The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Crimson King]

That's a fantastic chart there.

It sort of reminds me about how the plan to install detectors and secure all US seaports against the smuggling of nuclear materials would cost a one-time $2 billion, but Congress only alloted $93 million for it.

**** like that is why I really think the government wants us in the war as long as possible.

Rather than, I don't know, protecting ourselves for a very low cost (compared to the war debt anyway), we half-*** it and continuing staying in their face over seas.

I love how more and more Obama is just proving to be Bush Lite with his keeping the troops in Iraq (still a 100,000 men and women there), and his bombings of Pakistan to find bin Laden. This is why I don't vote. Either way, you get a ****ty president.

 

[CRASHiC]

Taking the troops out will be a financle disaster right now. Where would they work? Make no mistake, we won't see a full troop withdraw until the end of the finance crisis. In fact, the 40,000 troop surge is a wonderful idea because it takes 40,000 people out of are job market, freeing up positions for other workers.
The only thing War is good for is taking a portion of your working class, removing them temporarily from the work force, and allotting other workers to take their place.

 

[Aesir]

Taking the troops out will be a financle disaster right now. Where would they work? Make no mistake, we won't see a full troop withdraw until the end of the finance crisis. In fact, the 40,000 troop surge is a wonderful idea because it takes 40,000 people out of are job market, freeing up positions for other workers.
The only thing War is good for is taking a portion of your working class, removing them temporarily from the work force, and allotting other workers to take their place.

...what?

This is the most insane thing I've read in a while, and I read a lot of crazy libertarian things.

Military-Keynesian economics isn't good policy, it's bad.

For starters 40,000 will do nothing! The army is volunteer based, so these are people who would have work regardless. The troop surge isn't going to help the millions of Americans who are going without a job now because of the financial crisis.

What Obama should do is create more jobs like how Roosevelt did during the depression. This is why I said take the money out of the defense budget and put it toward public works, and our infrastructure. Back in the 30's and 40's you saw a huge influx of unemployed people offered jobs from the government. This is what should be done, then when the economy stabilizes they'll be able to find a job in the private sector.

Thinking war is the answer is a grave mistake.

 

[Crimson King]

...what?

This is the most insane thing I've read in a while, and I read a lot of crazy libertarian things.

Military-Keynesian economics isn't good policy, it's bad.

For starters 40,000 will do nothing! The army is volunteer based, so these are people who would have work regardless. The troop surge isn't going to help the millions of Americans who are going without a job now because of the financial crisis.

What Obama should do is create more jobs like how Roosevelt did during the depression. This is why I said take the money out of the defense budget and put it toward public works, and our infrastructure. Back in the 30's and 40's you saw a huge influx of unemployed people offered jobs from the government. This is what should be done, then when the economy stabilizes they'll be able to find a job in the private sector.

Thinking war is the answer is a grave mistake.

That wasn't libertarian; it was just stupid.

 

[Aesir]

That wasn't libertarian; it was just stupid.

I didn't finish my thought on that when I was typing and hit send. I was going to say how much Rand Economics don't work and the free market isn't some magical being that will save the economy.

Most libertarians are against Military-Keynesian Economics, considering it's a Neo-conservative economic policy.

-----

edit:
I know someones going to bring up the great depression and how WW2 got us out of the depression. When in reality, it was because of WW2 that we could employ people. It wasn't so much where we were spending it, it was more so that we had a sector that needed workers. That can be applied to anything not just military spending. It could be spent on making nuclear power plants, anything that needs a huge flow of workers can be used.

 

[blazedaces]

Either way if you really think about it... that's a very stupid reason to continue waging... war. I don't know if it's because America is so consistently in war that we now consider it to not be a big deal... but lives are stake. Innocent civilians and also soldiers on both sides are dying and here we are practically making excuses as to why this should go on. It's like we're rationalizing the action after it's decided upon. Why are we still at war?... because... um... it could give us more jobs here.

I'm sorry if that's being harsh, but it's exactly what it sounds like to me. I have yet to hear ONE good reason we ever went to war or why we should still be in war. Honestly, at some point everyone who used to be arguing with me that we should be going to war started arguing with me that "despite the fact that starting the war was bad" we should still be at war because "bs reason x, y, or z".

And I have to agree with Crimson in that this was a large campaign platform/statement Obama made, that he was going to remove the troops as soon as possible if not within a certain promised time frame... and yet it's turning out to be a complete fabrication. I'm not saying the man isn't making some progress in certain areas, but I ... just... don't... get it.

-blazed

 

[CRASHiC]

War isn't the answer, but if we pulled all troops out now, what would happen to them? They would add to our unemployment numbers. We have no jobs for them. I also support the infrastructure jobs, which if I recall correctly, Obama is either already doing or planning to do. It was the combination of the World War as well as the government created jobs that saved us from the Depression. You can't deny that war can help a struggling economy. In fact, we would be much better off currently if we hadn't subsidized the making of our supplies from European and Asian suppliers. Instead, the war during the Bush era caused our money to go outside of our economy and into others, including the reconstruction projects of both Afghanistan and Iraq. In World War 2 and most other wars, we used American factories to create our Tanks, Jeeps, Guns, and other steel works. The Bush administration, for whatever reason, made the mistake of purchasing these goods outside of our own economy. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were handled badly, but you can't deny that wars do in fact help boost an economy when handled effectively, and not just for selling Flags for both hanging, ceremonial, and burning purposes.

At Blaz, Obama did originally run on the promise, however, a time line was set for the troops to be withdrawn before Obama was even elected. How could you guys forget that? They will be out by 2011, as set by the timeline for withdraw set by our Armed Forces leaders and the Iraqi government.

 

[blazedaces]

War isn't the answer, but if we pulled all troops out now, what would happen to them? They would add to our unemployment numbers. We have no jobs for them. I also support the infrastructure jobs, which if I recall correctly, Obama is either already doing or planning to do. It was the combination of the World War as well as the government created jobs that saved us from the Depression. You can't deny that war can help a struggling economy. In fact, we would be much better off currently if we hadn't subsidized the making of our supplies from European and Asian suppliers. Instead, the war during the Bush era caused our money to go outside of our economy and into others, including the reconstruction projects of both Afghanistan and Iraq. In World War 2 and most other wars, we used American factories to create our Tanks, Jeeps, Guns, and other steel works. The Bush administration, for whatever reason, made the mistake of purchasing these goods outside of our own economy. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were handled badly, but you can't deny that wars do in fact help boost an economy when handled effectively, and not just for selling Flags for both hanging, ceremonial, and burning purposes.

At Blaz, Obama did originally run on the promise, however, a time line was set for the troops to be withdrawn before Obama was even elected. How could you guys forget that? They will be out by 2011, as set by the timeline for withdraw set by our Armed Forces leaders and the Iraqi government.

Crashic I couldn't agree with you more.

As for your second point, I apologize but I don't always keep up with current events as much as I would like. I just looked up to confirm your point in THIS ARTICLE, so thank you. While I guess I'm somewhat glad there's a timeline... being so far in the future... well... whatever. I'll believe it when I see it is my stance on the subject. Until then I'm not convinced this statement holds any validity. I don't trust statements made by my government all that much these days...

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

War isn't the answer, but if we pulled all troops out now, what would happen to them? They would add to our unemployment numbers. We have no jobs for them. I also support the infrastructure jobs, which if I recall correctly, Obama is either already doing or planning to do. It was the combination of the World War as well as the government created jobs that saved us from the Depression. You can't deny that war can help a struggling economy. In fact, we would be much better off currently if we hadn't subsidized the making of our supplies from European and Asian suppliers. Instead, the war during the Bush era caused our money to go outside of our economy and into others, including the reconstruction projects of both Afghanistan and Iraq. In World War 2 and most other wars, we used American factories to create our Tanks, Jeeps, Guns, and other steel works. The Bush administration, for whatever reason, made the mistake of purchasing these goods outside of our own economy. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were handled badly, but you can't deny that wars do in fact help boost an economy when handled effectively, and not just for selling Flags for both hanging, ceremonial, and burning purposes.

Since this is the social thread I can be as informal as I like.

What the heck? Judging from your argument it's like you have no idea what Policy is or even a shred of Economics under your belt.

Your first claim prolonging the war creates jobs, you do realize creating those 40,000 jobs means absolutely nothing when you're loosing 200,000 jobs a month? Not to mention in order for the war to actually matter for the Economy you have to have a big war. We're talking another world war. We would have to invade like 5 other countries. The only reason it worked in the 30's was because we have emergency improvisation we didn't have a arms industry back then. Making another surge isn't in Afghan and Iraq isn't going to help the Economy, you're lost if you think that's the case.

Bring the Troops home, cut the defense and military budget. If we can spend billions of dollars a day in the middle east and destroying countries then we sure as hell can use those billions to recreate our domestic policies back home. Re-building American infrastructure. There's no reason for the continuation of Military-Keynesian Economics it doesn't work.

Our Economy didn't tank because we do things over seas, our economy tanked because people weren't held accountable, people were more concerned about profits then doing the right thing. That's why things went out of control.

Crashic I couldn't agree with you more.

As for your second point, I apologize but I don't always keep up with current events as much as I would like. I just looked up to confirm your point in THIS ARTICLE, so thank you. While I guess I'm somewhat glad there's a timeline... being so far in the future... well... whatever. I'll believe it when I see it is my stance on the subject. Until then I'm not convinced this statement holds any validity. I don't trust statements made by my government all that much these days...

-blazed

A time table is good, we need to get out of there faster though. All those billions of dollars spent on war is NOT GOOD SPENDING. Lets say a modern bomb costs 12billion to make. You're never going to see that 12 billion again. It's dead money.

However if you spend 12 Billion on JOBS HERE IN AMERICA you're going to see that money again.

What would you rather build? One heavy bomber? Or 12 modern schools?

-------edit:

I can't believe I missed this, but; Start wars just to boost the Economy? Can you say moral dilemma? Getting people killed even some of our own people killed just to boost the Economy? That's the worst idea ever. Republicans come up with better ideas then this.

 

[CRASHiC]

Judging from your argument it's like you have no idea what Policy is or even a shred of Economics under your belt.

Considering I was the one who had to explain the concept of Inelastic demand in the health care debate several times, this is uncalled for.

Your first claim prolonging the war creates jobs, you do realize creating those 40,000 jobs means absolutely nothing when you're loosing 200,000 jobs a month? Not to mention in order for the war to actually matter for the Economy you have to have a big war. We're talking another world war. We would have to invade like 5 other countries. The only reason it worked in the 30's was because we have emergency improvisation we didn't have a arms industry back then. Making another surge isn't in Afghan and Iraq isn't going to help the Economy, you're lost if you think that's the case.

You can't honestly believe that it won't to some small degree help. As sad as it is, anything, be it war, disease, emigration, or whatever that removes a portion of the population out of an economy that is currently surpassing its human capital in relation to its market demand for that capital, it helps the market.

Our Economy didn't tank because we do things over seas, our economy tanked because people weren't held accountable, people were more concerned about profits then doing the right thing. That's why things went out of control.

Yes, this is true. What's so unnatural about this recession was that it was caused by a handful of people, exploiting the lack of regulation, and it is not a part of the regular business cycle. Even Warren Buffet was perplexed by this recession stating that it was definitely not an 'ordinary recession.' I'm not saying that we wouldn't have the crises we would now, but the numbers wouldn't be as bad as they are now in some regards, because other non-recession related numbers are being added into the mix, such as the consistent trouble with steel workers in places such as Ohio, who were struggling before the recession. Had the war had been handled differently, it would not have coasted as much and it would not be such a detriment to our economy as it is now.

I can't believe I missed this, but; Start wars just to boost the Economy? Can you say moral dilemma? Getting people killed even some of our own people killed just to boost the Economy? That's the worst idea ever. Republicans come up with better ideas then this.

I'm not saying this. In fact, I generally argue that a war is completely obsolete in a modern day global economy.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Za...resnum=5&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Here you will find a very interesting article on why
1. War as it is defined can not truly be waged in this time
2. Why war will always harm the country causing it (and no, its not because of the money spent on it per say)
3. Why cold war is the only true war in modern times.

However, you can't deny that war does to some degree help an economy, any more than you could say that a plague does.

 

[Aesir]

Considering I was the one who had to explain the concept of Inelastic demand in the health care debate several times, this is uncalled for.

Irrelevant. You're arguing that war proliferation is good for the Economy and prolonging our current wars is good economic policy. This screams how little you actually know. War doesn't boost the Economy, at least not anymore. The money you're spending on war is never going to be seen again.

You can't honestly believe that it won't to some small degree help. As sad as it is, anything, be it war, disease, emigration, or whatever that removes a portion of the population out of an economy that is currently surpassing its human capital in relation to its market demand for that capital, it helps the market.

This is pretty crazy, unless I'm mistaken your argument can be summarized like this. "Well since these people are a burden lets let them die." If this isn't your argument then I'm sorry but that's exactly how it looks.

Yes, this is true. What's so unnatural about this recession was that it was caused by a handful of people, exploiting the lack of regulation, and it is not a part of the regular business cycle. Even Warren Buffet was perplexed by this recession stating that it was definitely not an 'ordinary recession.' I'm not saying that we wouldn't have the crises we would now, but the numbers wouldn't be as bad as they are now in some regards, because other non-recession related numbers are being added into the mix, such as the consistent trouble with steel workers in places such as Ohio, who were struggling before the recession. Had the war had been handled differently, it would not have coasted as much and it would not be such a detriment to our economy as it is now.

You're not looking at all the facts. This recession wasn't caused because Bush is an idiot. The war had very little to do with it. If what you say is true that we would have seen this type of effect before. What the defense industry has been doing today is what they've been doing for a long time.

I'm not saying this. In fact, I generally argue that a war is completely obsolete in a modern day global economy.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Za...resnum=5&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

You did though, you basically argued it without saying it. Maintaining the war just to give soldiers jobs is exactly amoral. What do you think soldiers do at war? Pick flowers? No they go there to kill and be killed. This is why it's amoral to prolong a war, it's not helpful on the Economy and it sure as hell isn't help secure peace in the middle east by going over here and acting as the world police.

Here you will find a very interesting article on why
1. War as it is defined can not truly be waged in this time
2. Why war will always harm the country causing it (and no, its not because of the money spent on it per say)
3. Why cold war is the only true war in modern times.

Good job changing the subject, we're talking about the Economic advantages of war proliferation. Not Whether or not the war we wage today is actually war.

However, you can't deny that war does to some degree help an economy, any more than you could say that a plague does.

You're clinging to the fact that it helps the economy somewhat. But in reality unless it's a large scale boom like WW2 the effects are very limited, if any at all.

 

[CRASHiC]

This is pretty crazy, unless I'm mistaken your argument can be summarized like this. "Well since these people are a burden lets let them die." If this isn't your argument then I'm sorry but that's exactly how it looks.

I'm not saying that this is what we should do, I'm saying this is how it is. I'm saying the fact that we are in a war is somewhat good for our economy in that our human capital is lowered more towards its market equilibrium. I am in no way saying, We should go on a genocide because its good for the economy. I'm saying that that such things are a good effect on the economy, not that we should ever actively seek them out. Now, you seem to be the one who doesn't understand economics if you don't actually believe such things help. Its sad, cruel, but its true.

You're not looking at all the facts. This recession wasn't caused because Bush is an idiot. The war had very little to do with it. If what you say is true that we would have seen this type of effect before. What the defense industry has been doing today is what they've been doing for a long time.

And we have been lossing manufacturing jobs for gradually for a long time, yes?
Also, I even said this wasn't what caused the recession, I said this caused economic trouble outside of the recession that are adding to numbers that people are looking out to determine the recession, such as unemployment.

You did though, you basically argued it without saying it. Maintaining the war just to give soldiers jobs is exactly amoral. What do you think soldiers do at war? Pick flowers? No they go there to kill and be killed. This is why it's amoral to prolong a war, it's not helpful on the Economy and it sure as hell isn't help secure peace in the middle east by going over here and acting as the world police.

ECONOMICS IS AMORAL. You CAN'T bring in morality when talking about economics. That's like bringing in economics when you are talking about the ER room.
If you'd read the article you'd see how it doesn't apply to underdeveloped countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, and how developing those countries and putting them on the global market would help global economics.
I also am not arguing that for maintaining the war, I am simply stating that it is good to some degree for our economy.

Good job changing the subject, we're talking about the Economic advantages of war proliferation. Not Whether or not the war we wage today is actually war.

Again, read the article.
It defines war as something directly related to economics, in that you should economical prosper over your opponents defeat. Way to be bitter.

You're clinging to the fact that it helps the economy somewhat. But in reality unless it's a large scale boom like WW2 the effects are very limited, if any at all.

You also forget the massive amount of contractors being sent out to Iraq, and ignore that it does indeed help the Human capital market value. Yes war is bad, yes we spend to much on defense, but you can't deny that war does in some degree help our economy, regardless if there are better alternatives. Its like denying cars can run on hydrogen, despite there being far, far better options.

 

[Aesir]

I'm not saying that this is what we should do, I'm saying this is how it is. I'm saying the fact that we are in a war is somewhat good for our economy in that our human capital is lowered more towards its market equilibrium. I am in no way saying, We should go on a genocide because its good for the economy. I'm saying that that such things are a good effect on the economy, not that we should ever actively seek them out. Now, you seem to be the one who doesn't understand economics if you don't actually believe such things help. Its sad, cruel, but its true.

And I'm agruing that this is bad Economic policy, we could be working toward a much quicker recovery if we took the defense money and funneled it toward public works. The idea that this is good Economic policy is absurd. Regardless if "That's the way it is." That's not good enough, we shouldn't be pragmatists and just throw our hands up and go. "OH WOE IS ME!"

And we have been lossing manufacturing jobs for gradually for a long time, yes?
Also, I even said this wasn't what caused the recession, I said this caused economic trouble outside of the recession that are adding to numbers that people are looking out to determine the recession, such as unemployment.

Factories have been out of business long before Bush came into office. Fact of the matter is most of our employed workers came from small business owners. Not factories, not corporate america, but small business.

ECONOMICS IS AMORAL. You CAN'T bring in morality when talking about economics. That's like bringing in economics when you are talking about the ER room.
If you'd read the article you'd see how it doesn't apply to underdeveloped countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, and how developing those countries and putting them on the global market would help global economics.

Prolonging a war is amoral, I'm not saying the economy is moral. At best you can make the Economy morally neutral. I'm sorry if you got confused but I'm in no way saying the economy is suppose to be morally positive that's just not going to happen.

Here's the problem with the claim of making Afghanistan and Iraq developed countries. It's never worked in history why is it going to work now? We destabilized that region. Afghanistan is lost, and Iraq is no way going to become a flourishing democracy.

Again, read the article.
It defines war as something directly related to economics, in that you should economical prosper over your opponents defeat. Way to be bitter.

This isn't the 1940's. That's the problem with the argument, I don't know how many times I have to say it, but the way we waged war in the 40's and the way we do it today are completely different. By going to war in the 40's you could employ the entire country behind it because the war market only existed during war times.

Today you have a huge industry behind it where emergency employment just isn't an option. The Job demand just isn't as high as it was 60 years ago.

You also forget the massive amount of contractors being sent out to Iraq, and ignore that it does indeed help the Human capital market value.

Those contracts have little effect on the Economy. You seem to think that employing these small groups of people are going to stop the bleeding or at least help to stop it. Unless you have a LARGE employment plan those little bursts of employment are going to do jack.

 

[CRASHiC]

The idea that this is good Economic policy is absurd. Regardless if "That's the way it is." That's not good enough, we shouldn't be pragmatists and just throw our hands up and go. "OH WOE IS ME!"

What I meant by That's the way it is, is that that's the economic truth. That people, somehow, being removed from an economic situation that has a surplus of human capital is a good thing for the economy. Taking all the troops out now would
1. put the troops in a bad position, giving them little to no opportunity to return to normal life as they will likely not have a job to return to, fall under stress as they fail to support their families, adding to their already large mental struggle.
2. cause unemployment numbers to increase and the market value of human capital to fall even lower than it already is currently, slowing our economic recovery.

Factories have been out of business long before Bush came into office. Fact of the matter is most of our employed workers came from small business owners. Not factories, not corporate america, but small business.

A Blue Collar base is largely needed in an economy, other wise it becomes a self eating machine of service people providing a service for other service workers. Blue collar workers, be they farmers, steel workers, carpenters, etc. these are the backbone of an economic system that produces a nations GDP.

Here's the problem with the claim of making Afghanistan and Iraq developed countries. It's never worked in history why is it going to work now? We destabilized that region. Afghanistan is lost, and Iraq is no way going to become a flourishing democracy.

The issue is, any previous attempts failed because of sheer lack of organization and funding. There is no reason why they couldn't. Look at how successful the Europeans were with The Shah in Iran, even if his son was over thrown, then the revolution diverted by religious extremist. The first Shah and the western powers were very successful in rebuilding Iran, and there should be no reason that Afghanistan shouldn't work the same. Charlie Wilson's war does a great job giving an example of one of these thwarted attempts.
Secondly, democracy, not important here. What is truly important is getting Afghanistan to tap into their natural resourced, human capital, and start to contribute to the global economy scene, increasing the worlds capital, causing prices for things to lower. The farms of opium can easily be converted to fields of something more productive such as wheat or rice, something the growing world will always be in need of.

This isn't the 1940's. That's the problem with the argument, I don't know how many times I have to say it, but the way we waged war in the 40's and the way we do it today are completely different. By going to war in the 40's you could employ the entire country behind it because the war market only existed during war times.

Again, read the essay. It states that such a war in modern day times is no longer possible, though only partially for the reasons you state. War has much worse negative effects than what you seem to realize. It isn't just the spending that is the problem, its that you are (in most cases) fighting with someone who provides your economy with much needed capital of some sort, which is why going to war with Iran would be completely infeasible.

Those contracts have little effect on the Economy. You seem to think that employing these small groups of people are going to stop the bleeding or at least help to stop it. Unless you have a LARGE employment plan those little bursts of employment are going to do jack.

How many do you think are in Afghanistan?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2595/3941254968_7f70fbd209_b.jpg
61 thousand troops
74 thousand private contractors
40 for the surge
that's 150 thousand US forces.
And that's just in Afghanistan.
Now, adding these forces back to the work force, you decrease human capital, which lowers average pay, lowers the demand for workers, and lowers the over all value of human capital.

Clearly enough to make a marginally sizable impact to our economy.
Not all economic effects are game changing. You can't simply discredit something for not being a huge game changer. People don't denies that Wavedashing despite L canceling having a huger effect on Melee.

 

[Aesir]

What I meant by That's the way it is, is that that's the economic truth. That people, somehow, being removed from an economic situation that has a surplus of human capital is a good thing for the economy. Taking all the troops out now would
1. put the troops in a bad position, giving them little to no opportunity to return to normal life as they will likely not have a job to return to, fall under stress as they fail to support their families, adding to their already large mental struggle.
2. cause unemployment numbers to increase and the market value of human capital to fall even lower than it already is currently, slowing our economic recovery.

And I'm saying that just because "that's the way it is" doesn't mean we have to accept it. Blindly agreeing to it is what causes the problems we have today.

Furthermore you don't need a war to keep soldiers jobs, which is another point that seems to have been over looked. What do you think Soldiers do when they're not at war? There's plenty of things they could be doing.

A Blue Collar base is largely needed in an economy, other wise it becomes a self eating machine of service people providing a service for other service workers. Blue collar workers, be they farmers, steel workers, carpenters, etc. these are the backbone of an economic system that produces a nations GDP.

And a war a economy is going to help this? You do realize when you talk about rebuilding American Infrastructure you're talking about revitalizing factory jobs.

Maybe I would be a bit more sympathetic to your argument if it was actually rooted in historical facts. Vietnam had mixed economic effects, the gulf war hurt the economy, and the Iraq war didn't help at all.

So how is prolonging afghan and iraq going to help? we're not creating factors, we're not employing the whole country behind the war. The military is a mix between volunteers and private company's.

The issue is, any previous attempts failed because of sheer lack of organization and funding. There is no reason why they couldn't. Look at how successful the Europeans were with The Shah in Iran, even if his son was over thrown, then the revolution diverted by religious extremist. The first Shah and the western powers were very successful in rebuilding Iran, and there should be no reason that Afghanistan shouldn't work the same. Charlie Wilson's war does a great job giving an example of one of these thwarted attempts.
Secondly, democracy, not important here. What is truly important is getting Afghanistan to tap into their natural resourced, human capital, and start to contribute to the global economy scene, increasing the worlds capital, causing prices for things to lower. The farms of opium can easily be converted to fields of something more productive such as wheat or rice, something the growing world will always be in need of.

Hi, I'm history. Have we met before?

Do you really want me to tell you how screwed up the Shah were? Not to mention do you even understand the differences between the Iranians and Afghans?

Again, read the essay. It states that such a war in modern day times is no longer possible, though only partially for the reasons you state. War has much worse negative effects than what you seem to realize. It isn't just the spending that is the problem, its that you are (in most cases) fighting with someone who provides your economy with much needed capital of some sort, which is why going to war with Iran would be completely infeasible.

I know what you're talking about, I don't need to be spoon fed.

Also if I recall correctly I'm not the one favoring prolonging the war, you are. Where did Iran come from? I'm not advocating for a war right now, I think you're getting me confused with someone else. I wanna bring the troops home, cut the budget and funnel that money into public works. That way we can employ the 10% of Americans who are without a job. Rebuilding American infrastructure is vital.

How many do you think are in Afghanistan?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2595/3941254968_7f70fbd209_b.jpg
61 thousand troops
74 thousand private contractors
40 for the surge
that's 150 thousand US forces.
And that's just in Afghanistan.
Now, adding these forces back to the work force, you decrease human capital, which lowers average pay, lowers the demand for workers, and lowers the over all value of human capital.

I know the numbers, you didn't need to explain as it was a waste of time.

But that' s not enough, this war isn't helping the Economy, because the employment of those soldiers isn't doing much if anything at all.

Let me explain. We create one heavy missile lets assume that is about 12 billion. We then use that missile to bomb a country. What happened to that money? If you want a better visual image go into your car and drive for a mile with your wallet opened hanging out the window.

With that money you could have spent on making schools, hospitals, libraries, ect.. The effect is much different because rebuilding American infrastructure is FAR MORE beneficial to the American Economy then going into another country to destroy and rebuild theres.

Lets compare.

Build a bomb, which will be loaded into a fighter jet where it'll be drop it on a country.
Small economic boom from that, we'll never see that money again, and it doesn't help American infrastructure at all.

Now lets say we build a new school in every major city which is probably the cost of one heavy missile. That creates FAR MORE jobs. You need teachers in that school to teach, you need janitors in that school to keep it clean. You need to hire more bus drivers to handle the delivery of those children. You're going to see that money again because that money stayed in America and keep the money flowing.

Clearly enough to make a marginally sizable impact to our economy.
Not all economic effects are game changing. You can't simply discredit something for not being a huge game changer. People don't denies that Wavedashing despite L canceling having a huger effect on Melee.

I can discredit something because it isn't going to offer help for the Economy. A war economy isn't helpful unless the entire country is mobilized in that war effort like WWII.

 

[CRASHiC]

And I'm saying that just because "that's the way it is" doesn't mean we have to accept it. Blindly agreeing to it is what causes the problems we have today.

Whose talking about policy? I'm strictly talking about the economic effects of the situation. No one is going to run on the platform of "We need a plague to open up jobs, so I shall release small pox onto the world!" However, the post effects of a plague are helpful to an economy with a surplus of human capital. Policy has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Furthermore you don't need a war to keep soldiers jobs, which is another point that seems to have been over looked. What do you think Soldiers do when they're not at war? There's plenty of things they could be doing.

Yes, I am aware of our many peace and aid operations we do all over the world. However, none of these have as large an effect as a war.

And a war a economy is going to help this? You do realize when you talk about rebuilding American Infrastructure you're talking about revitalizing factory jobs.

If handled correctly, yes. It puts our many steel workers back to work.

Maybe I would be a bit more sympathetic to your argument if it was actually rooted in historical facts. Vietnam had mixed economic effects, the gulf war hurt the economy, and the Iraq war didn't help at all.

Because there is no chance that the economy could have suffered in those times for non war related reasons, or because the war was poorly managed?

Hi, I'm history. Have we met before?

Name a single, well funded attempt at modernizing Afghanistan.

Do you really want me to tell you how screwed up the Shah were? Not to mention do you even understand the differences between the Iranians and Afghans?

Yes, the Shah was completely ****ed up. I know my Iranian history.
HOWEVER, my point was not that he was a successful leader, but that The Shah and western countries succeeded in modernizing Iran, making it a contributor to the global economy that it still is today.

Also if I recall correctly I'm not the one favoring prolonging the war, you are. Where did Iran come from? I'm not advocating for a war right now, I think you're getting me confused with someone else. I wanna bring the troops home, cut the budget and funnel that money into public works. That way we can employ the 10% of Americans who are without a job. Rebuilding American infrastructure is vital.

Iran was given as an example of a country that you can not have a war with. It would cause economic ruin in the States and in many countries if any OPEC nation were attacked.
The trouble with what you are stating is, You are promoting the creation of skilled jobs. How many of those 10% unemployed are trained in construction? How many could truly be employed directly from the efforts you are talking about? yes, building a blue collar is very important, but you can't expect to employ all of the unemployed with infrastructure working. Other jobs are going to be need to be created for the unskilled, and it will take some time for these jobs to reappear again.

But that' s not enough, this war isn't helping the Economy, because the employment of those soldiers isn't doing much if anything at all.

Those same soldiers are all brought back home for them today. Where will they work? How will they effect the market value of human capital? You can talk about creating construction jobs and the amount of money waisted on a single bomb, but it doesn't change the fact that the war is to some degree helping the human capital numbers. I also am not arguing that there are not better alternatives that would provide more jobs to more people, simply that you can't deny that the war is helping our human capital numbers to some degree. I am not denying that what you are mentioning is a better alternative, because it is, but the war is having some degree of a positive effect, even if the money could have been spent on something better. Whenever a portion of the human capital is removed, it helps the economy, be it from post-disease, be it from war.

 

[blazedaces]

And a war a economy is going to help this? You do realize when you talk about rebuilding American Infrastructure you're talking about revitalizing factory jobs.

Maybe I would be a bit more sympathetic to your argument if it was actually rooted in historical facts. Vietnam had mixed economic effects, the gulf war hurt the economy, and the Iraq war didn't help at all.

So how is prolonging afghan and iraq going to help? we're not creating factors, we're not employing the whole country behind the war. The military is a mix between volunteers and private company's.

I don't have enough knowledge in the subject to add to the argument, but do you mind linking to some sources (even books I could purchase) that can elaborate on this further?

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

Whose talking about policy? I'm strictly talking about the economic effects of the situation. No one is going to run on the platform of "We need a plague to open up jobs, so I shall release small pox onto the world!" However, the post effects of a plague are helpful to an economy with a surplus of human capital. Policy has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Well it kind of is, I think it's a mistake to think this is good policy. If you're not arguing that it is good policy then why the hell are we even debating?

First off the economic effects of war are not going to help, if they do it's a small helping hand. The pay out isn't enough based on what we're spending. Spending billions of dollars for small increases? No. This isn't good Economic policy.

Yes, I am aware of our many peace and aid operations we do all over the world. However, none of these have as large an effect as a war.

I'm not talking about that, but okay. A war is still ineffective. You haven't provided evidence that a war economy is helpful.

If handled correctly, yes. It puts our many steel workers back to work.

Steel is used in many other sectors rather then the military, We don't need the military to boost our economy.

Because there is no chance that the economy could have suffered in those times for non war related reasons, or because the war was poorly managed?

No, are you refusing to look at the point here? War is ineffective at boosting the Economy.

Name a single, well funded attempt at modernizing Afghanistan.

Your argument is a trap, it's dishonest.

Fact of the matter is whenever the west becomes involved with Afghanistan everything falls apart. There's a reason Jimmy Carter wanted Russia to attack Afghanistan.

Yes, the Shah was completely ****ed up. I know my Iranian history.
HOWEVER, my point was not that he was a successful leader, but that The Shah and western countries succeeded in modernizing Iran, making it a contributor to the global economy that it still is today.

Which lead to a revolt 20 years later. Yeah great modernization attempts.

Here's what would have happened had the Brittish not been crazy. We would have never over thrown Mosaddeq, he would have continued to be prime minister. While his country was deteriorating because the government became to dominate, which lead to some economic down turn. (however Iran was still economically stable to support it's own country) To you this might sound like a good enough reason to over throw a leader, but it isn't because of one simple fact. Mosaddeq LIKED AMERICA. He's the only Prime Minister of Iran to have ever liked America. This would have lead to collusion with the two governments and for America to help out the Iranian economy, without EVER having to over throw it.

But I guess coup's are okay too right?

Iran was given as an example of a country that you can not have a war with. It would cause economic ruin in the States and in many countries if any OPEC nation were attacked.
The trouble with what you are stating is, You are promoting the creation of skilled jobs. How many of those 10% unemployed are trained in construction? How many could truly be employed directly from the efforts you are talking about? yes, building a blue collar is very important, but you can't expect to employ all of the unemployed with infrastructure working. Other jobs are going to be need to be created for the unskilled, and it will take some time for these jobs to reappear again.

It doesn't have to be skilled work, it can be any kind of work. I gave the school construction model as an example of getting Americans back to work. You can do it with anything, the thing about governmental jobs is anyone can do them. Also do you really think in the great depression all those construction workers were really skilled in construction?

Those same soldiers are all brought back home for them today. Where will they work? How will they effect the market value of human capital? You can talk about creating construction jobs and the amount of money waisted on a single bomb, but it doesn't change the fact that the war is to some degree helping the human capital numbers. I also am not arguing that there are not better alternatives that would provide more jobs to more people, simply that you can't deny that the war is helping our human capital numbers to some degree. I am not denying that what you are mentioning is a better alternative, because it is, but the war is having some degree of a positive effect, even if the money could have been spent on something better. Whenever a portion of the human capital is removed, it helps the economy, be it from post-disease, be it from war.

But it's not helping! Those troops being deployed don't matter squat when it comes to unemployment numbers. You bring those soldiers back home they'll have plenty of things to do on base.

You bring those people home they're not going to automatically become unemployed. You can find jobs for them, but until we bring them home we can't do anything but perpetuate the war.

That's the problem. The money we're spending can be better spent on other things, to employ MORE PEOPLE.


edit:

I don't have enough knowledge in the subject to add to the argument, but do you mind linking to some sources (even books I could purchase) that can elaborate on this further?

-blazed

Well if you quickly google search you find this.

http://economics.about.com/od/warandtheeconomy/a/warsandeconomy_3.htm

But there was a article by the council of foreign relations about the same thing. However I can't seem to find it right now. If I do i'll post it up. I'm sorta pressed for time right now otherwise I would link more sources.

 

[CRASHiC]

But it is, you're refusal to admit that is worrisome.

But I'm not talking about policy. I'm not talking about what we should and should not do. I'm talking about the economic effects of the situation.

Which lead to a revolt 20 years later. Yeah great modernization attempts.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about. I'm simply talking about economy wise. The amound of progress made under the first Shah towards becoming a modern economic nation was huge. Economically, it was a success.
Also, Iran will always have wars and revolutions so long as there is oil. Once Iran's economy is under trouble, once Iran loses the enemy (US), then its very likely, as in the past, a revolution from the people or an invasion is likely to occur because of the nation's wealth of natural resources as well as its ease of invasion.

Fact of the matter is whenever the west becomes involved with Afghanistan everything falls apart. There's a reason Jimmy Carter wanted Russia to attack Afghanistan.

And this is because of our intervention, of a lack of follow through. Charlie Willson failed to even get 1 million for a school. After having driven Russia out of Afghanistan, he was unable to stabilize the country because no one would fund it. Western Nations have never been successful in Afghanistan because they never followed through with it.

But it's not helping! Those troops being deployed don't matter squat when it comes to unemployment numbers. You bring those soldiers back home they'll have plenty of things to do on base.

However, you also argue a cut in spending for the Army, so how are you going to employ all the troops with cutting spending as well? And the equal number of American workers being deployed to Iraq, what becomes of them?

You can find jobs for them

What jobs?
And even then, the human capital market value is still being decreased.

 

[Aesir]

But I'm not talking about policy. I'm not talking about what we should and should not do. I'm talking about the economic effects of the situation.

Then why are we debating? You seem to agree that it would be better to implement what I'm talking about. The only thing we're disagreeing on is the effects of War on the Economy.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about. I'm simply talking about economy wise. The amound of progress made under the first Shah towards becoming a modern economic nation was huge. Economically, it was a success.
Also, Iran will always have wars and revolutions so long as there is oil. Once Iran's economy is under trouble, once Iran loses the enemy (US), then its very likely, as in the past, a revolution from the people or an invasion is likely to occur because of the nation's wealth of natural resources as well as its ease of invasion.

Lets look at the effects of that though, Yes Iran is an economic power house in the middle east now. But at what cost? They're very anti-western, more importantly anti-American.

How is this helping our economy?

And this is because of our intervention, of a lack of follow through. Charlie Willson failed to even get 1 million for a school. After having driven Russia out of Afghanistan, he was unable to stabilize the country because no one would fund it. Western Nations have never been successful in Afghanistan because they never followed through with it.

Because it's a fruitless endeavor. That country is more fractured then the Democratic party, it's rooted in Islamic nationalism, they don't like the west and want nothing to do with it. In the past it may have been possible, but their leaders see western influence as a insult to their way of life. This is why you'll never get progress in that region.

However, you also argue a cut in spending for the Army, so how are you going to employ all the troops with cutting spending as well? And the equal number of American workers being deployed to Iraq, what becomes of them?

It's Bloated that's why, a lot of the money that the army gets is pork. Those contractors are all private, if those companies want to continue to do work in Iraq then they can. I'm sure Iraq would love the help. I'm against using the military to prolong the wars. You can use the military in other ways to help those countries that require less money.

What jobs?
And even then, the human capital market value is still being decreased.

Without looking at the actual jobs that are lost it's really hard to say. What I think they should do is; the government should hire these people and find jobs that use the skills they have. If that means hiring them to do governmental jobs then fine, but the our biggest concern should be putting these people back to work. Which we can, our domestic life is so underdeveloped now is the perfect time to focus on it.

 

[CRASHiC]

Then why are we debating? You seem to agree that it would be better to implement what I'm talking about. The only thing we're disagreeing on is the effects of War on the Economy.

That's what I thought we are debating XD I guess we've both been fighting two different fights, thinking we are hitting each other. Its like I bombed Hong Kong in a war with Japan.

Lets look at the effects of that though, Yes Iran is an economic power house in the middle east now. But at what cost? They're very anti-western, more importantly anti-American.

How is this helping our economy?

It helps it indirectly. As Iran outputs oil, construction materials, textiles, cars, fruits and nuts, and technologies supplies, it lowers the market value of these things and raises the capital available to the world. Even though we get 75% of our oil from non OPEC sources, the actions of OPEC greatly effects the price on oil globally.

Because it's a fruitless endeavor. That country is more fractured then the Democratic party, it's rooted in Islamic nationalism, they don't like the west and want nothing to do with it. In the past it may have been possible, but their leaders see western influence as a insult to their way of life. This is why you'll never get progress in that region.

Iran, though not as badly fractured as Afghanistan, was and still is mostly divided amongst its people because of the invasions they have suffered through over the years, areas of ethnic differences grew, so those in the South Iran, for example, are generally hated by those from other regions.
If we look at history, we see many examples of countries that were in truth nothing more than a lose collection of city states being pulled together, the first coming to mind being Germany and even the early United States, that has gradually morphed from a lose central government to what we have today. Afghanistan is not out of reach.

It's Bloated that's why, a lot of the money that the army gets is pork.

And yet some vets are complaining that we can't provide proper medical and psychiatric care for soldiers who have returned from the middle east? The home sector of the Army seems underfunded to me, though no doubt because of the war.

I'm against using the military to prolong the wars.

I wonder if this is really a war though. Sitting and protecting areas from an invisible force not aligned with a country is not something I would call a war. I think the term 'conflict' is better suited here, but using that word invites memories of Vietnam, so no one wants to call it that. You can't have a war on terror, but you can have a conflict with terror. (not that this pertains to our argument, just something that has always sit weird with me)

 

[Aesir]

That's what I thought we are debating XD I guess we've both been fighting two different fights, thinking we are hitting each other. Its like I bombed Hong Kong in a war with Japan.

It would appear so.

It helps it indirectly. As Iran outputs oil, construction materials, textiles, cars, fruits and nuts, and technologies supplies, it lowers the market value of these things and raises the capital available to the world. Even though we get 75% of our oil from non OPEC sources, the actions of OPEC greatly effects the price on oil globally.

Right, I'm not saying that isn't the case. I'm saying military action against Iran like we did in the 50's wasn't the answer. Which is what I was arguing.

Iran, though not as badly fractured as Afghanistan, was and still is mostly divided amongst its people because of the invasions they have suffered through over the years, areas of ethnic differences grew, so those in the South Iran, for example, are generally hated by those from other regions.
If we look at history, we see many examples of countries that were in truth nothing more than a lose collection of city states being pulled together, the first coming to mind being Germany and even the early United States, that has gradually morphed from a lose central government to what we have today. Afghanistan is not out of reach.

Here's the problem though, Iran was unified under one leader. mosaddeq! This man was VERY popular in Iran, he may have been secular but Iranians knew he was fighting for them. Plus it helped that they didn't like the Shah.

Afghanistan isn't unified at all, in fact Afghanistan is ruled by tribal war lords. I understand what you mean but it's a mistake to think that military action will save them.

And yet some vets are complaining that we can't provide proper medical and psychiatric care for soldiers who have returned from the middle east? The home sector of the Army seems underfunded to me, though no doubt because of the war.

Because all the money goes to Pork, you're helping my argument more then hurting it. Instead of spending millions on destruction we should be putting that money into the medical treatment of vets.

I wonder if this is really a war though. Sitting and protecting areas from an invisible force not aligned with a country is not something I would call a war. I think the term 'conflict' is better suited here, but using that word invites memories of Vietnam, so no one wants to call it that. You can't have a war on terror, but you can have a conflict with terror. (not that this pertains to our argument, just something that has always sit weird with me)

Understandable, it's just for layman's usage to call it war.

 

[Crimson King]

Want to move this argument to a thread? Could be worthwhile.

 

[CRASHiC]

Want to move this argument to a thread? Could be worthwhile.

Actually, since it turns out we were making two completely separate points, me on economic effects, him on the policies we should have, I think its slowly winding down.

Right, I'm not saying that isn't the case. I'm saying military action against Iran like we did in the 50's wasn't the answer. Which is what I was arguing.

Yes, Military action in today's economic scheme is close to nearly pointless. Things have changed dramatically since WWII, now cold wars seem the only way to go.

Because all the money goes to Pork, you're helping my argument more then hurting it. Instead of spending millions on destruction we should be putting that money into the medical treatment of vets.

(this isn't a debate, just asking for a more in depth response) I'd be interested to see the numbers of the pork. What exactly is the pork you say? Are you referencing the bombs as pork, since its dead money? Or more traditional ideas of legislative and executive pork?

 

[AltF4]

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2009100913472

Someone make a topic about that. Because it upsets me greatly.

 

[KrazyGlue]

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2009100913472

Someone make a topic about that. Because it upsets me greatly.

Wow. Just... wow.

Although to be honest we all know that it wouldn't turn into a real debate. Too one-sided.

 

[RDK]

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2009100913472

Someone make a topic about that. Because it upsets me greatly.

The ****? What will fundies think of next?

Honestly, humanity as a whole will be 100% better off when that generation is dead and buried.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Wow. Just... wow.

Although to be honest we all know that it wouldn't turn into a real debate. Too one-sided.

Twenty times this.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Sort of out of the "burden of proof" thread, people seem to misunderstand quite a bit about basic discrete mathmatics, aka logic, what the scientific method is, and how that applies to logic.



I'd be willing to make a PG primer for it, if the mods are willing to put it in and sticky it.


Just basic things of course, like what's an existential statement, how to disprove an existential statement, how to figure out what side has the burden of proof, etc.


(If anyone wants to know what I mean, read the discussion in the "Burden of Proof" thread, make sure to read all the posts though, context gets confusing there)

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2009100913472

Someone make a topic about that. Because it upsets me greatly.

Actually, there's a GREAT federalism case to be made out of this, I'm make a thread on whether the federal government has the right to deal with this clear miscarriage of justice IF people promise to stay on topic.

 

[Reaver197]

I found this interesting infograph of the number of troops in Afghanistan, and the breakdown between what countries they came from. It's fairly interesting.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/four-infographic-morsels/

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/afghanistan-troop-casualties/

I also highly recommend checking out the other infographs this guy has done (or linked to). There aren't too many to go through and some will probably make you realize some things.

 

[Mewter]

I had a cool idea, but it probably doesn't mean anything.
What if string theory were correct, and the Einstein-Boze condensate was actually a slowing of the "strings"?
....
Just an idea (probably way off though).
Woah, I am way off.

 

[Zero Beat]

Attention DH members

Twenty times this.

Let's avoid posts like this one. First and last warning. From here on out, expect infractions.

(Breaking any of the following rules can result in an infraction and/or closing of this room)

*Examples of inappropriate posts:

-"Sup bro?"
-"So how was your day?"
-"SPAM! "
-"This topic is amazing."
-"That post above me was so wrong, I won't even respond. *leaves*"
-"I've been kinda inactive due to finals this week."

Etc.

About that first link, Reaver, the general consensus is that women are usually plagued by low levels of self esteem. I wasn't very surprised when I saw those adjectives correlating with fewer replies.

And even when you know the female well enough, it can still be a drag. Interesting find.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Let's avoid posts like this one. First and last warning. From here on out, expect infractions.

Actually, you might want to add that to the list of inappropriate posts, since it's pretty common.

_______________________________


Many people here have probably already heard of this before, but here's an interesting article about a relatively close planet that may have a climate that could support water or life. It's called Gliese 581d. Comments?

 

[Aesir]

Insurance company's are such Benevolent beings.

http://huffpostfund.org/stories/200...e-risk-aids-or-health-insurance#ixzz0UbBMXLVy

 

[CRASHiC]

In a stunning revelation, Democrats actually named something of theirs a politically smart move, Health Care For Everybody.

In other less surprising news, we found Water on the moon, and water and oxygen on Europa. Space exploration has never been so exciting for me.

 

[AltF4]

Here's a story that will surely grind CK's gears.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/10/kill_a_kid_take_the_day_off.php

 

[Aesir]

Here's a story that will surely grind CK's gears.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/10/kill_a_kid_take_the_day_off.php

That would grind anyone's gears.

In a stunning revelation, Democrats actually named something of theirs a politically smart move, Health Care For Everybody.

Depends on what you consider apolitical smart move.

Republicans are gonna call it socialism, then they'll scream about death panels, then they'll scream that obama is going to use tax payer funds to pay for abortions.

Btw half the country will believe it, and health care reform won't pass.

Welcome to America.

 

[CRASHiC]

The Republicans will always win at that game. They are pure geniuses at politics. We still haven't seen anything as good as Regan, who said "I will not take advantage of my opponents youth and inexperience."

A good politician says nothing in a 1000 words.
A great politician takes a political jab without saying anything. If I were a political sciences major, I would watch the GOP convention like it was a blockbuster.

Still though, naming it such a friendly name as Health Care For Everybody is a wonderful move. It has that "How can you be against it?" feel that Republicans always do. "How can you be against a war on terror?" "How can you be against life?" "How can you be against freedom?" "How can you be against Healthcare for everybody?" As you can see, its not as good as the others that the republicans have pulled off, but comparing it to the previous names that just reek socialism in their title, its really a big step for the Democrats.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The Republicans will always win at that game. They are pure geniuses at politics. We still haven't seen anything as good as Regan, who said "I will not take advantage of my opponents youth and inexperience."

A good politician says nothing in a 1000 words.
A great politician takes a political jab without saying anything. If I were a political sciences major, I would watch the GOP convention like it was a blockbuster.

Still though, naming it such a friendly name as Health Care For Everybody is a wonderful move. It has that "How can you be against it?" feel that Republicans always do. "How can you be against a war on terror?" "How can you be against life?" "How can you be against freedom?" "How can you be against Healthcare for everybody?" As you can see, its not as good as the others that the republicans have pulled off, but comparing it to the previous names that just reek socialism in their title, its really a big step for the Democrats.

Yeah the Republicans have mastered propaganda. Especially fear mongering and glittering generalities.

Agreed, good move by the democrats. Now let's see if they can sell it like the republicans can.

 

[Aesir]

This isn't some revolutionary thing, Hillary did the same thing in the 90's look how that turned out.