the answer to that and I'm wondering if someone else does. Because regardless of whether we are at war or at peace, we will always need to pay our military personnel...and believe me, they are not making millions.

 

[jgmklmhem]

Singapore, Sweden, Hong Kong, Japan, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Malta, Czech Republic, Andorra, Germany, France, Macau, Switzerland, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Guernsey, Canada, Luxemborg, Netherlands, Portugal, European Union, Gibraltar, United Kingdom, Jersey, Ireland, Monaco, Greece, San Marino, New Zealand, Aruba, Isle of Man, Italy, Faroe Islands, South Korea, Cuba, and Taiwan all have lower rates of infant mortality that the United States.

There are many reasons for our numbers being higher and only slightly higher in most cases.

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category -- the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality -- the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.

How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive -- and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent -- that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics. Taken from an article a few years ago that I used in a paper but right now cannot find my source...I believe it was in the WSJ

Other reasons are we have a higher percentage of "older" mothers having babies than most countries and that does increase the risks. Fertility drugs also play a part when some women are having say 6 babies in one pregnancy many times 2 or 3 of those six are born but do not survive. Abortion also plays a big role in the equation. In countries with more liberal or in China's case forceful abortion laws then our own many children are aborted before given the chance to live or die after birth. In some cases that actually might be a good thing but in others not...but either way it does skew the statistics.

 

[noodleknitter]

Wow! That is really interesting. Thanks.

 

[Jynohn]

I think Ben and Jerry should stick to making ice cream.

 

[Galahad]

There are many reasons for our numbers being higher and only slightly higher in most cases.

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category -- the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality -- the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.

How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive -- and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent -- that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics. Taken from an article a few years ago that I used in a paper but right now cannot find my source...I believe it was in the WSJ

Exactly right. The practice of Perinatology, while it exists elsewhere, is really an American phenomenon.

Also, some countries don't even count a live birth until the baby is 4 or 7 days old. If the baby dies before that it would be as stated above, just repoirted as a fetal death.

 

[BuzznBelle'smom]

You're right, that was a WSJ article--I remember reading it a while back.

People in this country complain about the high cost of health care--how much would be saved if we didn't work on these tiny babies? But, is the money well spent? If it were my child, I would say yes.

Some people act like the decisions like these (spend more for the poor and less on defense, don't intervene to save a premature infant) are easy. if they were, the politicians would have resolved them decades ago. The best we can do is make choices on our best judgement.

 

[KarenC]

I would like to see us divert some of the vast dollars we spend on defense to deal with children in abject poverty, not here, but in the third world. In the last century the disparity between the nations that have and those who have not has grown exponentially. Before the 20th century most people on earth were poor. After the industrial revolution, the western world prospered while others were left behind. The fact that there are so many on this planet with so little while we have so much is a national security concern. It's not good to have too many people with nothing to lose...

In his book, The End of Poverty, Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, lays out a plan that would enable us to wipe out abject poverty in our lifetime. It would take money and commitment. His proposal is for the first world nations to devote 0.7% of GDP to vaccinations, family planning, building roads and digging wells to give those in the third world the means to join us in the global economy.

Bill and Melinda Gates, recently joined by Warren Buffet, are devoting significant resources to this effort. I hope it's just the beginning.

 

[Crankyshank]

Then why don't they have people running through firing lines to live in their country? Why don't they have immigration problems? Why aren't people jumping all over themselves to live in those places?

Why don't YOU move to one of those places if it bugs you so much????

Actually many of those countries do have immigration problems. The US certainly isn't the only country people want to move to.

Back to the OP. Our defense budget isn't strictly bombs and the war in Iraq. There's a lot of cost nvolved in providing our defense. Especially considering some of the countries that poses the biggest threat to us spend even more money on resources for their own military. Would I love to be able to spend less money on the defense budget? Sure. I just don't think it's a good time for a shoestring defense budget when we have Iran and N Korea breathing down our necks.

As much as I feel poverty is an issue in this country, I think we've all ready proven throwing money at it doesn't help the problem (Welfare system). I do think there's a problem but I just don't see the federal gov't as being able to do anything about it but causes mismanagement of the money and higher tax burden for everyone to pay for it.