[Peace-discuss] Why the Jobs Argument Against Military Cuts is Bogus

[C. G. Estabrook]

The Pentagon is a major employer, both directly, through the military (and 
mercenaries) and indirectly through the 'defense' industries. Look what a large 
percentage of federal discretionary spending is military-related.

Cutting that back substantially, as we should, would require an equally large 
federal jobs program, a modernized (and much larger) WPA.


On 8/16/11 3:44 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
> An argument against cuts to projected military spending that is sure
> to rear its ugly head is that this would cost American jobs. In the
> current political context, this "jobs" argument is 100% nonsense.
> Here's why.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/why-the-jobs-argument-aga_b_928475.html
>
>
> --
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss