Should we keep spending money on the Wars or spend money to create jobs?

[MattFancy]

This is my first political thread. My fiance works for a member of Congress, so I've had no choice but to read up on politics lately. One of her Congressmen's challengers is running on the platform of "$ for Jobs, Not War". Now I'd say I'm a liberal, although I do have some conservative ideals as well.

I understand that we need to find jobs for people in this country, but should it come at the cost of our troops overseas fighting for us? Keep in mind, that this congressional district includes the Aberdeen Proving Ground, which is an Army base. So would you want to run on something like that knowing that most of the people you represent probably work for the military and cutting their money would put them out of jobs as well?

So what does ES think? Money for jobs or money for war?

[hockeysc23]

I think the gov't should let the market fix itself instead of trying to artificially prop it up.

Markets will self level. All it appears to me they are doing is delaying the inevitable. I would rather they cut programs we cannot offer right now since we are currently in a bad economy.

[Heisenberg]

Eventually the defense spending needs to stop. (Although for selfish reasons I hope they don't cut back too much on contracting work)

However, I'm not sure it would be a wise move to throw more money trying to fix the economy. I wish the government would figure out a way to cut some programs and create a cutoff for social security or something - the spending has been out of control for too long now.

[MattFancy]

Eventually the defense spending needs to stop. (Although for selfish reasons I hope they don't cut back too much on contracting work)

However, I'm not sure it would be a wise move to throw more money trying to fix the economy. I wish the government would figure out a way to cut some programs and create a cutoff for social security or something - the spending has been out of control for too long now.

I'm for creating jobs, but should it come at the cost of the military who are in the midst of 2 wars? Especially because it seems like the wars are getting closer to coming to an end. I just don't see how cutting military spending during a time of war would be a good idea. And like I said, with a military base in your district, that just doesn't seem like a smart move.

[McD5]

More census jobs? No thanks.

That is the problem with the entire stimulus--it isn't getting into the hands of Americans.

Any cutbacks from military would simply be wasted on Pelosi or Frank friends, and give the American people nothing of any meaning.

[MEANDWARF]

More tax cuts for the private industry will help create more jobs(in theory). We need to make sure our soldiers overseas have what they need in order to make it a smooth transition for Iraq and Afg..

[Prosperity]

This is my first political thread. My fiance works for a member of Congress, so I've had no choice but to read up on politics lately. One of her Congressmen's challengers is running on the platform of "$ for Jobs, Not War". Now I'd say I'm a liberal, although I do have some conservative ideals as well.

I understand that we need to find jobs for people in this country, but should it come at the cost of our troops overseas fighting for us? Keep in mind, that this congressional district includes the Aberdeen Proving Ground, which is an Army base. So would you want to run on something like that knowing that most of the people you represent probably work for the military and cutting their money would put them out of jobs as well?

So what does ES think? Money for jobs or money for war?

the defense budget must be cut, it's ridiculously bloated. To get out of our long term mess we have to contain SS, and defense spending.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

WARS!! When in doubt spend money on WAR!

I'm only kidding...ideally I'd prefer we stop spending the money in both places, but I'm not very smart when it comes to these types of discussions.

[Heisenberg]

I'm for creating jobs, but should it come at the cost of the military who are in the midst of 2 wars? Especially because it seems like the wars are getting closer to coming to an end. I just don't see how cutting military spending during a time of war would be a good idea. And like I said, with a military base in your district, that just doesn't seem like a smart move.

I have family over there so obviously I don't want anything to be done at the expense of American lives.

However, I'm really hoping there will be some point in time where we don't need to have this type of presence over there. The spending on these wars has been out of control . . .

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Double post! Sorry.

[Ax]

Couldn't find the "both" option.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

We just need to take surer steps, and be pickier about the gum we chew.

[Thiebear]

Get 90% of our troops out of South Korea, Germany, Iraq to start.

Get them down to the same size as Turkey, Egypt, Phillipines, Panama etc..

stop spending fake money on a fake stimulus that the states are using less than 40%?

hoarding still, the banks are hoarding and the gov't job is the only thing reproducing.

[MattFancy]

I have family over there so obviously I don't want anything to be done at the expense of American lives.

However, I'm really hoping there will be some point in time where we don't need to have this type of presence over there. The spending on these wars has been out of control . . .

I agrew with both. I hope your family over there stays safe!

Yes the spending is out of control, but I don't think you can stop spending money on the military in the middle of 2 wars. I mean if there was a way to create jobs and still make sure our troops have everything they need, I'm all for it. If we weren't in the middle of 2 wars, I think it would be easier to not spend money on the military. But how do you tell all those troops that sorry, we're not sending any more money your way? Yes we need to create more jobs here, but like McD5 said, we don't need more census worker type jobs. Its a tough debate, but I just feel like its hard to tell the troops that we don't want to spend money to help you over there.

[Kosher Ham]

Slippery slope here.

[skinfan133]

neither.

[Kosher Ham]

Do you mean waste money on the wars ?

Fix us. The US. Fix it. Right now it is broken, so a fix is needed.

I lean conservative, but this irritates me.

[Wrong Direction]

Like just about any political option, this is a false choice. I'm worried if our political candidates actually think it's a real choice.

[deejaydana]

it's a mistake to think the gov't can just pull out the checkbook and "create jobs."

Regarding military spending I think as a consequence of the economic meltdown you're going to see a drawback in what we're allocating in that arena. We don't have to take those funds from those fighting because, as others have already mentioned, we've got military outposts worldwide.

[Switchgear]

Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't military spending create jobs for soldiers, federal civilians and contractors alike? Problem solved, we're already doing both.

[December90]

Funding soldiers who defend the U.S. and our allies on the battlefield is one of the prime roles of the Federal Govt.

"creating jobs" is NOT one of the prime roles of the Federal Govt. (they do much more to hinder "employment" than they do to actually promote "employment")

I's like 2 air craft carriers and a battleship to go please:)

[VaSkinsNut]

The problem is the government never gets good value for the things it buys. Hell it even spends millions in overhead in the process of giving away billions of dollars. It really is as dumb as it sounds.

If you really want to create jobs in this country, make it cheaper and easier to do business. It really is that simple.

Products get cheaper since the cost of production goes down plus competition.

People buy the cheaper products.

Businesses make money, attempt to expand and grow.

Growth and expansion creates jobs.

Rinse and repeat.

[Hubbs]

Fix us. The US. Fix it. Right now it is broken, so a fix is needed.

Anyway, why do I have to choose either?

[Darth Tater]

Problem with your question is that they are logically the same thing.

[Elessar78]

When I get banged up playing sports and feeling sore I usually take an ibuprofen. Will the pain eventually go away without the pill? Sure, but the pain will last longer and it'll be annoying or if it's a serious injury maybe I'll take something stronger like Vicodin.

I'm relieving pain artficially, even though my body will take care of things and the pain will go away. The question is how much pain and discomfort am I willing to deal with. That's really the question.

We don't have an electorate that's willing to deal with the pain of a sluggish economy for even one quarter.

People don't want gov't meddling in business through regulation. UNLESS it's to give tax breaks to businesses. Well it's two sides of the same coin. Can't just have the good side of something, you have to take it's bad side too.

Just like an advil doesn't change your overall health—any economic stimulus doesn't really fix the overall health of our economic system. It's still populated by greed and over-consumption.