Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

Just pointing that if someone's job is useless, firing him is good practice. We don't hire government worker just for fun, whether they hold a pen or a gun.

[LordSlowpoke]

Yeah, but now that organization sees everyone on the outside as a direct threat. Effective change of the Army has *always* came from either the top, or within.

So get rid of the army, and indeed the military as a whole.  It's a cancerous tumor on a free society, that actively destroys and degenerates the body.

It's a job. Do you really want to put hundreds of thousands of people out of a job?

yeah how about you collapse the country instead

i mean seriously the military is pulling shit like paying $60 for a single bolt because it's "military spec" and i'm not being full retard and including shipping in the price thank you

it's not like it's obvious who's getting rich out of this and who exactly keeps lobbying for more war with the exact same money they get from this right

[kingfisher1112]

Yeah, but now that organization sees everyone on the outside as a direct threat. Effective change of the Army has *always* came from either the top, or within.

So get rid of the army, and indeed the military as a whole.  It's a cancerous tumor on a free society, that actively destroys and degenerates the body.

It's a job. Do you really want to put hundreds of thousands of people out of a job?

Same way we get rid of coal: re-train them for productive, socially useful, endeavors that they find amenable.  The soldiers AND the murder industry that equips them.

But the military already does that.

Just pointing that if someone's job is useless, firing him is good practice. We don't hire government worker just for fun, whether they hold a pen or a gun.

We hand out money just for fun. Is the army not more useful for training skills and personal attributes than straight up welfare?

[10ebbor10]

Depends on how the welfare is organized, and all that stuff. Simple logic says that an organization which has training skills as a sidegoal will be less effective at it than one that puts it at a primary goal. Question is whether welfare wants to/ is able to* help people help themselves  .

Also, the military-Industrial complex ensures that making significant cuts to the army is not only political suicide(lobbying), but also economically devastating.

*Budgets, corruption, loopholes, inefficiencies, all that stuff.

[kingfisher1112]

Depends on how the welfare is organized, and all that stuff. Simple logic says that an organization which has training skills as a sidegoal will be less effective at it than one that puts it at a primary goal. Question is whether welfare wants to/ is able to* help people help themselves  .

Also, the military-Industrial complex ensures that making significant cuts to the army is not only political suicide(lobbying), but also economically devastating.

*Budgets, corruption, loopholes, inefficiencies, all that stuff.

But training is one of the first goals of any armed force. Would you wander into battle with a bunch of poorly trained peasants? No, you'd want hardened, capable men. Smart men, with leadership and teamwork skills.

[misko27]

Depends on how the welfare is organized, and all that stuff. Simple logic says that an organization which has training skills as a sidegoal will be less effective at it than one that puts it at a primary goal. Question is whether welfare wants to/ is able to* help people help themselves  .

*This is a uncommon and yet existing Republican view-point. Back when the idea was make welfare for giving people jobs instead of removing it entirely.

[10ebbor10]

But training is one of the first goals of any armed force. Would you wander into battle with a bunch of poorly trained peasants? No, you'd want hardened, capable men. Smart men, with leadership and teamwork skills.

Point was that there isn't always a complete overlap between "civilian" skills, and "military" skills. Also, the army isn't purely a training center. Majority of it's funds go to maintenance of people and material.

[kingfisher1112]

But training is one of the first goals of any armed force. Would you wander into battle with a bunch of poorly trained peasants? No, you'd want hardened, capable men. Smart men, with leadership and teamwork skills.

Point was that there isn't always a complete overlap between "civilian" skills, and "military" skills. Also, the army isn't purely a training center. Majority of it's funds go to maintenance of people and material.

But there is still an overlap of Universal skills which any employer would want.

[10ebbor10]

Yup, but the partial overlap of the army is significantly less efficient than the ideal overlap of a reintegration welfare program.

[Leading us to the shocking conclusion that the army isn't very efficient as a welfare program.]

[Frumple]

Point was that there isn't always a complete overlap between "civilian" skills, and "military" skills. Also, the army isn't purely a training center. Majority of it's funds go to maintenance of people and material.

Often isn't, really. There's reasons the homeless and jobless rates among veterans are what they are. Part of that is skill mismatch. Some of that training can, sometimes, translate to civilian work. Some of it can't. Much of it is somewhat inefficient, compared to skill sets built from the ground up for civilian work.

But there is still an overlap of Universal skills which any employer would want.

And military isn't an efficient way to go about training for those. Organizations specifically designed to train such skills for the civilian world would be what you'd be investing in if you wanted to go about that in an efficient manner. As ebb says.

[Vector]

We hand out money just for fun. Is the army not more useful for training skills and personal attributes than straight up welfare?

At the moment the army seems like it's something of a PTSD machine.

But there is still an overlap of Universal skills which any employer would want.

Therefore the best/only/most efficient way to train them is the military.  Oh, that makes sense...

[MonkeyHead]

Which leads us to the shocking conclusion that well funded and well delivered education of all and any forms would reduce the need for welfare?

[kingfisher1112]

We hand out money just for fun. Is the army not more useful for training skills and personal attributes than straight up welfare?

At the moment the army seems like it's something of a PTSD machine.

But there is still an overlap of Universal skills which any employer would want.

Therefore the best/only/most efficient way to train them is the military.  Oh, that makes sense...

The military has hundreds of years of tradition. Even better, it provides multifaceted benefits. Where the hell is a mechanic going to get work? Simple, the military. Unless you want to subsidise companies into hiring mechanics, it's your best bet. Even better, still have to keep around a military until this " World Peace" thing rocks around. Even better, R&D trickles down all sorts of cool stuff into everyday use.

Which leads us to the shocking conclusion that well funded and well delivered education of all and any forms would reduce the need for welfare?

Which we can't fund because we're spending it on welfare. Well.

[MonkeyHead]

Or a massive bloated military budget. The US spends something like $700 billion on its armed forces. Imagine what an extra $5billion could do for secondary age (11-18) schools in the US and what little effect that would have on the US military?

[kingfisher1112]

Or a massive bloated military budget. The US spends something like $700 billion on its armed forces. Imagine what $5billion could do for schools in the US and what little effect that would have on the US military?

I don't know. I think a lack of funding isn't to blame, but lack of good teaching methods.