A New Propaganda Push From the War Profiteers

Vice Lord wrote: Yeah..Thats what i'm sayin..We can blow up the world 200 times over, we got the planet secured..

We don't need anymore weapons..

As can Russia, China, and really any country that has nuc weps.

Grady wrote:

Vice Lord wrote: Yeah..Thats what i'm sayin..We can blow up the world 200 times over, we got the planet secured..

We don't need anymore weapons..

Maybe, but we can always use better delivery and defense systems.

I actually have to somewhat agree with vl on this, We don't need anymore weapons, we can get rid of the outdated ones, what we need is not more, but smarter and sharper weapons. But then we have to keep pace with Russia and China also. But I think it can be done.

LadyJazzer wrote:

After the Deficit Committee, A New Propaganda Push From the War Profiteers

Since the deficit committee officially failed to produce a plan as of last week, expect the war profiteer spin to hit the fan. Here's an early warning of what to expect, courtesy of Reuters last week:

Failure of a special congressional committee to strike a deficit-reduction deal is expected to unleash desperate lobbying by U.S. arms makers to get lawmakers to block $600 billion in automatic cuts.

Their weapon of choice: jobs. But, don't expect the truth to get in the way of a good propaganda campaign.

The profiteer's agitprop push is already underway. Searching for "defense cuts" on Google early this morning already brings up articles high in the search feed from paid war-industry shills in the top results, notably a lengthy piece from Loren Thompson, perennial paid defender of massive military budgets (himself on the war industry dime). His argument, that Obama could lose the election due to job losses from military cuts, is one you better get used to seeing.

Among the kinds of spending examined, military spending actually costs jobs compared to any other form. It's the only spending that scored worse than basic consumer spending, and it created far less than half the jobs created by education spending. In short, at bare minimum, every billion dollars spent on the military costs at least 3,900 jobs compared to other spending types, and if compared to the best job creator from the study, education, $1 billion in military spending costs 15,500 jobs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-gr ... 19177.html


Yep... Don't let truth get in the way of a good prop-up-the-military-industrial-complex/war-profiteer spin....

LJ, the Army was ordered to start some downsizing. I do not have a problem with that so long as we do not go so far down to put this country danger. I also believe the DOD can reduce alot of spending just by holding contractors to the contract. Stop the (oh we have cost overruns so). Then go through the DOD and take a look at the double jobsters. Were one person can do the job, they have three or four. Then there are some bases around the world that could be shut down. This alone would account imo to around 10 billion. The fact we are getting out of Iraq will only save a tiny amount since we are not leaving the Gulf region. We are staying in Kuwait.

navycpo7 wrote: But then we have to keep pace with Russia and China also.

I understand we need to have a strong defense. But do we really have to "keep pace" with Russia and China? Isn't it thinking like that that bankrupted and ultimately brought down the Soviet Union? How much does Canada, for instance, spend on military expenditures? Yet I don't see them being overrun by China or Russia.

We spend more than Russia and China combined on "Defense". How is it that we need to "keep pace" with them?

navycpo7 wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

After the Deficit Committee, A New Propaganda Push From the War Profiteers

Since the deficit committee officially failed to produce a plan as of last week, expect the war profiteer spin to hit the fan. Here's an early warning of what to expect, courtesy of Reuters last week:

Failure of a special congressional committee to strike a deficit-reduction deal is expected to unleash desperate lobbying by U.S. arms makers to get lawmakers to block $600 billion in automatic cuts.

Their weapon of choice: jobs. But, don't expect the truth to get in the way of a good propaganda campaign.

The profiteer's agitprop push is already underway. Searching for "defense cuts" on Google early this morning already brings up articles high in the search feed from paid war-industry shills in the top results, notably a lengthy piece from Loren Thompson, perennial paid defender of massive military budgets (himself on the war industry dime). His argument, that Obama could lose the election due to job losses from military cuts, is one you better get used to seeing.

Among the kinds of spending examined, military spending actually costs jobs compared to any other form. It's the only spending that scored worse than basic consumer spending, and it created far less than half the jobs created by education spending. In short, at bare minimum, every billion dollars spent on the military costs at least 3,900 jobs compared to other spending types, and if compared to the best job creator from the study, education, $1 billion in military spending costs 15,500 jobs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-gr ... 19177.html


Yep... Don't let truth get in the way of a good prop-up-the-military-industrial-complex/war-profiteer spin....

LJ, the Army was ordered to start some downsizing. I do not have a problem with that so long as we do not go so far down to put this country danger. I also believe the DOD can reduce alot of spending just by holding contractors to the contract. Stop the (oh we have cost overruns so). Then go through the DOD and take a look at the double jobsters. Were one person can do the job, they have three or four. Then there are some bases around the world that could be shut down. This alone would account imo to around 10 billion. The fact we are getting out of Iraq will only save a tiny amount since we are not leaving the Gulf region. We are staying in Kuwait.

While all that you say is true, and a sane, thorough examination of how and where the military could be reduced, that really isn't the point of the article. The article is very specific about what kind of spending the defense industry is trying to keep from being reduced; and how many jobs are lost as a direct result of the kind of spending.

As for the other points, I agree with you... But that wasn't the point.

navycpo7 wrote:

Grady wrote:

Vice Lord wrote: Yeah..Thats what i'm sayin..We can blow up the world 200 times over, we got the planet secured..

We don't need anymore weapons..

Maybe, but we can always use better delivery and defense systems.

I actually have to somewhat agree with vl on this, We don't need anymore weapons, we can get rid of the outdated ones, what we need is not more, but smarter and sharper weapons. But then we have to keep pace with Russia and China also. But I think it can be done.

I'm for any reform in military spending... as long as the final outcome still means that we can kill more of them then they can kill of us.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: I'm for any reform in military spending... as long as the final outcome still means that we can kill more of them then they can kill of us.

Well we could cut defense spending to zero and get rid oh 8/10ths of our stock piles and acomplish that.

Then force healthy vetrans aged 40 to 67 back to work and the deficit is gone! None of us get pensions after 20 years, why should they? Times are tough, everbodies gotta sacrifice

:hands:

Vice Lord wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: I'm for any reform in military spending... as long as the final outcome still means that we can kill more of them then they can kill of us.

Well we could cut defense spending to zero and get rid oh 8/10ths of our stock piles and acomplish that.

Then force healthy vetrans aged 40 to 67 back to work and the deficit is gone! None of us get pensions after 20 years, why should they? Times are tough, everbodies gotta sacrifice

:hands:

Fine with me... like I say, as long as we can kill more of them.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Vice Lord wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: I'm for any reform in military spending... as long as the final outcome still means that we can kill more of them then they can kill of us.

Well we could cut defense spending to zero and get rid oh 8/10ths of our stock piles and acomplish that.

Then force healthy vetrans aged 40 to 67 back to work and the deficit is gone! None of us get pensions after 20 years, why should they? Times are tough, everbodies gotta sacrifice

:hands:

Fine with me... like I say, as long as we can kill more of them.

:hands: Common Ground!