We certainly shouldn't be in a war situation to create jobs, but now that it's ended and the forecast if for up to 1.5 million jobs being lost as a result, what' next. McDonald's can only absorb so many to flip hamburgers.
OK, the wars over......anybody think about the jobs?(34 posts)
Posted on December 15, 2011 - 12:23 PM #
I guess Dubya didn't think about that when he started all of this, did he?Posted on December 15, 2011 - 12:26 PM #
It's why Newt is laying the groundwork for another war, this time against Iran. Without that big war machine making profits for the insiders and the military support industry, the GOP has no plan to create jobs.Posted on December 15, 2011 - 12:28 PM #
>>>>"the GOP has no plan to create jobs."<<<<<
And Obama does?Posted on December 15, 2011 - 12:29 PM #
Obama's plans have a major obstacle. It's called the GOP led House. And even when he had The House, he didn't have enough support in The Senate to obtain cloture.
Many Presidents have had good ideas and run up against a Congress with a different agenda.
Based on approval ratings, it's clear Obama is not the problem. Clearly he has made concessions from his ideals.
There is no way you can defend the actions of the Republicans in Congress. Both houses. Total assholes.Posted on December 15, 2011 - 12:32 PM #
>>>>"There is no way you can defend the actions of the Republicans in Congress. Both houses. Total assholes."<<<<
They probably don't need me to defend them, but I will thank them.Posted on December 15, 2011 - 12:36 PM #
Today Shep Smith said On Fox that he thought the entire Congress should be summarily dumped into a wood chipper like the one in the movie FARGO , Republicans, Democrats, Independents and Communists !
Wonder if he been smokin' some Rope !!Posted on December 15, 2011 - 02:53 PM #
Not a good idea. The hard heads would ruin a good wood chipper.Posted on December 15, 2011 - 02:55 PM #
The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene in the United States' Capital this Christmas season. This isn't for any religious reason. They simply have not been able to find Three Wise Men or a Virgin in the Nation's Capitol. The search has been called off, as it is an effort in futility. There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable!
Stolen from a friend of mine!Posted on December 15, 2011 - 03:39 PM #
.....and you do know that most of those "asses" are from your side of the aisle.......
Just sayin'.Posted on December 15, 2011 - 05:52 PM #
>>>>".....and you do know that most of those "asses" are from your side of the aisle.......
I think there just might be some differing opinions to that.Posted on December 15, 2011 - 05:53 PM #
Well, we all know *you'd* differ in opinion, Deane. That's obvious. But then, I'm sure that if anyone on here said "black" we'd all know the way you'd respond.
(And quit using the less-than and greater-than symbols to frame quotes. This isn't bleedin' Usenet.)Posted on December 15, 2011 - 06:13 PM #
I don't know how it works but if I'm reading the implication correctly, returning service personnel would need jobs? Is the government's contract with military personnel one of "Once the war is over, you go home and all pay stops" ?Posted on December 15, 2011 - 08:01 PM #
Well, their combat pay goes away. A fair number of them might not re-up too. Given how often they were cycled into theatre, many of them are kind of fried.Posted on December 15, 2011 - 08:04 PM #
One thing to keep in mind is that many of our troops serving overseas are in the Reserves or National Guard, and they are guaranteed their jobs back. We cannot terminate someone or deny them their service. So many will have jobs that way.Posted on December 15, 2011 - 08:04 PM #
Yeah - okay - so let's hash this out. A returning serviceman needs to find a new job under what circumstances? You know what I mean. Don't make me cover every scenario.
I'm certain that there will be a need for additional jobs as they return. But I am curious about the percentage. How much is combat pay these days?
By the way, how many people are we talking about here? Just a total number of servicemen returning. 100,000?Posted on December 15, 2011 - 08:10 PM #
Is the government's contract with military personnel one of "Once the war is over, you go home and all pay stops"?"
Well, for historic perspective, that's how I was always told it was with my Grampa when he was discharged from the Army post-Viet Nam. But that was ~40 years ago; don't know if it still works like that these days.
(And that's also not counting the ~40 years of his being on the Government's payroll when he took his job, post-Viet Nam, at the VA Hospital.)Posted on December 15, 2011 - 08:14 PM #
I don't think the combat pay is all that high. Something like 1.5 to 2x their base rank pay.
(been a long time too, so I might be wrong on the metric, but not the overall idea)
job redefined gone
they choose to not re-up their term ends
The contractors supporting them in theater no longer do so. I think this one is worth some digging. Used to be the military did for it's own. More recently that's been "outsourced" to companies who provide food, logistics and lots of other things, and they do so at premium rates. There could be a lot of these in play.
Injured, unable to perform prior job.
Regular military will return to station. National Guard / Reserves will return for a short time, then be deployed home.Posted on December 15, 2011 - 08:23 PM #
Good info Missing.
Also, while the attention to returning military is fully justified - I'm curious about the contractors. Are they obliged to leave? Are there any of them left?Posted on December 15, 2011 - 08:28 PM #
They probably don't need me to defend them, but I will thank them.
Deane is just like the other extreme righties out there. As long as Obummer fails they don't care what the hell they do to the United States. Not only are YOU dangerous to America Deane your dangerous to the world. You and DUHbya should be best buddies in hell when your dead....Posted on December 15, 2011 - 08:35 PM #
That's the thing. I don't know.
Cheney's company, used to be Blackwater, but is something else I can't remember right now, and it's headed in Dubai now too. And there are others.
Maybe they continue where the military doesn't? That's gotta be on the table somewhat, right?Posted on December 15, 2011 - 09:18 PM #
That's old, but it does list 200K or so deployed ever. The current deployments were small, 5K kind of numbers on that report.
Chewing on this one...Posted on December 15, 2011 - 09:24 PM #
Honestly, I see the contractor case as the big job killer. Support services were apparently very expensive. Company name is Halliburton, BTW. Got it wrong or am confusing a division above. Not sure.
Actual military job losses have got to be in the lower 5 figures. The total deployment wasn't quoted to us as being more than 100K, being phased out too.
Military industrial spending is very high. Won't be as high now = job killer, IMHO. That is what the GOP means. They like military spending. To them, it's actually a material job loss, important.Posted on December 15, 2011 - 09:29 PM #
Did anybody read this?
U.S. defense cuts that begin in the 2012 budget will ultimately cost up to 800,000 jobs, and additional spending reductions could push that figure to 1.5 million over the next decade, a top Republican lawmaker testified on Tuesday.
That's not just ending the war. They are referring to the deal Obama struck with the Super Congress! If they failed, automatic cuts to defense were going to kick in. They failed, and are now citing job losses due to those cuts.
Honestly, those are quite likely real.
What they don't say is that we could be rebuilding on those dollars, simply moving those jobs from war for profit to infrastructure, education, and all sorts of investment type activities that we know historically pay off.
The numbers invoked by ending Iraq are small troop job loss wise. I think they are significant, when contract for profit services are considered.
General cuts mean lots of for profit job losses. A very significant fraction of our manufacturing is weapons and such.
The difference between a weapon and say, a smart energy grid, is the weapon production pays everybody to make the weapon, then the weapon deployed simply loses value, all of it when it's consumable, some of it when it is a capital equipment, or enabling tech deployment.
We don't get ongoing returns on that investment, unless the result of the war efforts actually results in new resources, or something material like that.
The smart grid is costly too, exhibits the same paying for building and servicing, but the returns are ongoing for many years.
Our Interstate highways have paid us over and over and over, where we didn't see States sell bits of it off to for profit companies to fund budget deficits.
The bombs we made paid the bomb makers, and some of that worked in the economy, but the majority of it simply is kept by the makers, and or evaporates as the bomb is destroyed.
Anyway, the framing of the article ISN'T just the war. That's just a bonus piece that makes the conversation easy. The real pain is in the deep cuts Congress agreed to when they were allowed to form a group that had considerable power to legislate. No legislation happened, the power is now withdrawn, and the cuts mandated by the GOP are now on the table, just not all falling on the middle class.Posted on December 15, 2011 - 09:40 PM #
Well shrinking the Government, by definition, is going to mean job loss. Right? I assume there are those that see this as an improvement.Posted on December 16, 2011 - 12:23 AM #
>>>>>>>"(And quit using the less-than and greater-than symbols to frame
quotes. This isn't bleedin' Usenet.)"<<<<<<<<
Motozak3, would there possibly be anything else I could to for you.
Seems to me you have a full time job just working on your thinking process without worrying about the structure of my posts.Posted on December 16, 2011 - 04:53 AM #
Deane, you yourself have *demonstrated* that you have a full-time job working on your own thinking processes without wondering how others manage theirs. Besides, a 384k 8088 like me, albeit dated by to-day's standards, still can faaaaaaar out-think a clunky, inefficient Z1 like you.
(Too bad nobody's bothered to teach you about the < code>
code tags< /code> yet.....)Posted on December 16, 2011 - 11:51 AM #
Motozak3, I actually have no idea what you're talking about. I don't do code, I have no idea what usenet is, and I don't know why the arrows I use to clarify the quote are objectionable. Care to enlighten me?Posted on December 16, 2011 - 11:55 AM #
Wikipaedia. Use it.Posted on December 16, 2011 - 12:05 PM #
>>>"Wikipaedia. Use it."<<<
I'd have to have a desire to first.Posted on December 16, 2011 - 12:07 PM #
Well, then I guess I can't help you further. If you're not willing to take on the initiative to do your own research and answer your own questions using the resources available to you, well, that says a lot about you and your own thought processes.Posted on December 16, 2011 - 12:09 PM #
>>>"Well, then I guess I can't help you further."<<<
Apparently not.Posted on December 16, 2011 - 12:11 PM #
"Well, then I guess I can't help you further."
NOBODY CAN!!!!Posted on December 17, 2011 - 11:01 AM #
You must log in to post.