|
I don't think this is quite thread worthy, so I made it a blog
So I think that I finally realized why we have such a large standing army and high incarceration rate in the United States. We don't have a super strong army for protection, or anything of the sort. We have a strong army because they are JOBS. We have our military police the world not only to "protect our interests", but also because they can't justify such a large number of people in the armed forces if they are just sitting on american bases on our own soil. Think about it, we have about 1.4 million people in the armed forces. If we cut that in half, then suddenly there are 700 thousand more people looking for jobs (unemployment in the US is ~11 million, not including the millions that are no longer looking for a job). That is a staggering number to just throw back into the job market.
With that in mind, let us turn to prisons. In particular, the war on drugs since there is some interesting numbers for that. There are around 2.2 million people in prison in the US, more than any country in the world. Half of them are there due to the war on drugs. Prisoners are taxpayer paid free labor. They produce lots of goods that are used in the military or other places for no income, just the food and a roof over their head and iron bars as their door. Without the drug war, that would be 1.1 million people looking for jobs, and 1.1 million fewer people producing goods for free. I won't even touch the concept that prisons are actually new age slavery.
What do you think? Is it true that these may be one of the core reasons for our military and absurd prison system? Are there other reasons?
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/drug-war-mass-incarceration_n_3034310.html
 
|
Can't say prisons were built that way, but the army is to a degree. The military actually wants to cut back nowadays, but the government keeps on forcing them to waste money. Examples include forcing the military to build more tanks than it can conceivably use, keeping the military from closing useless bases and attempting to block the military from even bringing up cutbacks for the near future.
|
US jails are not a good source of 'free labour', because the maintenance costs of prisons far outweigh whatever income the labour of prisoners produces. Likewise the costs of supporting such a vast military presence around the world are far greater than what you'd pay just to feed and house these people via even the most benevolent unemployment support system.
edit: both the prisons and military are massive sources of income for some very influential people, though. The profit margins on military contracts in particular are downright ridiculous, and the amount of power they have in US government through lobbying and just good old fashioned 'friends in right places' is quite significant.
|
On July 18 2013 07:50 Salazarz wrote:
US jails are not a good source of 'free labour', because the maintenance costs of prisons far outweigh whatever income the labour of prisoners produces. Likewise the costs of supporting such a vast military presence around the world are far greater than what you'd pay just to feed and house these people via even the most benevolent unemployment support system.
The labor itself is free (prisoners have no income), and taxpayers pay for the housing and food costs. Think of them like government jobs. They are there to mask some problems and even give a private entity money. Drug users are not likely to try and escape I would imagine, so the lower security private prisons are ideal for them.
|
I disagree. After WW II the United States was left in a position where they could take the lead in the world. When the cold war started. The US pushed tech and army production to have an army that would match communism. Where and when communism would threaten capitalist nations, the US would send in it's forces to help protect capitalist nations. Example Korea, Vietnam, Afganastan(although we mostly sent weapons to the rebels aka taliban). When the soviet union ended. We are still stuck in the mentality that we need to keep building up and keep a large army. But keep in mind as far as technolgy goes, we have more ships, and planes than anyone in the world. But ground army wise China is #1 to the US in that. And actually our military expenditure is only 4% of our GDP. (Source: CIA World Factbook), at like 28th in the world. So because of the fact the US is in this world power position they have to maintain a huge army because they are essentially policing the world at this point. And they are basically countering China. It isn't about jobs, it has nothing to do with it. Look at our history. Sure the war on drugs did increase our prison rates, but don't forget in the 80s President Regan shut down mental hospitals paid for by the govt. so these people also ended up Prison. Unemployment rate is at 7.6 percent (source http://www.bls.gov). There are factors for this too. For example, the US doesn't manufacture as much anymore, all our toys are made in China. This means that most of the jobs that didn't require a higher education (college), are not here for US workers anymore. So I think your link is completely absurd.
|
"“Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” - Theodore Roosevelt
|
On July 18 2013 08:02 HeeroFX wrote:I disagree. After WW II the United States was left in a position where they could take the lead in the world. When the cold war started. The US pushed tech and army production to have an army that would match communism. Where and when communism would threaten capitalist nations, the US would send in it's forces to help protect capitalist nations. Example Korea, Vietnam, Afganastan(although we mostly sent weapons to the rebels aka taliban). When the soviet union ended. We are still stuck in the mentality that we need to keep building up and keep a large army. But keep in mind as far as technolgy goes, we have more ships, and planes than anyone in the world. But ground army wise China is #1 to the US in that. And actually our military expenditure is only 4% of our GDP. (Source: CIA World Factbook), at like 28th in the world. So because of the fact the US is in this world power position they have to maintain a huge army because they are essentially policing the world at this point. And they are basically countering China. It isn't about jobs, it has nothing to do with it. Look at our history. Sure the war on drugs did increase our prison rates, but don't forget in the 80s President Regan shut down mental hospitals paid for by the govt. so these people also ended up Prison. Unemployment rate is at 7.6 percent (source http://www.bls.gov). There are factors for this too. For example, the US doesn't manufacture as much anymore, all our toys are made in China. This means that most of the jobs that didn't require a higher education (college), are not here for US workers anymore. So I think your link is completely absurd.
The government is in the same mindset, but the military is not. Military leaders ask for less, as said by Anachronistic above. But for some reason, we keep spending. Also, when it comes to government spending, I dont think that GDP is ideal to look at. Rather you should look at government income. In 2012, the fed had 2.45 trillion revenue to work with. Of that, 688billion went to military, 60 billion to homeland security, and veteran affairs got 130billion. So about 36% of our income went to military (23% of our budget). Meanwhile, less than 15% of china's budget (I cant find a source on their revenue, but budget here: http://www.tealeafnation.com/2013/04/a-breakdown-of-chinas-trillion-dollar-budget/) went to military spending.
We are in a position of power, but do we need to be exercising that power?
Also, the unemployment rate is at 7.6% (technically, I prefer to use the other standard which includes underemployment as it is more realistic) but there are tons that have dropped out of looking for jobs:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/forget-the-unemployment-rate-the-alarming-stat-is-the-number-of-missing-workers-20130503
|
Yes, the military does create a lot of employment, economic activity, and research and development, but if the trillions were to be spent elsewhere, according to the idea of guns or butter, the nation's GDP should increase overall.
But there are geopolitical implications. During the Cold War, the US had to expand its military presence worldwide to combat the spread of communism, and after the Cold War, the mentality, the deployments and the infrastructure remained in place.
|
I can tell you that on the military planning side, we're not "holding back" because of this idea that it'll raise the unemployment numbers or put people out of work. I'll list you the top 3 reasons:
1. U.S. national security interests and situation does not warrant us to cut back that much of our military strength. We not only have to ask "are we safer", but also "will we be safer or at least be safe as we are now for the next decade?" These two questions have differing answers which leads to...
2. Most might want to cut back by 10 - 15%, some 25%, very few are calling out for 50%. The conflicting answers of the two questions mentioned and just how much should be cut leads to hesitation and deadlock over just how minimally we can cut.
When the military wants to make drastic changes, it at least wants to be on some solid foundation or fact it can go off from. Unfortunately trying to get the minimal accurate number to cut is both an elusive and moving number.
Once these first two questions are answered, the military then has the authority and obligation to start cutting its manpower, but with that....
3. The military is very conservative and hesitant to plan and execute drastic changes.
Individually, it takes a few months for a service member to actually leave the force, either because of his/her living situation, medical status, or the paperwork that gets involved. You can't just "fire" anyone in the military and expect him or her to be gone within the week like any other civilian companies.
Collectively, there's already a significant impact if a unit loses one or few service members. A unit losing 50% of its strength within a year with little notice is uncalled for. Each unit getting the word that 50% of its manpower will be gone is enough for the unit to just stop whatever they were planning to do for the next year. There needs to be a plan in place that spans over a few years to prevent all units stopping in place. Unfortunately, that plan itself could take a year or so to formulate and refine.
As a whole, the military can't just send out a blanket order to say "every unit needs to shed 50% of their manpower within 2-3 years". A lot of units are structured and designed such that it needs a certain percentage of manpower in order to function.
This is in the perspective of the military itself. Civilians and their leaders might want a large military because it supports their state or business, but such influence doesn't prevent the military to cut back if it wanted to. Already the Army and Marines are reducing their numbers significantly since last year.
|
They're trying to build a prison! For you and me to live in!
|
On July 18 2013 08:02 HeeroFX wrote:I disagree. After WW II the United States was left in a position where they could take the lead in the world. When the cold war started. The US pushed tech and army production to have an army that would match communism. Where and when communism would threaten capitalist nations, the US would send in it's forces to help protect capitalist nations. Example Korea, Vietnam, Afganastan(although we mostly sent weapons to the rebels aka taliban). When the soviet union ended. We are still stuck in the mentality that we need to keep building up and keep a large army. But keep in mind as far as technolgy goes, we have more ships, and planes than anyone in the world. But ground army wise China is #1 to the US in that. And actually our military expenditure is only 4% of our GDP. (Source: CIA World Factbook), at like 28th in the world. So because of the fact the US is in this world power position they have to maintain a huge army because they are essentially policing the world at this point. And they are basically countering China. It isn't about jobs, it has nothing to do with it. Look at our history. Sure the war on drugs did increase our prison rates, but don't forget in the 80s President Regan shut down mental hospitals paid for by the govt. so these people also ended up Prison. Unemployment rate is at 7.6 percent (source http://www.bls.gov). There are factors for this too. For example, the US doesn't manufacture as much anymore, all our toys are made in China. This means that most of the jobs that didn't require a higher education (college), are not here for US workers anymore. So I think your link is completely absurd.
I'd say it's rather questionable if the only reason the US engaged in all those wars during the cold war was to "protect" those nations...
However, your statements about the military expenditure of the US is plain ridiculous: only 4% of its GDP !? Take a look at what other countries spend:
Germany: 1.4%
Australia: 1.9%
Canada: 1.5%
compared to the 4.7% the US spent in 2011 (military budget list)
Also 28th in a world ranking isn't very far behind considering 150 or so nations are compared. Furthermore, the US was ranked 10th in 2011 according to the source above. Then you can also take a look which nations spent a higher percentage of their GDP than the US:
Eritrea, Oman, Chad, Georgia for example...
In such a ranking it would be wise to look at total amount spent. The US is the clear frontrunner by an extremely large margin...
Considering those numbers the US military spending is just plain crazy. However, there is certainly a multitude of political reasons, special interests and economic considerations why the US doesn't cutback on its military spending. Maybe unemployment concerns are a small part of the reasoning.
|
On July 18 2013 10:41 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 08:02 HeeroFX wrote:I disagree. After WW II the United States was left in a position where they could take the lead in the world. When the cold war started. The US pushed tech and army production to have an army that would match communism. Where and when communism would threaten capitalist nations, the US would send in it's forces to help protect capitalist nations. Example Korea, Vietnam, Afganastan(although we mostly sent weapons to the rebels aka taliban). When the soviet union ended. We are still stuck in the mentality that we need to keep building up and keep a large army. But keep in mind as far as technolgy goes, we have more ships, and planes than anyone in the world. But ground army wise China is #1 to the US in that. And actually our military expenditure is only 4% of our GDP. (Source: CIA World Factbook), at like 28th in the world. So because of the fact the US is in this world power position they have to maintain a huge army because they are essentially policing the world at this point. And they are basically countering China. It isn't about jobs, it has nothing to do with it. Look at our history. Sure the war on drugs did increase our prison rates, but don't forget in the 80s President Regan shut down mental hospitals paid for by the govt. so these people also ended up Prison. Unemployment rate is at 7.6 percent (source http://www.bls.gov). There are factors for this too. For example, the US doesn't manufacture as much anymore, all our toys are made in China. This means that most of the jobs that didn't require a higher education (college), are not here for US workers anymore. So I think your link is completely absurd. I'd say it's rather questionable if the only reason the US engaged in all those wars during the cold war was to "protect" those nations... However, your statements about the military expenditure of the US is plain ridiculous: only 4% of its GDP !? Take a look at what other countries spend: Germany: 1.4% Australia: 1.9% Canada: 1.5% compared to the 4.7% the US spent in 2011 ( military budget list) Also 28th in a world ranking isn't very far behind considering 150 or so nations are compared. Furthermore, the US was ranked 10th in 2011 according to the source above. Then you can also take a look which nations spent a higher percentage of their GDP than the US: Eritrea, Oman, Chad, Georgia for example... In such a ranking it would be wise to look at total amount spent. The US is the clear frontrunner by an extremely large margin... Considering those numbers the US military spending is just plain crazy. However, there is certainly a multitude of political reasons, special interests and economic considerations why the US doesn't cutback on its military spending. Maybe unemployment concerns are a small part of the reasoning.
Maybe with the exception of Australia, you picked the wrong countries to compare vs. U.S. GDP on military spending considering that those countries have or had been considerably supported by U.S. military and presence such that they have or had no need to considerably spend as much as U.S.
As an application to this, watch as Germany's military spending vs. GDP rise up over the next few years as the U.S. keeps pulling its forces out and pressure its European counterparts to share more burden of maintaining NATO.
Another skewed example would be South Korea and Japan's GDP spending on their military at 2.7% and 1% respectively despite the presence of North Korea and two great powers of Russia and China. The U.S. has heavy physical presence in these two nations with a guaranteed assurance to come to their defense such that these two countries do not have to invest in heavily as much.
|
On July 18 2013 10:41 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 08:02 HeeroFX wrote:I disagree. After WW II the United States was left in a position where they could take the lead in the world. When the cold war started. The US pushed tech and army production to have an army that would match communism. Where and when communism would threaten capitalist nations, the US would send in it's forces to help protect capitalist nations. Example Korea, Vietnam, Afganastan(although we mostly sent weapons to the rebels aka taliban). When the soviet union ended. We are still stuck in the mentality that we need to keep building up and keep a large army. But keep in mind as far as technolgy goes, we have more ships, and planes than anyone in the world. But ground army wise China is #1 to the US in that. And actually our military expenditure is only 4% of our GDP. (Source: CIA World Factbook), at like 28th in the world. So because of the fact the US is in this world power position they have to maintain a huge army because they are essentially policing the world at this point. And they are basically countering China. It isn't about jobs, it has nothing to do with it. Look at our history. Sure the war on drugs did increase our prison rates, but don't forget in the 80s President Regan shut down mental hospitals paid for by the govt. so these people also ended up Prison. Unemployment rate is at 7.6 percent (source http://www.bls.gov). There are factors for this too. For example, the US doesn't manufacture as much anymore, all our toys are made in China. This means that most of the jobs that didn't require a higher education (college), are not here for US workers anymore. So I think your link is completely absurd. I'd say it's rather questionable if the only reason the US engaged in all those wars during the cold war was to "protect" those nations... However, your statements about the military expenditure of the US is plain ridiculous: only 4% of its GDP !? Take a look at what other countries spend: Germany: 1.4% Australia: 1.9% Canada: 1.5% compared to the 4.7% the US spent in 2011 ( military budget list) Also 28th in a world ranking isn't very far behind considering 150 or so nations are compared. Furthermore, the US was ranked 10th in 2011 according to the source above. Then you can also take a look which nations spent a higher percentage of their GDP than the US: Eritrea, Oman, Chad, Georgia for example... In such a ranking it would be wise to look at total amount spent. The US is the clear frontrunner by an extremely large margin... Considering those numbers the US military spending is just plain crazy. However, there is certainly a multitude of political reasons, special interests and economic considerations why the US doesn't cutback on its military spending. Maybe unemployment concerns are a small part of the reasoning.
Germany, Australia, Canada, etc., all spend less money on the military than they would otherwise because the US provides so much of their defense. Europe and Australia freeride on the back of the US military hardcore.
|
The government contracts companies to run prisons too, a lot of lobbying. If they feds don't provide the contracts many lose their major source of revenue.
|
On July 18 2013 07:40 TheRabidDeer wrote:I don't think this is quite thread worthy, so I made it a blog So I think that I finally realized why we have such a large standing army and high incarceration rate in the United States. We don't have a super strong army for protection, or anything of the sort. We have a strong army because they are JOBS. We have our military police the world not only to "protect our interests", but also because they can't justify such a large number of people in the armed forces if they are just sitting on american bases on our own soil. Think about it, we have about 1.4 million people in the armed forces. If we cut that in half, then suddenly there are 700 thousand more people looking for jobs (unemployment in the US is ~11 million, not including the millions that are no longer looking for a job). That is a staggering number to just throw back into the job market. With that in mind, let us turn to prisons. In particular, the war on drugs since there is some interesting numbers for that. There are around 2.2 million people in prison in the US, more than any country in the world. Half of them are there due to the war on drugs. Prisoners are taxpayer paid free labor. They produce lots of goods that are used in the military or other places for no income, just the food and a roof over their head and iron bars as their door. Without the drug war, that would be 1.1 million people looking for jobs, and 1.1 million fewer people producing goods for free. I won't even touch the concept that prisons are actually new age slavery. What do you think? Is it true that these may be one of the core reasons for our military and absurd prison system? Are there other reasons? Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forceshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/drug-war-mass-incarceration_n_3034310.html
No.
Give me sources about how prisons are apparently sources of "free labor" that functions as new age slavery. Show me sources about how they produce "LOTS" of goods that are used in the military.
It's simply impossible to take you seriously if you make such grandiose claims and cite...nothing.
|
On July 18 2013 11:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 10:41 ggrrg wrote:On July 18 2013 08:02 HeeroFX wrote:I disagree. After WW II the United States was left in a position where they could take the lead in the world. When the cold war started. The US pushed tech and army production to have an army that would match communism. Where and when communism would threaten capitalist nations, the US would send in it's forces to help protect capitalist nations. Example Korea, Vietnam, Afganastan(although we mostly sent weapons to the rebels aka taliban). When the soviet union ended. We are still stuck in the mentality that we need to keep building up and keep a large army. But keep in mind as far as technolgy goes, we have more ships, and planes than anyone in the world. But ground army wise China is #1 to the US in that. And actually our military expenditure is only 4% of our GDP. (Source: CIA World Factbook), at like 28th in the world. So because of the fact the US is in this world power position they have to maintain a huge army because they are essentially policing the world at this point. And they are basically countering China. It isn't about jobs, it has nothing to do with it. Look at our history. Sure the war on drugs did increase our prison rates, but don't forget in the 80s President Regan shut down mental hospitals paid for by the govt. so these people also ended up Prison. Unemployment rate is at 7.6 percent (source http://www.bls.gov). There are factors for this too. For example, the US doesn't manufacture as much anymore, all our toys are made in China. This means that most of the jobs that didn't require a higher education (college), are not here for US workers anymore. So I think your link is completely absurd. I'd say it's rather questionable if the only reason the US engaged in all those wars during the cold war was to "protect" those nations... However, your statements about the military expenditure of the US is plain ridiculous: only 4% of its GDP !? Take a look at what other countries spend: Germany: 1.4% Australia: 1.9% Canada: 1.5% compared to the 4.7% the US spent in 2011 ( military budget list) Also 28th in a world ranking isn't very far behind considering 150 or so nations are compared. Furthermore, the US was ranked 10th in 2011 according to the source above. Then you can also take a look which nations spent a higher percentage of their GDP than the US: Eritrea, Oman, Chad, Georgia for example... In such a ranking it would be wise to look at total amount spent. The US is the clear frontrunner by an extremely large margin... Considering those numbers the US military spending is just plain crazy. However, there is certainly a multitude of political reasons, special interests and economic considerations why the US doesn't cutback on its military spending. Maybe unemployment concerns are a small part of the reasoning. Germany, Australia, Canada, etc., all spend less money on the military than they would otherwise because the US provides so much of their defense. Europe and Australia freeride on the back of the US military hardcore.
source for "hardcore freeride"?
|
On July 18 2013 12:52 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 07:40 TheRabidDeer wrote:I don't think this is quite thread worthy, so I made it a blog So I think that I finally realized why we have such a large standing army and high incarceration rate in the United States. We don't have a super strong army for protection, or anything of the sort. We have a strong army because they are JOBS. We have our military police the world not only to "protect our interests", but also because they can't justify such a large number of people in the armed forces if they are just sitting on american bases on our own soil. Think about it, we have about 1.4 million people in the armed forces. If we cut that in half, then suddenly there are 700 thousand more people looking for jobs (unemployment in the US is ~11 million, not including the millions that are no longer looking for a job). That is a staggering number to just throw back into the job market. With that in mind, let us turn to prisons. In particular, the war on drugs since there is some interesting numbers for that. There are around 2.2 million people in prison in the US, more than any country in the world. Half of them are there due to the war on drugs. Prisoners are taxpayer paid free labor. They produce lots of goods that are used in the military or other places for no income, just the food and a roof over their head and iron bars as their door. Without the drug war, that would be 1.1 million people looking for jobs, and 1.1 million fewer people producing goods for free. I won't even touch the concept that prisons are actually new age slavery. What do you think? Is it true that these may be one of the core reasons for our military and absurd prison system? Are there other reasons? Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forceshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/drug-war-mass-incarceration_n_3034310.html No. Give me sources about how prisons are apparently sources of "free labor" that functions as new age slavery. Show me sources about how they produce "LOTS" of goods that are used in the military. It's simply impossible to take you seriously if you make such grandiose claims and cite...nothing.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289
"According to the Left Business Observer, the federal prison industry produces 100% of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture. Airplane parts, medical supplies, and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchman_Farm
|
California has the 3 strike law. 3rd felony and you go to prison for a long time (usually 25-life). This sounds good, but when you look at what crimes constitute what are felonies in CA it's absurd. Marijuana related stuff (used to be), Graffiti, other dumb stuff like attempted robbery (when there was no victim or anything to steal even), stolen property stuff, etc.
The thing about prisons being free money is right, but they cost more than they make. So to the owner or the govt they are getting more money, but to everyone else we are paying more tax and losing more money. So essentially we are the slaves as much as the prisoners are the slaves, but we must pay it if we agree that these people should be locked up. Overall the govt/prison owners are losing too though, because eventually the system fails and then hell breaks loose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
