If Spending is Stimulative. Why do Liberals always want to cut Defense?

[DontBeStupid]

So, Building a road is stimulative, Giving a Solar company money is stimulative, but buying tanks and planes and guns from US companies is not stimulative.

Is that actually what you are trying to say? If so you are a bigger idiot than I thought.

Stimulative to what extent?

Does military spending provide jobs? Sure. So in that..yes..it's stimulative.

Does anything that comes out of military spending benefit the country as a whole? For the most part..no. Seriously...how can the private sector or a citizen in general use a tank? It's not like a road..that gets used by both. And gets used to conduct business for both.

Sometimes you get an "unexpected" benefit like the internet or GPS..but those benefits are far to few to justify the spending.

We should be concentrating our efforts toward goals that don't involve killing other people or the total annihilation of the planet.

Wow. You really have no idea of the benefit to society as a whole from military technologies, do you?

Here are spin-offs just from ordnance:

Æ Aeragon - Ordnance

Mass production
Machining data handbook
Titanium
Chemical manufacturing
Environmental data
Weather forecasting
Radar
Walky-talkies and cell phones
Miniaturization
Computers
Space technology
Satellites
Fortification construction techniques​

And don't forget the internet.

Soooo...looks like you're wrong, buddy.

If you actually stop and read Sallow's post you will see he says "For the most part..no." That is not the same as saying never. Clearly there have been good things to come out of military spending, as you have listed. But that doesn't mean ALL military spending has long term benefits to the economy.

Additionally, I'd like to stress this part. "We should be concentrating our efforts toward goals that don't involve killing other people or the total annihilation of the planet." And I agree. It's interesting then that your list contains only peacetime benefits. Which of course, makes sense, because building a better tank doesn't really directly help a school teacher, does it?

 

[daveman]

Defense spending has been the backbone of the U.S. economy since WWII.

Economically, it's really 'socialism with a middle-man".

Government, through contracting and sub-contracting, creates millions of jobs and pays for it all with tax payer dollars.

The middle-men, cronies of the politicians, make a fortune from the tax payers while everything is really paid for by tax dollars.

This is the great lie of American capitalism. Free-market capitalism only survives when underwritten by socialist defense spending.

How did Reagan get us out of the recession of the early 1980s? He started 'Star Wars', bollooned the deficit and stimulated the economy with socialist defense spending.

Yet the vast majority of item produced by the defense industry is never used - it's placed in armouries until it's obsolete. The real advantage to society is that those recieving defense industry 'welfare', are made to hold jobs and behave respectably. Regular welfare recipients often degenerate - nothing to do except watch T.V., have sex, and take drugs.

It irks liberals when conservatives insist on cutting spending on all non-defense items while never allowing defense spending to be cut.

Other industries are not allowed to feed off the taxpayer and can't create jobs whenever the governement issues a contract. So everyone outside of the military industrial complex is subject to the brutalities of capitalism.

The vast majority of items procured by the military that are never used are munitions. One-time use only. The delivery systems -- tanks, artillery, airplanes, ships -- are used all the time.

Further, the reason the government pays industry to build things is because the government can't build things. True story.

And they are barred from really owning any industry...that's why they have to contract out to the private sector.

Yup.

Can you imagine the howls of outrage from the left if someone proposed increasing the size of the military to perform all the services currently contracted out?

 

[daveman]

and yet if they purpose cuts to defense they are seen as anti-military
works both ways

Depends on the cuts they propose, doesn't it?

not really.

Yes, it does. If someone proposes cutting specific weapons systems, operations, and bases, that doesn't step from a hatred of the military.

If someone proposes a 50% cut in defense across the board -- yeah, that's hatred of the military.

 

[daveman]

If you actually stop and read Sallow's post you will see he says "For the most part..no." That is not the same as saying never.

I did read it. I didn't say he said never, did I?

Maybe you should stop and read MY post.

Clearly there have been good things to come out of military spending, as you have listed. But that doesn't mean ALL military spending has long term benefits to the economy.

Most of it does, in ways most people don't even realize, as the article I linked shows.

Additionally, I'd like to stress this part. "We should be concentrating our efforts toward goals that don't involve killing other people or the total annihilation of the planet." And I agree. It's interesting then that your list contains only peacetime benefits. Which of course, makes sense, because building a better tank doesn't really directly help a school teacher, does it?

Directly? Perhaps not. Indirectly? Undoubtedly.

 

[The T]

The vast majority of items procured by the military that are never used are munitions. One-time use only. The delivery systems -- tanks, artillery, airplanes, ships -- are used all the time.

Further, the reason the government pays industry to build things is because the government can't build things. True story.

And they are barred from really owning any industry...that's why they have to contract out to the private sector.

Yup.

Can you imagine the howls of outrage from the left if someone proposed increasing the size of the military to perform all the services currently contracted out?

And the pretense of such outrage...

 

[asterism]

well you are leaving out its all borrowed money and the interest....

But i can understand why you would. It hurts your cause.

Are you claiming we were not borrowing money in WWII? Or are you claiming that Obama is not saying we should spend 450 Billion dollars more right now. OF BORROWED MONEY.

FDR didn't cut taxes during WWII. Additionally the country issued war bonds to help pay down the debt.

It's astonishing the amount of history that gets forgotten around here.

War bonds to help pay down the debt?



How does one get out of debt by borrowing more money?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Libs are always saying we need to cut defense spending, Yet they also say the Government can create Jobs and Stimulate the Economy with spending.

Well, What is Defense spending? Sure some of it is paying the troops, and other stuff, However the single Biggest portion of Defense spending. Is spent on Things, Things like Bullets, Bombs, Planes, and Trucks, Armor Upgrades, MRE's, Etc Etc. The Vast Majority of these things are supplied by US defense contracting Companies, that Employe Literally Hundreds of thousands of American Workers.

Gee......you heard about that, huh??

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY]Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. - YouTube[/ame]

*



*

Whatta great idea.....developing an economy that depends on perpetual-War.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Eisenhower:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you admitting that spending is stimulative?

GI's don't get paid enough. But that's not the point. Most of the defense spending (somebody back me up with a citation here) is used for government contracts. Again - back to those "corporations are people" memes.

That's not why the military uses contractors. Do you want GIs cleaning bathrooms and mowing grass, or do you want them training for war?

No nation ever defeated another in war by cleaning their bathrooms for them.

The GI's who won WWII cleaned their own bathrooms.

 

[Sallow]

So, Building a road is stimulative, Giving a Solar company money is stimulative, but buying tanks and planes and guns from US companies is not stimulative.

Is that actually what you are trying to say? If so you are a bigger idiot than I thought.

Stimulative to what extent?

Does military spending provide jobs? Sure. So in that..yes..it's stimulative.

Does anything that comes out of military spending benefit the country as a whole? For the most part..no. Seriously...how can the private sector or a citizen in general use a tank? It's not like a road..that gets used by both. And gets used to conduct business for both.

Sometimes you get an "unexpected" benefit like the internet or GPS..but those benefits are far to few to justify the spending.

We should be concentrating our efforts toward goals that don't involve killing other people or the total annihilation of the planet.

Wow. You really have no idea of the benefit to society as a whole from military technologies, do you?

Here are spin-offs just from ordnance:

Æ Aeragon - Ordnance

Mass production
Machining data handbook
Titanium
Chemical manufacturing
Environmental data
Weather forecasting
Radar
Walky-talkies and cell phones
Miniaturization
Computers
Space technology
Satellites
Fortification construction techniques​

And don't forget the internet.

Soooo...looks like you're wrong, buddy.

And most of this sort of stuff would have come to be without the military.

 

[AmericanFirst]

So how is building military housing for example more stimulative than building a school, or school, at the same costs?

And isn't a new road/bridge of more value long term than a tank? We build tanks and send them to Europe to defend them against imaginary enemies, what's the return on that,

compared to the return on repairing an equal amount, dollarwise, of roads and bridges, over here?

Military and its equip. designed to protect our country, something libtards hate, schools and roads socialistic programs with gov't. regulations to control you. Reagan rocked, obama sucks.

Reagan was a treasonous bastard that funded various terrorists that raped American nuns, created a huge cocaine industry in the United States, held Americans hostage and eventually took down the World Trade Center.

Idiot. Reagan was ten times better president than any dimwit, especially obamaturd who is a socialist with socialist backing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Depends on the cuts they propose, doesn't it?

not really.

Yes, it does. If someone proposes cutting specific weapons systems, operations, and bases, that doesn't step from a hatred of the military.

If someone proposes a 50% cut in defense across the board -- yeah, that's hatred of the military.

We're borrowing 40% of what we're spending on the military. How about we raise taxes to pay for that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread is really humorous.

The OP created a strawman by saying that Liberals do not believe that defense spending is stimulative.

Yet, no one on this thread has said that defense spending is not stimulative.

No I did not. I asked Liberals if spending is stimulative why do you want to cut Defense spending. Then Several Liberal Posters on here proceeded to try and explain to me that Defense spending is not Stimulative. You need to go back and read there are more than 1 Posters in here who have indeed said Defense spending is not Stimulative, and gives you a net Negative Effect.

I never claimed Liberals do not believe Defense spending is Stimulative. However clearly that is exactly what a least a few Posters in here do believe, or want me to believe anyways.

The Central Question is this. Just how many jobs will be lost, and how badly will our Economy be hurt, if the Automatic 600 Billion dollar a year Defense cuts go into effect when the Debt Commission fails to meet it's Deadline?

State and local governments have lost around 600,000 jobs since the recession began,

because of spending cuts.

We are borrowing 40% of what we spend on defense. How do you propose to stop borrowing 40% of what we spend on defense?

Raise taxes? Cut defense spending? Do nothing and keep borrowing?

Those are your choices.

 

[BDBoop]

Eisenhower:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

And the reverse of that attitude is what we're seeing from the right. "So what if they're hungry and naked? They brought it on themselves!"

 

[Full-Auto]

Eisenhower:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

And the reverse of that attitude is what we're seeing from the right. "So what if they're hungry and naked? They brought it on themselves!"

Really? which politician has come out with that as a policy.

Wanting opportunity doesnt mean they want people to go hungry.

Shameful you dont see a difference.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Military and its equip. designed to protect our country, something libtards hate, schools and roads socialistic programs with gov't. regulations to control you. Reagan rocked, obama sucks.

Reagan was a treasonous bastard that funded various terrorists that raped American nuns, created a huge cocaine industry in the United States, held Americans hostage and eventually took down the World Trade Center.

Idiot. Reagan was ten times better president than any dimwit....

No one was talking-about.......

....GENOCIDE.

Try, again, Skippy.​

 

[pgm]

Can you imagine the howls of outrage from the left if someone proposed increasing the size of the military to perform all the services currently contracted out?

I'm pretty sure the right would be outraged by that too.

 

[grunt11b]

They claim that WWII spending got us out of the depression, yet whine and cry about spending a bazillion dollars on a new joint strike fighter.

Whatcha gonna do?.

Last time i just checked we as a nation didnt convert everything into a giant warmachine for iraq, like we did with wwII.

I know facts are hard for you, because you never do seem to use them.

As for the op. They go after defense because defense is bloated and has waste in it.
but most programs do and they should all see cuts/reform/streamlining.

We need defense spending, we don't however need fannie mae and freddie mac and the like. If anything should be cut, it's those two programs. All they where designed to do is allow government to put a big thumb right on top of you and your house as a threat down the road. Why else would government get into the mortgage business? When the shit hits the fan and you have a freddie or fannie backed home loan, you will be out on your ass for the "Greater Good" of the people, and of course at that time we will be a communist nation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan was a treasonous bastard that funded various terrorists that raped American nuns, created a huge cocaine industry in the United States, held Americans hostage and eventually took down the World Trade Center.

Idiot. Reagan was ten times better president than any dimwit....

No one was talking-about.......

....GENOCIDE.

Try, again, Skippy.​

It was awful when we resisted the Communists.

Did that make you sad?