There has been a lot of discussion and strong arguments made about how military spending disproportionately helps the well off. If you spend a little time researching it, I bet you would start to have some serious doubts about your contention.

I would have to accept a whole bunch of this speculation (particularly the bolded) as fact before commenting intelligently, so I will instead just take this opportunity to thank you for letting me use your awesome Web site.

Yeah, its gambling in the same way we gamble if we buy any stock, govt issued debt, insurance, or a house. Why are you not complaining about how the big bad govt cons ppl into buying T-bills or real estate agents talking ppl into buying a house?

I'd do it for £100k a year (right now) too, but we don't have the experience, proven track record, or skills that they have and that is why people pay them the big bucks. If they aren't worth the millions they get paid why are people paying it?

FYI: The reason a Lamborghini costs so much has little to do with the cost to manufacture it.

Do you sit back and complain that A-ROD gets $25 milly/year for playing baseball and think "hell, I'd do that for £100k a year"?

This is the trap most of today's 'conservatives' that are clamoring for smaller government fall into. Yeah, they want to slash things like welfare and the department of education or whatever but they also want to see the military spend even more (or insert other project(s) they happen to agree with) and, if a social conservative, want the government following everyone around to make sure nothing gay is happening.

Wanting to cut some things while shifting that money to other projects doesn't make the government smaller.

Only argument I've heard on the topic is the "rich ppl have more to lose so therefore they are being helped more". I hope there is more to your point than the argument I just mentioned.

I can't think of any projects I would personally support and I live feeling safe, but other than that I am not a huge supporter of what our military does. But I do see your point and hate how involved some repubs want to be in our personal lives.

*It does if you cut more than you build up.

If it creates rich people it prbly helps 'them'

I don't know or remember all the arguments, and my opposition to military spending is more about my general opposition to meddling in foreign affairs, but in any case why is that argument you listed not valid? It's nearly a certainty that a poor person's life would change very little if, for example, the US lost a great amount of power in the world. A poor person's life might not change much even in the event of an overthrow of the govt, while a rich person could lose everything.

The larger the military budget the more rich people there will be?

I see you point on not wanting to meddle in other countries business, but think at some points it does become necessary.

The point I mentioned doesn't seem reasonable considering the military is often protecting us more from random attacks (terrorist or otherwise) that don't target rich people necessarily. I guess you can add in the minimal amount of value that is protected that a rich guy might own minus what ever a poor guy owns, but both seem insignificantly when you are talking about the threat of death from an attack.

I can't comprehend how the US has a greater chance to lose/gain power by increasing/ decreasing military spending in today's world.

Yeah, I guess if complete mayhem hits a rich person could lose everything he has in the same way a poor person could do the same and I guess the rich guy has more to lose in actual value. Aliens could come and take over or the earth could collide with the sun and then the rich people are really screwed.

All that money doesn't go to a bare bones bullet factory.

Are you that unaware of the war business?

Explain what you meant here?
How does this not equal what you said?
Yes, please explain.

Can't tell if sarcastic or not, but this is all almost entirely wrong.

It comes down to conservatives thinking that people's results in life are most directly related to their own actions, and liberals think that people's results in life are most directly related to others actions. I think this drives a lot of it.

Conservatives don't care about the poor because the poor are that way because they can't properly do things on their own (and they could!), whereas liberals tend to think that most poor people are there for situations out of their control and have a nearly impossible climb to get out of such a situation.

Of course, liberals are also much more empathetic than conservatives too. Liberals appreciate individuality more and conservatives value conformity.
Trying to think what the other major values differences were as well.

Libertarians are interesting in that they share some values conservatives have and some liberals have (and are more extreme than both in other cases). Conformity is even less valued among libertarians than liberals, and empathy was even lower than conservatives.

The more interesting question is where these values come from. Those who have an easier life are going to fall into two buckets, those that think they had it easier, or those that think they are there because of their own hard work and can't relate to people who had a harder life growing up.

This.

It's sarcastic. Sklansky's premise is definitely begging the question, but even if we grant that it's true, that liberal policies lower the average, then liberals aim for policies that raise the medium and minimum standards of living, even if the top end is reduced to a limited degree, thereby lowering the average.

But look at the GOP rhetoric and actions w.r.t. "job creators." They were going to the mat regarding tax cuts on the richest Americans but completely unwilling to cut payroll taxes for a while. The former probably helps the average standard of living more than the latter by making rich people hugely better off, but it does nothing for the median.

I think you're missing my point here. "A-Rod", whoever that is, has exceptional talent. The guys who have the massively paid jobs at the top of corporations by and large do not. They got there because somebody has to get the job and they have the right background, politicked their way there etc etc. It's the same in the film industry. The film stars get their kids into it.

Eric Prince-Blackwater, Halliburton BnR, Lockeed Martin, Saudi royal family, a majority of third world governments throughout 20-21st centuries etc........ The MIC is the definition of corporate socialism

Cost + contracting and zero bid contracts. Pretty funny that your defending an industry that is probably the most corrupt subsidized industry in the US as being above the fray of wasteful government spending


The US military take no part in preventing domestic terrorist attacks, unless somehow the constituion has changed.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._kill_doctrine
Any American on this list would disagree. Although in reality I don't need to resort to such absurdity to discredit such a claim.
BTW we can throw George Washington(Proc of neutrality) and Eisenhower on the list of people who would also disagree

Sorry to slightly derail but this all just had to be addressed. Not really a derail though if Blah is representative of conservatives as a whole

Top five grossing actors of all time:

1) Tom Hanks

2) Eddie Murphy

3) Harrison Ford

4) Tom Cruise

5) Robin Williams

Nepotism abounds. Charles Murphy must have used his amateur acting contacts to parlay his son into superstardom.

Plus if it occurs occasionally as a spring board you still have to have talent or put butts in the seats to have any longevity.

Sean Penn and Robert Downey Jr had connections but I don't think anyone could argue they aren't 2 of the better American actors of the last 20 years. Being in front of the camera is more of a meritocracy than many industries

Dunno I've never seen them but there are zillions who come from acting families and thousands who could do the job never get a sniff just as in hedge fund management and corporate management. Arnold Schwarzenegger got his break by lifting heavy things.

I see my OP quickly generated 95 replies. Which was the main reason I posted it. Which leads me to go completely off the subject to ask a question about internet ethics. Something I know little about. When I post a provacive opinion mainly because I think it will generate discussion people say I am "trolling" and imply that is a bad thing. But if the OP generates serious debate, why is it looked down upon?

The seriousness of the debate is not measured in the speed or the number of replies. Indeed, it's the worst threads that can generate the most posts quickly.

You could also have generated discussion that was more serious without the unnecessary and provocative logical errors in the OP.

There are two positions. One is valid and the other isn't. If you strike a pose deliberately to provoke a response then that is trolling. If you express a view which is genuinely held and has efficacy then the fact that this will upset the majority of the posters is not relevant and it's not trolling. By asserting that conservatism was for the greater good you did the former. It would have been more acceptable if you had expressed that as an opinion instead of an assertion.

From the mention earlier in the thread about per capita income and scandinavian countries... I can't help but wonder what our economy would look like if so many resources weren't put towards military applications?

I loved TomCollins post... the best explanation I've seen of political beliefs. Me personally grew up dirt poor and now qualify for the top 10% at 32 years old ... so am largely libertarian. However, if I attributed more of my success to my natiral intelligence instead of hard work, I would certainly be much more empathetic and liberal.

Without the assetion the point of the post goes away. Which is that many people invoke an argument to rationalize their self interest and are merely "lucky" that the argument happens to be a good one. By pointing out that there are exceptions to the invisible hand theory I had hoped to not make that the focus of my thoughts. Meanwhile I thought even most liberals concede that government intervention has long run downsides. They just think they are worth enduring as long as people are suffering right now.