Military Industrial Complex---why not pissed off about COST OF WAR

[Patranus]

Great! So we should have a country based upon war and supporting war. That makes complete sense now. We don't need to send our kids to college for medical degrees, just let them work an assembly line making bombs if they can't be on the front lines themselves, and everything will be gravy.

Worked well when war ended the great depression.

 

[HumblePie]

Worked well when war ended the great depression.

You are talking out your ass here. And no, I don't have any binaca.

The start of the war was in 1941 for the US and by then we were pretty much of the depression which we started recovering from in 1933. The start of the war only dropped unemployment to almost nothing when it was already fairly low considering that it had been 15% previous to 1933.

The start of the war for the US is said to be the end of the great depression, but not because it ended it only that it coincided time wise with the end as a massive event. Coincidence does not equate to causality.

 

[OutHouse]

looks like the OP ran to his to his corner to suck on his binkie.

 

[Binarycow]

Great! So we should have a country based upon war and supporting war. That makes complete sense now. We don't need to send our kids to college for medical degrees, just let them work an assembly line making bombs if they can't be on the front lines themselves, and everything will be gravy.

That's not what I meant. I simply wanted to point out that some of us peons do actually benefit from that, as ugly as that sounds.

 

[Binarycow]

You are talking out your ass here. And no, I don't have any binaca.

The start of the war was in 1941 for the US and by then we were pretty much of the depression which we started recovering from in 1933. The start of the war only dropped unemployment to almost nothing when it was already fairly low considering that it had been 15% previous to 1933.

The start of the war for the US is said to be the end of the great depression, but not because it ended it only that it coincided time wise with the end as a massive event. Coincidence does not equate to causality.

didn't we start selling war products to our allies way before that?

 

[HumblePie]

Mot much. We were trying to stay completely neutral and out of the war until Pearl Harbor happened. Many, many, MANY changes prior to the war had already pulled us out of the great depression. The war starting was more a signal of the end of the depression for us and did nothing in and of itself to end the depression.

I am not going to disagree and say that the war was not a benefit economically and a boon to the US since we won. However, warring for profiteering is not something I would even allude to as you and Patranus have done in this thread. The disgust and contempt I have for any fellow American would suggest we as a country do that can not be measured.

 

[Genx87]

You are talking out your ass here. And no, I don't have any binaca.

The start of the war was in 1941 for the US and by then we were pretty much of the depression which we started recovering from in 1933. The start of the war only dropped unemployment to almost nothing when it was already fairly low considering that it had been 15% previous to 1933.

The start of the war for the US is said to be the end of the great depression, but not because it ended it only that it coincided time wise with the end as a massive event. Coincidence does not equate to causality.

FDR almost lost in 1940 because his policies didnt show any results. But the war was looming. Still had nearly 15% unemployment. The GD is considered to be done after the war because pent up demand was unleashed due to relaxing of rationing and the command and control economy. People had money saved up due to not having anything to spend it on because of the war. Our unemployment was low as hell because we employed over 12 million men in the armed services.

 

[HumblePie]

wrong numbers, it was over 25% unemployment in 1933 and it dropped to 15% by 1940 before the war. After the start of the war it dropped the rest of the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_depression.svg

As one can see when FDR took office in 1933 we were at the lowest point. It started to go uphill from there and the start of the war in 1941 was what topped us off. However, the economy had been growing steadily well before then and the unemployment rate was dropping as well.

Again, the war was not what brought us out of the great depression. Had there been no war, we still would have made it to the same economic point if only a year or two later. The start of the war was like the last 10 yard sprint at the end of a marathon.

 

[HumblePie]

On a side note, wars can actually be a major cause of economic depression. You only reap the benefits as a country if you win or stay neutral and play all sides effectively. The economic benefit that can be possible from war is by no means justification for one. Anyone that suggests that has serious mental issues.

 

[Genx87]

It is hard to say where the economy would had been in 1945 without a war. I wouldnt advocate military keynesian. The only thing I am pointing out is the GD is considered to be done after the war when soldiers and their families spent their savings for the past 4 years. I also believe our status as being the only power with an intact infrastructure helped us be economic benefactors of a blown up world. We became the worlds factory by default.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I know we were selling goodies to belligerents long before we entered The War. So, when did the countries gearing up for war (prior to 1939) start buying arms and resources from us in large quantities?

 

[Binarycow]

Mot much. We were trying to stay completely neutral and out of the war until Pearl Harbor happened. Many, many, MANY changes prior to the war had already pulled us out of the great depression. The war starting was more a signal of the end of the depression for us and did nothing in and of itself to end the depression.

I am not going to disagree and say that the war was not a benefit economically and a boon to the US since we won. However, warring for profiteering is not something I would even allude to as you and Patranus have done in this thread. The disgust and contempt I have for any fellow American would suggest we as a country do that can not be measured.

[FONT=&quot]dude, I didn't allude to anything. I simply stated a fact. To a certain extent, we all benefit from the two wars we are in no matter how much we dislike the idea of going to war for profit. What we don't like and what actually happens do not necessarily go hand in hand. I am the kind of people who subscribe to the theory of live and let live. However, I drive everyday on roads around here that are very like built and paid for with war-related funds. Many of the people I serve as my customers at work are/were involved in these two wars. So unless I put my money where my mouth is by quitting my job (which I cannot do since I have a family to feed) and quit driving I don't think I can ride the high horse and absolutely criticize it.[/FONT]

 

[QuantumPion]

On a side note, wars can actually be a major cause of economic depression. You only reap the benefits as a country if you win

Basically.

What got the US out of the depression was not war spending. It was the fact that after the war, the entire industrialized world was a smoking pile of a rubble with the exception of the United States. It was the rebuilding after the war that got us (temporarily) out of the depression. Once that rebuilding period was over, we sunk right back in to recession. Sound familiar? Exact same thing happened after the civil war and reconstruction.

 

[bamacre]

Ever since Obama took office, the anti-war left has shrunk to just Progressives.

 

[nobodyknows]

Two crazies make a positive? TY for being crazy number two 😀 Nobody will help you deny it

No I won't. 😀 Besides, I beleive I'm quite capable of bitching about the cost of war AND the illegals...... and I can do it when walking and chewing bubblegum.

 

[Craig234]

Ever since Obama took office, the anti-war left has shrunk to just Progressives.

It's natural in a two-party system for a party who has been fighting the other side being in power, having some exhaustion when 'their side' wins and is too 'centrist'.

Partly it's just a lack of an alternative, and the risk that attacking 'your guy' can have the unintended consequence of helping the far worse 'their guy' get elected.

In other words, compromise on Obama, to prevent the far worse next George Bush.

However, that has the effect of almost guaranteeing 'your guy' will do the political effective thing of 'governing from the middle' because whether he has your vote as you are crazy about him, or he has your vote as 'can barely stand him but he's better than the other side' is the same one vote, but by moving to the other side he might actually pick up some votes.

The left widely felt that FDR was not liberal enough; he told them, make him do what they want, meaning, change the public opinion to where it demanded he do the liberal policy.

Obama has said the same thing.

And the right has some valid criticism - made by the left as well - when it points out the double standard that Obama on some policies is 'as bad or worse than Bush'.

The point was recently made with the Patreaus appointment and Moveon's apparently very different reaction under Bush and Obama.

But the right usually fails to note the overall policies, and just leaps to note this behavior as if the issue of the left criticizing Obama could help elect the next Bush isn't important.

In other words, criticize the specific things, like giving Obama a pass on something, but recognize it can be just fine to vote for him anyway compared to the other guy.

The liberals have a lot of valid criticisms of Obama that some of his policies are to the right of the general public - for example, who would say Obama has gone after Wall Street as much as the average American would like - but it's also fair to ask, would the Republicans be the Wall Street attackers if they were in power?

As Rachel Maddow explained last night, the game is for the party out of power to simply attack the party in power, and expect the public to vote for them as if they're better, even though they're perhaps worse. I'm sure many Republicans would agree with this point, when it comes to suggesting some who were fed up with Republicans voted for a Democratic congress they think is worse (and which I think is much better).

 

[bfdd]

The the democrats and europeans cried foul. We should have plundered the oil. It was a wasted opportunity.

Hell you can still hear people occasionally today chant that bullshit. I remember getting the numbers after we had occupied and they were laughable while people were still yelling about "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" screaming how this was all about oil and the USA was getting something like 100k barrels a day or something from Iraq some ridiculously small number.

 

[Craig234]

[FONT=&quot]dude, I didn't allude to anything. I simply stated a fact. To a certain extent, we all benefit from the two wars we are in no matter how much we dislike the idea of going to war for profit. What we don't like and what actually happens do not necessarily go hand in hand. I am the kind of people who subscribe to the theory of live and let live. However, I drive everyday on roads around here that are very like built and paid for with war-related funds. Many of the people I serve as my customers at work are/were involved in these two wars. So unless I put my money where my mouth is by quitting my job (which I cannot do since I have a family to feed) and quit driving I don't think I can ride the high horse and absolutely criticize it.[/FONT]

I like to point out to anti-FDR critics on the right who want to deny him credit by saying it was the war economy that helped, well, the war involved MASSIVE government debt and government jobs programs - so, they're suggesting the one really great way to improve the economy is with massive government borrowing, spending and jobs programs - which should be even better then they're for economically useful things, instead of economic waste like warships and bullets and warplanes that get blown up.

 

[Craig234]

Hell you can still hear people occasionally today chant that bullshit. I remember getting the numbers after we had occupied and they were laughable while people were still yelling about "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" screaming how this was all about oil and the USA was getting something like 100k barrels a day or something from Iraq some ridiculously small number.

A guy decides he's going to rob a bank - there are many thousands of dollars there. His mother says, "no blood for cash - do not use force to get other people's money!"

The guy (his name was Cheney, coincidentally) robs the bank - but it has heavy security, and a lot of citizens with the right they exercise for concealed weapons, and so he marches in, pulls out his gun and demands all the money, but then sees guns pulled at him, so he grabs the pen on the desk and runs out.

Later he says to his mother, "you were so wrong that I was robbing that bank for cash. If I were doing that, why do I just have a lousy pen and all the cash is still in the bank?"

 

[Zebo]

Pretty soon, few nations will accept our currency, but with 700 bases in over 100 nations you may begin to understand why they are there. IN WAR...ALL CONTRACTS ARE VOID..

 

[BoomerD]

Why can it be both?

I'm pissed as hell about the rampant waste by our military contractors, by gross overcharging by the military contractors, by the fraud and theft committed by the military contractors...although I DO believe that if we send our troops into harm's way, they should be the best trained and the best equipped on the battlefield. All the billions of $$ that get pissed away could be better spent on our troops.

I'm also 100% against illegal immigration. They come to this country and everywhere there's enough of them for a community, they turn the area into the same kind of shithole they left...and instead of raising themselves to our standards, they want to drag us down to theirs.

Fuck That...Hey Mexico and Central America...We've upped our standards...so UP YOURS!

 

[Throckmorton]

it's natural in a two-party system for a party who has been fighting the other side being in power, having some exhaustion when 'their side' wins and is too 'centrist'.

Partly it's just a lack of an alternative, and the risk that attacking 'your guy' can have the unintended consequence of helping the far worse 'their guy' get elected.

In other words, compromise on obama, to prevent the far worse next george bush.

However, that has the effect of almost guaranteeing 'your guy' will do the political effective thing of 'governing from the middle' because whether he has your vote as you are crazy about him, or he has your vote as 'can barely stand him but he's better than the other side' is the same one vote, but by moving to the other side he might actually pick up some votes.

The left widely felt that fdr was not liberal enough; he told them, make him do what they want, meaning, change the public opinion to where it demanded he do the liberal policy.

Obama has said the same thing.

And the right has some valid criticism - made by the left as well - when it points out the double standard that obama on some policies is 'as bad or worse than bush'.

The point was recently made with the patreaus appointment and moveon's apparently very different reaction under bush and obama.

But the right usually fails to note the overall policies, and just leaps to note this behavior as if the issue of the left criticizing obama could help elect the next bush isn't important.

In other words, criticize the specific things, like giving obama a pass on something, but recognize it can be just fine to vote for him anyway compared to the other guy.

The liberals have a lot of valid criticisms of obama that some of his policies are to the right of the general public - for example, who would say obama has gone after wall street as much as the average american would like - but it's also fair to ask, would the republicans be the wall street attackers if they were in power?

As rachel maddow explained last night, the game is for the party out of power to simply attack the party in power, and expect the public to vote for them as if they're better, even though they're perhaps worse. I'm sure many republicans would agree with this point, when it comes to suggesting some who were fed up with republicans voted for a democratic congress they think is worse (and which i think is much better).

aaa++

 

[bfdd]

You are talking out your ass here. And no, I don't have any binaca.

The start of the war was in 1941 for the US and by then we were pretty much of the depression which we started recovering from in 1933. The start of the war only dropped unemployment to almost nothing when it was already fairly low considering that it had been 15% previous to 1933.

The start of the war for the US is said to be the end of the great depression, but not because it ended it only that it coincided time wise with the end as a massive event. Coincidence does not equate to causality.

Hello revisionist history.

 

[bfdd]

A guy decides he's going to rob a bank - there are many thousands of dollars there. His mother says, "no blood for cash - do not use force to get other people's money!"

The guy (his name was Cheney, coincidentally) robs the bank - but it has heavy security, and a lot of citizens with the right they exercise for concealed weapons, and so he marches in, pulls out his gun and demands all the money, but then sees guns pulled at him, so he grabs the pen on the desk and runs out.

Later he says to his mother, "you were so wrong that I was robbing that bank for cash. If I were doing that, why do I just have a lousy pen and all the cash is still in the bank?"

lol that's not what happened at all, but nice try. if we wanted the oil we would of taken it period, no one would of stopped us. i wish i could see inside of the box you think in.

 

[Binarycow]

Why can it be both?

I'm pissed as hell about the rampant waste by our military contractors, by gross overcharging by the military contractors, by the fraud and theft committed by the military contractors...although I DO believe that if we send our troops into harm's way, they should be the best trained and the best equipped on the battlefield. All the billions of $$ that get pissed away could be better spent on our troops.

I'm also 100% against illegal immigration. They come to this country and everywhere there's enough of them for a community, they turn the area into the same kind of shithole they left...and instead of raising themselves to our standards, they want to drag us down to theirs.

Fuck That...Hey Mexico and Central America...We've upped our standards...so UP YOURS!

I agree with the first part but the second part... WHAT THE HELL, DUDE?...where did that come from!