"Today, the Department of Labor released their January jobs report which showed that 20,000 jobs were lost last month – down from the 779,000 job losses in January 2009.

"Today’s jobs report marks a welcome step in the right direction for our economy and our families: the unemployment rate is going down. The Recovery Act, which Congress passed one year ago to pull our economy back from the brink of collapse, has already created or saved nearly 2 million jobs so far.

"Yet our work is far from over. This recession that President Obama inherited has taken the worst toll on our job market since World War II. Too many workers have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Leaders of both parties must work together to keep our recovery on track by helping small businesses create jobs, investing in our infrastructure and clean energy industries, and keeping police, firefighters, and teachers on the job. Congress will continue to act to build a new foundation for long-term prosperity."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/4332827382/

 

What a bunch of bullhockey. One month we lose "only" 20k jobs and we are in a recovery? Nice try on the spin, Nancy. The only thing that dropped the unemployment rate was people dropping off the rolls, we did not gain jobs.

Recovery will come when the private sector hires folks, not when the government does.

 

I'm curious about your opinion on the military industrial complex.

 

Do you mean the MicMyth?

The military industrial complex was a term which was applied by Eisenhower after the end of WWII. At the time, the US had to change from a wartime to peacetime economy. Our industry had been churning out military equipment and munitions for most of the allied efforts. The automobile industry had been transformed into military vehicle production and had added a lot of capacity. The steel industry had been churning out much more finished steel than they ever had.

Ike's concern was that we had to adjust our output to consumer goods without slowing down the machinery of industry. He warned of a pending military/industrial complex to perpetuate the industries output. What really happened was the transition to consumer goods went very well in most industries, while some companies kept a heavy involvement in military products. As an example Boeing has been a major aircraft producer for the military, they really took off in the civil airline production business, as did Lockheed and McDonald Douglass, although they all also produced military aircraft.

With the cold war the MIC did become a reality, vast amounts of resources in the USA and n the USSR were committed to oneupmanship in all things military. However, since the cold war it has not been near the factor that some would like you to believe.

Both the Carter and the Clinton administrations deeply cut our military expenditures. Reagan, Bush I & II expanded them. Who was right? Neither, IMO, military preparedness is the role of the Federal Government, our servicemen and women deserve the best equipment and supplies that we can produce for them. Short changing them results in casualties and lost morale, however wasteful programs do not help either.

We have seen wild swings in defense spending under different administrations and Congressional leaderships, IMO we would have been far better off keeping a reasonable average throughout.

 

So you're against the military industrial complex? That's interesting...

In MD it's a HUGE deal. Our military bases employ a ton of people and there are a ton of contractors as well. The bases themselves are like mini-cities and I'm not sure whether or not they even have on base housing.

 

No, I am not against the military/industrial complex, as an evil, it really does not exist. We are a country that operates with a publicly owned and supported military, which is supplied by private industry, the connection is not anything sinister, it is normal.

Most military installations are very complex organizations. The quest for effective weapons and equipment is never ending. Our technologies are growing at an ever increasing rate, most electronics are obsolete before they can be commissioned.

Your location is one of great strategic importance for the US, the proximity to Washington, DC and the East Coast population centers, makes it a key defense position.

 

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Actually, Eisenhower used the term in a speech he gave in 1961.

------

We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes...

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

 

You seemed to imply that Eisenhower used the term in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. If I misunderstood you, I am sorry.

What matters is that Eisenhower had a much greater awareness of the dangers of high military spending than Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.

 

No sweat on the comment, it could have been easily taken as you did.

As far as Ike's greater awareness of the dangers than the others, I really doubt that. What Ike had was a better understanding of what was needed on the front lines and in support of them. He also clearly saw the USSR for what they were and warned against becoming complacent with them.

You seem to enjoy taking his comments totally out of context, that's what you get for not really reading what he said in total.

 

Then what if jobs were created in the defense industry? Would you support those? They're essentially government funded jobs.

 

Actually they are not government funded jobs, they are jobs created in private industries that do business with the government. There is subtle but distinct difference.

 

I just read what he said in total.

Throughout the Cold War, the European NATO members without the United States had higher populations and were richer than the entire Warsaw Pact, including the USSR. Also, the Warsaw Pact was not really a defensive alliance, but an empire conquered in war and held together by force. The loyalty of Eastern European armies could not be counted on in an European war. The leaders of the Soviet Union knew that.

The danger of Soviet military aggression, while it existed, was greatly overestimated, as was the danger of Communism in general. The Soviet Union was not bent on world conquest. It was an insecure country trying to hold onto a resentful empire that eventually collapsed.

 

another boring thread

 

Who says so, it aint so around here.

 

Where do you come up with this shit?? The USSR was not bent on world conquest, it was bent on world domination. Not too many feared the USSR would start a hot war, but a whole lot of folks were concerned that one of their puppets would.

Seriously, what are you reading or listening to that fills you with this erroneous crap?

 

How are they created by the private industry? The government gives them more money, they hire more people. They're utterly dependent on the government.

 

the gov't is their customer.

 

Wrong again, you have assumed that the companies would not exist without the government contracts. Virtually every company who does business with the US military, was a viable company without it. When ever the DOD decides it needs to purchase something, they write a specification for it. Private industry bids on supplying it based on the specs. The company best suited for the work usually gets the contract. They have to be able to deliver the goods, so they needed to be viable prior to the contract. It wasn't a guy or group of guys, who suddenly decided to bid and then go build a factory, buy equipment and hire people, after that got a contract.

Over half of the money spent on the military are for supporting personnel not arming them. Feeding them, housing them, clothing them, providing routine medical treatment, reserving moneys for retirement, paying FICA taxes (yes the military pays into the fund), providing for some of their families needs, transporting them, relocating their homes, etc. etc. And in todays military, more personnel are used for peace keeping and disaster relief, than are used for fighting. Whether they were in the military or in some other government job, the costs would be relatively the same.

So the only thing you could claim as MIC driven is weapons and munitions. No one buys a $50 million fighter jet because it is fun to drive. They buy it because it is needed for a job in the military's portfolio of tasks that are expected to be performed. So where do you buy one? Does the government own factories to build them? To my knowledge no country has publicly owned military hardware manufacturing.

So IMO the MIC is a myth.

 

curious what you think about airbus.