If we pulled out of Europe, can the EU still afford its social services?

...LOL... Yeah right...!

If the Germans rose up they'd quickly deal with the US troops in Germany. You should study your history. It was the Red Army that ripped the guts out of the Wehrmacht not the US Army... The US Airforce on the other hand did defeat the Luftwaffe... The US troops really do nothing in Germany. Least of all keeping the Germans from rising with new Nazi hatred...

Germany no longer practices those imperialist, Nazi policies... Why would they...? They have most of Europe by the balls through financial means!

The only land threat to Western Europe comes from Russia. AND the Russians have also given up on their imperialism. They prefer to fight for oil instead. Since Western Europe doesn't have any I think they'll be safe. Although, I'm pretty sure we may see Norway in trouble with them over Arctic oil and gas...! So US troops are useless. Perhaps some US Navy ships that can handle the Arctic may be required to protect Norway...! But that's about it...

 

BRUSSELS — Eurozone unemployment has risen to its highest level since before the euro was introduced, data showed on Tuesday, a day after EU leaders promised to focus on creating millions of new jobs to try to kick-start Europe’s floundering economy.

Joblessness among the 17 countries sharing the single currency rose to 10.4 per cent in December, on a par with an upwardly revised November figure, the EU’s statistics office Eurostat said in its release of seasonally-adjusted data.

It was the highest rate since June 1998, before the euro was introduced in 1999.

“We’re looking at a further increase over the coming months, so that is worrying,” said Martin van Vliet, an economist at ING. “Look at Greece, where unemployment is some 20 per cent, and it is 23 per cent in Spain. At a certain point this could lead to political unrest.”

After two years of debt crisis and budget austerity, the number of Europeans out of work has risen to 16.5 million people, with another 20,000 people without a job in December from the month before.

At a summit on Monday, Europe’s leaders tried to shift the debate from fighting the debt crisis to reviving growth in a bloc that produces 16 per cent of global economic output.

They are looking to deploy up to 82 billion euros of unspent funds from the EU’s 2007-2013 budget in an attempt to boost employment. But most economists expect scant progress while the euro zone’s high debtors are compelled to persist with harsh austerity programmes under a new “fiscal compact”.

Citigroup dubbed the German-inspired pact for stricter budget discipline, agreed by 25 EU leaders on Monday, as a “compact for low growth”, while one European diplomat has said that it “essentially makes Keynesianism illegal.”

Even with a pro-growth plan, a growing gap between the wealthy nations of northern Europe and those of the poorer, less productive south overshadows any EU-wide jobs policies implemented from Brussels.

Germany’s unemployment rate fell to 6.7 per cent in January, separate figures showed, a record low since figures for unified Germany were first published.

Austria boasted the euro zone’s lowest jobless rate at 4.1 per cent in December, followed by the Netherlands at 4.9 per cent.

But unemployment in Spain reached a new high of 22.9 per cent in November and December. In Greece, joblessness was 19.2 per cent for October, the latest data available. Unemployment reached 13.6 per cent in Portugal in the final month of 2011.

“ALARMING” YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

High joblessness is a blight on the European economy, and youth unemployment is a particular problem, especially in Spain, where almost half of young people cannot find full-time work.

A spokeswoman for European Commission President José Manuel Barroso said on Tuesday pan-EU youth unemployment was “unacceptable” and “alarming.”

Even in non-euro zone Britain, one of the world’s top 10 economies, youth unemployment is almost three times that of Germany, at 22 per cent of under 25s. That figure reaches 24 per cent in France and 30 per cent in Italy.

“For me this is the most painful aspect of the whole situation we’re facing in Europe, this great divergence on the labour market. Because if unemployment in Germany is falling, we may see less preparedness to help out the rest of the euro zone,” Van Vliet said.

After years of falling unemployment, the 2008-2009 global financial crisis destroyed job creation prospects in Europe and the ensuing sovereign debt crisis has only worsened the outlook.

In the 27-nation European Union, the number of jobless has risen steadily from a recent low of 7.1 per cent of the working population in 2008 to 9.9 per cent in December — some 23.6 million people.

Economists say it could reach 11 per cent by mid-2012.

“It’s very important that we don’t forget the growth and the jobs,” Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schimdt told reporters as she arrived at the half-day summit on Monday. “Everything starts and ends with growth and jobs,” she said.

....................................

load up on guns and ammo.
stock up the bunker.

it ain't going to be pretty.

s

 

yeah it's not other countries europe needs to protect itself from... it needs protection from its own population. just think greece X 100 when the rest of the PIGS go through the same.

 

They set up the EU so badly it can't possibly work e.g. it needs 100% agreement through 27 countries to implement anything.

In a word - rubbish

It won't matter how many billions Frau Frumpy and the Weazle pump into this mess it's a black hole and not salvageable in it's present form - only the top people are too stupid to understand this.

As they pusue policies advocated by Mugabe, the currency becomes increasingly worthless. Of course the top lot say it's the fault of the poor as they shift the blame. There must be something of a feeding fest as the billions are syphoned off into Swiss bank accounts.

 

Can anyone explain why, 21 years after the Cold War ended, there are any American bases or even troops in Europe at all? It's not like the Europeans can't defend themselves. What exactly is the purpose of keeping them there?

This seems like one of the most irrational policies in recent history.

 

I my opinion your premise is incorrect. You are assuming, as do most, that the reason we are in Europe is to provide security. In reality the reason we are in Europe is the same as the reason we are in most of the other overseas locations, namely to provide corporate welfare to the U.S. defense industry. The U.S. has not been attacked by another nation since 1941, though we have attacked other countries since then, and that has made us less safe. It is not likely that the U.S. will be attacked by another nation any time in the foreseeable future. We don't need to be in Europe, other than a skeleton force for coordination with NATO. If the U.S. forces were not in Europe, the Europeans would not need to spend any more on defense than they do now. (Germany ~ 300$/person-year vs. U.S. either 2K$ or 4K$ depending on whether you include vet benefits and interest.)

The so-called war on terror should have been handled as a covert police and special forces operation from the start. There is no place for conventional armies in that war.

The U.S. can easily cut its defense appropriation by 50% over ten years and still have the most capable military force in the world. Right now, the U.S. spends almost as much on its military as all the other nations combined. That's insane. That money should be in consumers pockets and used to build infrastructure where the U.S. seriously lags the other developed nations. The U.S. defense industry needs to be converted to produce something useful.

As just one example of the absurd waste of resources and money that is the U.S. "defense" industry, consider that the Pentagon has something like 2000 fighter aircraft on order. This is as absurd at the beginning of the 21st century as the Army Calvary was at the beginning of the 20th century. Also consider that if just one less fighter aircraft were to be built and the money saved diverted to the National Endowment for the Arts, the latter's budget would be nearly doubled. Then, no matter how you feel about the NEA, consider how much of benefit the U.S. population would derive from these alternate choices in expenditure, and it is easy to see just how absurdly misguided the U.S. fixation on war is.

 

I see no reason why the US Army needs to remain in Europe... Let's pretend that a reason would arrise in the forseeable future where the Europeans couldn't defend themselves and asked for help.

It would be relatively easy to redeploy the troops... In the long run much cheaper and far more efficient than keeping them there doing nothing.

 

You are so right! And given the consensus of this thread, what the Hell are we doing, and why do we persist in doing something that makes absolutely no sense for anyone other than those whose political sustenance requires that they mindlessly support every whim of the "defense" industry via endless fear mongering.