Pages: 1 2

 

2009-02-02 21:14:38
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7016|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

True, but we should end the bailouts AND cut the military budget.

If we really want smaller government, it's gonna take more than just ending bailouts -- although that is a good first step.
Reduce the contract cost.. like Obama says he would. Just make sure we get bang for our buck.. pun intended.

If you cut the military you will probably be laying off hundreds of thousands of people.
That's the unfortunate side effect of having a military that's too large to begin with.  You create a situation where more people are dependent on government money than should be.
The technology and manufacturing side would be hit hard. When the mechanic/engineer working at Lockheed Martin gets his paycheck every friday where does he spend his money? It seems to me if we are going to spend money reinvesting in our economy we might as well be defending ourselves and advancing technology at the same time.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-02-02 21:36:16
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6821|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


Reduce the contract cost.. like Obama says he would. Just make sure we get bang for our buck.. pun intended.

If you cut the military you will probably be laying off hundreds of thousands of people.
That's the unfortunate side effect of having a military that's too large to begin with.  You create a situation where more people are dependent on government money than should be.
The technology and manufacturing side would be hit hard. When the mechanic/engineer working at Lockheed Martin gets his paycheck every friday where does he spend his money? It seems to me if we are going to spend money reinvesting in our economy we might as well be defending ourselves and advancing technology at the same time.
Well, here's the problem.  Where do you draw the line?  I could make the same argument that we should spend more on medical advances, since the majority of medical research is at least partially funded by the government.  Completely socializing this research would likely create massive advances in medicine, but it would seem you're against that.

You've mentioned your support for NASA because of its high returns.

Other people have suggested we nationalize banks or the automakers.  Any one of these things could theoretically work.

The question becomes, how big do you want government to be, and where do you want your tax money spent?

Personally, I think we already overshoot our defense needs by a longshot.  The costs might not be big compared to the bailouts, but then again, what is?
2009-02-02 21:45:23
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7016|132 and Bush

The defense industry has helped to promote the medical industry. Nasa is virtually self sufficient when it comes to funding. The money they make off of their patents is obscene. They also make loads of money putting sattelites into orbit. Look at their budget too. It's miniscule when compared to other government managed organizations. And again, they return technological dividend to the medical industry.

I can't tell you the exact financial return in military spending. I would like less overseas though. That return for the most part is not being reinjected into the local US economies.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-02-02 21:49:05
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6821|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

The defense industry has helped to promote the medical industry. Nasa is virtually self sufficient when it comes to funding. The money they make off of their patents is obscene. They also make loads of money putting sattelites into orbit. Look at their budget too. It's miniscule when compared to other government managed organizations. And again, they return technological dividend to the medical industry.

I can't tell you the exact financial return in military spending. I would like less overseas though. That return for the most part is not being reinjected into the local US economies.
I hear ya, but I just think we've gone well beyond the point in the cost-benefit curve where we get the most bang for our buck as you put it.

We spend 10 times more than the next big military spender.  That's way overdoing it, in my opinion.  To increase it even further just doesn't make much sense to me.
2009-02-02 22:02:48
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7016|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The defense industry has helped to promote the medical industry. Nasa is virtually self sufficient when it comes to funding. The money they make off of their patents is obscene. They also make loads of money putting sattelites into orbit. Look at their budget too. It's miniscule when compared to other government managed organizations. And again, they return technological dividend to the medical industry.

I can't tell you the exact financial return in military spending. I would like less overseas though. That return for the most part is not being reinjected into the local US economies.
I hear ya, but I just think we've gone well beyond the point in the cost-benefit curve where we get the most bang for our buck as you put it.

We spend 10 times more than the next big military spender.  That's way overdoing it, in my opinion.  To increase it even further just doesn't make much sense to me.
If we were doing all that spending at home the return would be tremendous. The problem is we are exporting it with little to no economic benifit.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard