Funny how there are people blaming a capitalistic system, when what brought it down was the lack of capitalism. Government stepped in and changed all the rules, and it collapsed.
Kasz216 said:
Wait... since when? Outside of Iraq and Afganistan military spending is one of the better investments out there due to the jobs and techinological advances it creates. Actual operational budgets being countered towards overall military expendetures is disiengeious since you need such things to keep the military active and it's simply something that's done by people with an agenda. Vs research and weapons production which create a lot of jobs and... wheter we like it or not are valuable exports even after they've used up their usefulness to us. I mean one might as well bring up WW2 as an economic indicator if someoen wanted to argue the other way with an agenda. It was a lot of what got us out of WW2. FDR failing to get unemployment out of the mid 25% before that.
|
No, research and weapons production in a lot of case does not create that many jobs anymore. Military R+D has become excessively bloated as time has gone on.
Here is a perfect example, the F-22 fighter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor
In August 2007, the United States Air Force signed a $5 billion, multi-year contract with Lockheed Martin that will extend production to 2011,[9] and as of 2008, F-22 Raptors are being procured at the rate of 20 per year.[4]
Estimates of people employed because of the project are in the 10,000 range. That is simply pathetic in terms of job creation pound for pound. That money would go a lot further in other sectors of the economy.
Even John McCain thinks this is a huge problem:
Not to mention, we aren't even using these things! None of our current enemies, or even enemies we have had in the last 20 years, have even fought us in air combat. Not to mention not a single one of these things has even been tested in the air!
The cost of military research has ballooned up year after year. There are instances where Congress has even paid for projects that the military explicity said they were not even going to use because Congress didn't want to hurt these private military corporations. Its absurd. If that isn't an earmark, I don't know what is.
Now here is the real kicker:
We have spent $5 Trillion on military spending and homeland security since the Iraq War began in 2002. Did you read that? $5 Trillion! People are pissing and moaning about $3 million? The military has become a fiscal black hole.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/
But an examination of numerous government reports over the past few years shows the administration has had difficulties in stewarding the taxpayer money spent on the mission — a total of more than $5 trillion on wars abroad and anti-terrorism efforts at home since 2002.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
SamuelRSmith said:
And also wrong. |
How so? Or rather anymore wrong then blaming it on capitalism.
The problem is you are still balooning operation costs into other costs. That's where most of the 5 Trillion is going. That and bribes to other countries
The descruction and rebuilding of two countries.
Military research is still huge and very important when it comes to job maintaining and job growth... of course you can argue that we produce a lot of weapons we don't need. Though these mostly replace out of date weapons we have. Which is a good thing as it just saves lives.
I mean with an impending peak oil situation and resources generally getting worse I would want it's probably best to have as modern an army as possible as we may yet see again a day where near equals meet on combat over resources.
I mean that's like saying... I haven't had a fire in my house for over 20 years. So i'm going to stop buying fire extinguishers. All forms of military attack should be protected against. Having as well rounded a military as possible is a good thing. The only real arguement is if we're doing enough to handle anti-guerrilla tactics. Which the answer is i'd think... "Probably no, but anti-guerrilla weapons are messy anway."
When troops go active it costs much much more to maintain them then it does when they are just sitting at a base somewhere. Hence why the numbers are deceptive. If you look closeley at all thoes reports decrying military as not making jobs you'll notice they have two main data gathering points.
When spending increased during the Vietnam and Iraqi wars. Wars against far inferior forces.
Really when it comes to the deployment of troops. The economy only improves when it is vs a nearly equal foe as the buisnesses need more weapons. Rather then it just being the ones that are sitting around are being used. In fact such wars can slow down the replacement of weapons.
| Kasz216 said: The problem is you are still balooning operation costs into other costs. That's where most of the 5 Trillion is going. That and bribes to other countries |
Not if you have 1,000, like the F/A/ 18 that can still fight fires perfectly. Isn't military spending as an economic boosters considered 'broken window theory'.
A new fire extinguisher doesn't cost $20 billion. And exactly like jv said, you don't need new fire extinguishers when the fire extinguisher you already have is the best fire extinguisher in the world.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
jv103 said:
Not if you have 1,000, like the F/A/ 18 that can still fight fires perfectly. Isn't military spending as an economic boosters considered 'broken window theory'. |
I don't know what you mean by that.
I know what broken window theory is. But I don't see the comparison.
One coud argue that by stopping the upgrading of our arsenal we encourage action against us i suppose. Just how stopping to fix broken windows will lead to further vandalism.
I don't see what that would have to do with economic boosters however.
In the last 10 years, the military has done some amazing work in research that has reached the public, and saved tens of thousands of lives.
For example, in the lab I used to work in, we needed better cooling for electronics (to remove noise). That technology is now in medical equipment, allowing things like MRI's to be far more accurate.
An incredible amount of real world research comes out of the military. Removing it's funding would be the wrong thing to do.
I don't really see how you guys can complain about fiscal responsibility if you think the current amount of money we spend on the military is just fine. Being fiscally responsible means cutting programs that you like as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Its really easy to be fiscally responsible when the things you don't like are on the chopping block. Its much harder to be fiscally responsible when you have to give up something yourself.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
I haven't argued for removing its funding. The internet was created by DARPA. All I'm saying is that I don't see it being waste for projects to be outside of the military. It also really depends on the research that is being done.
Any type of research you throw that much money at should produce something, some benefit something tangible. I think you could get more benefits for society by funding projects directly - like medical R+D.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
