Ron Paul wants to build more bases in the U.S.

[ProSense]

7:02 PM PT: One way to know the Republican Party is totally fucked up: their idea of asking Ron Paul a gotcha' question is to task him about his views on war.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/16/1040727/-Monday-Night-Debate-Liveblog-5:-TheNotRomneys-become-NotTheNominees#comments

Paul: Yeah I'd Cut Defense...Overseas Defense

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) didn’t back down on his promises to cut defense spending when asked about it at the Republican debate in South Carolina on Monday night. When a questioner asked Paul if he’s concerned about the effects on American jobs should those cuts come to pass, Paul said “I want to cut money, overseas money. That’s what I want to do….I would probably have more bases at home. We were closing them down in the 1990s and building them overseas. That’s how we got in trouble. We would save more money and have a stronger national defense and that’s what we should do.”

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/4135

Ron Paul isn't anti-defense spending, he's anti-everything else
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002155700

[Canuckistanian]

1. More FEMA camps?

Because everyone KNOWS, the real enemy is right in America.

[bluestate10]

2. Never heard one clear thought from Paul.

Who are the people supporting that fucking idiot?

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Ironically in this economy he has sort of a point

But NOT for the reasons he is thinking.

Also a base in any district IS a sweet deal for that rep. (I don't care what party)

[ProSense]

4. Isn't

"But NOT for the reasons he is thinking."

...that always the case?

I mean, could you imagine anyone else proposing building new bases in the U.S.?

Kooky.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. I will explain you the logic

and this is how I would go about it.

We need to bring DoD spending down, but releasing all these troops in THIS economy is just nuts. So you bring them home and you build a base let's say in Amarillo texas. Now this base is built an engineering battalion, within a military reservation. This base is a SMALL base, since somebody looked, we need a hospital. They build a barracks building, and a hospital. Within a year of this facility coming on line, it is released in a base closure to the city as a TEACHING hospital. You got a hospital and a living facility for your medical students and your soldiers are still spending money.

We could do it with a civilian WPA... by the way as well.

As to what needs cutting in DoD... I can think of about ten programs from the top of my head that go to the cold war...

[ProSense]

6. Not

"We need to bring DoD spending down, but releasing all these troops in THIS economy is just nuts. So you bring them home and you build a base let's say in Amarillo texas. Now this base is built an engineering battalion, within a military reservation. This base is a SMALL base, since somebody looked, we need a hospital. They build a barracks building, and a hospital. Within a year of this facility coming on line, it is released in a base closure to the city as a TEACHING hospital. You got a hospital and a living facility for your medical students and your soldiers are still spending money."

...necessary. Sounds like rationalizing a kooky plan. Why build bases? The country's infrastructure needs to be repaired.

Stimulus: Congress should pass these proposals by Senators Kerry and Lautenberg
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1002142217

Veterans Opportunity to Work to Hire Heroes Act of 2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/21/president-obama-hire-veteran

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Yes, this is part of it

a military base that is ONLY a hospital and barracks is not a military base, it is infrastructure. A military base includes an armory. an MP Station, a Fire Station, and a firing range at the very least. This is literally the size of large city block. Hell you could do that to fix a high school too, but it needs to be federalized due to the we cannot have Federal Troops working in CONUS. For that I prefer WPA. But you could also use them to build a SCHOOL that way... a block or two are hardly a base, even if we call it that way.

You need to change the law to allow federal troops to work in CONUS. For rebuilding bridges, and yes we need it. you need a CIVILIAN WPA program. This is just a way to keep these troops EMPLOYED right until the draw down of forces will not put them into the unemployment office for the next five years. The last to face the axe right now should be actual troops... they spend money.

Incidentally, what happens if you bring a combat brigade to the US, and you change their MOS, military occupational specialty, from rifleman, to Engineer and give them the CONSTRUCTION skills they can use in the civilian world once they are released from service. I am sure some gung ho troops will prefer to stay in the service in the combat arms for 20 years, but most will not be able to. Not with the drawdowns we expect, So retraining them before they leave the service is a damn good idea.

Paul's idea of a base of McNeil AF base, this is not McNeil, at all. And it will be in the plans that six months to a year after it comes on line (time to check it), it is transferred to the county as a county teaching hospital. Walla infrastructure. I can tell you MY CITY could use a new county hospital. Ours is just oh forty plus years old and cannot be seismically retrofitted to meet standards.

Of course we are talking out of whatever because we will not see a WPA or anything like this in our lifetime. And we will see a draw dawn of forces (who stop spending) well before the MIC cancels things like the Osprey, otherwise known as the widow maker. We stopped being that creative a while ago. And keeping a combat brigade that becomes an engineering unit in the rolls for two more years building infrastructure and getting skills that are actually useful in the civilian world is far cheaper than still funding the Osprey... that is why it will not happen.

[ProSense]

8. Why

a military base that is ONLY a hospital and barracks is not a military base, it is infrastructure. A military base includes an armory. an MP Station, a Fire Station, and a firing range at the very least. This is literally the size of large city block. Hell you could do that to fix a high school too, but it needs to be federalized due to the we cannot have Federal Troops working in CONUS. For that I prefer WPA. But you could also use them to build a SCHOOL that way... a block or two are hardly a base, even if we call it that way.

...do we need more military bases? Can you explain that? Why do we need to make the the MIC larger?

I mean, are you saying you're against the President's plan to shrink the size of the military, and you would support a plan to build more U.S. bases if he proposed it?

[girl gone mad]

9. What is "the President's plan to shrink the size of the military"?

Last week you were defending the MIC here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. And I am thinking of something that is highly Keynseian

[ProSense]

15. Um,

"Last week you were defending the MIC here."

...link? I mean, saying anything seems to be a habit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101418398

[girl gone mad]

22. I replied to one of your posts and stated as much.

Check the "My Posts" tab.

It was in one of the 10,000,000 Ron Paul threads you've started. The gist was: "Ron Paul wants to cut defense spending, but says it won't hurt our ability to defend ourselves."

Now that I think about it, this is pretty similar to Obama's position, no? Streamlining the military?

Be thoughtful here. There is a good chance Obama will make the same proposal when he finally gives specifics. I wouldn't be surprised to see him propose more domestic bases.

[ProSense]

24. Wait

It was in one of the 10,000,000 Ron Paul threads you've started. The gist was: "Ron Paul wants to cut defense spending, but says it won't hurt our ability to defend ourselves."

Now that I think about it, this is pretty similar to Obama's position, no? Streamlining the military?

...you're saying Paul's position is "pretty similar to Obama's position"?

Two of the "10,000,000 Ron Paul threads" on defense:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002151380
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002155700

Be thoughtful here. There is a good chance Obama will make the same proposal when he finally gives specifics. I wouldn't be surprised to see him propose more domestic bases.

You appear to support "more domestic bases" because Paul proposed it. Now you're speculating that Obama will come around to Paul's position.

Well, I thought about it.

[girl gone mad]

35. I don't have much of an opinion on the matter, to be frank.

I do think these two politicians sound like they are not so far apart. I googled for specifics after you posted "the President's plan to shrink the size of the military" and the language of the Washington Post article does sound reminiscent of the Ron Paul rhetoric you were criticizing in the thread I mentioned above.

The U.S. military will steadily shrink the Army and Marine Corps, reduce forces in Europe and probably make further cuts to the nation’s nuclear arsenal, the Obama administration said Thursday in a preview of how it intends to reshape the armed forces after a decade of war.

The downsizing of the Pentagon, prompted by the country’s dire fiscal problems, means that the military will depend more on coalitions with allies and avoid the large-scale counterinsurgency and nation-building operations that have marked the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(snip)

The strategy review was unveiled by President Obama in a rare visit to the Pentagon, where he was flanked by Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, the Joint Chiefs and other officials who sought to project an image of undiminished military power even as they gird for an era of austerity that will necessitate a more restrained use of military force and more modest foreign policy goals.


Obama and Pentagon leaders said their new military strategy, contained in an eight-page document, will guide wrenching decisions on defense cutbacks. Details will be made public in the next few weeks as the White House finalizes its proposed federal budget for the next fiscal year.

No more nation-building, focus on domestic affairs, cut spending while maintaining our strategic advantage. Obama even says "I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong and our nation secure with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined,” which you have to admit could have come right out of Paul's mouth.

Your quote from one of the threads you linked to: "...he hasn't been railing against "wasteful spending," he has been attacking the MIC. He's pushing propaganda."

Is it propaganda when Obama says it, too? Is Obama attacking the MIC, in your view? And why is that a bad thing?

[ProSense]

42. Hmmm?

Your quote from one of the threads you linked to: "...he hasn't been railing against "wasteful spending," he has been attacking the MIC. He's pushing propaganda."

Is it propaganda when Obama says it, too? Is Obama attacking the MIC, in your view? And why is that a bad thing?

It appears that you agree that all Paul was doing was railing against "wasteful spending." I never said that Obama was "attacking the MIC," but some have certainly argued that Paul was going to destroy the MIC and that's why the establishment "fears" him. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Cutting wasteful spending, trying to reduce the size of the military and loosening the MIC's grip on the government are good things.

Paul's propaganda is another thing entirely.

[girl gone mad]

46. No you didn't say Obama was attacking the MIC..

you said Paul was "attacking the MIC" for making comments which sound fairly similar to Obama's newer position on streamlining the military.

"trying to reduce the size of the military and loosening the MIC's grip on the government are good things."

OMG you agree with Ron Paul!!11! Oh noes1!!!

[ProSense]

48. Hmmm?

No you didn't say Obama was attacking the MIC..

you said Paul was "attacking the MIC" for making comments which sound fairly similar to Obama's newer position on streamlining the military.

"trying to reduce the size of the military and loosening the MIC's grip on the government are good things."

No, Paul has been attacking the MIC and some have been lauding him for it, but his recent statements and campaign materials have exposed his position as pure propaganda.

Still, are you seriously going to pursue the meme that Paul and Obama's positions on the MIC are the same?

If that's the case, there is no reason to hype Paul, a racist, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-civil rights corporate tool.

[Saving Hawaii]

54. "I do think these two politicians sound like they are not so far apart."

Libertarians and liberals use very similar language. They "sound like they are not so far apart". But spend some time learning libertarian political philosophy. When they use very similar verbiage to what you do, they mean something very different. They're using the same rhetoric because it works, but their ideology has nothing in common with that of liberals or progressives. We should be wary of lauding libertarians because they sound like they're on our side because they very rarely are even close to that.

[Bonobo]

41. The undeniable fact of the matter is that if Obama was for increasing the size of the military...

Then ProSense would be for it.

If Obama was for shrinking the size of the military, ProSense would be for that too.

Actually, it is perfect because Obama claims to be doing both at the same time. He boasts about cutting the military, then he boasts that it is expanding. The perfect policy positions so that he can appeal to everyone who want to see or quote whatever they think will support their position at the time.

These are the sort of problems one has without a moral compass, so I do have some sympathy.

[girl gone mad]

43. You're right..

which is why I cautioned Prosense about coming out too strongly against an expansion of domestic bases. I really would not be surprised to see the President make such a recommendation and Prosense would have to change direction yet again.

[ProSense]

44. Clearly

The undeniable fact of the matter is that if Obama was for increasing the size of the military...

Then ProSense would be for it.

...nonsense. Speaking of "the sort of problems one has without a moral compass," are you here to support Paul's call for more bases too?

[Bonobo]

49. Nope, I wouldn't spend another red cent on the fiction of using the US military to "defend freedom".

The US military could cut their budget 100% and STILL be bigger than all the rest of the nations of the worlds' military budgets COMBINED.

Obama takes infinitesimal steps and claims that he is making major changes. As he later pointed out, the military budget will continue to increase.

How is this possible when he supposedly ending two wars?

Where is the peace dividend?

[Saving Hawaii]

52. "The US military could cut their budget 100% and STILL be bigger"

Uhh...

"Where is the peace dividend?"

You didn't invest in Lockheed Martin?

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Something that is built by an engineering batallion

a hospital, that will be transfered to the county six months after it is finished is hardly expanding the MIC.

Renewing the Osprey money pit, that is expanding the MIC.

Building a hospital means ENGINEERING equipment, which translates into JOHN DEEERE heavy building equipment, the kind that the military can easily transfer to the BLM, bureau of land management, or rural firefighters.

We are not talking of General Atomics here, but JOHN DEERE. Last time I checked they build

Do try to explain to me how this expands the MIC



Hell, they can even keep them in yellow instead of drab green for all I care.

[ProSense]

16. Where

"Something that is built by an engineering batallion a hospital, that will be transfered to the county six months after it is finished is hardly expanding the MIC."

...did you get that from Paul's comment to build more bases? Building a base is expanding the MIC.

Here's a better idea: Build a hospital, not a base to convert to a hospital.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. So let me get this

you'd rather have 200, 000 people out in the economy, with no prospects and not spending, but we keep the money pit that is the Osprey...

Okie dokie.

By the way, this is a HIGH POLICY view that has about pigs fly chances of even making it into a written proposal... in the current environment this would never happen. But look, in the 1930s, no, not the military, but we had something like this actually happen, and conservatives like Ron Paul fought it until the President relented and then we had the second mini depression of 1937...

Yes, I heavily borrowed from the WPA... which you missed by the way. The only diference was the military reservation caveat due to legal problems, but you think we will have a WPA any time soon? You won't for the same reason this would not happen either... but don't worry, General Atomics is not going to suffer.

[ProSense]

27. No

So let me get this

you'd rather have 200, 000 people out in the economy, with no prospects and not spending, but we keep the money pit that is the Osprey...

Okie dokie.

By the way, this is a HIGH POLICY view that has about pigs fly chances of even making it into a written proposal... in the current environment this would never happen. But look, in the 1930s, no, not the military, but we had something like this actually happen, and conservatives like Ron Paul fought it until the President relented and then we had the second mini depression of 1937...

...and pigs can't fly. In fact, I read all the comments on this "HIGH POLICY," and they're unecessary rationalizations that have nothing to do with putting veterans to work in the context of the current situation. They can be reintegrated into the civilian workforce with no need to involve the MIC, or as it was put shifting policy to create a "socialized" military.

In fact, the reduction in the size of the military force proposed could easily be translated to eliminate the total overseas force, less than 15 percent of total number of active duty troops.

http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1109.pdf

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Oh for fucks sake the military is the most socialized

institution in the US.

And I mean that.

As to veterans... the program in place is a drop in virtual bucket. To keep all those people employed it will take FEDERAL FUNDS.

Don't worry, if they, for some reason, decide to do anything like this in DC I can expect you to support it.

[ProSense]

31. What?

Oh for fucks sake the military is the most socialized institution in the US.

And I mean that.

As to veterans... the program in place is a drop in virtual bucket. To keep all those people employed it will take FEDERAL FUNDS.

Don't worry, if they, for some reason, decide to do anything like this in DC I can expect you to support it.

What does that have to do with base building and the complete shift in military policy you are advocating?

If it's modeled after the WPA, simply enact a WPA style policy. Veterans are not active duty personnel.

More than 85 percent of active duty personnel are state side, employed and funded.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Quick, how many are meant for a drawdown right now?

And I am not advocating a shift in military policy... I said Paul had a point but not for the reasons he thought...

And right now we are in the middle of a NATIONAL DEFENSE POLICY SHIFT as it.

But I am sure if the President came tomorrow and described exactly this, YOU would support it.

If he came up with a WPA I will support him, but you would too... it does not matter what comes out of the WH you support it at that moment. That is the pattern.

[ProSense]

37. There

And I am not advocating a shift in military policy... I said Paul had a point but not for the reasons he thought...

And right now we are in the middle of a NATIONAL DEFENSE POLICY SHIFT as it.

But I am sure if the President came tomorrow and described exactly this, YOU would support it.

...are 1.2 million troops state side, employed and funded. Veterans returning to the workforce do no require a shift in defense policy.

Any WPA-style policy should be targeted to the millions of unemployed civilian, including veterans, not current active duty personnel.

Even if 100,000 active duty troops (half the force) were brought back from overseas, they'd be employed by the military, like their 1.2 million stateside counterparts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Prosense we are in the middle of an overall revision in the doctrine and force structure

you are telling me we are not?

I guess I dreamt those Pressers.

Have a good day.

[ProSense]

56. Right

"Prosense we are in the middle of an overall revision in the doctrine and force structure you are telling me we are not?"

...but when you consider this statement, "Oh for fucks sake the military is the most socialized institution in the US," what exactly are you proposing?

The military is already a employment option. A drawdown of forces creates newly unemployed civiliand. The focus should be on employing the millions of unemployed persond, newly separated Veterans included.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. They are not mutually exclusive

try to keep up, we were only talking of military here... I said HOW you keep these people in the force, and get them retrained for the CIVILIAN market when they leave the force at the end of their enlistment.

But overall since you insist, and will NOT happen under the current administration. The stars are not correctly aligned.

We need a WPA. In fact we have needed one for two years.

We Need A Conservation Corp, realize both were run in some aspects of them in military fashion. This is in particular to the Conservation Corp, which was run under military discipline and spartan living conditions in national parks.

And FIRING 200, 000 people right now into the economy the way it is, makes zero sense.

But go on...

Now I really need to get back to work... something about SOPA and PIPA.

[Saving Hawaii]

40. "Oh for fucks sake the military is the most socialized institution in the US." QFT /nt

[joshcryer]

17. I work in this industry, and that would require a significant shift in policy.

The US goes by contractors not socialized military. Contractors would fight hard against the military doing this sort of thing. Hell, as it stands now I do contractor work for the military, as they sit in barracks (when not deployed) doing nothing. They don't build their own stuff. Contractors do.

I was amazed when I was at Ft. Rucker and they had contractors mowing the lawns while military personnel was doing training exercises, or more hilariously, playing video games in their barracks. Right now, and I'm not dissing the military, the engineers don't build much at Ft. Carson (where I am now), it's outside civilian contractors.

I'm not denying the nice ideal you have here, but from my experience that would require a significant shift in policy, and a socialization of the military, which goes against all military conditioning in all its forms. If the military is not conditioned to be a fighting machine, then it will have political and social aspirations that would really go against the grain. Again, not saying it's a bad idea, I think it's good, but in the end I do not see it happening in any way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. I just floated a high policy proposal

not one that will happen anytime soon.

Why I said, he has a point, but not for the reasons he is thinking.

The chances of this actually making INTO a committee in the current environment are about the same as pigs flying.

[Saving Hawaii]

25. This is not what Ron Paul is suggesting at all.

Your logic isn't bad. The idea isn't bad. But this is almost entirely the opposite of what Ron Paul is suggesting. Here's the main reason Ron Paul is suggesting building new bases. (A) He's called to eliminate oversea bases. (B) He's committed to maintaining our current military... If he's gonna be bringing all these troops to US bases, he needs to provide facilities for them. We don't have adequate facilities for that many additional troops on US soil at this point.

But Ron Paul ain't never gonna put a gun to the head of some taxpayer in Omaha to pay for the construction of a teaching hospital in Armadillo just so that it can be passed to local authorities for civilian purposes a few years later. That's completely contradictory to his libertarian philosophy. I understand that progressives hear the soundbite version of Ron Paul and think "Hey, this sounds like us." Libertarians use very similar, even the same, language as progressives a large part of the time. But they mean very different things.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. I know, why I said not for the reasons Paul is suggesting

Literally what I am talking about is a modified WPA.

[Saving Hawaii]

29. "why I said not for the reasons Paul is suggesting"

I didn't see that part.

Anyways, I don't think its wise to try a modified WPA via the military. 95% of the point of a WPA-style program is that it provides employment opportunities. You're suggesting passing off these bases in a year or so, but a military enlistment is 4 years. Where are we going to house all of these new soldiers, especially if we're shutting down bases that we just built? Especially since the new bases are barely adequate for troops being relocated from Europe and East Asia to the United States. And is it at all wise to lock so many people into 4-year military enlistments when the entire goal is to get them a productive job in the civilian economy as soon as possible? Also too, long economics lesson short, military employees have different spending habits than their civilian counterparts. The magic of the Keynesian multiplier, which is the most important thing about a WPA-style program, doesn't work nearly as well with soldiers as it does with regular civilians. Might as well just give the money to rich people.

It's not good for the military either. I think we could afford a drastically-scaled down military, but it's dangerous to dink with what the military needs to deal with. Their job is to kill people (or at least to practice doing so). If instead you make them spend most of their time digging ditches, they don't become good at killing people and we end up with a military that can't do its primary job effectively. It's important for them to focus on preparing to do what it is that they do. That's their job. Not building hospitals for civilian purposes.

If you want a WPA-styled program, then demand a WPA-styled program. This whole WPA-via-military doesn't work. None of the military officers are going to sign off on that because it badly affects their fighting capabilities, and it doesn't make much sense from an economics perspective either.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Oh I am not talking of new troops

but the ones meant for the drawdown. We are going to be drawing forces down by iirc 200,000 troops. It is a really bad idea to release that many people into the economy right now. So this is a way to keep them in the force, not to get new troops in, and literally retrain them while at it. Many of these are combat troops and unless you are going for law enforcement or a few other jobs in the civilian world, a combat soldier is hardly prepared for the civilian world.

Ideally we should also have a parallel WPA to go fix roads, bridges and high schools. It is truly to keep people employed and spending. What is it that FDR said? If need be hire a person to dig the hole and a second one to fill the hole.

But no, this is not to get a militarized WPA but to keep the soldiers aimed for a drawdown employed. The Navy alone should shed 30K sailors. And no, no new enlistments until somebody is out of the force.

[Saving Hawaii]

36. The entire point of a WPA is to hire civilians.

Doesn't matter if you hire them into civilian jobs or military jobs, the whole idea is to provide employment for the millions and millions of unemployed Americans. It's better that you hire them into civilian jobs. There's a difference in the velocity of money in their hands compared to soldiers that creates a bigger Keynesian multiplier. Hiring more soldiers probably isn't much more useful than just giving that money to rich people.

The point of the WPA was not to create dams, national parks, and roads. The point was to provide employment, incomes, and spending money, and in doing so to increase aggregate demand so that the non-government economy could recover. That it created nice dams, national parks, and roads was just icing on the cake. A side effect so to speak. Keynes himself suggested (jokingly) that they should bury money at the bottom of mine shafts and fill them in, so that entrepreneurs would hire people to dig the money up. It would work just as well for the economic effect (though you wouldn't have nice dams, national parks, and roads afterwards).

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. WPA would and should be separate from this

Not that anything like this, or sadly the WPA, will ever be enacted in this environment.

This is a way to keep people IN THE FORCE until the economy improves, SPENDING, paying taxes, and doing what we do every day. That does not prevent or preclude the formation of a civilian WPA, a Conservation Corp, or what have you. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Saving Hawaii]

50. Here's another idea.

Let's say we continue with drawdown as planned and commit all of the saved money towards providing civilian government employment for a few years. We give recently released veterans first preference for these jobs so that they don't need to worry about being thrust into an economy with abhorrent unemployment.

Here's one example of a job that would work well for this: The US Forest Service operates numerous crews that are assigned to reduce the fire danger throughout the western United States. They go out every day and do forest thinning projects or prescribed burns. Prescribed burns provide a substantially greater amount of acreage cleared for the amount of work done, but you can't do prescribed burns in a lot of places. Homes are too close in some case, but more commonly the brush is simply too thick and the fire will get too hot and start burning up the trees. Currently there's simply not enough funding to get a lot of this work done. But if the Forest Service got that funding for a few years, they could get a lot of the "brush is simply too thick... burning up trees" areas done, at which point they can use prescribed burns to deal with them in the future.

That sort of project could save a lot of taxpayer dollars and property damage in years to come while also providing employment so that hundreds of thousands of veterans aren't dumped on the street without recourse. And it also allows veterans to choose what they want to do. They're not stuck with what their unit is assigned to do, they're allowed to choose a job that interests them. And this is but a small example, but I'm certain that we could find plenty more suggestions from various federal agencies that could use a hand.

I understand what you're saying, but it makes a lot more sense if we do this outside of the confines of the military. The economics literature is pretty clear on that. The military literature says the same. And you provide people with choices rather than orders, which is probably a good thing for quite a few people who need to figure out where they're going in life after the military.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Give them first preference for federal employment...

that we already do... do not need to implement what we already have. And depending on disability ratings just how much preference they get, and 30% disabled they can't be fired.

Regardless in this environment good luck expanding anything, or even this seeing the proposal writing stage.

We are in an environment where our government is thinking austerity baby.

I just said in theory how I could see what Paul was thinking in a very different way... mind you, Paul means McNeil AFB in every district... I mean how can I keep these people employed. That said, forest service, in a bad fire even federal troops do get to play.



And I know what the lit says. Why I would prefer a WPA... but that is not going to happen either.

[Saving Hawaii]

59. Hmm

"Give them first preference for federal employment... that we already do... do not need to implement what we already have."

They don't have first preference. They have veteran's preference which is quite different. First preference, as I suggested, was basically an "if you're qualified you've got a job" and I suggested a bunch of new jobs with easy qualifications so that they're easily met by anybody coming out of the military. Veteran's preference simply makes you eligible for jobs that you wouldn't otherwise be eligible for. It can come in handy and a lot of government employers like ex-military, but they're pretty much allowed to hire whoever they think would do best out of the eligible list regardless of military background.

"We are in an environment where our government is thinking austerity baby."

I know. It sucks.

"I just said in theory how I could see what Paul was thinking in a very different way..."

No, Paul didn't mean McNeil AFB in every district. He meant "Crap, I said I'm bringing all these troops to the US but I also said I'm not reducing manpower. Guess that means I need to build new bases." He didn't really think it through any further than that. But Paul wouldn't support your idea under any circumstances. It's antithetical to libertarian political philosophy.

"And I know what the lit says. Why I would prefer a WPA... but that is not going to happen either."

More likely than your proposal I think... not that that says much. A WPA is gonna meet the veto of every Rush Limbaugh listener in this country (kick out the Kenyan!). A WPA-via-the-military is gonna meet the veto of every economist and military strategist in this country and is gonna die just as quickly. I don't think Paul Krugman would like the idea and I know that nobody in the Pentagon would.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Let's clarify I did not mean a WPA via the military

just for the record. And yes the veteran preference is how it is implemented right now.

Been nice, but I really need to get back to this article on SOPA, PIPA and a digital strike.

And regardless we are spinning our wheels since no, none of this would be implemented for the reason I stated, AUSTERITY.

For the record I wish.

[Saving Hawaii]

38. Here's how a drawdown works.

First the military says "no visible tattoos, etc..." they tighten up standards. They're already doing this. The idea is that you make the job less enjoyable for a lot of people so they get a clue and leave at the end of their current enlistment. If that doesn't cause the desired effect, you additionally gum up the promotional system so that very few people can improve their lot in the military. That gets a lot more people to live. For the most part, drawdowns are just about making the military suck more so that current soldiers decide that it's high time to do something else.

And what do you think would be more valuable in the long run? A recently released soldier using the GI Bill to attend college to become a nurse, an engineer, or a welder? Or a soldier that got held on being forced to learn how to do whatever it is that his unit got assigned to do? I think the former is preferable. Most soldiers are in a pretty good position for employment and a great position to go to school. Letting them decide where they want to go with their lives is probably a better option than telling them what they're going to learn and become good at.

[joshcryer]

12. And you look at Reps in those districts, they bloc vote for MIC.

So you want more Reps bloc voting for MIC?

MIC spending wouldn't go down, hilarious!

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. I know, but reality is that what Paul is talking is McNeil AF base in every district

What I am talking is a way to put down the Osprey money pit, but keep people employed and retrained, until the economy improves, and get infrastructure out fo the deal. The ones benefiting from it directly would be John Deere, not General Atomics.

Reality is that it will not happen... because this is highly Keuynseian and stimulative, not expanding the MIC...

But LEGALLY, the Federal force CANNOT build that hospital in civilan land... therefore you need to designate that block or two as a military reservation. Or we change the law or we create a WPA or we do a combo of all these.

You and I know that will not happen any time soon.

[joshcryer]

18. That would be direct competition to contractors, which Ron Paul would be against.

The money would go into MIC R&D, tech development, and training. Here in Colorado grassroots supports elected a Democrat who promised to end the Pinion Canyon military expansion (they wanted several thousand square miles of more land to do training exercises). Under Ron Paul that would be expanded massively, and the military wouldn't be allowed to compete with external contractors, because that is socialized contracting, and he would have none of that.

Meanwhile Reps would be compelled to vote for the MIC so that their constituents would be satisfied from such military expansion. Republicans and Democrats alike. They always bloc vote for MIC. The only way to end it is to draw back the military expansion, so that Reps aren't beholden to the MIC, you don't dangle another MIC carrot like Ron Paul is suggesting.

As it stands now we can reduce foreign military, and it will have a net positive effect, but building it here is a very very bad idea, and for it to work would require an unreasonable policy shift that I cannot see happening, particularly if Ron Paul and his ideology was what America aspired toward.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. There you go

why I said Ron Paul had a point, but not for reasons he'd endorse.

[treestar]

13. We're not in danger of invasion

from here. Only nukes from wherever they could come from.

We have not been invaded since 1812.

[ProSense]

19. Well,

"We have not been invaded since 1812. "

...Paul wants to take the U.S. back to the 19th century so maybe it's time for a more U.S. bases.

[Saving Hawaii]

30. Alamo. Dutch Harbor.

Granted, Texas wasn't technically part of the US yet. But Dutch Harbor definitely counts.

[Major Nikon]

47. No more so than Texas

Perhaps even less so. Texas was a state 9 years after the Battle of the Alamo. Alaska was a state 16 years after the Japanese occupation of Dutch Harbor ended.

[Saving Hawaii]

51. Alaska was already a territory (since 1912).

We also lost some American troops during the Japanese invasion of Dutch Harbor.

I know, the whole thing is hardly a refutation of the point I was responding to, but quibbling over technicalities is half the fun of the interwebs.

[treestar]

67. Learn something new every day

Looked it up on Wiki and it appears to have been a two day occupation!

[Saving Hawaii]

69. Yeah, I think they had troops on some other Aleutian islands for several months. /nt

[FarLeftFist]

34. Talk about "small govt".

[cherokeeprogressive]

55. In the right context, I'd have to agree.

Everyone talks about FDR's New Deal and how it put people back to work...

I'd put all my weight behind a plan that had what we now know as the US Military training for war 1/3rd of the time and doing national service that included everything from cleaning parks to building roads to fighting fires the other 2/3rds on a completely voluntary basis.

I'd also get behind giving ANYONE who volunteered for such service a lifetime individual tax break.

[ProSense]

57. Yeah,

"In the right context, I'd have to agree.
Everyone talks about FDR's New Deal and how it put people back to work..."

...I'm sure Ron Paul was proposing a New Deal. Fits right in with his plan to eliminate five federal agencies.

[Major Nikon]

61. Using the military for civilian uses didn't make a whole lot of sense back then and makes less now

Even the Army Corps of Engineers has a very small minority of active military members. It's mostly a civilian organization. Even an ammo humper requires a considerable amount of training both initially and to keep them proficient. Most jobs in the military get pretty technical and do require some level of knowledge and skills. It doesn't make sense to train them for other jobs as well. Best to leave the military doing what it does and use civilians for the rest.

[Rex]

60. Ron Paul wants a stronger national military to keep the zombie hoards at bay.

I hear he is in the market for hidden bunkers and might buy Old Man Cheney's Man Cave.

[ProSense]

63. It's

clear this proposal isn't sitting well.

[BiggJawn]

64. I wonder if he'd revive the coastal batteries?

Yeah, that'd give us a stronger National defense, 1890 style...

You Libertarian morans are following a moran.

[joshcryer]

65. Since we had a lot of posts reinterpreting Ron Paul's position as a potentially good thing...

...I'm totally fascinated by the exchange here. Completely.

Believe it or not, I've seen targeted killing reinterpreted as a potentially good thing (argument was that it results in less deaths than the other options; the person making the argument was still against it, mind you; and no it wasn't me, I find the act deplorable and in no way a good thing).

I find this whole thing fascinating.

Just goes to show that certain ideas that "desperately need to be heard" can come from any source anywhere and still us crazy progressives can be open minded and think of reasons that they can "work."

[ProSense]

66. Well,

"Since we had a lot of posts reinterpreting Ron Paul's position as a potentially good thing..."

..when it comes to Paul, that's standard.

[jwirr]

68. To what purpose?