21 trillion in debt

[glenwo2]

But obama was so charming and well spoken!

Careful. The Left would view that as racist talk.

 

[Tiny]

Careful. The Left would view that as racist talk.

What you did there...i see it!

 

[deviake]

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 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.



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."



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.



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



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."



What does this even mean?



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?



They aren't good examples of your point.



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.



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."



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



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.



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



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.

Okay, so money plays no influence on interests, got it. Intellectual honesty at its finest. And no, that's not the only influence on foreign policy, but yes, it plays a role.

And yes, I know that about Hillary. But she's still taking money from people in the same industry that she wants to regulate. If you don't see the potential for problems there, as I'm sure you don't, I don't know what to tell you.

I never said that about McCain, you're reaching. It was simply a commentary on how awful his stance of foreign policy he was, and how much of a monster. I don't know what sounds teenage about that (and yeah Mr. Intellectual, teenager is not hyphenated). He was a hawk.

You keep saying war hurts business but refuse to give a single example - not one. Hell, I even partially did your job for you gave you an example of how it's bad for the country. You then call the wars I'm referring to "small scale conflicts" (that's what I'm inferring given the context and you didn't correct me, and it's also quite clear what wars/"small scale conflicts"/whatevers I'm referring to) and say they don't effect businesses much.

There's many things that drive incarceration rates, this I'll let you off on because I think it was a legit misunderstanding. I don't know how much influence exactly private prisons have on incarceration rates as I haven't read up on them in awhile. I glanced at a couple ACLU articles just meow though, and it's clear that whether or not they have a direct effect (I think that has to do more with law enforcement and all of its ugliness), they do lobby the government for money and power, and clearly want to keep people locked up longer. I suspect if I continued down this rabbit hole I'd find more evidence of them directing lobbying politicians.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/mass-incarceration/private-prisons
https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-jus...-giant-corecivic-manipulates-montana-renewing

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?

No, you're reading too far into it. I just think it was a funny example given the convo and also relevant given that that industry is still playing the same games it was when it wrecked the economy, but this time some of the banks are actually more prosperous than before, and not a single person was thrown in jail. That's all. Extrapolate what you will.

 

[oldshadow]

When Obama was in I was told this was a good thing.

 

[deviake]

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.

We outspend the next 15 countries in military spending, and no, we're not spending all that money in R&D, nor would we need anywhere near that for R&D. The military's recent budget increase - just the increase - is more than Russia's military budget for an entire year.

It's largely because we're bombing and occupying multiple countries and we have hundreds of military bases all over the planet.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Okay, so money plays no influence on interests, got it. Intellectual honesty at its finest. And no, that's not the only influence on foreign policy, but yes, it plays a role.

Interesting definition of "intellectual honesty," you have. Not only is it not possible that you're wrong; it's not even possible that anyone else truly *thinks* you're wrong.

And yes, I know that about Hillary. But she's still taking money from people in the same industry that she wants to regulate. If you don't see the potential for problems there, as I'm sure you don't, I don't know what to tell you.

If there were any legitimate argument, I believe you would make it. Instead you're just kind of vaguely insinuating something and saying that it's somehow beyond anyone who doesn't already lean your way. Is your view that she should say, "if you work in finance, I refuse to accept campaign donations from you, and I will illegally instruct Super PACs to likewise refuse your contributions."?

I never said that about McCain, you're reaching. It was simply a commentary on how awful his stance of foreign policy he was, and how much of a monster. I don't know what sounds teenage about that (and yeah Mr. Intellectual, teenager is not hyphenated). He was a hawk.

You didn't say, "McCain for example never met a war he didn't like"? Also, the NY Times stylebook changed in 1999 to remove the hyphen from "teenage", and the AP changed it after that, I believe. The New Yorker still uses the hyphen. It's a matter of choice, basically. I prefer the hyphen. YMMV.

You keep saying war hurts business but refuse to give a single example - not one.

Yeah, it hurts pretty much all businesses. Asking for an example just shows you don't understand the argument, doesn't it?

Hell, I even partially did your job for you gave you an example of how it's bad for the country. You then call the wars I'm referring to "small scale conflicts" (that's what I'm inferring given the context and you didn't correct me, and it's also quite clear what wars/"small scale conflicts"/whatevers I'm referring to) and say they don't effect businesses much.

No, you made this mistake earlier, and I already corrected you.

No, you're reading too far into it. I just think it was a funny example given the convo and also relevant given that that industry is still playing the same games it was when it wrecked the economy, but this time some of the banks are actually more prosperous than before, and not a single person was thrown in jail. That's all. Extrapolate what you will.

So the point stands. Your view is exactly as silly as thinking that we had a recession because discount stores were lobbying for one.

When Obama was in I was told this was a good thing.

Higher short-term deficits are recommended while we're recovering from a recession with interest rates as low as they can go. No benefit to long-term debt (and Obama did more to reduce long-term debt than any president in the past century) or to high deficits with a strong economy. And despite that, the GOP was promoting a debt hysteria (not saying it was a good thing) during Obama's presidency. Suddenly, on Jan. 20 2017, they not only got over the hysteria, they actively moved to drastically increase long-term debt and raise deficits, and the only response from their followers is "but Obama." Shows that they were full of shit the whole time, IMO.

 

[GhostZ06]

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.

its a good thing you're currently full of shit. They have no surpassed us in recent memory. So stop pulling none sense and saying none sense.
Do you have any video proof of Chinese weapons testing? Or show of hyper sonic weapons? i bet you wont find a damn thing. Russia's new missiles are really something id worry about an they
dont have drones that are operational in mass let alone have any swarm tech. Don't even get me started on the Chinese

 

[Carl Sonnen]

The debt may be at 21 trillion, but the US has over 210 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, including Social Security and Medicare. The debt will never get paid back and you will collect your Social Security in devalued dollars which won't buy much. Your Medicare will be rationed and your life will be deemed economically unfeasible at some point, likely before you deem it so. Of course, its useless trying to explain any of this to Doofus Americanus, who is too enthralled with his/her iPhone to care about their birthright being sold off for a bowl of stew.

 

[deviake]

Interesting definition of "intellectual honesty," you have. Not only is it not possible that you're wrong; it's not even possible that anyone else truly *thinks* you're wrong

Jack, even if you think war is bad for business overall, whatever if any role money plays in politics, it is a fact that there are large corporations that profit from war. It's also a fact that some donate money to politicians. It's also a fact that there's politicians that have left positions with those companies, became politicians, then passed legislation that benefited their former employers. If you really think all this money changing hands has no influence, then okay.



The rest is meaningless.

If there were any legitimate argument, I believe you would make it. Instead you're just kind of vaguely insinuating something and saying that it's somehow beyond anyone who doesn't already lean your way. Is your view that she should say, "if you work in finance, I refuse to accept campaign donations from you, and I will illegally instruct Super PACs to likewise refuse your contributions."?



You didn't say, "McCain for example never met a war he didn't like"? Also, the NY Times stylebook changed in 1999 to remove the hyphen from "teenage", and the AP changed it after that, I believe. The New Yorker still uses the hyphen. It's a matter of choice, basically. I prefer the hyphen. YMMV.



Yeah, it hurts pretty much all businesses. Asking for an example just shows you don't understand the argument, doesn't it?



No, you made this mistake earlier, and I already corrected you.



So the point stands. Your view is exactly as silly as thinking that we had a recession because discount stores were lobbying for one.



Higher short-term deficits are recommended while we're recovering from a recession with interest rates as low as they can go. No benefit to long-term debt (and Obama did more to reduce long-term debt than any president in the past century) or to high deficits with a strong economy. And despite that, the GOP was promoting a debt hysteria (not saying it was a good thing) during Obama's presidency. Suddenly, on Jan. 20 2017, they not only got over the hysteria, they actively moved to drastically increase long-term debt and raise deficits, and the only response from their followers is "but Obama." Shows that they were full of shit the whole time, IMO.

Why would I be asking for an example if I knew of how it effected business overall? You asserted something, I asked a question. I even provided an example of how our bloated military budget effects the public sector and people overall. Also, so we're on the same page, what do you mean by war? Vietnam, WWII? You then mentioned "low level conflicts", and said it doesn't hurt business when we're not engaged in those with countries that aren't/weren't major trading partners. It seems to me the present conflicts we're involved in would fall under that category.

 

[RockstarChris]

we are gonna sell California to China. Should be a smooth transition seeing as they share the same political philosophy.

 

[Wingslaught]

Jack, even if you think war is bad for business overall, whatever if any role money plays in politics, it is a fact that there are large corporations that profit from war. It's also a fact that some donate money to politicians. It's also a fact that there's politicians that have left positions with those companies, became politicians, then passed legislation that benefited their former employers. If you really think all this money changing hands has no influence, then okay.

This should be a non-controversial statement. The big military contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrupp Grumman all make substantial profits from developing and selling military tech, equipment, and weapons to the U.S. government. In general though, I agree with JVS that war is bad for business. That's why the prevailing ideology of world elites involves making large-scale wars impossible through the strengthening of the UN and other NGO's. It's all about making the world safe for the proliferation of business.

 

[Panmisiek]

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

Will cost US less than 1% of that sum to keep nuke missiles maintained and ready. But the bigger army the bigger dick.

 

[deviake]

This should be a non-controversial statement. The big military contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrupp Grumman all make substantial profits from developing and selling military tech, equipment, and weapons to the U.S. government. In general though, I agree with JVS that war is bad for business. That's why the prevailing ideology of world elites involves making large-scale wars impossible through the strengthening of the UN and other NGO's. It's all about making the world safe for the proliferation of business.

Ah, interesting take. My question to Jack wasn't simply a challenge, I was also genuinely curious and your post has more substance than any of his responses.

One thing I'm curious about: Are the wars (mainly referring to the bombing occupation of multiple countries) the US is involved in now small scale enough that they're not hurting business stateside? Is it more large scale warfare that you're referring to, ala Vietnam, WWII, Korea, etc? That's what I'm trying to grasp. At my present level of knowledge I don't understand how that's hurting business here, aside from the fact that all that military spending would be better used elsewhere.

 

[shinkyoku]

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

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[nhbbear]

Let’s give them michigan or Minnesota and call it square

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack, even if you think war is bad for business overall, whatever if any role money plays in politics, it is a fact that there are large corporations that profit from war. It's also a fact that some donate money to politicians.

Sure. As I said, discount stores benefit from recessions. Discount stores also make political contributions. Your comment is exactly as silly as saying that politicians deliberately cause recessions because of discount store donations.

Why would I be asking for an example if I knew of how it effected business overall?

Because you don't understand the point that it affects business negatively overall.

Also, so we're on the same page, what do you mean by war? Vietnam, WWII? You then mentioned "low level conflicts", and said it doesn't hurt business when we're not engaged in those with countries that aren't/weren't major trading partners. It seems to me the present conflicts we're involved in would fall under that category.

Lots of things can be meant by "war." When I used "low-level conflicts" it was to distinguish from things like WWII (which was certainly very good for business because of the huge ramp in gov't spending at a time when that was desperately needed but politically impossible).

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Ah, interesting take. My question to Jack wasn't simply a challenge, I was also genuinely curious and your post has more substance than any of his responses.

One thing I'm curious about: Are the wars (mainly referring to the bombing occupation of multiple countries) the US is involved in now small scale enough that they're not hurting business stateside? Is it more large scale warfare that you're referring to, ala Vietnam, WWII, Korea, etc? That's what I'm trying to grasp. At my present level of knowledge I don't understand how that's hurting business here, aside from the fact that all that military spending would be better used elsewhere.

If we had won in Vietnam we have a more favorable market for our companies to expand into, and sooner. There is the argument, we only intervene because if everyone going commy, our businesses will suffer. We saved half of Korea, and have created a favorable market for our businesses to expand into. WW2 certainly help us get out of The Great Depression, or at least it certainly did not keep us in a depression.

 

[Ortegoat]

While I don't buy his or hers entirely. He can't do anything without support from Congress and vice versa. I though have yet to hear of a Republican in Congress express concern over the tax cuts promoted by Trump. It is sickening that tax cuts are used as proxy bribes to get votes. Bush 1 basically lost to Clinton because he promised "read my lips. no new taxes" and then went ahead and did it.

When Clinton balanced the budget, as much credit as I want to give him for that, it was a bipartisan effort. Maybe, the last time the GOP pushed on balancing the budget and it wasn't a political bullshit.

The financial industry at the time was being deregulated

 

[deviake]

Sure. As I said, discount stores benefit from recessions. Discount stores also make political contributions. Your comment is exactly as silly as saying that politicians deliberately cause recessions because of discount store donations.



Because you don't understand the point that it affects business negatively overall.



Lots of things can be meant by "war." When I used "low-level conflicts" it was to distinguish from things like WWII (which was certainly very good for business because of the huge ramp in gov't spending at a time when that was desperately needed but politically impossible).

1)Silly, and no.

2)Another non-answer.

3)Another non-answer.

 

[deviake]

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Nuh-uh." -Jack V Savage