General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 105

Umm...like it or not, government spending on the military is still technically "good" for the economy in that it creates jobs.

I don't think Warren endorsing Clinton is going to stop her from writing bills and stumping to shift some of that spending into other areas.

 

She shouldn't have. You can say you'd prefer it but the reality is anything but what she did is a dangerous, if not detrimental career move. Precedent indicates she will likely receive a cabinent position based on her prominence as a politician. Denouncing Clinton eliminates the possibility of that position opening up for her and she can do more good as a member of the Oval Office than she can as a senator estranged from leadership. This is a weird thing to explain immediately after a former senator, party leader, and cabinent member just won the presidential nomination over a senator estranged from leadership.

 

They don't disagree on the economy that much...
http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/38-40/Elizabeth-Warren-vs-Hillary-Clinton

As a stem-biased person who, as well as many MANY people I know, work at companies that get government spending classified as "military spending", as well as firsthand seeing the ridiculous technological developments done through military spending, it's not objectively a bad thing.



Also, and not asking to incite anything, do you think, all things considered, Warren should get/will succeed in a cabinet position?

 

Military spending is not "good" for the economy. How exactly are our 11 carrier groups contributing to our economy? The billions spent on advanced strike fighters that we hardly use, how has that been good for the economy? There is no real wealth generated in any of that.

And that's to say nothing of our destructive actions in countries around the world. How much wealth have we destroyed by bombing and destabilizing other countries?

 

Only issue with naming Warren to a cabinet position is she would definitely be replaced by a Republican senator in the interim, and then the Dems would have to try and win another off-year special election to get the seat back--something that didn't go too well for them when Ted Kennedy died.

Same problem with Sherrod Brown too, though in Ohio's case there is no special election, so it would definitely be a Republican senator until at least 2018.

 

I would've said to myself,"Typical."

 

“Contrary to the assertions of the arms industry, maintaining military spending at the expense of other forms of federal expenditures would actually result in a net loss of jobs,” according to defense expert William D. Hartung at the non-profit Center for International Policy. ” This is because military spending is less effective at creating jobs than virtually any other form of government activity.”
Study: Federal Spending on Defense Doesn’t Create As Many Jobs As Education Spending | TIME.com

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/spending_priorities_PERI.pdf

 

Not to be too harsh, but this shows some serious ignorance on what "military spending" is. Not all things classified as "military spending" are going right to weapons and ammo being used in current wars.

But in the case of the 11 carrier groups--you're literally paying thousands of sailors to man those ships, who in turn take that money and spend it in the economy/send it to their families/invest it in themselves or a business, etc....And, as much as it pains me to say, spending money on those fighters is going to people who develop that technology and who build those parts (the parts that aren't automated, of course) and then who maintain the equipment and etc. Would I rather those jobs be created in the form of, say, more teachers or more renewable energy suppliers/builders/engineers? Of course. But I'm not going to pretend government spending in and of itself is "bad" for the economy just because it's on something I don't like. If you took 400 billion out of the economy next year because you ended that spending and didn't put it anywhere else, it would definitely hurt the economy.

 

Oh super, a study and article agreeing exactly with what I said when I said "I'd rather the spending go elsewhere".

 

K.

 

With friends and immediate family serving in the military, I am well aware of this fact. However in my mind it doesn't justify or mitigate wasting money on "weapons and ammo".

I'd really hate to get into a discussion about Keynesian economics, so I won't.

 

I can't believe I'm on the same side of this discussion as Dom.

 

Well I don't think either of us agree with war in general enough to "justify it". Nor do I think we stop spending money on 'weapons and ammo' just because we're in one less war or none at all. Nor do I think that doing so would lead to a boost in spending in other, more useful areas. Probably just get shifted into servicing the debt, if not completely eliminated from the budget.

 

Coupled with the Kid Rock endorsement, he's flying high this week

 

Who are you?

Also, maybe we shouldn't hinge our economy on murdering people? I mean, by the logic David has on offer, one could justify mass incarceration. It did bring jobs to small towns. Yes, it devastated communities, but still, better that then no funding at all.

 

A budding libertarian who used to post from time to time in gen pol on AP. I tend to stay out of things here because people are so hostile towards libertarian thought, but I enjoy lurking to get the other side's perspective.

 

Dear god I hate it when you start getting dishonest to try and make some point.

 

People are surprised that a woman who was, for decades, a Republican because "they were better for the markets" might not be the most ardently progressive independent figure.

 

Is it wrong for her to evolve her views, specifically on the field she's focused on, in reaction to the status/changing of the economy?

 

People like you are squandering an extremely narrow opportunity to damage and possibly dissolve the two party system through dedication to political activism that goes beyond merely walking one's happy ass to a voting booth every fourth November.

No. From what did you draw the conclusion that I thought it was?

 

lol. Hilarious.

 

What was dishonest about Dom's point?

 

This. You aren't making a dent in fascism by voting for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. You also aren't making a dent in capitalism by voting for Jill Stein or any other leftist over Clinton. Your political life (and, I'd argue, responsibility) extends much further than your vote. You can still be actively anti-Trump without endorsing Hillary Clinton with your vote.

 

My boss (to whom I just handed my letter of resignation) is trying to gain sympathy for a veteran who has PTSD and reoccurring nightmares from when he shot a 11 year old boy while in Bosnia.

And it'll work most likely.