Jill Stein and the Green Party 2012

@USAF 713

No, we'd be throwing it away in favor of spending that money building and fixing infrastructure and things like green technologies and energy. Again, cutting arms sales jobs would be silly if there was nothing to replace them, but there is. You're making the mistake of assuming the matter is taken in isolation.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

We make a net profit doing it, however. Especially if we nationalized the bastards, because then it could be done at-cost for the US and the rest of the world would be pure profits for the US population.

Point is, I don't see why we would replace those jobs if we can have them and all the other things, too. Once again, we lose very little by doing it, lose a fuckton by not doing it.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Hey, they're apparently expanding Amtrak right now. That's a good place we could divert the money to, and give those arms manufacturers some jobs. Or something like that. Such as rebuilding the bridges that are falling apart. Seriously, why are we not paying more attention to that?

Anyway, I'd like to see if the Green party has a more concrete position on job creation rather than anything else.

Sure. Have private companies selling military-grade weapons to foreign countries. There's absolutely no way that could go wrong.

edited 9th Nov '11 5:26:38 PM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Hey, I said we should reduce overall domestic arms production. How much we make for the international market depends entirely on what they're willing to buy. Thus, we aren't exactly spending extra money on that instead of other things, because it's other countries that would be buying the stuff made for profit, ideally.

Private institutions my ass. They're practically public entities anyhow. Nationalize the fuckers, cut out the middle man, and watch revenue for the nation as a whole go through the roof.

edited 9th Nov '11 5:28:20 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

I don't think USAF has ever been for privatizing large weapons manufacturing.

Sorry, I mixed up what nationalizing meant. Tis why I use "public" and "private", it tends to be clearer.

But I guess I just don't see the point. We can have just as many jobs without making weapons, so why waste time, money, and resources making extra weapons instead of more productive things? I don't give a shit if everyone else keeps trading weapons—let 'em. Either it's not our concern (since they'll be trading stuff that's lower level tech than we have), or maybe if they see we're focusing on making a killing in the production of productive technologies, they'll want to get in on it, further dragging the world economy into a less destructive angle.

edited 9th Nov '11 5:48:00 PM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Because it's a market, and markets mean money. Don't trade, you don't make money. People will find a way to kill each other either way. The least we can do is use their stupidity to try and fix our problems, in lieu of a less idiotic solution.

There will always be war, and where there is war there are arms dealers. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I am now known as Flyboy.

RE: the Governorships - I was thinking that if the Greens actually wanted to affect their policy, the state level would be where to do so. A lot of the military budget, for example, lies in pork being sent home so that Lockheed Martin can make billions employing people to buy stuff we can't afford to practically use in a theatre. Green Governor in your state? Green jobs show up, coal plants get retrofitted, people start looking at sustainable industries positively. In the meanwhile, state pressure can be applied to refuse the military pork. Voila, military budget shrinks. Rinse and repeat, ideally 50 times.

It's situated in Ft. Benning, Georgia, if I recall correctly. It already uses existing U.S. Military infrastructure and I don't see any reason why the physical or even some of the intellectual assets can't be used for training our existing defence forces for ends that don't produce people for whom "violating humans rights laws" is an express part of the job description.

But the curriculum itself? Should be scrapped. Most of the alumni? Should be hauled before the ICC. The instructors? Find something else to teach. The institution served a purpose at odds with civilized humanity itself and should be stricken from all functional existence.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Yeah, I just meant the base itself. That whole program can go to hell.

It would be very difficult for a Governor to refuse that kind of pork, though. He'd instantly be crucified by the media for "turning down jobs for the State!"

Then again, Scott Walker got away with it for that supertrain, so maybe not...

I am now known as Flyboy.

If the Green state government brought home enough jobs in the sustainable energy sector he might be able to weather that storm. Doing what they can for the farmer would be good too - American Greens at the state level would have to take good care of the agriculture-based rural voters, which could be done with a creative reinterpretation of the party's environmental stewardship platform.

"Hey, Jimbob! That there Green candidate done said that if he gets elected, the State'll pay us jes' fer keeping the soil healthy!"

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Farm subsidiaries need to go die, however, so that's not much better...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Like showing that there's profit in other things? Like I said, just because other people are trading in weapons doesn't mean we have to, when there's a million other perfectly profitable things we could be doing. "We should do it because everyone else is" is... not a compelling argument, to put it mildly.

And, well, you're forgetting that part of keeping the soil healthy is sustainable farming, so some of the bad effects of subsidiaries would be averted.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

We should do it because everyone else is doing it, making a (literal and figurative) killing off it, and because if we do it then we know exactly what they have even if they reverse-engineer it.

It would be kept healthy if all the artificially above-water farms went out of business, though. Seriously, the free market Republicans are fucking hypocrites if they're for farming subsidiaries, because much of the sector wouldn't exist otherwise. It's a bloated excuse for "capitalism" that just lets big farming companies pocket more money while small farmers still go under either way. All we do by cutting the subsidiaries is save some money, even if the delusional small farmers think they actually lose anything there.

I am now known as Flyboy.

@USAF 713

And we'd be making a killing off other things, so who gives a shit?

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

We could be making two killings!

...

Alright, that's a horrible pun.

Anyhow, point is, we get more technological development—military and civilian, as a byproduct—and more money. We don't if we don't do it. Ergo, it makes no logical sense to not do it, if other people will just take over and get those benefits, and then we fall behind in that area. Having a smaller military won't work if it's not (the most) advanced and capable.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Production-based subsidies need to die, they're just funnelling taxpayer money into Archer Daniels Midland. Environmental stewardship programs and public disaster insurance for farms are cool though.

edited 10th Nov '11 7:45:28 AM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Can someone explain to me exactly what subsidaries for farms are doing right now? In like, idiot language because I'm dense?

I'm looking at the Green party's platform on jobs and such and it seems like they want to revert to smaller farms. I'm not sure why that specifically is better or how environmental restrictions would be any more enforceable with smaller farms.

Well, you have subsidiaries to keep prices at "parity" (originally defined as food prices during the First World War), so that the farms don't go under because they actually overproduce and would sink their market in a heartbeat if the government didn't do this—or at least, as I understand it. It's possible (but unlikely) that something has changed.

And then you have so-called conservation subsidiaries, which amount to paying farmers and such to not farm or raise livestock, so their land stays pristine. Or at least, that's how I comprehend it.

Frankly, I think both are a waste—especially the first one—and the second could be done in a different manner. For example, we could just buy the damn farms and the farmers can go do something that isn't a losing proposition. That and we need to break up the big farming conglomerates...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Bleh, if they're overproducing they could try growing something else. Or letting the ground lie for a year. Which I think some people do anyway. *shrug* I don't really have anything against the farming conglomerates being conglomerates. It's whether or not they're obeying the environmental regulations that concern me. Though admittedly, I find the farming thing to be a small concern compared to the other subjects I've gone on about.

But seriously, it sounds more economical to scale back on how much is grown if we're producing so much. Granted, having a surplus is a wise thing, given we can have a bad year or if there's a crisis where we want to send food to someone.

The United States produces $200 USD billion in crops and livestock each year.

For a sense of scale, out of the 52 nations of Africa, 49 have a lower total GDP in $USD than that.

And that's with us paying to keep the prices afloat and to not have them produce at full capacity.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Just to note, I'm not suggesting that when I say "stewardship subsidies". I'm suggesting paying farmers to grow different crops and different subspecies of the same crop in a mix on the same land, to secure the nutrient cycle in the soil and prevent parasites from being able to wipe out an entire crop to which they have best adapted. I'm suggesting paying farmers to use less or even no fertilizer and pesticide as to avoid runoff and other damage to the soil. I'm suggesting that we reward them for farming sustainably rather than farming in a manner that ensures an unwinnable arms race with parasite species and turns orchard soil into desert in ten years as you can see in Southern California. That's what I'm suggesting.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Greens currently in office. Yes, there are Greens all throughout America in elected offices. Elections Index!

• 2011
  • Bob Poeschi
  • Christine Nagle
  • Don Crawford
  • Edward Shadid
  • Gary Novosielski
  • Jason West
  • Larry Bragman
  • Leif Smith
  • Marsha Rummel
  • Michael Drennan
  • Peter Schwartzman
  • Ryan O'Neil
  • Steve Alesch
  • Tanya Ishikawa
  • Toni Williams

edited 10th Nov '11 9:21:22 AM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971

Platform is useful for this discussion!

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971

Well it's a start with what you've showed me.

This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacio