A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Can we just kick out Hungary already?
Hungarians; nothing against your hut until you got your shit together and rid yourself of the dictator wannabe, we can't have Hungary be the the saboteur of every good thing the EU is trying to do
The decision to kick a country out of the EU needs to be unanimous with the current treaty. In the past it's not been an option since there's at least two rogue states that will block such moves since that will make each of them safe.
Currently the EU is withholding EU funding to get concessions out of Orban which kinda works. Only a treaty change will fix this when they turn the unanimous voting into a qualified majority voting.
It's essentially like trying to change the constitution of a county except currently it's unanimous voting of the council of countries. Switching to a 75% of countries + 2/3 of parliament would is what the EU is gravitating towards but that will involve more concessions with Hungary.
And just like that America lost that much foreign power.
Good work EU.
You could always invest in the European defense industry, rather than US stocks https://i.imgur.com/cUpqyJo.png . In any case I'm not looking forward to the US becoming Russia 2.0.
But they finally got what they've wanted - NATO spending their agreed amount. Let's see how it goes 🤷♂️
Maybe the US's collapse will be good thing long-term. Sucks that so many people have to suffer before that, though.
About fucking time
Trump is an asshole, and the US should absolutely be the leader in defending Ukraine given its stockpiles and technologies and the immediacy of the need.
At the same time, Europe was able to fund some pretty nice social programs by minimizing defense spending over the last few decades. They could only do that with aggressors on their borders by relying far too heavily on the US.
They could only do that with aggressors on their borders by relying far too heavily on the US.
Not true. They can always take money from their ruling class and give it to their working class.
That statement applies to minimizing defense spending. Of course you can raise revenues and spend more. If you spend less in other areas, you don't need to.
The US government spends more per total capita on healthcare than any country with nationalized healthcare, but in the US it covers less than a third of the population.
The US spends more on defense than anyone but it keeps fucking things up all around the world to justify those spendings.
The US can afford social programs, it decides not to, so give us all a fucking break.
I have only one correction and it’s a small one. The US spends more on healthcare but that spending isn’t all by the US government. Your main point still stands. The system sucks.
In 2022, the United States spent an estimated $12,742 per person on healthcare — the highest healthcare costs per capita across similar countries.
Healthcare spending is driven by utilization (the number of services used) and price (the amount charged per service). An increase in either of those factors can result in higher healthcare costs. Despite spending nearly twice as much on healthcare per capita, utilization rates in the United States do not differ significantly from other wealthy OECD countries. Prices, therefore, appear to be the main driver of the cost difference between the United States and other wealthy countries.
There are many possible factors for why healthcare prices in the United States are higher than other countries, ranging from the consolidation of hospitals — leading to a lack of competition — to the inefficiencies and administrative waste that derive from the complexity of the U.S. healthcare system. In fact, the United States spends over $1,000 per person on administrative costs — almost five times more than the average of other wealthy countries and more than it spends on long-term healthcare.
What you quoted doesn't say what you think it does... That's governmental spendings and then there's private spendings over that.
No. Just scroll up and down that page I linked and you’ll see some charts are labeled “national spending” and some are labeled “federal spending.” Federal is government. National is everything: government and private. The US government is not pouring 20% of GDP into healthcare, and then on top of that there’s all private spending.
States + federal government account for closed to 50% of the total spendings, which is still more, per capita, than anywhere else that is paid via taxes and then the other ~50% people end up paying from their pockets either directly or via private insurance.
The end result is still the same, the US spends more than anywhere else per capita and what it spent only covers a minority, the rest is private insurance.
I don't mean to argue but... where does that link show that 50% of spending is government spending?
What I see there is: Medicare 21% and Medicaid 18%, which sum to 39%.
If we apply that 39% to this country comparison chart, the US goes to the bottom of the list.
The real point here is that the US spends more for less. I just wouldn't phrase it as "the US government" next time because, even if what you just said were correct, you'd be undercutting your point by half if you focused on the government.
32% federal, 16% states, that's 48% coming from taxes, two different government levels, still governmental.
The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any country with socialised healthcare
You're the second person to write that, and it's entirely irrelevant to European military spending, Russia, and Ukraine.
It's completely relevant to your fallacious argument that other countries have social programs because the benevolent protection from the US.
The US could have the best healthcare systems in the world without reducing military spending. It only doesn't for the sake of the profit of insurance companies.
Your social programs don't suck because of your "benevoloent protection" (which has turned into a mafia protection racket now) but because American hyper-capitalist ideology is a barrier against being able to create effective social programs.
I feel like I'm responding to AI at this point. I already responded ad nauseum that I was not arguing anything about the US system. Now people want to use my comment as representing their favorite Boogeyman.
What I’m saying is that you can have those social programs that you say Europe has and the USA would actually be able to put even more money towards your military. Your current system is wildly less efficient because it’s setup to enrich middlemen (insurance companies).
The social programs existing have nothing to do with military spending in Europe
Your first point has already been made by others and is off-topic for the post.
European governments have budgets. With a set amount of revenue, they can spend more on social programs if they spend less elsewhere. If they want to keep their social spending and spend more elsewhere, they will have to increase their revenues. Not having the extra expense has made things better for them, and now that is going to end.
It's very simple, and maybe people should stick to the point and not feel triggered to respond against hyper-capitalist America.
I keep hearing this but I'm a skeptic at heart. You wouldn't happen to have some sources would you?
Lots of people are saying Trump is an asshole.
That is the only part of your comment that doesn't need additional sources
More than likely possible depending on how they came up with valuations on old stock piles from the cold war. Depends on if you value them based on their original cost, or the modern cost to replace them.
UvdL is same as Orban, just much smarter and more evil. In general, requirement for unilateral decisions makes it the obvious suspicion that when Hungary vetoes something, in a different decision-making process it would be half of the member states, not just Hungary.
Anyway, this is not even about decisions, just "shows of unity".
I think European defense companies are going to make a lot of money, though. Rearmament is a word that even aesthetically invokes images from German 30s, or Soviet 30s, with those production lines making tanks and field artillery pieces faster than they make cars today. Of course, IRL the game mechanics have changed and they are going to produce different things mostly.
UvdL is not the same as Orban. She is at the very least pro EU when Orban is very much against everything. Orban might end up making the EU multi-tiered system where some countries will federalise more than others.
She is at the very least pro EU when Orban is very much against everything.
How the hell would you know pro what she is. She's not that transparent.
Suppose she, Orban and a few other types have a strategy of making decisions. Decisions are mostly formed by power, so when the balance of power is in favor of some decision, those who'd veto it just better not. Somehow every notable time everything is vetoed is by Hungary. Is it Hungary being so strong to not be pressured when needed, are all other EU members so moral (no such thing in politics and power)?
Compare it to how smaller countries torn between spheres of influence have different parties and factions, some pro-Russian, some pro-EU, some pro-American. Their social "stability" and general connectivity of their elites mean that people belonging to these different factions all have similar interests. Like mafia. But it's a normal thing in diplomacy to never put all your eggs in one basket, and to present difference faces.
So the same way in a medieval town (not talking cities with guilds and all that) there couldn't be two smiths. Competition really wasn't a thing on such small scale, not enough work to feed two people of the same job.
Hungary fulfills the role of the "interface" of the EU with Russia and Turkey and such. For its population and the general population it's a mistake, some Troyan horse, some disagreement, but it's really not, otherwise the problem would have already been solved the old-fashioned way. It's a diplomacy tool.
Also the EU and Russia are not really hostile. The war is about Ukraine and Russia deciding whether they'll have equal weight in Russia's energy dealings with the EU, or whether Ukraine will be treated as some intermediate colony in that. The EU kinda supports Ukraine because that'll give it better deals too, both by having a check on Russia and weakening it. If it were really about defending Ukraine, Russia's military could be negated overnight. But that would be more expensive (for the EU, not for Ukraine) and also they need Russia to keep its regime, which is very convenient, being immoral and spineless.
I mean, it's obvious and has been this way for all of history, if history books are boring, read Sabatini. It's not any more complex than workplace intrigue, but somehow people think diplomacy should be simpler than that.
