21 trillion in debt

[franklinstower]

We could always cut taxes and then start a trade war...

That's just what my pet pug was thinking!! Geniuses!!

 

[Jack V Savage]

The second part of your post is purely unsubstantiated opinion, and again, the businesses that profit from war are getting their way. I don't think Star Bucks is exactly starting anti-war rallies, nor do I think Good Year is lobbying to pull us out of the ME, nor suffering from our involvement.

I think that claim in the beginning is kind of rich. What are you basing your belief that businesses are driving our foreign-policy agenda on? Nothing at all, as far as I can see, and it contradicts what we know about the impact of war on business.

But defense contractors 100% do contribute to politicians and do profit from conflict, that's not debatable. They're tied into the media as well. GE even owns 49% of NBC, for example. It does appear to track with their foreign policy as well as how the MSM reports.

So your theory is that because a portion of GE benefits from increased defense spending, and they own a chunk of NBC, they're sending messages to the NBC news department to promote war?

Perhaps, but that's an opinion. I'm not saying that's not the case 100% of the time, but I expect politicians to side with who is giving them money, and in policy, this has shown to be true.

Can you cite the research you're referring to here? Donors give to politicians who agree with them, but that's quite different from saying that politicians side with who is giving their campaigns money.

This is why progressives are making a point of only taking money from small donors, and why they're almost always outspent by "establishment" politicians taking corporate PAC money. Atop this, there is a direct correlation between successful campaigns and how much money went into financing them. None of that up for debate.

There is a correlation between successful campaigns and fundraising, but it goes the opposite way. If you try to isolate the impact of campaign spending, you'll see that it is very small, with some exceptions.

Well both parties have been consistently pro war.

If someone is pro-X, that means they say, "we should have X," and fight to make it happen. Very obviously neither party is pro-war. What you mean is that conflicts arise under both parties. The GOP has traditionally had a "peace through strength" belief that requires a willingness to get involved in military conflicts, and Democrats have generally tried to take a more-diplomatic approach, which has also led to involvement in military conflicts. Peace should be understood as an outcome that people strive to achieve rather than a simple choice. With that in mind, I think your framework is similar to someone saying that both parties are pro-recession and that recessions are caused by discount retailers lobbying for them.

That's a meaningless statement though. How does it benefit Burger King if we're not invading every ME country in existence? Does Bic sell more pens in peacetime? Would Microsoft's business improve if we didn't have a bazillion military bases?

So some downsides of war are a diversion of spending from more-productive uses, increased pressure to raise taxes, and higher debt.

You contradict yourself here.

What's the contradiction?

The controversy here is the same as with Private Prisons, which profit from keeping people locked up.

In the sense that left-wingers are similarly misguided in both discussions (moreso in this one, though), that is true.

The entire purpose of donating money to politicians is to effect policy. You don't see average people donating to the campaign of someone they don't support, and there's no reason to believe it's different with corporations.

Right, people donate to candidates they support. They don't donate to candidates they don't support in order to get them to change their minds. And like it or not, there are a lot of committed right-wingers in America. They're not being conjured magically by campaign donations.

Perhaps, I'm certainly not an expert on economics, but the economy doesn't appear to be slowing for the wealthy. That aside, I've seen how it crowds out other spending, at least in the public sector. We always have money for war. Many politicians and pundits don't question massive hikes to our already insanely bloated military budget, but say "where are we gonna get the money?!?!" when people talk about things like healthcare and education.

Sure, but spending that money on war rather than on other things slows growth.

 

[HIMBOB]

The national debt figure is useless by itself. What is the other stat called that we need to know, in order to determine whether national debt is too high?

Debt growth rate?

 

[SammyPops]

It’s yours no charge

lol you have no idea how us Canadians need warm places, and customes be a hassle.

 

[KeepItRealist]

Well, Moochelle needed all those vacations to Hawaii to relax from all the hard work she does.

 

[KeepItRealist]

We could always cut taxes and then start a trade war...

It's certainly worked so far.

 

[JonesBones]

nice work @Jack V Savage

The idea of war being good for business is such a stupid and prevalent idea that crumbles under any scrutiny. Stupid old myth that needs to die. Conflict is not good for business period.

 

[cincymma79]

Doesnt mean he should continue bad spending imo. Agree with some of the others... cut spending. Also, we spend 100 billion plus in foreign aid. Would temporarily let others fend for themselves.

Can’t. Trump cut a few and it was the most racostest thing ever

 

[hillelslovak87]

nice work @Jack V Savage

The idea of war being good for business is such a stupid and prevalent idea that crumbles under any scrutiny. Stupid old myth that needs to die. Conflict is not good for business period.

Seems to depend on the business.....

 

[Jack V Savage]

nice work @Jack V Savage

The idea of war being good for business is such a stupid and prevalent idea that crumbles under any scrutiny. Stupid old myth that needs to die. Conflict is not good for business period.

I think that's just a superficial manifestation of a deeper problem, which is that people have a very poor understanding of people they disagree with and of the political process. It's commonly believed here that everyone really knows that they're right about everything but many people just refuse to admit it because they are corrupt and that because one party (either one, depending on who is thinking) is not able to get its entire wishlist into law, they must not really want it, and thus the parties are actually the same.

When explaining disagreement, look at information (some people don't know things that are relevant to the discussion or they have false factual beliefs), subconscious biases, and just reasoning skills. The kind of Glenn Greenwald approach is great for shutting your brain down, but not so good for improving your own understanding of the world.

Seems to depend on the business.....

Yes, see above. There are a very small number of businesses that benefit, just as there are a small number of businesses who benefit from recessions. But businesses as a whole do not, and clearly helping businesses would not be a reason that America would go to war. It's as crazy as Trutherism.

 

[Quequeg]

Running huge deficits during an economic boom, economics by Trump U

 

[deviake]

I think that claim in the beginning is kind of rich. What are you basing your belief that businesses are driving our foreign-policy agenda on? Nothing at all, as far as I can see, and it contradicts what we know about the impact of war on business

What businesses are being negatively impacted by our continuous wars (or "low level conflicts" if you don't want to call it war)? I've already asked you this 2-3x.

I'm basing my beliefs on the fact that there are corporations making money on war. I've stated this multiple times now, and it's not something that's an opinion. I can start listing source after source after source if you want to keep playing dumb or I can just type a few words into google and post the link.

I've also stated that business is not the only driving factor, but it definitely is a notable one.

So your theory is that because a portion of GE benefits from increased defense spending, and they own a chunk of NBC, they're sending messages to the NBC news department to promote war?

Yes, and it's not always necessarily promotion, it can even just be the way stories are framed or details that are left out. GE is making money because they make things that are go in other things that are used in war (again, I can start sourcing but a cursory google search will verify what I'm saying). It's also a patently obvious conflict of interest that a company that is profiting off of conflicts owns a large chunk of a channel that reports on these things, and advertises on said channel. I shouldn't have to explain why to another adult, this speaks for itself.

Can you cite the research you're referring to here? Donors give to politicians who agree with them, but that's quite different from saying that politicians side with who is giving their campaigns money.

Whether or not what you just said is true, politicians are then beholden to who is giving them money. That is also, coincidentally, exactly how a bribe works.

A few examples (I could probably spend hours breaking it down but quite honestly I'm too lazy for that). I'll try to omit sources that use sources I'm posting as their sources.

Cheney and Halliburton:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment.../jun/08/dick-cheney-halliburton-supreme-court

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/us/a-closer-look-at-cheney-and-halliburton.html

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1559574

https://www.ft.com/content/7f435f04-8c05-11e2-b001-00144feabdc0

Cheney's stance on Iraq also changed significantly after he started working for Halliburton.

Trump has been very friendly with Saudi Arabia, what with their prince dropping a lot of money at his hotels and getting lots of money and logistical support, much of which is going toward a genocide in Yemen.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/03/sau...-at-trumps-new-york-hotel-reversing-drop.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/...e-of-1-3-billion-in-artillery-to-saudi-arabia

https://www.mintpressnews.com/yemen-genocide/243247/



Trump has also taken money from Saudi Arabia, who in the past (unless I'm confusing them with Israel, but I believe it was the Saudi's) went over Obama's head and straight to congress, but I digress.

The Clinton's and Wall Street:

http://time.com/money/4554617/hillary-clinton-wall-street-backers-election/

That connection is pretty well known, as is her opposition to the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, which her husband finished off (along with deregulating the telecom industry and gutting welfare).

Obama and the pharmaceutical industry:



Ajit Pai and Verizon: Do I really need to post sources on this one? We know what he did to Net Neutrality and who his former employer is (hint: The same former employer that he still gives speeches for).

More odds and ends:

https://www.vox.com/2014/7/30/5949581/money-in-politics-charts-explain
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/interactive-chart-super-pac-election-money/


I'm too lazy to keep going at the moment, but those are a few easy examples. Beyond that, it really shouldn't be difficult to figure out that who someone is receiving substantial amounts of money from is likely to be beholden to those interests. This is really basic stuff.

There is a correlation between successful campaigns and fundraising, but it goes the opposite way. If you try to isolate the impact of campaign spending, you'll see that it is very small, with some exceptions.

Incorrect.

So you're saying that the less money a candidate has to spend on advertising, the less successful they are? Nah.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...actually-buy-more-votes-investigation/355154/

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/bigspenders.php

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/money-pretty-good-predictor-will-win-elections

If someone is pro-X, that means they say, "we should have X," and fight to make it happen. Very obviously neither party is pro-war. What you mean is that conflicts arise under both parties.

Call it what you will. War, "conflict", it doesn't matter to me. The US has been involved in wars or "conflicts" the overwhelming majority of the countries' history. And yes, politicians on both sides have been very pro war, that is why we're in so many countries. McCain for example never met a war he didn't like.

The GOP has traditionally had a "peace through strength" belief that requires a willingness to get involved in military conflicts, and Democrats have generally tried to take a more-diplomatic approach, which has also led to involvement in military conflicts. Peace should be understood as an outcome that people strive to achieve rather than a simple choice. With that in mind, I think your framework is similar to someone saying that both parties are pro-recession and that recessions are caused by discount retailers lobbying for them.

There's been no peace under either party, although the Democrats have been a little better, i.e., Obama's deal with Iran which was a good thing, although it's hard to overlook his kill list and expansion of "conflicts", getting us into even more countries than Bush did. That's not even to speak of the absolute shit show that was invading Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and no WMDs.

So some downsides of war are a diversion of spending from more-productive uses, increased pressure to raise taxes, and higher debt.

That's a good example, finally, however many/most corporations don't feel that directly that I'm aware of (again, I don't see any complaining about sales loss because we won't leave Iraq for example), the average person does, which I mentioned previously. Now I'll make an argument for you that I'm surprised you didn't mention: With less money going to things like infrastructure, education, and healthcare, of which our bloated military budget plays a large part, the average person is left worse off with less money to spend. Whether big business notices this trend and is lobbying against war (I mean, conflict), well... not that I'm aware. Again, it doesn't matter if they'd prefer no war, which you've not substantiated, it matters whether there is war or not, and whether companies that do profit from it are getting their way, which clearly is the case. Defense contractors give a little bit more money to Republican politicians but they do donate to Democrats too, and again, since apparently I have to explain this, you don't give money to someone and not expect something in return in the majority of situations.

What's the contradiction

War is generally bad for business.

Low-level conflicts with countries that aren't major trading partners aren't particularly damaging to individual businesses (except through opportunity costs)

Low-level conflicts, what I've been referring to as "war". To the best of my knowledge, none of the countries we're occupying were major trading partners. It's not like we're talking about war with China or something.

In the sense that left-wingers are similarly misguided in both discussions (moreso in this one, though), that is true.

Profiting off of keeping people incarcerated isn't a bad thing or conflict of interest? Okay bro.

Right, people donate to candidates they support. They don't donate to candidates they don't support in order to get them to change their minds. And like it or not, there are a lot of committed right-wingers in America. They're not being conjured magically by campaign donations.

Didn't say contributions were the only reasons politicians acted in xyz ways, but they're definitely an influence. Money changing hands is an influence, this is not astrophysics, this is basic stuff.

Sure, but spending that money on war rather than on other things slows growth.

I've already addressed this.

 

[deviake]

nice work @Jack V Savage

The idea of war being good for business is such a stupid and prevalent idea that crumbles under any scrutiny. Stupid old myth that needs to die. Conflict is not good for business period.

There's literally an entire industry and multiple corporations that do profit from it, this is not a debate, the numbers are easy to find. Even ex military people have talked about it. A president warned about it decades ago.

Yes, see above. There are a very small number of businesses that benefit, just as there are a small number of businesses who benefit from recessions. But businesses as a whole do not, and clearly helping businesses would not be a reason that America would go to war. It's as crazy as Trutherism.

The number is irrelevant. I don't think Wendy's, Wal Mart, or Sizzler are seeing drops in business because we're in Iraq. There are corporations that have been raking in billions from these "conflicts" and various weapons deals, and many of them give money to politicians. To say that has no influence in foreign policy is to ignore reality.

As far as recessions, yeah, no shit? That's a funny example because the banking industry actually bigger after wrecking the economy and being bailed out with our money. Lol, I think I'm done here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What businesses are being negatively impacted by our continuous wars (or "low level conflicts" if you don't want to call it war)? I've already asked you this 2-3x.

I don't know why this is hard. It's not a new or controversial statement, and I've explained it multiple times. No need to single out individual businesses, as they're almost all hurt by it.

I'm basing my beliefs on the fact that there are corporations making money on war. I've stated this multiple times now, and it's not something that's an opinion. I can start listing source after source after source if you want to keep playing dumb or I can just type a few words into google and post the link.

I noted that you have no basis for your belief that businesses are driving our foreign-policy agenda. Saying that some businesses benefit from conflicts isn't a response to that. It's not playing dumb to note a gaping hole in your chain of reasoning.

Yes, and it's not always necessarily promotion, it can even just be the way stories are framed or details that are left out.

There isn't much to say to this other than that it reflects a rather severe misunderstanding of how the media business works as well as a naive view of human nature. "Hey John, this is your producer. I just got a call from a shareholder saying that you should be pro-war." "Oh, OK, I'll make some changes to my last story." "Cool. I know this goes without saying, but I have to tell everyone this: make sure you never tell anyone about this talk." "Of course."

GE is making money because they make things that are go in other things that are used in war (again, I can start sourcing but a cursory google search will verify what I'm saying).

You should do that search. GE has Power, Renewable Energy, Oil & Gas, Aviation, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments. The impact of bombing in Syria or something on their total business is barely measurable. And it's a public company.

It's also a patently obvious conflict of interest that a company that is profiting off of conflicts owns a large chunk of a channel that reports on these things, and advertises on said channel. I shouldn't have to explain why to another adult, this speaks for itself.

I think if you actually made an attempt to think through your conspiracy theory, you'd see how utterly insane it is.

Whether or not what you just said is true, politicians are then beholden to who is giving them money. That is also, coincidentally, exactly how a bribe works.

So is your view that politicians uniformly have some kind of strict code of honor that is only directed toward those who financially helped them in their last election? "I know this is unpopular and will hurt my career, and I know it's morally wrong, but I'm honor-bound to be pro-war because it could slightly boost the revenue of the business of someone who donated to a Super PAC to help me when my last election. It's the politician's code."

Cheney's stance on Iraq also changed significantly after he started working for Halliburton.

What does this even mean?

That connection is pretty well known, as is her opposition to the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, which her husband finished off (along with deregulating the telecom industry and gutting welfare).

Er, no one serious supports a complete reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, but Clinton was advocating for tighter financial regs and higher capital-gains taxes. That clearly goes against your goofy theory, doesn't it?

I'm too lazy to keep going at the moment, but those are a few easy examples.

They aren't good examples of your point.

Incorrect.

So you're saying that the less money a candidate has to spend on advertising, the less successful they are? Nah.

Odd interpretation. Candidates who are more likely to win tend to do better at fundraising. There's little evidence that campaign spending has much of an impact on outcomes, particularly in big races.

Call it what you will. War, "conflict", it doesn't matter to me. The US has been involved in wars or "conflicts" the overwhelming majority of the countries' history. And yes, politicians on both sides have been very pro war, that is why we're in so many countries. McCain for example never met a war he didn't like.

Again, this is a very simplistic view of foreign policy. You think McCain just liked war because he thought it was fun? It's reasonable to criticize his approach to FP, including on the grounds that it led to more conflict, but you sound like a teen-ager when you say that he "never met a war he didn't like."

That's a good example, finally, however many/most corporations don't feel that directly that I'm aware of (again, I don't see any complaining about sales loss because we won't leave Iraq for example), the average person does, which I mentioned previously.

They feel it indirectly, and they're very much aware of it.

Low-level conflicts, what I've been referring to as "war". To the best of my knowledge, none of the countries we're occupying were major trading partners. It's not like we're talking about war with China or something.

You're confused if you see a contradiction. It's true that military conflict is generally bad for business, but it's also true that if the conflict isn't with a major trading partner, it's going to be hard to identify particular businesses that are disproportionately affected.

Profiting off of keeping people incarcerated isn't a bad thing or conflict of interest? Okay bro.

I think it's bad. Didn't say it wasn't bad. It isn't a major driver of incarceration rates, though.

Didn't say contributions were the only reasons politicians acted in xyz ways, but they're definitely an influence. Money changing hands is an influence, this is not astrophysics, this is basic stuff.

It's certainly clear what you're claiming. It's just not supported by the evidence, and if you think through the logic, it doesn't make sense.

 

[Jack V Savage]

As far as recessions, yeah, no shit? That's a funny example because the banking industry actually bigger after wrecking the economy and being bailed out with our money. Lol, I think I'm done here.

So ... your theory is that the banking industry wanted a bunch of failures and a huge hit to their businesses because 10 years later, some of the survivors have recovered from the hit?

 

[Ice That Jaw]

We will just do what Europeans do. Drag it out long enough for inflation to reduce the actual amount paid.

21 trillion in 50 years will be more like 10 trillion. Lol

 

[Scheme]

Serious reply though, why the fuck do we need 700+ billion in military spending during peace time?

Because the Russians and the Chinese are constantly upgrading their tech and have even surpassed us in recent memory (hypersonic cruise missles for example, drone swarms, etc).

So unless you want the Chinese and/or Russians taking over the world then you have to keep up.

 

[gassius_clay]

Because the Russians and the Chinese are constantly upgrading their tech and have even surpassed us in recent memory (hypersonic cruise missles for example, drone swarms, etc).

So unless you want the Chinese and/or Russians taking over the world then you have to keep up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-actually-decreasing/?utm_term=.d1de2dc1dc36
We could still cut ours in half and be more than those 2 combined.

 

[Idonotbelieveit]

We will just do what Europeans do. Drag it out long enough for inflation to reduce the actual amount paid.

21 trillion in 50 years will be more like 10 trillion. Lol

Debt will keep rising and won't be paid off

 

[Tiny]

Obama doubled the national debt in 8 years.

Twelve States had more people on welfare than working under Obama. Literally destroying families leaving many children (mostly black) fatherless.

Blacks hold themselves down voting democrat.

But obama was so charming and well spoken!