Gun Control Threads are SO Three Weeks Ago....

[Alaska Darin]

And not pile on the military b/c I don't care to do so but if you all insist it's crazy to even speak of that...it's really not if you are consistent about identifying "takers." I mean bases are their own little bubble, independent law enforcement, grocery stores, big-box stores, school system, child care, housing and health care....all run by the government. Obviously in the past this was important people were drafted, pay was low, and many most bases were no where near civilization and/or overseas....but today these factors remain a huge part of retention for personnel certainly those with dependents.

 

Today of course the situation is a bit different, volunteer services and higher pay (CBO estimates military pay averages 75% percentile compared to civilian jobs w/ comparable skill sets)...and other CBO studies show that a simple a cash allowance could easily get military personnel the same level of groceries for instance at way lower cost than running a government grocery store (but every time this is brought up you can bet a free-market fiscal hawk conservatives beat it down to support our troops)...etc etc...I mean YES THESE ARE EARNED BENEFITS but it's still subsidized by the taxpayer it's still "taking" and it is a somewhat "socialist institution" so to speak. It is ultimately, more money out than in...they do work as medicare people pay in...but it's still more out than in...and if you compare it to the private sector than can be no mistake about that...

 

(also...this is not an original point credit to mike lofgren)

You won't find many CONUS based military people complaining about losing the Commissary or BX "benefits" if there's more scratch in their pocket. Those used to be really good deals but now the prices are about the same as stuff downtown, so the only real savings is tax. Of course, that's a drop in the bucket fiscally where DoD is concerned, so I'm not surprised you're whining about it. Try going after the weapons programs no one wants outside congress critters or bases in wealthy countries like Germany/Korea/Japan.

 

And the "support our troops" rhetoric is clearly bipartisan, so shove that straight up your ample posterior.

[dayman]

You won't find many CONUS based military people complaining about losing the Commissary or BX "benefits" if there's more scratch in their pocket. Those used to be really good deals but now the prices are about the same as stuff downtown, so the only real savings is tax. Of course, that's a drop in the bucket fiscally where DoD is concerned, so I'm not surprised you're whining about it. Try going after the weapons programs no one wants outside congress critters or bases in wealthy countries like Germany/Korea/Japan.

 

And the "support our troops" rhetoric is clearly bipartisan, so shove that straight up your ample posterior.

 

Oh no doubt, don't get me wrong when I say "American military" later on calling the largest socialist institution I mean it in an all encompassing way...from the contractor right down to the family.

[Rob's House]

What I'm saying is the American military is probably the largest and most well funded socialist institution on planet earth today. Yes there there are people who pay into a program and take much more out, they too are taking, a lot. Then there are people who are poor, and get checks in the mail, also takers. This isn't to argue there is no distinction that you can draw, it's to argue that particularly when you look at the amount of money these different categories of people cost, it's a distinction with no practical difference. Unless you are on a moral crusade and just standing on your high horse looking down at some while not minding others and claiming it's only about fiscal issues...which by the way is an excellent way to gain a certain kind of political support, then it's just dumb to talk about takers in the way most people do today. If you want to make it about takers..., then the reality is...looks at all those who "take" from the dole and how much...when you ultimately do you may be less uppity about it and more practical about how and what is needed and what/how different things are possible moving forward as opposed to mindless yelling about the lazy people who refuse to work and supposedly zap the entire wealth of this nation...

 

It's really just a round about way of saying what everybody knows and says all the time...if you want to talk about takers you have to talk about medicare and military and you really should talk about them first if you are serious about "takers zapping the wealth of our nation"

You're still conflating concepts in an intellectually untenable way. The military is an institution we as a nation have created to provide a service. We can disagree as to the proper scope of that service, but drawing the conclusion that because both the military and welfare recipients take money from the federal coffers makes them "takers" in the context that it's being presented is just silly (and I'm trying to be nice here our of respect).

 

Additionally, when people talk about "takers" it's not just about welfare recipients. It speaks more broadly to a large and growing number of people who see the government as an entity that exists to give them things rather than maintain law, order, and national defense. It's funny to me how you guys fight to maintain the welfare state while constantly attacking one of the most fundamental purposes for having a federal government in the first place.

[dayman]

You're still conflating concepts in an intellectually untenable way. The military is an institution we as a nation have created to provide a service. We can disagree as to the proper scope of that service, but drawing the conclusion that because both the military and welfare recipients take money from the federal coffers makes them "takers" in the context that it's being presented is just silly (and I'm trying to be nice here our of respect).

 

Additionally, when people talk about "takers" it's not just about welfare recipients. It speaks more broadly to a large and growing number of people who see the government as an entity that exists to give them things rather than maintain law, order, and national defense. It's funny to me how you guys fight to maintain the welfare state while constantly attacking one of the most fundamental purposes for having a federal government in the first place.

 

First off I'm not defending the welfare state, I saying it's everything, and the biggest component is the military. And yet there's a strain of rhetoric that ignores this despite being pissed as all hell about everythign else. Obviously there is no debate we need it, and there really is no debate we have way more than we need. The most common actual reason the military is funded as it is, is jobs...behind the scenes of course we dare not acknowledge this publicly. It IS a socialist/welfare institution and it's the larges thing we have going that fits that description. And assuming this is something we are doing...we might consider that it's a terribly inefficient way to go about that.

 

http://www.peri.umas...ending_2011.pdf

 

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on the employment effects of military

spending versus alternative domestic spending

priorities, in particular investments in clean energy,

health care and education. We first present some

simple alternative spending scenarios, namely devoting

$1 billion to the military versus the same amount

of money spent on clean energy, health care, and

education, as well as for tax cuts which produce increased

levels of personal consumption. Our conclusion

in assessing such relative employment impacts

is straightforward: $1 billion spent on each of the

domestic spending priorities will create substantially

more jobs within the U.S. economy than would the

same $1 billion spent on the military. We then examine

the pay level of jobs created through these

alternative spending priorities and assess the overall

welfare impacts of the alternative employment outcomes.

We show that investments in clean energy,

health care and education create a much larger

number of jobs across all pay ranges, including midrange

jobs (paying between $32,000 and $64,000)

and high-paying jobs (paying over $64,000). Channeling

funds into clean energy, health care and education

in an effective way will therefore create significantly

greater opportunities for decent employment

throughout the U.S. economy than spending the

same amount of funds with the military.

 

People pissed about the economy and takers and channeling that to bash all manner of domestic programs while ignoring the military and in fact being "patriotic" and loving when politicians accuse a rival of gutting the service...aught to do some deeper thinking...it's a lot easier to get worked up over a bum on teh street getting a free meal...but let us be real here.

 

It's quite funny to hear about the military service members who are conservative rant about socialism supporting their GOP hawks who increase funding into the socialist complex they work in. And while the GOP in general drives it that's not to let the opportunistic "me too" democrats off the hook btw...

Edited January 27, 2013 by SameOldBills

[Alaska Darin]

Oh no doubt, don't get me wrong when I say "American military" later on calling the largest socialist institution I mean it in an all encompassing way...from the contractor right down to the family.

Apologies - it was more pointed at the Riddler than you.

[Rob's House]

First off I'm not defending the welfare state, I saying it's everything, and the biggest component is the military. And yet there's a strain of rhetoric that ignores this despite being pissed as all hell about everythign else. Obviously there is no debate we need it, and there really is no debate we have way more than we need. The most common actual reason the military is funded as it is, is jobs...behind the scenes of course we dare not acknowledge this publicly. It IS a socialist/welfare institution and it's the larges thing we have going that fits that description. And assuming this is something we are doing...we might consider that it's a terribly inefficient way to go about that.

 

http://www.peri.umas...ending_2011.pdf

 

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on the employment effects of military

spending versus alternative domestic spending

priorities, in particular investments in clean energy,

health care and education. We first present some

simple alternative spending scenarios, namely devoting

$1 billion to the military versus the same amount

of money spent on clean energy, health care, and

education, as well as for tax cuts which produce increased

levels of personal consumption. Our conclusion

in assessing such relative employment impacts

is straightforward: $1 billion spent on each of the

domestic spending priorities will create substantially

more jobs within the U.S. economy than would the

same $1 billion spent on the military. We then examine

the pay level of jobs created through these

alternative spending priorities and assess the overall

welfare impacts of the alternative employment outcomes.

We show that investments in clean energy,

health care and education create a much larger

number of jobs across all pay ranges, including midrange

jobs (paying between $32,000 and $64,000)

and high-paying jobs (paying over $64,000). Channeling

funds into clean energy, health care and education

in an effective way will therefore create significantly

greater opportunities for decent employment

throughout the U.S. economy than spending the

same amount of funds with the military.

 

People pissed about the economy and takers and channeling that to bash all manner of domestic programs while ignoring the military and in fact being "patriotic" and loving when politicians accuse a rival of gutting the service...aught to do some deeper thinking...it's a lot easier to get worked up over a bum on teh street getting a free meal...but let us be real here.

 

It's quite funny to hear about the military service members who are conservative rant about socialism supporting their GOP hawks who increase funding into the socialist complex they work in. And while the GOP in general drives it that's not to let the opportunistic "me too" democrats off the hook btw...

Now you've changed the conversation from one about people leaching off the government tit (and your absurd assertion that government employees are indistinguishable from welfare recipients) to one of what form of government spending has greater stimulative effect, which is not remotely similar to the topic you started. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole because you know my theory on stimulus.

 

The only real issue to be concerned with regarding military spending is what is the optimal level of military to meet its objectives and what is the optimal pay and benefits to those hired to work in the military. Whatever money you want to throw into the favorite liberal pet projects and whatever broad economic effect it may have is another issue altogether.

[dayman]

Now you've changed the conversation from one about people leaching off the government tit (and your absurd assertion that government employees are indistinguishable from welfare recipients) to one of what form of government spending has greater stimulative effect, which is not remotely similar to the topic you started. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole because you know my theory on stimulus.

 

The only real issue to be concerned with regarding military spending is what is the optimal level of military to meet its objectives and what is the optimal pay and benefits to those hired to work in the military. Whatever money you want to throw into the favorite liberal pet projects and whatever broad economic effect it may have is another issue altogether.

 

If you accept it's a welfare cycle/jobs complex, which is impossible to deny, then it's worth pointing out it's a bad one.

[Rob's House]

If you accept it's a welfare cycle/jobs complex, which is impossible to deny, then it's worth pointing out it's a bad one.

The military is a welfare cycle/jobs complex?

[dayman]

The military is a welfare cycle/jobs complex?

 

In the sense that I have described it over the course of the last few posts, yes. A bad one. Probably more accurate to just stick to calling it a huge socialist bloc of American society that no socialist hating American ever rags on.

Edited January 27, 2013 by SameOldBills

[DC Tom]

In the sense that I have described it over the course of the last few posts, yes. A bad one. Probably more accurate to just stick to calling it a huge socialist bloc of American society that no socialist hating American ever rags on.

 

Who is this idiot? Who are you? Where the hell did you ever get the idea that receiving a paycheck and receiving charity are even remotely the same thing?

[Rob's House]

In the sense that I have described it over the course of the last few posts, yes. A bad one. Probably more accurate to just stick to calling it a huge socialist bloc of American society that no socialist hating American ever rags on.

Your description implies that the primary purpose of the military is to create jobs and provide income for people who make no contribution, which is a wildly inaccurate description. You may not agree with the size and scope of the military but it serves a valid purpose and without it we would have no economy to worry about.

[TakeYouToTasker]

In the sense that I have described it over the course of the last few posts, yes. A bad one. Probably more accurate to just stick to calling it a huge socialist bloc of American society that no socialist hating American ever rags on.

You are making what has to be the very worst argument I've ever read anywhere on the internet.

 

The military absolutely must be a government institution; that is, unless you feel it good and proper for Walmart et. el to be forming private corporate armies and wish to do away with the cordoned off land mass we now call America and the due process of American Law. We don't have a military because we want a military for military's sake, we have a military because we need a military. A military is not a luxury, it is a fundamental necessity of nationhood.

Edited January 27, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[meazza]

Who is this idiot? Who are you? Where the hell did you ever get the idea that receiving a paycheck and receiving charity are even remotely the same thing?

 

 

Comes back with a home run

[dayman]

Who is this idiot? Who are you? Where the hell did you ever get the idea that receiving a paycheck and receiving charity are even remotely the same thing?

 

And if you read through, you will see that I'm not simply talking about receiving a pay check for a days work ya idiot

 

You are making what has to be the very worst argument I've ever read anywhere on the internet.

 

The military absolutely must be a government institution; that is, unless you feel it good and proper for Walmart et. el to be forming private corporate armies and wish to do away with the cordoned off land mass we now call America and the due process of American Law. We don't have a military because we want a military for military's sake, we have a military because we need a military. A military is not a luxury, it is a fundamental necessity on nationhood.

 

Something explicitly acknowledged in my strain of posts here. Thanks for reading.

[3rdnlng]

Who is this idiot? Who are you? Where the hell did you ever get the idea that receiving a paycheck and receiving charity are even remotely the same thing?

 

Its TheNewBills.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Something explicitly acknowledged in my strain of posts here. Thanks for reading.

No, because you've described it as a "socialist bubble", when it is no such thing. What it is, at it's core, is infrastructure. The funding of a military, when examined in a vaccum, is obviously a net loss. It dominates our budget, and does not, on a government ledger, show a profit. Far from it. However...

 

Our military is a huge value add societally. It allows, much in the same way roads, ports, and bridges do (yet pre-empting all of those), our economy not only to thrive, but to exist at all.

 

Your argument is not reflective of this at all.

Edited January 27, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[dayman]

Any reasoned analysis of what our military actually is, reveals it to in fact be a giant socialist institution well beyond it's surface level purpose (which is of course, necessary and important as I have acknowledged)

Edited January 27, 2013 by SameOldBills

[TakeYouToTasker]

Any reasoned analysis of what our military actually is, reveals it to in fact be a giant socialist institution well beyond it's surface level purpose (which is of course, necessary and important as I have acknowledged)

Any reasoned analysis of what our military actually is, reveals it to be a thing; with a pupose, like a bridge. Are you saying that bridges are socialist institutions?

[dayman]

Any reasoned analysis of what our military actually is, reveals it to be a thing; with a pupose, like a bridge. Are you saying that bridges are socialist institutions?

Any reasoned analysis of what our military actually is, reveals it to in fact be a giant socialist institution well beyond it's surface level purpose (which is of course, necessary and important as I have acknowledged)

[B-Man]

Any reasoned analysis of what our military actually is, reveals it to in fact be a giant socialist institution well beyond it's surface level purpose (which is of course, necessary and important as I have acknowledged)

 

Unadulterated Horse Hockey !

 

 

There is no need to ask for any further explanation, the whole statement reaks of desperate spin.

 

 

 

.