House Approves Massive $606 Billion Military Spending Bill

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by katsung47, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. katsung47

    katsung47 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    1,124
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    In a hard time, they are still genorous to spend tax money on weapons.

    Politicians work for the Pentagon.
     
    waltky and (deleted member) like this.
  2. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Does that include the amount for other countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. or is that just for the U.S. military?...
    :?:
    Obama Adds $70 Million to Israel Military Aid
    July 27, 2011 — President Barack Obama has committed another $70 million in U.S. military aid for Israel. The president has been concentrating heavily on Israel, as his likely election opponent prepares to visit Jerusalem.
     
  3. catalinacat

    catalinacat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    6,922
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    He has an uncommon signing ceremony today with cameras to film it at the white house, signing aid to Israel right on the eve of Romney's visit to Israel. He's ever the Chicago politician that knows his supporters are stupid, because even after this politically motivated, transparent move, they will still vote for him. Yuk, yuk.

    "White House press secretary Jay Carney denied politics played a role in the bill signing.""

    Obama has NEVER done one thing that wasn't for political purposes.

    He knows no one would vote for him for free.
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US form of capitalism is reliant on military expenditure and one would expect it to be counter-cyclical in fiscal design
     
  5. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    DOD spending increased 10% adjusted for inflation...
    :fart:
    Obama Increased Real Defense Spending by More Than 10 Percent
    November 15, 2012 - President Barack Obama increased inflation-adjusted Department of Defense spending by 10 percent--even while ending the war in Iraq.
    See also:

    Coburn Report on DOD Budget – Millions Spent on Storytelling Science, Breast Cancer Research, Chevy Volts
    November 15, 2012 – In a 74-page report entitled ‘Department of Everything,’ Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) outlined how $67.8 billion dollars can be saved by cutting non-defense spending at the Department of Defense, including $6 million on researching the science behind storytelling, medical research and alternative energy.
     
  6. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And by reliant, do you mean how defense firms have systematically spread there work into areas where key House and senate votes are, so whenever defense cuts are threatened, they threaten back with taking jobs out of the representatives constituency?
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its simply not possible to explain the role of the military sector with the standard military industrial complex grunt. Unlike most other capitalist nations, the US military sector plays a direct economic role: from Keynesian demand management (without empowering the workers) to spin-off technical progress
     
  8. Ramboner

    Ramboner New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gotta keep the unemployables from causing problems. Keep them out of the country and taking freedumb to brown people and they won't disrupt business as usual in The Empire.If they ever do bring the idiots home I recommend an underground bunker. The Great Satans PoPo has an erection waiting for their return.
    You voted for it.....or did you ?
     
  9. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,751
    Likes Received:
    14,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whatever that babble means.
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Basic macroeconomics (obviously)
     
  11. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0




    For reals, techno babble non-sense!
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you don't know any basic economics why would you bother with an economics sub-forum? Seems a little inconsistent with rational economic man!
     
  13. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,517
    Likes Received:
    27,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As your sig says, "Support Freedom & Liberty - defeat jihad & despots."
     
  14. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,751
    Likes Received:
    14,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh but I do understand basic economics, having even studied it in college. It is your babble I don't understand.
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps the Econ 101 you studied wasn't of a particularly high power? There was nothing complex in my post. Just correct use of economic analysis.
     
  16. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps from your perspective but definately not from the perspective of others. If you can not explain your point in simple terms then you really do not understand what you are talking about.

    I have waded through your econo-babble before and found that in many cases you were just disguising lack of underestanding with techno-speak.
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is complete drivel. Sounds like you're upset over your economics knowledge levels. Go to evening class! I'll repeat: there has been nothing complex mentioned. If you want to suggest otherwise please quote the sentence where you got lost. I will find it amusing. Only marginally mind you. Oops, a bit of economics there!
     
  18. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,751
    Likes Received:
    14,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody said it was complex. We said it was nonsensical. Babble.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clearly you didn't understand it. I'm happy to play though: quote the sentence that was nonsensical.
     
  20. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Make sure you explain how Keynesian demand management, and a spin-off of technical progress has anything to do with justifying deficit spending for the military!
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its a basic reference to the political economy of military expenditure (a basic requirement if one is going to understand the effects of the military sector). The issue is straight forward: does military expenditure have a direct economic role? Orthodox microeconomics suggests not. We have a simple analysis into public good provision, but a focus on 'crowding-out effects' (such that the civilian sector is denied resources and therefore achieves lower growth). This is also supported by the offshoot of classical liberalism, where the military sector is understood within the notion of influence costs engineered through imperfect accountability: i.e. the military-industrial complex. The military sector is seen as bloated, with rent-seeking behaviour encouraging inefficiency and over-production of arms.

    However, these schools of thought cannot explain trends in the military sector. We've seen, for example, that military expenditure has been counter-cyclical. As private demand falls in a recession, it can be used to stabilise overall demand and therefore maintain higher employment levels and secure a return to growth. There is some agreement over these effects amongst the orthodox Keynesians and the heterodox Marxists. I'd personally refer to the impact of market concentration, where cost-plus pricing policies (enabled by achieving market power) can increase the threat of destabilising stagflation (where we see shocks leading to demand problems, but with the monopoly sector protecting profit through price adjustments such that the competitive sector is forced into an even more delicate position).

    In addition, we know that technical progress is hampered by market failure. The high fixed costs associated with research & development, coupled with the highly uncertain returns, leads to an inefficiently low level of investments. See, for example, the call in Europe to try and mimic the US with a 'common armaments policy' (using that as a means to reduce the gap in International R&D divides). The argument is simple: costs in the military sector, relatively more skewed towards R&D, provides an environment where know-how spills over from the military sector to the civilian sector. As weapon technologies advanced, technologies also spin-off into the civilian sector such that economic growth is further increased.
     
  22. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More techno babble, because you are incapable of responding in simple terms, as there is no substance to your posts!!
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, basic economics. Clearly you're not interested in basic economics. Fair enough. Each to their own. Stick to having a tantrum!
     
  24. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not a tantrum.

    I just through down the gauntlet, daring you to explain one sentence, and its relevance to justifying military spending, in simple terms.

    You ran away, showing the yellow streak down your back as you fled!!
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A tantrum, without doubt.

    And it was achieved. Your quick response, where you clearly didn't bother to read the post, gave you away. You're not interested in debate.

    And this is just schoolyard prattle. You best improve your performance
     

Share This Page