General Discussion

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)

17. Were it that simple ...

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 02:48 PM

Jan 2015

not long or hire the engineer that is out of a job and retrain the other one.

As an HR Professional, I can tell you that the skill set required for designing/building a missile is quite different from that required to bu8ild a bridge ... and there are not that readily transferable.

{Note: this is not to say we shouldn't move in that direction; but, don't under-estimate the dislocation (in terms of jobs AND people) that we are talking about.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We can't afford to take care of all the poor people. [View all] Scuba Jan 2015 OP

Major K&R daleanime Jan 2015 #1

They will argue that the defense industry employs thousands, and they do... NoJusticeNoPeace Jan 2015 #2

Yep, paying people to build bombs is good for the economy, for nursing and teaching not so much... Scuba Jan 2015 #3

But left unsaid is, how many would taking care of poverty employ? n2doc Jan 2015 #4

In the grand scheme of things DesertDawg Jan 2015 #7

I thought tat was implied in what I wrote...You can turn the economy completely around NoJusticeNoPeace Jan 2015 #11

I agree; but ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #15

IDK, not long or hire the engineer that is out of a job and retrain the other one. NoJusticeNoPeace Jan 2015 #16

Were it that simple ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #17

Everything is gradual, either we give most of our money to the one percent thru defense profits NoJusticeNoPeace Jan 2015 #18

PLUS ONE, a huge bunch! Enthusiast Jan 2015 #22

They'd be happy if we started building the Death Star. L0oniX Jan 2015 #12

Tacky, tacky, tacky AndreaCG Jan 2015 #19

So you think an X SOS wouldn't make sure the military keeps getting way more than enough money? L0oniX Jan 2015 #20

Hard to threaten & invade countries for corporations with highways & bridges. nt raouldukelives Jan 2015 #13

While I agree that funding for bullets and bombs ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #14

You could argue you wouldn't need to spend all of the 178 billion on poverty programs. Johonny Jan 2015 #21

Yes, military is the most capitol-intensive lovemydog Jan 2015 #35

Yes we can, but greed is stronger than compassion. n/t Avalux Jan 2015 #5

hmm. only 178 billion to eliminate poverty? yodermon Jan 2015 #6

It does seem a sensationally low number. I'd like to see how that money would do the trick. TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #10

Will that be the message of the Pope before Congress, don't feed the rabbits. CK_John Jan 2015 #8

America believes that funding the MIC is more important than "rewarding the weak" AZ Progressive Jan 2015 #9

There is no justification for this level of military spending. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #23

Gee, ya think? Scuba Jan 2015 #24

I have that distinct impression, yes. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #25

Agree. The Nazi's elimination of persons considered weak and undesirable is beginning to appalachiablue Jan 2015 #31

It can creep up on the unaware as it did the hungry downtrodden German citizens. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #36

The media propaganda in the US intentionally keeps many unaware appalachiablue Jan 2015 #39

Thank you. Right on! nt Enthusiast Jan 2015 #40

Amen. woo me with science Jan 2015 #37

Places tin foil firmly on head... ladyVet Jan 2015 #38

A movement to reduce poverty fueled by American businesses Babel_17 Jan 2015 #26

$500 per citizen would eliminate poverty? How? Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #27

You don't just give it to people, although that would also have a multiplier effect. It's to be ... Scuba Jan 2015 #29

Kick. woo me with science Jan 2015 #28

kick woo me with science Jan 2015 #30

But we got TANKS! SomethingFishy Jan 2015 #32

k&r ND-Dem Jan 2015 #33

Time to fire up the soylent green machines i suppose WestCoastLib Jan 2015 #34