Will The Next President Pull Out Of Iraq?

[Midnight Rain]

All the non-essential workers are already 100% inefficient. As soon as they're laid off, they've immediate potential to do something useful. And the money wasted on them will immediately go to more productive uses. Even if they go on unemployment &/or welfare, that still costs less than paying them to bomb 3rd world countries.

Not to the individual. Its cheaper because they would be thrust into poverty. Going from 9 to 12 billion unemployed will create another crisis. Unemployment is still a problem and it would only get worse. It would cause more people to become underemployed or unemployed. This is more damaging to our economy than weaning.

Tis better that corporations keep more of their money, than paying a bloated military to destroy countries who give us nothing of value, & don't even want us there. Benefits would a mix of: lower prices for products made by those corporations, people hired by those corporations, increased dividends from those corporations.
But we non-corporations would benefit greatly too. I could sure tolerate a lower tax bill.

Eventually yes. But sudden shock to the economy and increasing our unemployment rate by 30% as well as the majority of the 400 billion NOT reaching the general public is concerning.

I would rather have the money be spent on public works projects rather than in the corporate threshold.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not to the individual. Its cheaper because they would be thrust into poverty. Going from 9 to 12 billion unemployed will create another crisis. Unemployment is still a problem and it would only get worse. It would cause more people to become underemployed or unemployed. This is more damaging to our economy than weaning.

All the time & money spent "weaning" is time & money down the drain, employing people to do something not only unproductive, but damaging.

Eventually yes. But sudden shock to the economy and increasing our unemployment rate by 30% as well as the majority of the 400 billion NOT reaching the general public is concerning.

This is of course a hard thing to quantify. I prefer the simple approach: Do what's right, & do it immediately. Imagine how much better off we'd be if Obama had exited Iraq & Afghanistan immediately upon assuming office. Instead, he was just George Bush with bigger ears & a better tan.

I would rather have the money be spent on public works projects rather than in the corporate threshold.

I allowed that infrastructure improvements could be part of the mix.

 

[Midnight Rain]

All the time & money spent "weaning" is time & money down the drain, employing people to do something not only unproductive, but damaging.

Building roads, bridges, and other necessary parts of our society is not damaging.

This is of course a hard thing to quantify. I prefer the simple approach: Do what's right, & do it immediately. Imagine how much better off we'd be if Obama had exited Iraq & Afghanistan immediately upon assuming office. Instead, he was just George Bush with bigger ears & a better tan.

If only it were that simple. Had he done that we would still be in a hell of an economic recess and possibly destroyed the American economy. Austerity has been proven not to work as an answer to common problems. Simply enacting austerity does more damage than good.

 

[Revoltingest]

Building roads, bridges, and other necessary parts of our society is not damaging.

I agree. But we're discussing cutting the size of a bloated military by excising the deadwood. I argue that the portion of military devoted to foreign adventurism is damaging, particularly to the countries we invade.

If only it were that simple. Had he done that we would still be in a hell of an economic recess and possibly destroyed the American economy. Austerity has been proven not to work as an answer to common problems. Simply enacting austerity does more damage than good.

Very little in economics is ever "proven". It's not easily amenable to rigorous scientific testing. I say that all the money....a $trillion or so....wasted in the middle east would be better spend here by our taxpayers on things we actually want. We've been taking Obama's slow & steady exit strategy for 6 years now, & we see a miserable recovery. Who has "proof" that this change from a depression to mere economic malaise was the optimal strategy...to continue spending & sending soldiers & civilians to their needless deaths? I do not buy it.

 

[metis]

If only it were that simple. Had he done that we would still be in a hell of an economic recess and possibly destroyed the American economy. Austerity has been proven not to work as an answer to common problems. Simply enacting austerity does more damage than good.

Absolutely. There's a time and place for austerity, but when a country is an economic free-fall, or trying to recover from one, austerity would indeed make things worse.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Very little in economics is ever "proven". It's not easily amenable to rigorous scientific testing. I say that all the money....a $trillion or so....wasted in the middle east would be better spend here by our taxpayers on things we actually want. We've been taking Obama's slow & steady exit strategy for 6 years now, & we see a miserable recovery. Who has "proof" that this change from a depression to mere economic malaise was the optimal strategy...to continue spending & sending soldiers & civilians to their needless deaths? I do not buy it.

I can post a bunch of links if you'd like but I don't want to simply do that.

Obama's attempts at helping our economy have been poor. But they have not damaged our economy further. What has actually harmed our economy in the past was disbanding the majority of our military immediately after WWII and causing a massive ten year long unemployment strike we like to call the "great depression".

I hardly see how simply popping a $400 billion dollar bubble and displacing three million people from work can do good for economy. Simple in and out money exchange simply doesn't apply to our economics. Keeping money in the pockets of the people (not simply through tax breaks because the three million people loosing work will NOT receive the benefits of a tax break and they are the ones who need it most in that situation) is the most important thin for economic recovery.

We know this for a fact in economics.

 

[metis]

Obama's attempts at helping our economy have been poor...

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. When we look at where we were at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009, we've made quite a recovery. Trouble is, the recovery has been uneven. Was this Obama's fault? Hardly.

Economists believe that we needed about double the amount in the stimulus package, and yet the administration could not get that through Congress. He wanted to spend more on infrastructure, but couldn't get that through Congress. He wanted to revise the tax code, especially closing tax-loopholes with big corporations, but he couldn't get that through Congress. Etc.

By comparison, look what's happening in Europe or even with Japan. Compared to them, we're economic rock stars.

So, yes, things could be better-- but they also could have been far worse.

 

[Revoltingest]

Obama's attempts at helping our economy have been poor. But they have not damaged our economy further.

I'd say he damaged it compared to what it could've been under more pro-recovery leadership.

What has actually harmed our economy in the past was disbanding the majority of our military immediately after WWII and causing a massive ten year long unemployment strike we like to call the "great depression".

As a baby boomer, I recall there being a great economic boom after the war.

I hardly see how simply popping a $400 billion dollar bubble and displacing three million people from work can do good for economy. Simple in and out money exchange simply doesn't apply to our economics. Keeping money in the pockets of the people (not simply through tax breaks because the three million people loosing work will NOT receive the benefits of a tax break and they are the ones who need it most in that situation) is the most important thin for economic recovery.

I don't see the foreign adventurism element of the military as losing "work". They're employed, kept busy doing things, & paid, but they don't actually do anything useful. Having that money devoted to useful functions would be of certain benefit, more than offsetting turmoil by newly unemployed soldiers. No doubt, many would immediately find work in areas funded by ending the $400B/year waste.

We know this for a fact in economics.

I find that "facts" are often nothing more than opinions which are very popular.....especially this one.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. When we look at where we were at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009, we've made quite a recovery. Trouble is, the recovery has been uneven. Was this Obama's fault? Hardly.

Economists believe that we needed about double the amount in the stimulus package, and yet the administration could not get that through Congress. He wanted to spend more on infrastructure, but couldn't get that through Congress. He wanted to revise the tax code, especially closing tax-loopholes with big corporations, but he couldn't get that through Congress. Etc.

By comparison, look what's happening in Europe or even with Japan. Compared to them, we're economic rock stars.

So, yes, things could be better-- but they also could have been far worse.

Which is what I have said. He did not harm our economy but there were far better things he could have done.

I'd say he damaged it compared to what it could've been under more pro-recovery leadership.

Could have been but without hindsight I can't think of a lot of better ways to have gone. Except perhaps the extreme opposite of austerity. One payer healthcare, higher minimum wage, more government jobs that were temporary to help our country.

As a baby boomer, I recall there being a great economic boom after the war.

You are right. I meant WWI. We simply disbanded the military and it caused the great depression. It was WWII that brought the economy back. Then after WWII we kept our military and continued government spending and weaned ourselves off. That caused a boom. Sever and sudden austerity destroys economies. Weaning off expenses like military budgets buffers it.

I don't see the foreign adventurism element of the military as losing "work". They're employed, kept busy doing things, & paid, but they don't actually do anything useful. Having that money devoted to useful functions would be of certain benefit, more than offsetting turmoil by newly unemployed soldiers. No doubt, many would immediately find work in areas funded by ending the $400B/year waste.

Doubtful. Three million people don't simply "find jobs" immediately. The income they have goes to their families and to stimulating the economy. Cutting that income to poverty desultory three million consumers that still cost the government money.

I find that "facts" are often nothing more than opinions which are very popular.....especially this one.

Then bring counter evidence. There is overwhelming evidence from economics and history that shows sudden disbandment of military (especially one as large as ours) would have devastating effects.

I find that "common sense" is usually wrong on the macro scale of economies.

 

[metis]

Which is what I have said. He did not harm our economy but there were far better things he could have done.


Could have been but without hindsight I can't think of a lot of better ways to have gone. Except perhaps the extreme opposite of austerity. One payer healthcare, higher minimum wage, more government jobs that were temporary to help our country.

Yes, and those fell under my "Etc." category, so it appears were on the same page here.

BTW, let me just mention that Lincoln is Obama's "mentor", and for those who know about Lincoln's presidency, they'd note the similarity with Obama's. Lincoln preferred "working from behind" with Congress and state leaders, but when push came to shove, he would dig his heals in-- but only at last resort.

I say this because this may help some here to understand Obama's general approach. We saw this with his attempt to bring the R's in when seeking to formulate the ACA, but we know how that turned out.

But now Obama seems to feel he must dig in, and he appears to be willing to play hardball against the R's, and many D's feel it's about time. The next time Obama and Boehner play golf together, Obama's clubs could give Boehner some serious hemorrhoid problems.

 

[Revoltingest]

Could have been but without hindsight I can't think of a lot of better ways to have gone. Except perhaps the extreme opposite of austerity. One payer healthcare, higher minimum wage, more government jobs that were temporary to help our country.

I see clear cut things he could've done to hasten recovery:
- Stop the prohibition of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac from renegotiating troubled loans. Private lenders did this, & it allowed many to pull their bacon out of the fire.
- Stop fleecing commercial borrowers by charging income tax on negotiated priincipal & capitalized interest reductions. Uncle Sam actually caused many bankruptcies with this rapacious behavior.
- Stop forcing commercial lenders to refuse extending renewable loans. This sent many borrowers into foreclosure, borrowers who were otherwise performing.

You are right. I meant WWI. We simply disbanded the military and it caused the great depression. It was WWII that brought the economy back. Then after WWII we kept our military and continued government spending and weaned ourselves off. That caused a boom. Sever and sudden austerity destroys economies. Weaning off expenses like military budgets buffers it.

WW1 ended in 1919. The Great Depression began over a decade later. How do you find correlation, let alone causation?
Great Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doubtful. Three million people don't simply "find jobs" immediately.

I expect they won't. But the process would begin.

The income they have goes to their families and to stimulating the economy. Cutting that income to poverty desultory three million consumers that still cost the government money.
Then bring counter evidence. There is overwhelming evidence from economics and history that shows sudden disbandment of military (especially one as large as ours) would have devastating effects.
I find that "common sense" is usually wrong on the macro scale of economies.

I see no evidence that cutting the military would have a deleterious effect on the economy. And we see great potential for gain by ending this deadly expense to us taxpayers. The tax money we waste is enormous, and this cost is seldom considered by politicians who lust for war & hegemony. They convince people that there is a benefit spending taxpayer money (called the "multiplier effect"), but they don't acknowledge the loss to the taxpayer. The time to end foreign adventurism is now....for humanitarian and economic reasons.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I expect they won't. But the process would begin.s.

Then we are on the same page

 

[renaud.kingsland]

Yes, but probably only for long enough to start a war with Iran.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, but probably only for long enough to start a war with Iran.

Or let Israel start it, & then join in for decades of deadly fun & economic ruin.