Bad wallstreet occupyer behavior

[Empty Hands]

So, what should all those out of work soldiers do for a living then?
What about all the defense contractors who will have to downsize and shut down?
What will all their employees do once they are also out of work?

I thought government didn't create jobs.

By the arguments on this site, if the government could cut taxes by 25%, that would enable business to spend more money creating jobs, which would be done more efficiently than the government, and would stimulate demand.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So, the answer to 'handle being unemployed' is 'stop killing'.
Gotcha.

here's an idea.
Limit the fed to just the specified Constitutional stuff.

That would save a fortune. From all those social programs and interventions.

We'd still have the military.
It's authorized.

 

[billc]

Hmmm...I don't remember any reports of firearm related violence at any tea party gathering. Also, citizens carrying firearms is perfectly normal as far as I'm concerned. This is a site devoted to self-defense and the martial arts after all and the freedom to be armed is a great part of this countries history...As long as they aren't used to commit crimes. The guys on the top were peaceful and non-violent. That's all that really counts. They didn't block streets, pin security guards, spit or "defecate" on police cars, and believe me, if they had done any of those things, you would never have heard the end of it. Has anyone heard anything on the main stream news media about the bad behavior yet by the OWS?

 

[Makalakumu]

So, the answer to 'handle being unemployed' is 'stop killing'.

That's the right thing to do. When the slaves were freed the argument was, who is going to pick all of the grain? What about all of the unemployed?

I'd be cool with going Constitutional with the military. It would make it a lot smaller, IMO.

 

[Big Don]

I'd be cool with going Constitutional with the military. It would make it a lot smaller, IMO.

That's nice, but, completely NOT what Bob suggested...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So, are we talking about firing just the military that's out murdering babies and raping kids, or the other 90% that's support staff, supply ops and boat drivers, etc?

With a smaller military, and a severely cut back back-end supply system, how do you propose defending our borders?

Should we even bother? After all, 1 demand is full open borders, a concept I'm certain terrorists and criminals would never try to take advantage of.

We have about 3 million in uniform. A 66% elimination rate would add 2 million to the US unemployment rate, or an increase of .5-1%. Adding in a similar downsizing of the 'defense industry', you would see an addition of 4 million unemployed, raising the national rate 1-3%.

We're already at 9% now. That would boost it to 10-12%.
In addition, it would greatly increase the burden on State budgets as some states see huge increases in demand for unemployment benefits.
Another $1.6 Billion per week in payments. $84B more a year.

Maybe we can raise taxes on those 5,000 Rich people 4% so we can pay those 4 Million people to sit at home?

 

[Makalakumu]

The money flow back into the Free Market and the economy would grow again. The status quo is not an option. If you think the economy is bad now, wait until we actually have to pay for what we've done overseas.

Monetary reform is also a priority. It's part of the problem as well.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Makalakumu]

That's nice, but, completely NOT what Bob suggested...

Yes it is. A return to the Constitution would eliminate the national bank and put us on a gold standard, which would limit what the government could spend on defense. Therefore no huge military, no more empire, and more freedom and prosperity for all.



Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Doesn't answer the questions though.

Who pays for the unemployment of all those people?

You don't seriously think the 5,000 'super rich' in this country owe it to them to support 5 million unemployed people do you?
You don't think that insisting they do that, then insist they make businesses for these people to work at is fair do you?
You don't think the government should take over things and provide them with jobs do you?
Especially not after firing them from government jobs to begin with?

Trying to get a handle on how you think this would be an improvement, and I'm failing.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yes it is. A return to the Constitution would eliminate the national bank and put us on a gold standard, which would limit what the government could spend on defense. Therefore no huge military, no more empire, and more freedom and prosperity for all.

First part true.
Second part, maybe.

Eliminating the military is fine. As long as we can trust the rest of the world.
We can't.
The US has much more freedom than most of the world. Last I looked I didn't have armed troops in force wandering my streets.
Was a bit different in Cozumel.
I feel pretty free. Still working on that prosperity thing, but I'm not working at a government assigned job, I set my own hours, my own wages, and my own rules for what I do.
So, pretty free here.

 

[Makalakumu]

A well regulated militia would be enough to protect our borders. A well armed citizenry would scare off any imperial powers. It was all there in the Constitution, we just needed to follow it.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Big Don]

Yes it is. A return to the Constitution would eliminate the national bank and put us on a gold standard, which would limit what the government could spend on defense. Therefore no huge military, no more empire, and more freedom and prosperity for all.
Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

Except, he wasn't limiting a return to constitutiality to the military and the federal reserve. Making every dime spent by the government have a constitutional backing, would DRASTICALLY cut social programs, the epa, osha, etc

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So this
View attachment $El_Paso06_Group-723283.jpg

will beat this?
View attachment $China_tanks2.jpg

 

[Makalakumu]

It's working for the Afghans.

And Don, yes it would limit other social programs. The military is a social program as well.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So, you think Afghanistan is a stable, safe nation?

 

[Twin Fist]

so bob, how's your head? cuz, just reading this retarded **** is making mine hurt like hell...

 

[Makalakumu]

So, you think Afghanistan is a stable, safe nation?

Do we need a standing army to have a stable and age nation?

That's a red herring BTW.

The real thing that needs to be discussed are the real costs and benefits of a modern army. A minarchist Constitutional approach is going to have as little as possible in order to do the job. The Founding Fathers were clearly against standing armies and empires because they could see the havoc that they wrought in Europe. That's why they limited the monetary system and designed the Constitution with amendments that shift the burden of defense to the people and limit the federal governments ability to make war.

When you really think about it, it makes sense that big wasteful armies can only defeat other big wasteful armies. It's just another byproduct of the inefficiency of government. It's another way for the parasitic class to prey on the productive.

No army can invade a populace that has a free market in defense.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Makalakumu]

so bob, how's your head? cuz, just reading this retarded **** is making mine hurt like hell...

It's okay if you don't understand. You went to government school and got a good fascist education.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Do we need a standing army to have a stable and age nation?

In todays world, yes. The average American has long been removed from his legal duty to drill and maintain good order. Correcting that could take upwards of a generation. Would you leave our borders defenseless?

No army can invade a populace that has a free market in defense.

I think a guy named Rommel might disagree with that.

Downsizing the military would put millions out of work, directly impact the economy in a negative manner, for over a year at best.
There is currently no place for them to go. There are no businesses with a demand for workers. Glutting the market with even more unemployed would not generate more consumers to create more demand which would cause business growth.
There would be a 2-3 year period of 'pain' as even more people lost homes, and in some cases lives.

Unless the answer is government ownership of housing, everyone can get a bunk in the barracks. The government can also assign you a job, and take the burden of food shopping away as youll eat for 'free' in the on-site cafeteria.

 

[Makalakumu]

Bob, the alternative is total collapse. You will lose all your liberty and all of your property. It will be fed to the beast. We have no choice but to cut the guns and butter state deep and yeah its going to hurt, but that's the price we'll have to pay. There is no way around it unless you want to give up your freedom and property.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk