« Too dependent on foreign oil | Main | Barking back at the media »

November 19, 2008

Troops’ effect on employment

Let’s see if I understand this. Unemployment is at an all-time high, and corporations are laying off thousands. Yet our voters, in their wisdom, have selected and elected a president whose agenda includes bringing home the troops and reducing the size of the armed services. I’m not a mathematician, but won’t this just add several hundred thousand more people to the unemployment rolls?

Of course since we are aborting several thousand fetuses every year, we won’t have to be concerned with them growing up and adding to the unemployment lines — or paying taxes to help pay for those on the dole.

Wayne Miller
Lone Jack

Comments

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Hopefully Obama will cut the military back so we get hit and hit hard on our own soil. It would be great to see a foreign faction actually invade our country. We can be rest assured that all of the uber iPod, MTV Crib crowd will defend us. Hell maybe Barry will make Barney Frank a 5 Star General and he could command the Gay Infantry Division.

Engineer

Pub 17
The Viet Nam war had ended so Nixon's cuts would seem reasonable. We will see what Obama does. Do you see areas other than Defense where he is likely to make cuts? He has avoided making statements that present any solid information on this matter.
Jim
A postulation of possible action in the future is not action or even a proposal for action.

Jim

Eng,

As I've shown before, Bush 41's plan for cutting defense spending throughout the 90s outlined in his last budget called for deeper cuts than Clinton actually made. Overall, Clinton cut defense by less than Bush 41 had proposed.

Pub 17

I think he will continue to do as the second Bush did, cut the Navy and Marine budgets and maintain or raise the Army and Air Force budgets as long as we are forced to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not think he will cut military budgets as savagely as that great liberal, Richard Nixon, did, even when the various wars Bush II engaged us in are finally brought to a shuddering halt.

Engineer

Pub 17
Yes GHW Bush did but BC did more and decreased the Defense Budget more. If Obama is even going to attempt to carry out any of his promises he will either have to run up big deficits or cut defense. That is unless he has a tax plan in mind completely different from the one he has presented so far. What do you think he will do?

Pub 17

So did Bush the First, idiot.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

BHO and Patriot Taxman Joe are going to REDUCE the size of the military and de-modernize our weaponry. What joy. Clinton did similar.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Amazing that being at 93% of something is considered "crisis". More than 9 out of 10 accouunted for people work, same for paying their mortgages yet people scream crisis.
The math does not compute. There are plenty of good paying jobs if someone really wants to work. If you do not posses the skill set they are requireing, then you need to retool.

Pub 17

Naw, he's calling Jim an extremist hack. Remember, extremism in the pursuit of vice is a real liberty.

Casady

Wow Pub, is Rougy actually calling YOU an extremist hack? Now THAT is funny!

KC news Hound

All the inane responses aside Wayne! The troops are paid for by our tax dollars. So they can't really be counted as productive in the economy actually a drain.

repete

Yeah, he's basically saying, "Invading other countries is good for the economy." How many soldiers should be killed to have a good balance of labor Wayne?

T. Hanson

:) I love the guy... the base of his letter is this:

Unemployment is high... you can stay over in that country away from your family as long as I can work.

Nice.

Pub 17

Since he seems to want to leave troops in Iraq, he's sure as hell not a fiscal conservative.

repete

Very impressive Wayne Miller. In two short paragraphs you've managed to say you're anti-Obama, in favor of a large military and against abortion. Very effecient.

He could have been even more effecient if he just said, "I'm a social conservative."

Pub 17

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

The one I'm looking for and can't find is a recent survey that says that about 75% of the population says that abortion should be legal under SOME circumstances, the usual rape-incest-etc. qualifiers. What was interesting was that the percentage dropped from 75% to about 45% as you went from "rape-incest-mother's life," to, "mother's inconvenience."

YOU have to make the jump from, "legal" to, "it's a baby." Are those who say it should be legal under restricted circumstances saying it's always a baby, but it should be legal to kill the baby if the mother's pregnant by her brother? Are the 25% who say it should always be legal saying it's a baby but it's the mother's choice to kill the baby, or are they saying it's not a baby till it's outside the mother's body. Can't find THAT survey.

Rogue

You want to source your claims there Pubes?

BTW Jim where is the love? Extremist Hack?

Gosh such hatred.

OH Well, that is the basice character trait of the mooonbats....... Double posting again too under different names....so pathetic.

Jim

The Star has met its quota of wingnut letters for the day. Wayne is just another dishonest, extremist hack.

Pub 17

Now all you have to do, Frag, is convince 51% of the voting public that those are babies. 75% disagree with you. Sorry, have a nice day, kumbaya.

Rogue

Killed babies Pubes. What a moron.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright