Ska we just have to many important ppl in America that we cant memorize the quotes of all of them

And yet . . . you are so knowledgeable on the military industrial complex? How confusing. That you talk with such authority on the one hand, whilst with the other you proclaim and defend your ignorance.

Yes, because knowing a quote makes you an expert in a field.

I can quote Einstein. Does that make me an expert in relativity?

Sorry, but I deal in the more practical aspects and not just hover along up in the theory. I note that you didn't deny any of my points regarding the jobs and technologies created by the 'military-industrial' complex.

hey i just got a 3 on my AP US history test without reading a single chapter in the history book so i consider myself pretty knowledgable on history stuffs

Really Sharpe, i'd advise you to stop, yes your politicians and fox may tell you things they want you to believe but when you reapeat them - you stoop to their level - and that is not a good one.

But you do insist so I will oblige:

However, the crucial question is not how many jobs are created by spending, for example, $1 billion on the military. Rather, it is whether spending that $1 billion creates more or fewer jobs when compared with spending $1 billion on alternative public purposes, such as education, healthcare and the green economy—or having consumers spend that same amount of money in any way they choose.

In fact, compared with these alternative uses, spending on the military is a poor source of job creation. As we see in the graph below, $1 billion in spending on the military will generate about 11,200 jobs within the US economy. That same $1 billion would create 16,800 jobs through clean energy investments, 17,200 jobs within the healthcare sector or 26,700 jobs through support of education. That is, investments in clean energy, healthcare and education will produce between 50 and 140 percent more jobs than if the same money were spent by the Pentagon. Just giving the money to households to consume as they choose would generate 15,100 jobs, 35 percent more than military spending.



The quote by the way is from General Dwight D. Eisenhower.

A 3 is a mediocre score that doesn't guarantee being able to get any college credits for the test.

Methinks you should have actually cracked the book...

I am aware where the quote is from. I notice you said nothing of the technologies. Somehow I wager you use GPS (DoD owned and operated) and the internet (DARPA)

What, praytell, would you do with the 70K jobs at Raytheon? Or the 120K jobs at Lockheed Martin? Or the 70K jobs at Northrop Grumman? Or the 110K jobs at BAE? Or the 90K jobs at BAE?

Also, what is the source for these figures? Simply providing figures without a source is utterly meaningless.

Richard

RvW... you are aware that hundreds of thousands of jobs are made by that 'unproductive' spending, right? And that GPS, the internet and countless other technologies are offshoots of that 'unproductive' spending.

Okay, replace "unproductive" with "ludicrously inefficient". Those jobs are all fully paid for by the government; that government money could be spent far more efficiently, for instance creating jobs and having something to show for it. Great Depression, the Hoover Dam was built. Insanely expensive project, but it created lots of jobs and afterwards you had achieved something. Currently half of all the aircraft carriers in operation belong to the US Navy, insanely expensive, but it creates lots of jobs... yet a few years later, you're still in the exact same place where you were before; they don't accomplish anything. Sure, maybe you can justify having one, the second is already tricky, the rest is just a waste of money.

Regarding Internet, GPS, etc. How much did it cost NASA to get to orbit (no, not the Moon, just orbit) for the first time? And how much did it cost SpaceX / Virgin? Also, the important part of the Internet is the global infrastructure and the fact everything is hooked up together. Even if DARPA (back then ARPA) helped a bit, they in no way deserve sole, complete credit for the Internet today. Even in the early days, the initiative for installing and connecting networks was in large part a university effort, nowhere near exclusively a military effort. Otherwise, where do you think the ".su" (yes, Soviet Union, still in operation today btw) TLD came from? I'll give you a hint, it was not the US military who pushed for that. You could also Google "kremvax" which (as an April Fools joke in '84) claimed to have hooked up the Kremlin to the "global" network infrastructure:

| months later |
From a reliable source I heard that this, eh... "problem" had been the subject of a serious discussion at the Pentagon about "how to deal with it". Wow! :-)

Doesn't sound like the Pentagon was ("would've been", were it real) very much in charge of it eh?

Really? Comparing the first NASA orbit in the 1960's to SpaceX in the 2000's?

I can't even continue the conversation with hat kind of ridiculous logic.

If anything, the fact that it took private entities DECADES to match what the government did is proof that the government spending on such matters is necessary and valuable.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167811/dont-buy-spin-how-cutting-pentagons-budget-could-boost-economy#

And do you seriously suggest that providing your universities research facilities with the same money would not provide great bonuses to your nation? It is well documented that advances in technology often are offshoots of failed investigation into unrelated areas. But to suggest that a company such as Lockheed is capable of achieving the same social benefits when investigating how to better kill people than the top medics in your country being given the same money to help people is well .... ridiculous.

Also I find it very interesting that you demand sources whilst providing none.

The source for that image is the following article: http://www.thenation.com/article/167811/dont-buy-spin-how-cutting-pentagons-budget-could-boost-economy

What, praytell, would you do with the 70K jobs at Raytheon? Or the 120K jobs at Lockheed Martin? Or the 70K jobs at Northrop Grumman? Or the 110K jobs at BAE? Or the 90K jobs at BAE?

Those jobs are (indirectly) paid for by taxes; spending that tax income another way (see Ska's image and/or the article it came from) would generate at least as many jobs (in other sectors, but jobs all the same). The same applies to cutting taxes (and letting people spend the money they "save" in whatever way they choose).

---

Off-topic: I notice you say "praytell" a lot; I don't think I've ever heard anyone else ever use that.

I provided no sources as prior to that post I hadn't provided any citable material. The employment numbers were taken off wiki and aren't likely to be subjected to research bias as your numbers are.

Providing universities with more research funding would also be wise but it has it's own issues of red tape etc. I am not saying the military spending shouldn't be cut, merely that it should not be cut by 90% or some similar extreme. There is value to it, some which could not come from other sources.

Yes wiki ... because my friend down the pub says it's true ...

The USA have the most aircraft carriers in the world.
HALLELUJA!
The USA dont have the most Nukes but they can nuke any country off the face of the earth!
HALLELUJA!
The USA spend more money on military expenses than all other countries combined!
HOW GLORIOUS!! HALLELUJA!!

but wait ... what do the other industrialized nations spend the money on instead?
Schools ...
ah come on, education is overrated, the USA has faith!
HALLELUJA!
Health care ...
wait, what do you need good health for anyways? If you kids get sick, you better pay for their health you ****ing communist!
HALLELUJA!
Infrastructure ...
Damn all these sewagepipes, streets, powerlines ... what do you need them for anyway. As long as there are enough parking lots at your local stadium, the infrastructre is just about right!
HALLELUJA!

Look at Norway for instance... typical communist country. Can they nuke the world? no ... how puny!! Can they invade bombard or destroy other countries? most likely not ... how puny!!!
They have healthcare for everyone ... pfff communists. Virtually no unemployment ... pfff communists!!
They have highest living standards, educational standards, health care and social security standards ... what is it damn worth? thats all wasted money. People will use up the living standard by living, the education is wasted if it goes into art or philosophy instead of capatilism/marketing/retailing or weapon manufacturing and the social security? what if they get nuked? who needs social security if they can get nuked?
They dont even use the oil they have to fuel up tanks and fighters, they use it for the comming generations. ... please, how stupid is that? Everybody should know that a truely glorious nation does the best it can to provide its elite with spaceflights, private jets, private mansions all over the world, carparks of 100 luxury cars plus ... but those communists try to improve the life of the population as a whole ... how inglorious and boring.

So be happy to live in the country that never loses a war, not even the one against its own population!
HALLELUJA!

Cited sources on wiki. Easy place to find the numbers.

I asked for source on your figures since they are likely to impacted by the bias. Employment numbers are not. I am sure you can see the difference.

Yes wiki ... because my friend down the pub says it's true ...

i hate and find it so how annoying how americans boast about there military,however the truth about their military is it's expensive.And i find the american government hypocritical,america they don't intervene in a country unless it has oil.Also americans are so easily fed lies about there government and world situation and they hang on to the words of the media and take their patriotism to a length where it is annoying,useless and in factual.Now americans please go back to being hypnotised by your governments you will soon be be snapped out of your.

Sorry i addressed all americans together i bet there are some who don't believe all they read.

Congrats on the 10-minute separated double post?