F
franklinstower
Guest
We could always cut taxes and then start a trade war...
That's just what my pet pug was thinking!! Geniuses!!
We could always cut taxes and then start a trade war...
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.
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.
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.
Well both parties have been consistently pro war.
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?
You contradict yourself here.
The controversy here is the same as with Private Prisons, which profit from keeping people locked up.
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.
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.
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?
It’s yours no charge
We could always cut taxes and then start a trade war...
Can’t. Trump cut a few and it was the most racostest thing everDoesnt 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.
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.
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.....
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
So some downsides of war are a diversion of spending from more-productive uses, increased pressure to raise taxes, and higher debt.
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)
In the sense that left-wingers are similarly misguided in both discussions (moreso in this one, though), that is true.
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.
Sure, but spending that money on war rather than on other things slows growth.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Cheney's stance on Iraq also changed significantly after he started working for Halliburton.
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).
I'm too lazy to keep going at the moment, but those are a few easy examples.
Incorrect.
So you're saying that the less money a candidate has to spend on advertising, the less successful they are? Nah.
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.
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.
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.
Profiting off of keeping people incarcerated isn't a bad thing or conflict of interest? Okay bro.
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.
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.
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).Serious reply though, why the fuck do we need 700+ billion in military spending during peace time?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-actually-decreasing/?utm_term=.d1de2dc1dc36Because 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.
Debt will keep rising and won't be paid offWe 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
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.