Odd sight here in SoCal. Plenty of newly paved and upgraded highways, all paid by the feds. And yet, plenty of overgrowth and dried weeds, due to lack of State funds...Cybargs wrote:
One thing that is good about the MIC is keeping an active military... Gov spends ton of money providing job training and shit.DonFck wrote:
Because as marine said, wars do create a load jobs. However, I strongly believe that it's hardly a long-term solution, and that the amount money spent to create these jobs is definitely more than needed to create the same amount of jobs in the public sector, and sustaining them.
See, sustainable growth is a good thing. Rapid growth in the oil and arms industry for the duration of a war generates funds in short term for just these industries, while all things domestic take a blow to the gut.
Take infrastructure, for instance. I'd rather have my tax money spent on smooth tarmac roads, an electric grid that's maintained with minimal to no blackouts (minimal come from E.g. storm damage and such), and stutter-free high speed internet to my house at a low cost, than blow it all on a war.
After a military campaign, the roads still suck, the grid is older and less reliable than it was, and your Internet connection is still doing 512 kbps on DSL. Only the country has less money to do something about it.
Don: local and state govs do spend tons of money on infrastructure... not the feds job. Feds job is primarily national defence.
Whenever I see this thread, all I can think about is when's the first dip coming?
Also it's been 4 months, can't have been that "imminent".
Also it's been 4 months, can't have been that "imminent".
why get the state to do it when you can get the feds?Ilocano wrote:
Odd sight here in SoCal. Plenty of newly paved and upgraded highways, all paid by the feds. And yet, plenty of overgrowth and dried weeds, due to lack of State funds...Cybargs wrote:
One thing that is good about the MIC is keeping an active military... Gov spends ton of money providing job training and shit.DonFck wrote:
Because as marine said, wars do create a load jobs. However, I strongly believe that it's hardly a long-term solution, and that the amount money spent to create these jobs is definitely more than needed to create the same amount of jobs in the public sector, and sustaining them.
See, sustainable growth is a good thing. Rapid growth in the oil and arms industry for the duration of a war generates funds in short term for just these industries, while all things domestic take a blow to the gut.
Take infrastructure, for instance. I'd rather have my tax money spent on smooth tarmac roads, an electric grid that's maintained with minimal to no blackouts (minimal come from E.g. storm damage and such), and stutter-free high speed internet to my house at a low cost, than blow it all on a war.
After a military campaign, the roads still suck, the grid is older and less reliable than it was, and your Internet connection is still doing 512 kbps on DSL. Only the country has less money to do something about it.
Don: local and state govs do spend tons of money on infrastructure... not the feds job. Feds job is primarily national defence.
I don't think the Obamafund covers cleanup.Cybargs wrote:
why get the state to do it when you can get the feds?Ilocano wrote:
Odd sight here in SoCal. Plenty of newly paved and upgraded highways, all paid by the feds. And yet, plenty of overgrowth and dried weeds, due to lack of State funds...Cybargs wrote:
One thing that is good about the MIC is keeping an active military... Gov spends ton of money providing job training and shit.
Don: local and state govs do spend tons of money on infrastructure... not the feds job. Feds job is primarily national defence.
harmor, whats your definition of imminent?
Tu Stultus Es
To be fair, the original title spelled it 'eminent'eleven bravo wrote:
harmor, whats your definition of imminent?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
just like how wrote about the patient office for software rights and tic for tac political relationships. he says he went to college though.
Tu Stultus Es
CS majors don't have to take more than English 101 Heck, my school has "English for Engineers" now. It doesn't get any more dumbed down than that.eleven bravo wrote:
just like how wrote about the patient office for software rights and tic for tac political relationships. he says he went to college though.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
its the same for othe rmajors too I guess. I was supposed to take statistics for behaviorial and social sciences and instead i took regular old elementary statistics by mistake
Tu Stultus Es
Pfft. Speak for yourself. I was part of the scholars program, so I was forced to take more liberal arts classes. Here I was, Asian, surrounded by all these rather hot white coeds. I held my own, thank you very much. And I was teachers favorite for the classical literature/history courses.JohnG@lt wrote:
CS majors don't have to take more than English 101 Heck, my school has "English for Engineers" now. It doesn't get any more dumbed down than that.eleven bravo wrote:
just like how wrote about the patient office for software rights and tic for tac political relationships. he says he went to college though.
what fucking asian takes literature. what happened to advanced business and scienceIlocano wrote:
Pfft. Speak for yourself. I was part of the scholars program, so I was forced to take more liberal arts classes. Here I was, Asian, surrounded by all these rather hot white coeds. I held my own, thank you very much. And I was teachers favorite for the classical literature/history courses.JohnG@lt wrote:
CS majors don't have to take more than English 101 Heck, my school has "English for Engineers" now. It doesn't get any more dumbed down than that.eleven bravo wrote:
just like how wrote about the patient office for software rights and tic for tac political relationships. he says he went to college though.
azn*
azn (thanks burnzz) who is part of the scholars program. That's what happens when the University' scholars program is liberal arts focused. Funny as hell though seeing white "English" majors struggle through science and math 100-300's courses.Cybargs wrote:
what fucking asian takes literature. what happened to advanced business and scienceIlocano wrote:
Pfft. Speak for yourself. I was part of the scholars program, so I was forced to take more liberal arts classes. Here I was, Asian, surrounded by all these rather hot white coeds. I held my own, thank you very much. And I was teachers favorite for the classical literature/history courses.JohnG@lt wrote:
CS majors don't have to take more than English 101 Heck, my school has "English for Engineers" now. It doesn't get any more dumbed down than that.
one of my best azn friends is a lit nut and he sucks (azn relatively) at math and math sciences (physics chem etc but not bio lelz). this fucking weird.Ilocano wrote:
azn (thanks burnzz) who is part of the scholars program. That's what happens when the University' scholars program is liberal arts focused. Funny as hell though seeing white "English" majors struggle through science and math 100-300's courses.Cybargs wrote:
what fucking asian takes literature. what happened to advanced business and scienceIlocano wrote:
Pfft. Speak for yourself. I was part of the scholars program, so I was forced to take more liberal arts classes. Here I was, Asian, surrounded by all these rather hot white coeds. I held my own, thank you very much. And I was teachers favorite for the classical literature/history courses.
Mind you, I enjoy literature. Classic. Current, not so much. What kept me away from pursuing it further was just the BS you had to use to backup your interpretation of the text. The film where Rodney Dangerfield uses Kurt Vonnegut to write his Vonnegut report on and then his professor rippng on his report, pretty much sums up my opinion on high and mighty literature "experts".Cybargs wrote:
one of my best azn friends is a lit nut and he sucks (azn relatively) at math and math sciences (physics chem etc but not bio lelz). this fucking weird.Ilocano wrote:
azn (thanks burnzz) who is part of the scholars program. That's what happens when the University' scholars program is liberal arts focused. Funny as hell though seeing white "English" majors struggle through science and math 100-300's courses.Cybargs wrote:
what fucking asian takes literature. what happened to advanced business and science
english degrees = future teachers berating kids for not agreeing to their opinions/interpretation lulz.Ilocano wrote:
Mind you, I enjoy literature. Classic. Current, not so much. What kept me away from pursuing it further was just the BS you had to use to backup your interpretation of the text. The film where Rodney Dangerfield uses Kurt Vonnegut to write his Vonnegut report on and then his professor rippng on his report, pretty much sums up my opinion on high and mighty literature "experts".Cybargs wrote:
one of my best azn friends is a lit nut and he sucks (azn relatively) at math and math sciences (physics chem etc but not bio lelz). this fucking weird.Ilocano wrote:
azn (thanks burnzz) who is part of the scholars program. That's what happens when the University' scholars program is liberal arts focused. Funny as hell though seeing white "English" majors struggle through science and math 100-300's courses.
Yep..I'm a terrible speler. :-PJohnG@lt wrote:
To be fair, the original title spelled it 'eminent'eleven bravo wrote:
harmor, whats your definition of imminent?
Q1 of next year assuming the Bush Tax cuts were not extended. You would see a marginal rise in Q4 as people moved income into 2010 to pay lower taxes in 2011, but like we saw immediately after the government cheese for the housing tax credit, the following months suck.
However, its up in the air right now whether or not Pelosi will bring up a vote for the Bush Tax Cuts before the election. If the Democrats do pass it what'll it'll most likely be is only for the `middle class` and may actually increase taxes further on the rich as a `paygo` measure.
At least that's my take on it.
Yeah and he was so serious in that post, besides it wasn't his post you quoted ... and you call me a troll?11 Bravo wrote:
dude you really are the mod troll of dst...Varegg wrote:
Could have fooled me ...11 Bravo wrote:
??
i dont want us to attack anyone anywhere tbh. i am all aboot defense.Who's crying?11 bravo wrote:
but to just sit back and cry...is...well pussy
donfuck was talking about them there dirty jews ya here
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Have you not been paying attention to GDP since the 1940s?Varegg wrote:
You did?FEOS wrote:
But we kick your ass over the long term. Long term's what's important, right?Varegg wrote:
True ... [sarcasm]but our regulated -1% still beats your cowboy economy -3.4% [/sarcasm]
By the looks of it you kicked your own ass
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Much of that spending goes directly into the economy, as it's used to purchase defense-related goods and services to support the war effort (beans and bullets).Dilbert_X wrote:
19% of the budget is not hugely significant?FEOS wrote:
$58B, of which $37.1B was for the wars (plural--not just Iraq). Compared to an overall federal budget in 2010 of $879B. That's 4.2% of the entire budget. Of course, that's not the entire cost, as there was $130B in the FY10 DoD budget for "overseas contingency operations" (Obama Administrationspeak for war), so the entire cost for FY10 was $167.1B, or 19% of the entire budget. Still not a hugely significant amount in comparison to what is being spent on social programs.Varegg wrote:
Seeing the numbers makes it quite more than a drop in the bucket FEOS
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy … plemental/
^^ And that's just 2010
Compared to 'social programs' how much of that is recycled into the economy and how much is burnt up abroad?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You're partially right.DonFck wrote:
Because as marine said, wars do create a load jobs. However, I strongly believe that it's hardly a long-term solution, and that the amount money spent to create these jobs is definitely more than needed to create the same amount of jobs in the public sector, and sustaining them.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why do that when you can blow it on kerosene and diesel for military vehicles?DonFck wrote:
19% would free up a lot of cash for the public sector and get things rolling. It would generate jobs like a motherf...
See, sustainable growth is a good thing. Rapid growth in the oil and arms industry for the duration of a war generates funds in short term for just these industries, while all things domestic take a blow to the gut.
Take infrastructure, for instance. I'd rather have my tax money spent on smooth tarmac roads, an electric grid that's maintained with minimal to no blackouts (minimal come from E.g. storm damage and such), and stutter-free high speed internet to my house at a low cost, than blow it all on a war.
After a military campaign, the roads still suck, the grid is older and less reliable than it was, and your Internet connection is still doing 512 kbps on DSL. Only the country has less money to do something about it.
Wars do create jobs. Peace creates sustainable growth. War is inevitable at times, I know that. And military equipment advances need war to go forward. But what about increasing quality of life for as many as possible? In my eyes, it looks better on paper at least.
However, you're overlooking the fact that raw materials go into all those products. They don't just miracle themselves into existence. And the infrastructure that supports the raw materials extraction/production also supports peacetime industry, as well.
Then there's the fact that, since all that money being spent is deficit spending, it wouldn't have been spent had the war not existed in the first place. So the argument that it would've been spent elsewhere had the war not occurred is eyewash. It wouldn't have been spent elsewhere because it wouldn't have been spent at all. We simply wouldn't have added that much more to our overall debt, rather than spent it elsewhere.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
God, PLEASE don't let this start up AGAIN...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Beans and bullets are also burnt up abroad, its not as if you get a long term benefit from soldier farts or spent bullets lying out in the desert, in the same way you do get a long term benefit from money spent on infrastructure, upskilling your workforce, etc.FEOS wrote:
Much of that spending goes directly into the economy, as it's used to purchase defense-related goods and services to support the war effort (beans and bullets).Dilbert_X wrote:
19% of the budget is not hugely significant?FEOS wrote:
$58B, of which $37.1B was for the wars (plural--not just Iraq). Compared to an overall federal budget in 2010 of $879B. That's 4.2% of the entire budget. Of course, that's not the entire cost, as there was $130B in the FY10 DoD budget for "overseas contingency operations" (Obama Administrationspeak for war), so the entire cost for FY10 was $167.1B, or 19% of the entire budget. Still not a hugely significant amount in comparison to what is being spent on social programs.
Compared to 'social programs' how much of that is recycled into the economy and how much is burnt up abroad?
That and those raw materials are often imported.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-09-18 05:40:13)
Fuck Israel
Heritage wants lower taxes? Say it ain't so! In other news, water is wet.Harmor wrote:
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9899 … chart1.gif
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-22 22:13:56)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
What your saying is because their position on the topic is consistent it is somehow less valid ?
Now everyone check in and say you can't understand my sentence ! I'm going through italics withdrawal.
Now everyone check in and say you can't understand my sentence ! I'm going through italics withdrawal.