BoatBanter.com - Winning elections is not good enough

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:48:31 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:59:45 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:59:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:45:06 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:21:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:43:26 -0800, wrote:

The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs
program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't
want.

I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other
countries when we have as much trouble as we have.
We do have the precedent of having the military working on
infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should
declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service.
The unions would never tolerate it.

So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like
much of a jobs effort to me.

I was thinking more about what you can do with a half million military
people if we stop the wars and pull back all the people we have
scattered around the world in places where we won the war a half
century ago.

So, you want to use the military to do the same jobs as regular
citizens for 1/10th the pay? I'm sure that would do a lot for the
economy.

"1/10th"?
Why do you think military people are so poorly paid?

Your typical GI is making over $20k by the end of his first hitch and
if he really moves up through the ranks it could be $27k or more.
They also have most of their living expenses paid by Uncle Sam.

It may not be as much as an attorney makes but once you factor in room
and board, it is certainly competitive with a basic construction
worker who may only be making $14 an hour ... when he can find work.

$27K... wow, that's over the poverty line for sure. And, they get to
get shot at from time to time. So, you'd prefer to throw the basic
construction worker out of a job to save some money? Even that doesn't
compute.

As usual you totally miss the point. I am talking about creating
enough new infrastructure construction to put all of them to work.

I am also talking about bringing these guys home so they won't get
shot at.

I'm not missing the point at all. How do you intend to create the
infrastructure without government funding?

You say you didn't miss the point then you go off in the wrong
direction
Co back up to the top if this snip. the whole thing is about
REDIRECTING the DoD budget

So, how are you going to "redirect" all these "low-paid" troops into
homeland jobs without displacing those low-paid construction jobs?

By starting new projects.

Ok. So, you have no objection to projects sponsored and paid for by
the gov't! Sounds like the heavy hand of gov't to me. I have no
objection your honor!

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

Good grief! You know that little about economics and/or how the
military works? You can't just decide one day to close bases and then
everyone leaves.

Now you are worried about the Germans?

I'm thoughtful about how we as a nation are perceived and our effect
on the rest of the world. You aren't I guess.

We could close foreign bases pretty fast if we wanted to and it is not
our job to replace the hole in the German economy. There are a few
people here saying the locals don't get that much money from our bases
anyway.

Sure thing! I guess that was the same sort of decision that was made
post WW1. That worked out pretty well, didn't it.