21 trillion in debt

[Quequeg]

True, BUT and it's a really big fucking BUT, the jobs will be where businesses invest, and business will not invest where the consumer has a drop in spending power.

High end tax cuts certainly do encourage investment, but not in the region that gave them the cut.

Exactly, nobody hires without demand, how do you stimulate demand? More money to lower and middle classes who will spend the money on goods and services instead of the rich who will hide the money tax free.

 

[Darth_Inv1ctu5]

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

Because guns

 

[Orgasmo]

1. Close down half of American oversea bases
2. Switch to universal healthcare system

 

[Lead]

Peace time? https://www.cfr.org/interactives/global-conflict-tracker?marker=26#!/conflict/war-in-afghanistan

We tend to keep troops anywhere we've had a conflict at. I agree it's still a hostile era but the war stage with that country and Iraq has passed for an awkward stabilization stage that hasn't worked as much as we likely would've hoped.

 

[SammyPops]

We're going to sell off Florida

To Israel or Canada? We'd take Americas wang ..... no homo.

 

[surrealworlds]

We tend to keep troops anywhere we've had a conflict at. I agree it's still a hostile era but the war stage with that country and Iraq has passed for an awkward stabilization stage that hasn't worked as much as we likely would've hoped.

As long as we have soldiers dying in foreign lands we are not at peace.

 

[Rational Poster]

Yea absolutely. Bush got it rolling. However Obama did nothing to stop it and only added to it. That's why the globalists hate Trump. He's not a sellout like Bush or Obama. Notice how buddy buddy McCain Obama Bush Biden Were? All corrupt.

Trump maga.

Trump increased the deficit by over 500M/yr tho...

Obama lowered the deficit to pre-recession levels. Trump brought it back to recession level of deficit spending during an economic upswing.

 

[Rod1]

Those tax cuts allow employers to hire more people...which increases production....which increases sales. Everything goes back into the economy when people spend their money. It's simple.

I bet all guys like you see are tax cuts for the rich.

Trump maga

Except that unemployment is already so low the Feds are raising rates, it makes no sense to stimulate the economy through debt in that scenario.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Business interests are driving policy (that's easily verifiable, Princeton even has a study on it), that's a big or perhaps the main reason why we're in so many conflicts.

Princeton study that you're referring to doesn't appear to hold up. Again, there's no way we'd be in as many conflicts (or any?) if businesses had their way.

Whether or not some or most businesses prefer peace is irrelevant if the ones that profit from war are getting their way. Businesses contribute plenty to politicians and defense contractors even advertise on MSM.

Sure, but if the model is that business interests are dominant in general, foreign policy seems to suggest that it is flawed. Business contributions to campaigns pull in different directions and don't appear to influence policy on high-profile issues at all. I think you can make the argument that defense-related businesses care more about foreign policy and lean harder and thus can "win" even if the bulk of corporate interests are against them, though that still seems silly, as you don't see defense-related businesses openly lobby for war. So you end up arguing that politicians are proactively acting in what they see as the best interests of those businesses.

There seems to be a very strange reluctance of people all over the spectrum to acknowledge that people in charge of foreign policy do what they think is best, even if they're wrong. I think the issue is that we're fairly constrained in terms of what we can really do, but the out-of-power party always has to insist that the in-power party is acting stupidly or evilly. So when there's turnover, there isn't big change, and true believers have to explain that.

Anyway, what businesses interests would prefer a policy of peace? Genuine question. Or, rephrased, what businesses are hurting from our continuous conflicts around the world?

I think all of them benefit from peace. 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), but it's not something they'd support either. Outside a situation where interest rates are at zero and we're in a recession, military spending crowds out other forms of spending and slows the economy down (also, some people believe it "creates jobs," which is wrong except in the situation I outlined earlier in this sentence).

 

[Chappi]

We're going to sell off Florida

Florida will sink in the ocean in a few years, no1 wants it.

 

[Lead]

As long as we have soldiers dying in foreign lands we are not at peace.

I think the new normal since 9/11 makes it hard to imagine reaching a phase like that again. Middle East isn't getting their shit together anytime soon.

 

[PlayswellwithLawnDarts]

To Israel or Canada? We'd take Americas wang ..... no homo.

Florida will sink in the ocean in a few years, no1 wants it.

Ponce De Leon thinks you guys sound like a bunch a commie queers.

 

[deviake]

Princeton study that you're referring to doesn't appear to hold up. Again, there's no way we'd be in as many conflicts (or any?) if businesses had their way

Interesting article. It looks like policy splits around close to 50/50, favoring the rich by a fairly small margin. I started reading the actual Princeton study awhile back but got sidetracked, I'll have to pick that up and finish it. Sifting through data and figuring out who's right, how right they are, etc, can be difficult, and it's tough to discern how accurate the framing is.

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.

Sure, but if the model is that business interests are dominant in general, foreign policy seems to suggest that it is flawed. Business contributions to campaigns pull in different directions and don't appear to influence policy on high-profile issues at all. I think you can make the argument that defense-related businesses care more about foreign policy and lean harder and thus can "win" even if the bulk of corporate interests are against them, though that still seems silly, as you don't see defense-related businesses openly lobby for war. So you end up arguing that politicians are proactively acting in what they see as the best interests of those businesses.

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.

There seems to be a very strange reluctance of people all over the spectrum to acknowledge that people in charge of foreign policy do what they think is best, even if they're wrong.

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. 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.

I think the issue is that we're fairly constrained in terms of what we can really do, but the out-of-power party always has to insist that the in-power party is acting stupidly or evilly. So when there's turnover, there isn't big change, and true believers have to explain that

Well both parties have been consistently pro war.

I think all of them benefit from peace.

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?

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),

You contradict yourself here. Also, war is not bad for business if

A)You make any item whatsoever that is used in war (including raw materials to make xyz items)

B)If it doesn't effect your business.

but it's not something they'd support either.

That's irrelevant. Also, defense contractors and anyone who can make money from conflict would be undercutting their profit margins if they didn't support war. The controversy here is the same as with Private Prisons, which profit from keeping people locked up. General Smedley D Butler, a Marine Corps general, even gave a speech on this pre-WWII entitled "War is a Racket", citing examples of companies that profited from it. That there's companies that profit from war is not debatable, nor is the fact that defense contractors advertise on MSM and give money to politicians. This is not to say that every foreign policy decision that every politician makes is at the behest of the MIC (I'm sure there's plenty of reasons, however it'd be foolish to not take into account where their donations are coming from and how that tracks with policy), but certainly taking money from xyz businesses influences policy. 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.

Outside a situation where interest rates are at zero and we're in a recession, military spending crowds out other forms of spending and slows the economy down (also, some people believe it "creates jobs," which is wrong except in the situation I outlined earlier in this sentence).

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.

 

[NakamuraNutShot]

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

So, we’re not caught with our pants down during war time.

 

[gassius_clay]

So, we’re not caught with our pants down during war time.

against who?

 

[NakamuraNutShot]

against who?

Canada.

 

[SammyPops]

Ponce De Leon thinks you guys sound like a bunch a commie queers.

and you could sell us Nevada too.

 

[Goonerview]

Lol.

Did you miss how trump’s tax cuts are scheduled to add like another two trillion to the deficit?

Keep in mind, this is in a GOOD economy; Trumpo doesn’t even have the Obama argument that adding debt was necessary to avoid total economic collapse.

Kicking the can down the road.

 

[PlayswellwithLawnDarts]

and you could sell us Nevada too.

It’s yours no charge

 

[Cajun]

Trump should not have made that first 20 trillion in debt before he took office
It was the wrong thing to do

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.