• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Government can't create jobs

Government can't create jobs

  • Total voters
    83
washunut said:
It increases the cost of foreign made product. Thus reducing the benefit to a company of building elsewhere.
Click to expand...

along with reducing the ability of the poor to provide for themselves; reducing everyones' disposable income, which means reducing our wealth, which means reducing our demand, which means reducing our production, which means reducing jobs.

:) but go on ahead. that sounds like a great idea.
 
Catawba said:
Nice colors in your unlinked graphics!
Click to expand...

:D it's the cover of the Marine Corps Times. the same cover was on the Army and Navy times, though I didn't see the Air Force one. Came out last month ;)

there is even a thread about it down in the military forum


but you seem to have forgotten to respond to the part where you claimed it was an extremist nutjob rightwing idea that only Ron Paul could love?
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Actually I'm pretty sure that million figure is accounting for future liabilities stemming from that service year.
Click to expand...

Hm. everything that i've seen indicates that is year-of expenses; but I'll admit I just took the figure and moved on. As I recall, that figure was under major discussion last when Obama was going through his Hamlet act on whether or not to send in the Surge to Afghanistan.

This is basically what Cheney argued as to why PMCs would save the government money. But it's not just death, the costs of rehab are not borne by the government for a PMC who gets injured. It's crass, but it's still true.
Click to expand...

yup. if you are a contractor and you get f'd up; it's on you and whatever long-term-care insurance policy you had bought for yourself.

Gates basically said that benefits are eating the Pentagon alive.
Click to expand...

and he was right - they are our largest single expense.


I'll get back to the other post probably tomorrow - but It's 11:30 here and when we tangle I need my a-game.
 
cpwill said:
along with reducing the ability of the poor to provide for themselves; reducing everyones' disposable income, which means reducing our wealth, which means reducing our demand, which means reducing our production, which means reducing jobs.

:) but go on ahead. that sounds like a great idea.
Click to expand...
The part that you are missing is that

The poor would have a higher number of jobs in the US to choose from, leading to increased wages for them and the abiltity to pay for higher priced goods. The profits for the companies would be reduced and the middle class would not see as miuch of a benifit if any. Or at least what I have stated is a possibility

Now as for wealth in the US, it is currently decreasing, the trade and current account deficit is indicative of that. Production in the US is decreasing, fewer jobs in the US because of the lost production, and less consumption.

Trade is great and it is not a zero sum game, but a significant trade deficit is not healthy in the long run, and the US has had a signficant trade deficit for a long time.
 
cpwill said:
Hm. everything that i've seen indicates that is year-of expenses; but I'll admit I just took the figure and moved on. As I recall, that figure was under major discussion last when Obama was going through his Hamlet act on whether or not to send in the Surge to Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
It is to my knowledge as well the costs of year of expenses. The average cost of supplying the soldiers, maintaining the equipment, housing, and general operations of course not to mention wages and benifits. As for the PMCs how do they get into the region, where do they get their supplies and how are they housed? Do they cover all of that themselves or do they piggyback on the US military? If they piggyback their costs are drastically higher then just the cost per contractor
yup. if you are a contractor and you get f'd up; it's on you and whatever long-term-care insurance policy you had bought for yourself.
Click to expand...
The only benifit for the US miltiary, but given the base cost per US soldier and a contractor in wages and benifits I doubt it is as big an issue as being made. Especially considering the low casualty rate in Afghanistan

and he was right - they are our largest single expense.


I'll get back to the other post probably tomorrow - but It's 11:30 here and when we tangle I need my a-game.
Click to expand...

Those darn golden government supplied pension and benifits plans. I think the Gov of Wisconsin needs to be parachuted into DC and make some drastic cuts
 
Last edited:
The poor will be working the factories that hopefully will start to form. I could also propose a rebirth of the railroad system in america. It is environmenatlly more friendly than cars, and it would be a huge job creator. We would need workers to rebuild and repair old railroads, maintain, and build new. The rebirth of the railroad system would also help with re-industrialization because of its effective long-range transportation of materials and products.
 
cpwill said:
:doh

yes. and for every public sector job that we have, there is greater than one private sector job that was either destroyed or choked off. the two points are not disconnected because you have to account for where you are getting the money from.
Click to expand...

Even if that were true, so what??
 
cpwill said:
:D it's the cover of the Marine Corps Times. the same cover was on the Army and Navy times, though I didn't see the Air Force one. Came out last month ;)

there is even a thread about it down in the military forum


but you seem to have forgotten to respond to the part where you claimed it was an extremist nutjob rightwing idea that only Ron Paul could love?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see there that no one has been able to do with the 401K plan what the current system does, guarantee a pension at retirement. BTW, which candidates are proposing the 401K plan to replace the military pensions?
 
TurtleDude said:
One would have to be an idiot to deny the claim. However, I think the real debate is not whether the Government can create jobs like more TSA clowns, FBI special agents, poultry inspectors, district judges, DOJ prosecutors or Navy SEALS but rather can government activity create more PRIVATE sector jobs through tax hikes, tax cuts, tariffs, less or more regulations etc
Click to expand...

The government can (and very often does) create jobs through contracts with the private sector (ie: the MIC, the DOT, etc., etc.). However, the government can only provide incentives and impetus for job growth through such measures as tax hikes, cuts, tariffs and the like. How the private sector will react to such incentives cannot always be accurately determined.
 
Phys251 said:
Even if that were true, so what??
Click to expand...

well, it means that the more you expand the public sector, the fewer actual jobs you will have - which means that fewer and fewer private sector workers will be supporting more and more public sector workers until the whole thing collapses. Generally, historians are unanimous in their their judgement that such an occurence is "bad". :)
 
Catawba said:
Yeah, I see there that no one has been able to do with the 401K plan what the current system does, guarantee a pension at retirement.
Click to expand...

oh, you are guaranteed your 401(k), it's yours after all, you own it. You simply aren't guaranteed a set amount.

Mind you, it's still not a shabby deal. I ran the numbers (i love excel), and if you follow a generally standard enlisted 20-year career, maximizing the match the entire way, and average a 6% return above inflation (which is pretty standard - it's what the more conservative pension funds assume), when you get to age 65 you still retire with $2,234,953.86.


BTW, which candidates are proposing the 401K plan to replace the military pensions?
Click to expand...

well, the main force pushing for it currently is inside the Obama administration, though John McCain has signaled his support as well. There will probably be a push to offer a "grandfather" option, though I hope if that is the case they offer an opt-out.

It really frankly makes sense in the context of force shrinkages. In the next few years, the Obama administration wants to significantly reduce the number of personnel in our military - Marines will be losing at least 20K, and probably more. However, once you are past your first enlistment, when you are denied re-up for reasons outside of your control, you get a severence package that is (2x monthly base pay) x number of years served. So, for example, if we have to cut an E-7 with 16 years in, it will cost the government a one-time payment of $128,800. Expand this across a 10% reduction in the force, and you're quickly talking real money. However, that E-7 at 16 years is probably staying in in order to hit his 20 year mark. Under the new changes, his "pensions earnings" would stop where he currently is at (16 years), which means he no longer has an incentive to stay in the military instead of seeking higher paying employment in the private sector. And so, instead of re-upping, that is what he will do. You can cause the force to cut itself in a way that minimizes the cost of severance packages.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
oh, you are guaranteed your 401(k), it's yours after all, you own it. You simply aren't guaranteed a set amount.
Click to expand...

Which means you are not guaranteed a pension at retirement, exactly what I said.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You can roll your 401k funds into an annuity, which is pretty much the same thing as a pension.
Click to expand...

bingo. an annutiy of 5% off of 2 million is 100K per year - on top of whatever you managed to save during the other 27 years of working.
 
WHICH, it should be noted, is much higher than your pension would have been.

you just had to wait until 65 to get it. as opposed to rating a pension at age 38.
 
cpwill said:
WHICH, it should be noted, is much higher than your pension would have been.

you just had to wait until 65 to get it. as opposed to rating a pension at age 38.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as being very popular among the active military or veterans. I think it would reduce incentive for making a career out of the military. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
 
Catawba said:
I don't see it as being very popular among the active military or veterans. I think it would reduce incentive for making a career out of the military. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
Click to expand...

you are right that it will not be very popular with our careerists. in fact, it seems to be sparking many to fury - everyone thinks they're special. it might be very popular with our younger members, the majority of whom get out and would now do so with a 401(k) already started that they can build on for the rest of their working lives.

It will be a massive retention issue at our mid-high levels if it is put into place without a "grandfather" option. You will see huge drop-offs among the older guys (well, "older". at 40 you are "old" in the military), who will flood out into civilian employment.

is that a good thing or bad thing? well, for the military's quality, it could be a bit of both - you will get rid of alot of guys who frankly suck, but are SNCO's and so can't be demoted or fired unless they break the law. you will also get rid of alot of quality personnel. However, if you are looking to slash the military like the Obama adminstration is, then you are already severely restricting our ability to perform our missions, and this is just a lower-cost method of doing so. The current administration wants to fire a large number of people anyways - this way they just quit.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
you are right that it will not be very popular with our careerists. in fact, it seems to be sparking many to fury - everyone thinks they're special. it might be very popular with our younger members, the majority of whom get out and would now do so with a 401(k) already started that they can build on for the rest of their working lives.

It will be a massive retention issue at our mid-high levels if it is put into place without a "grandfather" option. You will see huge drop-offs among the older guys (well, "older". at 40 you are "old" in the military), who will flood out into civilian employment.

is that a good thing or bad thing? well, for the military's quality, it could be a bit of both - you will get rid of alot of guys who frankly suck, but are SNCO's and so can't be demoted or fired unless they break the law. you will also get rid of alot of quality personnel. However, if you are looking to slash the military like the Obama adminstration is, then you are already severely restricting our ability to perform our missions, and this is just a lower-cost method of doing so. The current administration wants to fire a large number of people anyways - this way they just quit.
Click to expand...

Surprised that you would support the the same program as you claim Obama does.
 
well, it makes sense. it's time for government in general to move from an industrial age benefits system to a post-industrial age structure. just because it effects my field doesn't mean we should be exempt - and just because the Obama administratio proposed it doesn't make it a bad idea. Heck, there are even some tiny parts of Obamacare that I like.

Furthermore, we live in an age of constrained budgets - better that we cut some of our benefits and make other parts more efficient than give up on life-saving equipment or forward-leaning postures that secure the global market place. Given the choice between giving up a sweetheart pension at age 38/42, or making sure that the young Marines who follow me don't find themeslves in another situation like we were in Iraq without armored humvees; every servicemember worth their salt knows who they'd rather protect.


I'm curious though - prior to this debate, did you realize that the DOD's largest expense is benefits, and the second largest is pay? That your repeated calls to reduce DOD spending by 50% was really a call to slash benefits much more dramatically than this?
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
well, it makes sense. it's time for government in general to move from an industrial age benefits system to a post-industrial age structure. just because it effects my field doesn't mean we should be exempt - and just because the Obama administratio proposed it doesn't make it a bad idea. Heck, there are even some tiny parts of Obamacare that I like.
Click to expand...

Just what I've been saying since Obama's campaign, he is no liberal.

Furthermore, we live in an age of constrained budgets - better that we cut some of our benefits and make other parts more efficient than give up on life-saving equipment or forward-leaning postures that secure the global market place. Given the choice between giving up a sweetheart pension at age 38/42, or making sure that the young Marines who follow me don't find themeslves in another situation like we were in Iraq without armored humvees; every servicemember worth their salt knows who they'd rather protect.
Click to expand...

We differ there. I believe benefits for our soldiers are the last place we want to make cuts. How about we first look at reducing the money spent on optional wars and unneeded military bases all over the world. There will a need for fewer soldiers, and therefore you cut benefits costs for new recruits.


I'm curious though - prior to this debate, did you realize that the DOD's largest expense is benefits, and the second largest is pay? That your repeated calls to reduce DOD spending by 50% was really a call to slash benefits much more dramatically than this?
Click to expand...

Yes, like I said if you cut our military back to defense only, as was intended in the Constitution, you have need of far fewer soldiers for which benefits have to be paid. I must say it is seems very odd that you would rather cut back on benefits for soldiers, rather than to cut the more wasteful undertakings of the military, like the Iraq war.
 
Catawba said:
Just what I've been saying since Obama's campaign, he is no liberal.
Click to expand...

well, that's simply not true. he may not be as radical left as others would like, but he is solidly to the left even of democrats in Congress.

We differ there. I believe benefits for our soldiers are the last place we want to make cuts.
Click to expand...

cutting gear and research means more of us die in combat than necessary. I'd gladly give up every benefit I make if I could save just one of my fellow Marines. I'm tired of grief.

How about we first look at reducing the money spent on optional wars and unneeded military bases all over the world
Click to expand...

we're going to disagree on the former, but certainly there is room for compromise on the latter. Our presence in Europe needs to be no more than we require as a base to project power into other regions such as the Middle East and Africa. The Soviet Union isn't coming for Germany.

There will a need for fewer soldiers, and therefore you cut benefits costs for new recruits.

Yes, like I said if you cut our military back to defense only, as was intended in the Constitution, you have need of far fewer soldiers for which benefits have to be paid. I must say it is seems very odd that you would rather cut back on benefits for soldiers, rather than to cut the more wasteful undertakings of the military, like the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

and as I've pointed out to you before - the US military is currently the linchpin holding world security together, and there is no one who can step in to pick up the slack. draw back our forward leaning posture, and watch the world economy collapse, along with our own. it's the policy equivalent of eating seed corn - yeah, we'll save a couple of bucks in the short term - but the long term costs will far outweigh them.


however, irrespective - you can't get the 50% reduction you are demanding without deeply slashing benefits. that's like those who want to balance the budget by cutting pork spending and foriegn aid - you just can't get there from here by that bridge.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
well, that's simply not true. he may not be as radical left as others would like, but he is solidly to the left even of democrats in Congress.
Click to expand...

You can barely tell the difference between Obama's positions and conservatives in some major areas, like the bank bailouts, foreign policy, and the Republican idea for a health insurance mandate.

cutting gear and research means more of us die in combat than necessary. I'd gladly give up every benefit I make if I could save just one of my fellow Marines. I'm tired of grief.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about cutting gear and research. I said give up optional wars and unneeded military bases. You don't serve your fellow soldiers by calling for cuts in their benefits.

we're going to disagree on the former, but certainly there is room for compromise on the latter. Our presence in Europe needs to be no more than we require as a base to project power into other regions such as the Middle East and Africa. The Soviet Union isn't coming for Germany.
Click to expand...

I have a higher priority for our soldier's lives than I do for our 7 year and counting war with Iraq.


and as I've pointed out to you before - the US military is currently the linchpin holding world security together, and there is no one who can step in to pick up the slack. draw back our forward leaning posture, and watch the world economy collapse, along with our own. it's the policy equivalent of eating seed corn - yeah, we'll save a couple of bucks in the short term - but the long term costs will far outweigh them.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion. 6 out of 10 of servicemen and servicewomen that have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, feel we need to place a greater priority on our problems here at home than in trying to tell other countries how to manage their affairs.


however, irrespective - you can't get the 50% reduction you are demanding without deeply slashing benefits. that's like those who want to balance the budget by cutting pork spending and foriegn aid - you just can't get there from here by that bridge.
Click to expand...

Of course we can, just ask Ron Paul.
 
Catawba said:
You can barely tell the difference between Obama's positions and conservatives in some major areas, like the bank bailouts
Click to expand...

woah, full stop. conservatives were against the bailouts. you may recall there is a small movement known as the Tea Party that started back then over the issue. Our idiots of both parties did that crap.

foreign policy
Click to expand...

tell me again how giving up the missile shield for the Russians so that maybe they would ask the Iranians to play nicer with us is conservative?

Generally on WoT issues, I think Obama has just been forced by reality to abandon many unrealistic positions that the Left took in it's hatred and opposition to Everything Bush. That doesn't necessarily make him a natural conservative - it makes him not an idiot.

and the Republican idea for a health insurance mandate
Click to expand...

:roll: which you oppose because you're a liberal, right?

I didn't say anything about cutting gear and research. I said give up optional wars and unneeded military bases.
Click to expand...

that doesn't get you to 50%.

You don't serve your fellow soldiers by calling for cuts in their benefits.
Click to expand...

I think I'll be the judge of how I'm serving my fellow Marines; that being said - realistically our mission is not going to be reduced, just the funds with which we are expected to accomplish it. It's going to come down to paying less on our people, or paying less on our gear.

I have a higher priority for our soldier's lives than I do for our 7 year and counting war with Iraq.
Click to expand...

you're late to the party - our war with Iraq was over in late spring/early summer 2003.

That is your opinion. 6 out of 10 of servicemen and servicewomen that have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, feel we need to place a greater priority on our problems here at home than in trying to tell other countries how to manage their affairs.
Click to expand...

yet only 39% support the President's plan to start withdrawing us from Afghanistan, and only 25% approve of him as President.
 
cpwill said:
Our idiots of both parties did that crap.
Click to expand...

Thats what I just said.


tell me again how giving up the missile shield for the Russians so that maybe they would ask the Iranians to play nicer with us is conservative?
Click to expand...

The Iranians are of no threat to us, just as the Iraqis were of no threat to us.

Generally on WoT issues, I think Obama has just been forced by reality to abandon many unrealistic positions that the Left took in it's hatred and opposition to Everything Bush. That doesn't necessarily make him a natural conservative - it makes him not an idiot.
Click to expand...

BS, he made it clear he would pursue Afghanistan and Pakistan when he was campaigning.

:roll: which you oppose because you're a liberal, right?
Click to expand...

Exactly, Its only a bandaid until we can get a single payer plan like the rest of the industrialized world.

that doesn't get you to 50%.
Click to expand...

Well, let's try it, and see how much it saves before we start cutting benefits for our soldiers, umkay?

I think I'll be the judge of how I'm serving my fellow Marines; that being said - realistically our mission is not going to be reduced, just the funds with which we are expected to accomplish it. It's going to come down to paying less on our people, or paying less on our gear.
Click to expand...

Or, less on wasteful and unnecessary wars and bases.


you're late to the party - our war with Iraq was over in late spring/early summer 2003.
Click to expand...

Wrong, we still have 46,000 combat troops there. My son spent last Christmas there.


yet only 39% support the President's plan to start withdrawing us from Afghanistan, and only 25% approve of him as President.
Click to expand...

I notice your poll shows 71% approve of plans to pull all troops out of Iraq by December - interesting.

Here is another interesting poll -

"One in three U.S. veterans of the post-9/11 military believes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting, and a majority think that after 10 years of combat America should be focusing less on foreign affairs and more on its own problems, according to an opinion survey released Wednesday.

The nonpartisan organization that studies attitudes and trends, called the study the first of its kind. The results were based on two surveys conducted between late July and mid-September. One polled 1,853 veterans, including 712 who had served in the military after 9/11 but are no longer on active duty. Of the 712 post-9/11 veterans, 336 served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The other polled 2,003 adults who had not served in the military.

New poll shows a third of post 9/11 vets feel wars are a waste - NBC Right Now/KNDO/KNDU Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA |
Click to expand...
 
Of course it fails at creating jobs, just look throughout the history of China, Argentena, Japan, etc. Once they became more free market, the economy grew rapidly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom