From the link in my response:
Philip
31

No your point does not stand. One, because most of that money went in soldiers pockets, and second, because our military is the smallest it’s been in 50 years, most of those soldiers would have been paid no matter where they were. You do understand the concept of giving people a job instead of just doling out subsidy payments don’t you? When you attack military spending you’re also attacking hundreds of thousands of people, most of them from poor or working poor families.

Like what you read? Give David Cearley a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.