US army cutting down?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-02-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 02:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Well, what's "making any difference"? A few hundred jobs in the city in question makes a significant difference. Wasting the rest of the nation's time and money building something no one wants isn't a great idea, but there are thousands of people directly affected by the workflow at the plant.

Not even close to "thousands of people", and most are already employed there with no immediate chance of losing their jobs.

(24-02-2014 01:48 PM)War Horse Wrote:  Its all money going into the companies executives coffers.

Quote:But that's an argument about executive compensation which has nothing to do with the specifics here.
Wink

Um, yes it does.... that money isnt going anywhere to help any economy, or at least not in any real sense. How would the money thats justified by congress to help the nations workforce be considered well spent, if its going for executive compensation?

I would think the answere to be painfully obvious.

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 02:51 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 02:24 PM)War Horse Wrote:  Um, yes it does.... that money isnt going anywhere to help any economy, or at least not in any real sense. How would the money thats justified by congress to help the nations workforce be considered well spent, if its going for executive compensation?

Well people who believe in flat tax rates and supply-side think it's great for the economy. Go figure, eh? Facepalm

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logica Humano's post
24-02-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 02:51 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(24-02-2014 02:24 PM)War Horse Wrote:  Um, yes it does.... that money isnt going anywhere to help any economy, or at least not in any real sense. How would the money thats justified by congress to help the nations workforce be considered well spent, if its going for executive compensation?

Well people who believe in flat tax rates and supply-side think it's great for the economy. Go figure, eh? Facepalm

Yup! this is the smoke and mirrors game that most Americans dont take the time to think about.

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 02:24 PM)War Horse Wrote:  Not even close to "thousands of people", and most are already employed there with no immediate chance of losing their jobs.

Hundreds of employees affected means thousands of people affected. One can only assume they're not single childless orphans living off the grid. Less work for the plant means less work for the employees.

That's not the point. What is relevant is the attitude of members of government (any government, but I'd argue it's worse in the US since everyone hates Congress so much) that part of their job is to "beat the system" to accrue local benefits. That's the definition of pork barrel politics. Which is a bad thing...

(24-02-2014 02:24 PM)War Horse Wrote:  Um, yes it does.... that money isnt going anywhere to help any economy, or at least not in any real sense. How would the money thats justified by congress to help the nations workforce be considered well spent, if its going for executive compensation?

Because you can't run a factory without a manager and you can't run a company without an executive.

I'm not saying I disagree, I'm saying that's an entirely unrelated concern, since it applies not just to the specific situation of makework Abrams building but to, er, all economic activity in America.

I mean, just play devil's advocate to yourself: consider giving to charity. A charitable contribution - even with a great deal skimmed off, for whatever reasons - is still more helpful than doing nothing.

That said I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with? I'm not saying the rationale for pork barrel spending isn't bad, but I am saying it's not nonexistent.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 03:38 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 03:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Because you can't run a factory without a manager and you can't run a company without an executive.

Very true, but when the pay isnt in line for the job/work load etc. Than the inequal pay is just welfare for the already rich.

Quote:I'm not saying I disagree, I'm saying that's an entirely unrelated concern, since it applies not just to the specific situation of makework Abrams building but to, er, all economic activity in America.

Not unrelated at all, the money a company recieves is meant to do more than pay for some rich boys toys.

Quote:I mean, just play devil's advocate to yourself: consider giving to charity. A charitable contribution - even with a great deal skimmed off, for whatever reasons - is still more helpful than doing nothing.

A charity is a voluntary act, giving large amounts of tax payer money to a company isnt. Not to mention that they can use it without any oversight to make sure it does the most good.

I think that you are intelligent enough to know where I'm going with this. The lobbying process and government puppets here are playing with concessions for the monetary benifits of their 'good ol boy club'.

If the monies go towards executive compensation in disproportionate numbers, it helps neither military personal or civilian workers. And thats what is happening on both sides of the aisle.

We see this clearly, when the one side is willing to give a little to the other side for negotiations, but not let go of the sweetheart deals for their constituency (lobbyists i.e big corporations), and screw the people at the low end of the scale to make it seem that they're cutting costs.

And this in a nutshell is why they'll downsize the manpower on the military end... its the easiest and most vunerable people to screw over without very much backlash.

But I think you already know all this, and possibly more than I do.

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 04:00 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
They do not need to fund the US army as much anymore seeing as they can simply fund differing factions in other countries to destabilise and fight their proxy wars for them.

Drinking Beverage

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
24-02-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 03:38 PM)War Horse Wrote:  Very true, but when the pay isnt in line for the job/work load etc. Than the inequal pay is just welfare for the already rich.

Well, you might believe that, and I might believe that, but plenty of people don't believe that.

(24-02-2014 03:38 PM)War Horse Wrote:  Not unrelated at all, the money a company recieves is meant to do more than pay for some rich boys toys.

... except for that as concerns pork barrel politics that isn't so.

(24-02-2014 03:38 PM)War Horse Wrote:  A charity is a voluntary act, giving large amounts of tax payer money to a company isnt. Not to mention that they can use it without any oversight to make sure it does the most good.

I think that you are intelligent enough to know where I'm going with this. The lobbying process and government puppets here are playing with concessions for the monetary benifits of their 'good ol boy club'.

If the monies go towards executive compensation in disproportionate numbers, it helps neither military personal or civilian workers. And thats what is happening on both sides of the aisle.

Right, but "let's build more tanks so that there is more economic activity in my district" is not directly related to "the money we allocated to build more tanks is not all going to the floor workers".

(24-02-2014 03:38 PM)War Horse Wrote:  We see this clearly, when the one side is willing to give a little to the other side for negotiations, but not let go of the sweetheart deals for their constituency (lobbyists i.e big corporations), and screw the people at the low end of the scale to make it seem that they're cutting costs.

... that's a much more conspiratorial shade of pessimism than I would say is warranted. One's constituency is the electorate. Doubly so that part of it which voted one in. Everything else is useful only so far as it helps win elections. Does this mean there are perverse incentives and systematic flaws? Absolutely. Does this mean "THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT WAKE UP SHEEPLE"? No.

(24-02-2014 03:38 PM)War Horse Wrote:  And this in a nutshell is why they'll downsize the manpower on the military end... its the easiest and most vunerable people to screw over without very much backlash.

I'd wait until someone suggests it to see what happens. There's a pretty blind and obstinate kneejerk "support our troops because national defense because freedom" lobby.

Simultaneously then the issue is that if Congress says to the military "cut your budget" but then also buys them equipment they don't want it hardly leaves any other options.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 04:08 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 04:00 PM)bemore Wrote:  They do not need to fund the US army as much anymore seeing as they can simply fund differing factions in other countries to destabilise and fight their proxy wars for them.

Drinking Beverage

The CIA has been doing that long before Vietnam... dont ask me how I know. Angel

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 04:10 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 04:08 PM)War Horse Wrote:  
(24-02-2014 04:00 PM)bemore Wrote:  They do not need to fund the US army as much anymore seeing as they can simply fund differing factions in other countries to destabilise and fight their proxy wars for them.

Drinking Beverage

The CIA has been doing that long before Vietnam... dont ask me how I know. Angel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_America

That is not really a top level state secret.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
24-02-2014, 04:13 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
Makes me wonder how long people will keep on accepting this shit, what they will do about it when that happens and what TPTB will do to keep hold of power.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: