wrapped my GTX around a tree.

You have to be really hammered to get an OUI on an island... Kind of like the 80's, if you could walk you were "free to go".

John, I agree with you on government spending being out of hand, and that these useless "wars" are an utter waste. However, preventing youths from straightening up their lives through service to the country is hardly the place to start.

Dan, once you are already in the military it is a different story. I have a couple of buddies who joined the army for this very reason.

Besides, whether the government buys too many weapons or not, those companies employ a LOT of people. So... really... its a necessary evil, at worst.

The money COULD be better spent, but where would all the employees go?

I wouldn't join the service to avoid a DUI. That's kind of like deciding to wrestle a grizzly instead of an alligator. BUT looking to the service to possibly get your life straightened around, to get an education, to learn some discipline, well its a viable solution. I've seen several of our local kids go in total fuckups and a couple years later the change is amazing. Of course there are a couple who went in and just found a different place to screw off.

I'd stop and think about what is happening and what can happen (I know, not your strong suit ). Don't be making any hasty decisions.

Well Tim, if you took the money from the top 20 companys and divided it by the median income of a US adult resident, it would supply 3,225,806 people with an annual salary. Thats roughly 1% of the us population.

If you took the money from the top 10, and divided it equally amongst all 307,000,000 Americans, we would each get $230.

Quote
phlat65
Well Tim, if you took the money from the top 20 companys and divided it by the median income of a US adult resident, it would supply 3,225,806 people with an annual salary. Thats roughly 1% of the us population.

If you took the money from the top 10, and divided it equally amongst all 307,000,000 Americans, we would each get $230.

I'm not sure I follow. What are you getting at? (not trying to be an ass, I'm confused by your post)

All I'm saying is that if the government is paying those companies to make missiles/planes/rockets/etc, someone has to be in there churning them out. They may have crazy profits, but they're also providing jobs (the people churning them out). So, if you took away the contracts, there is no longer need for those employees.

Quote
Dazed_Driver

Quote
phlat65
Well Tim, if you took the money from the top 20 companys and divided it by the median income of a US adult resident, it would supply 3,225,806 people with an annual salary. Thats roughly 1% of the us population.

If you took the money from the top 10, and divided it equally amongst all 307,000,000 Americans, we would each get $230.

I'm not sure I follow. What are you getting at? (not trying to be an ass, I'm confused by your post)

All I'm saying is that if the government is paying those companies to make missiles/planes/rockets/etc, someone has to be in there churning them out. They may have crazy profits, but they're also providing jobs (the people churning them out). So, if you took away the contracts, there is no longer need for those employees.

Yes, but if the money isn't spent building death, it could be used to cure puppies with cancer, then all your death architects would instead have jobs building rainbows.

also, just out of curiosity, does anyone know exactly what the us military is buying from rolls royce? per bottom of JVL's list above.

Quote
aj_johnson
also, just out of curiosity, does anyone know exactly what the us military is buying from rolls royce? per bottom of JVL's list above.

Probably aircraft engines...

---

SteveL
This is the point in the killing spree when you really should turn the gun on yourself

Quote
aj_johnson
also, just out of curiosity, does anyone know exactly what the us military is buying from rolls royce? per bottom of JVL's list above.

Like he said, aircraft engines. That is their bread and butter.

I am on that list of employees who would be affected by removing defense spending. I'd be out of a jerb!

Quote
fliz

Quote
Dazed_Driver

Quote
phlat65
Well Tim, if you took the money from the top 20 companys and divided it by the median income of a US adult resident, it would supply 3,225,806 people with an annual salary. Thats roughly 1% of the us population.

If you took the money from the top 10, and divided it equally amongst all 307,000,000 Americans, we would each get $230.

I'm not sure I follow. What are you getting at? (not trying to be an ass, I'm confused by your post)

All I'm saying is that if the government is paying those companies to make missiles/planes/rockets/etc, someone has to be in there churning them out. They may have crazy profits, but they're also providing jobs (the people churning them out). So, if you took away the contracts, there is no longer need for those employees.

Yes, but if the money isn't spent building death, it could be used to cure puppies with cancer, then all your death architects would instead have jobs building rainbows.

That is the core of my point. The money COULD be used elsewhere, but as long as its funding jobs, its doing ok.

Quote
Dazed_Driver

Quote
fliz

Quote
Dazed_Driver

Quote
phlat65
Well Tim, if you took the money from the top 20 companys and divided it by the median income of a US adult resident, it would supply 3,225,806 people with an annual salary. Thats roughly 1% of the us population.

If you took the money from the top 10, and divided it equally amongst all 307,000,000 Americans, we would each get $230.

I'm not sure I follow. What are you getting at? (not trying to be an ass, I'm confused by your post)

All I'm saying is that if the government is paying those companies to make missiles/planes/rockets/etc, someone has to be in there churning them out. They may have crazy profits, but they're also providing jobs (the people churning them out). So, if you took away the contracts, there is no longer need for those employees.

Yes, but if the money isn't spent building death, it could be used to cure puppies with cancer, then all your death architects would instead have jobs building rainbows.

That is the core of my point. The money COULD be used elsewhere, but as long as its funding jobs, its doing ok.

Timmy from an macro economics point of view all spending is exactly equal..

From a moral, and justice, and longer term wellbeing point of view all spending is not equal..
You will be plaguing the earth with empty-headed platitudes for another 6+ decades, so it might be nice if the whole world doesn't descend into further chaos and violence just because a pile of US corporstions want to make billions in profits and for the moment anyway, haven't figured out a way to outsource all the activities here..

gawd, is there ever a reflective thought in that skull?

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

*Sigh*

John, you're missing my point. I'm not saying they should keep building weapons, just that building weapons isn't the WORST thing BECAUSE it's providing jobs.

I'd rather see the contracts reduced and the new found money go to teacher salaries. Maybe then we would get more teachers. (although, it will take more than more teachers with better pay to fix our education system)

[insert quip about how good it did me ]

Tim

There are quite a few holes in your thought process there. One of which is the "demand" part of supply and demand can't be some made up "demand" by a ruling body in an effort to create jobs. In reality this is the same thing as saying the military needs stuffed animals... How long can a nation afford to "create" jobs by making stuffed animals for the military. It doesn't work like that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2011 04:07PM by aj_johnson.

Quote
Dazed_Driver
although, it will take more than more teachers with better pay to fix our education system

Pay has nothing to do with it. The number 1 education improvement is better teachers, which is affected by pay nil. No different than business people or anything else, its not the pay which makes someone great. Does it increase the likelihood of better quality candidates wanting the job to begin with? Sure. But the whole attitude towards teaching needs to be changed in general.

This PSA brought to you by someone who reads The Economist too much

And what happened to bashing the OP? I've saw John get madder about sillier things on SS...