There are of course many differences but this one appears a significant factor in some problems the country must address. It is important to remember when considering any data table that the criteria used to categorize data can be somewhat flexible, and might contain a bias. For example how to convert various currencies to some standard currency. Another example, to what extent should various industrial military support endeavors count as military spending? Another caution here is that countries with small populations, a substantial GDP, or a concentration of wealth or power in fewer hands can readily spend more per capita than the United States. Geography could be an important special factor for Israel in its military spending.
Again reading data tables can be problematic. Criteria used can be flexible and bias can creep in. Even the most thorough study of numerous surveys, the people who conducted them, and their perhaps hidden motives can only yield a very generalized view of the matters. That is all we have here Always be mindful not to press assumptions on individuals or subgroups. Avoid "stereotyping" them as far as possible.
The political dynamic of the Middle East dramatically changed when Iran overthrew its Shah. Before that the military of the United States had been on the political right of opponents. With that change they found themselves on the left. There had already been considerable disagreement over whether the military was the proper tool to constrain communism. Later after the Soviet Union dissolved no obvious role for the military remained.
All that meant the pathways in the United States from poverty to becoming pillars of the establishment were changing and confusing, and probably more difficult. There was a snag in the "bootstrap" option.
Notice that both essentially agree what the solution is but have opposite ideas what the problem is. Neither seems to have received the memo that the military has been put out of a job over most of the globe. Many Republicans are still fighting the communists and many Democrats are still fighting the Nazis both like people on some uncharted island cut off from civilization. Did we get to covid-19 yet? Not quite. From 1979 till 2019 there is a noticeable sharp and steady rise in the national debt because the "solution" doesn't work because no one agrees what the "problem" is. There was a brief but insignificant pause in the rise of the national debt during the Clinton administration that many people credit to tax increases just before. So there are times when they don't agree what the solution is either. Anyway, whether they realized it or not, the direct train to national bankruptcy was the problem before covid19 and will likely be the problem after.
It might if there were a conflict between science and religion, but there is not. The notion that religion and science are in any sort of "conflict" is the result of poor, uneducated people who do not understand religion on one side arguing against poor, uneducated people who do not understand the limits of science and "logic" on the other side. The Bible is not to be taken literally, it never claims it should be. It rather obviously encourages highly symbolic and artistic language. Science has never disproved, or even argued against, the necessary role of religion in people's lives. In fact it is science that conducts lessons on the differences between creativity and logic. It is science that admits short RNA chains are not assembling anything alive and explains why they never will without far more talented assistance. A pernicious opposition to the truth involved people who believed in "random" agencies in inanimate nature. Although some agencies in nature appear to have "random" effects, they by no means have the freedom required to author anything. There are no truly "random" agencies in inanimate nature. Swirling smoke for example appears random yet it cannot author any polygons. Although a snowflake might swirl in the air, there is no swirling inside the "random" snowflake. Some proponents of the "Uncertainty Principle" noted there are things beyond our ability to identify, they never showed however that the outward effects of those things, which we can identify, are by any means random.
Among the most egregious mistakes of the "bad" scientists was trying to blame religion for disobedience of reasonable guidelines to constrain the virus. Only a very tiny percentage of "religious" people defied any guidelines, as did people with no obvious connection to any religion. When has any religion held a beach party? Most people of religious faith did not defy any guidelines even if they were skeptical of the necessity for them. That's what "religious" people (perhaps not Trump supporters) typically do, err, if they must, on the side of caution. And where were those bad scientists when border security was the issue? What you saw on television then was people representing "science" who failed to apply any mathematics. What they should have done instead of trying to blame religion is notice how many religious people preferred to cooperate with authority, which of course would actually use data they're so proud to claim they actually use. Had it not been for that obvious and misguided agenda against religion many young people might not have been deceived into believing their religion required such erratic behavior and perhaps many lives lost could have been saved.
An excellent way to see the line science may not cross is the birdhouse illustration. If everyone agrees they want a birdhouse there is a logical path to a solution. In that case "science" and logic can help. If people cannot agree whether they want a birdhouse, a lawn sprinkler of a badminton court, there cannot be a "logical" answer. Logic requires something "given" as true then predicts what follows based on what followed in the past. Unless people agree what they want there is no given, no starting point, no connecting flight, nothing at all logic or science can do.
Since most issues in society arise because people cannot agree what the problem is, it becomes absurd to depend on "science" or "logic" to solve them. Covid-19 is a special exception where it should be expected that everyone would agree it is a problem. For the most part indeed in both religion and science people did agree something is rather amiss with that. The solutions are the product of people both religious and scientific working without interfering with each other. Some of the best hospitals are founded and still funded by religious organizations. No, none of them defied guidelines. As is often the case, all the noise was the result of a very few "squeaky wheels." It doesn't seem likely that a person could both know someone who died from covid and advocate disobedience of guidelines.
That however is not quite any solution to the problem of the last forty years or likely the next forty. As long as people think of covid-19 vaccines as some sort of final victory of science over religion it means we're still on the same direct train to bankruptcy as before, not able to agree what the problem is anymore, and determined to use force instead of persuasion. As long as "science" or its bad representatives try to make biological parents irrelevant, some parents are going to resist. If "traditional" marriage in the sense of biological parents accepting responsibility for children is replaced by "science" and private property is replaced by "science" it means a totalitarian regime run by misinformed disjoint logic run amok.
If it is argued that in these times it might be wise to pretend logic is some be all and end all there might be some agreement, but where can be found anyone that fond of science and at the same time so ignorant of it? On Reddit? Religion might be the cause of traditional marriage and private property, but it was not, is not, and never will be the cause of covid-19. It is important to start understanding that today, now before anything else. There is a drug company with a television advertisement that says "Science is the way we get back to normal." If by "normal" they mean the direct train to national bankruptcy of the last forty years, perhaps that's true. If by "normal" one means people minding their own business, children and property, fear of a god is the way to get back to that. Actually "science" was (or its bad representatives were) the cause of losing sight of those important values.
A remarkably oblivious person asked, "If 'religion' wasn't key to finding a vaccine against covid-19, what is it worth?. What can it do?"
It can solve all the other problems the country has had for many years now, including many issues in medicine and psychology.
As with other data tables and findings based on them it is important to remember that these statements are at best a "sketchy" picture of the underlying reality. Even journalists who can access large numbers of respondents to questioning by reason of the journalist's association with some prestigious broadcast or print news organization can have difficulty putting a fair picture together. When the truth is not complimentary to any large assembly it can be difficult to make a living presenting that truth.
As already noted neither scientists nor theologians consider themselves in any competition with the other. And there will be no final triumph of one over the other. Science can help people understand the proper limits of science and logic and when opinions must be only opinions without the force in argument some would prefer. The high cost of health care in the United States is most likely the result of the higher demand for health care here. It is important to remember that the higher demand is an opinion that can vary from country to country obviously, not some "fact" that mean people in the health insurance field must recognize.