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

[The T]

Complete Bull shit. Spending on the Military is much more stimulative and long term than the Spending Obama wants to do. It puts money in the coffers of US private Sector Companies, that make the stuff the Military uses.

You guys look real Funny on this one. Defending the Spending the Obama want's to do, then trying to explain why spending on Defense is not Stimulative.

To funny indeed.

You cut the post by 90% and didn't address any of it.

N-O. Military spending is NOT stimulative. It's like heroin.

You feel good..but it's a negative overall.

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.

These people put themselves into a quandry. Government itself cannot perform these tasks therefore they have to contract out to have the work performed.

I do belive it is against the law for Government to OWN companies, is it not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

Ummm......selling war bonds doesn't pay down the debt it increases the debt.

 

[Dragon]

Military spending is certainly stimulative (that's how we pulled out of the Depression). But it is less stimulative than a number of other ways the government can spend money, for reasons I'll go into below, and if we're going to be spending money anyway to boost the economy, some thought really ought to be given to what we're spending it on and what we're getting for it besides an economic boost.

The reason military spending tends to be less stimulative than other kinds of government spending is that it goes to fewer people. Military manufacturing is mostly heavy-industry, heavily-automated manufacturing with a high per-hour productivity. The way that government stimulus spending works is by putting money in people's pockets to spend; now certainly buying a new jet airplane or aircraft carrier will do that by keeping defense workers employed, but it will do it to a lesser extent per dollar spent than infrastructure spending or a WPA-style public-works project.

The other calculation involves what we're getting for spending public money on this as opposed to that. We are currently spending too much on the military not because of any stimulus calculation but because we are using military force for things we shouldn't be doing: maintaining a military presence in many foreign countries, involving ourselves in aggressive wars, and in general maintaining an empire.

If we were to cut military spending and do nothing with the money saved except reduce the deficit (not that reducing the deficit isn't a good long-term goal, it's just not a good idea right this minute), that would hurt the economy. But if we cut military spending and instead spending the money to restore and modernize our infrastructure, or to engage in a big public-works project on the scale of the TVA (say build a big solar plant somewhere in the southwest), we would provide more stimulus than we do from the military spending and do better things with the money at the same time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Complete Bull shit. Spending on the Military is much more stimulative and long term than the Spending Obama wants to do. It puts money in the coffers of US private Sector Companies, that make the stuff the Military uses.

You guys look real Funny on this one. Defending the Spending the Obama want's to do, then trying to explain why spending on Defense is not Stimulative.

To funny indeed.

You cut the post by 90% and didn't address any of it.

N-O. Military spending is NOT stimulative. It's like heroin.

You feel good..but it's a negative overall.

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.

After you build a road, you have a road to use. After you build a tank you don't need, you have an expensive piece of scrap metal.

 

[Richard-H]

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.

The the wingnuts keep insinuating that liberals think that defense spending is not stimulative and arguing against that point.

It's like they have some imaginary 'Liberal' friend who they are arguing with - one that no doubt takes any position that they wish liberals would take.

Wow, I guess a lot of wingnuts really are psychotic!

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

If Spending Federal Dollars to Build a road is "Stimulative" Then it is damn sure Stimulative when the Government spends money to, Buy Bullets, or Fuel Air Planes, or Build a ship, or a plane.

Hell if you want to get real Technical even the Money they spend paying the troops, is stimulative. I mean didn't they tell us Food Stamps and Unemployment are stimulative? If those things are, then surely a GI's Pay check is as well.

So why do Liberals want to cause the Lay Offs of Thousands of American workers, in US defense Contracting Companies?

Because liberals don't want to defend this country against their socialist buddies.

 

[The T]

You cut the post by 90% and didn't address any of it.

N-O. Military spending is NOT stimulative. It's like heroin.

You feel good..but it's a negative overall.

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.

After you build a road, you have a road to use. After you build a tank you don't need, you have an expensive piece of scrap metal.

Wrong answer, asswipe. You have an asset that can be used on other creeps that threaten the security of the Republic and Liberty.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Obamacar is the most useless program right now, lets first get rid of that socialsit piece of work.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If Spending Federal Dollars to Build a road is "Stimulative" Then it is damn sure Stimulative when the Government spends money to, Buy Bullets, or Fuel Air Planes, or Build a ship, or a plane.

Hell if you want to get real Technical even the Money they spend paying the troops, is stimulative. I mean didn't they tell us Food Stamps and Unemployment are stimulative? If those things are, then surely a GI's Pay check is as well.

So why do Liberals want to cause the Lay Offs of Thousands of American workers, in US defense Contracting Companies?

Are you admitting that spending is stimulative?

I have never claimed it wasn't. What I have said is spending on Roads, and building Projects is very short term. While spending on goods and Services provided by Private Sector Companies is much more long term stimulative in nature.

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?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

After you build a road, you have a road to use. After you build a tank you don't need, you have an expensive piece of scrap metal.

Wrong answer, asswipe. You have an asset that can be used on other creeps that threaten the security of the Republic and Liberty.

Who are we defending ourselves from in Western Europe?

 

[The T]

Are you admitting that spending is stimulative?

I have never claimed it wasn't. What I have said is spending on Roads, and building Projects is very short term. While spending on goods and Services provided by Private Sector Companies is much more long term stimulative in nature.

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?

Class Warfare becomes you Carbonated...you don't disappoint...as does your utter hatred for those folks that protect your sorry ass.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Are you admitting that spending is stimulative?

I have never claimed it wasn't. What I have said is spending on Roads, and building Projects is very short term. While spending on goods and Services provided by Private Sector Companies is much more long term stimulative in nature.

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, for you guys on the right in this thread who have now admitted that government borrowing and spending is stimulative,

why did you oppose, and continue to oppose, stimulus spending, and why did you all claim that spending wasn't stimulative?

AND, why do you insist on now CUTTING government spending, when you're admitting that it would be counter-stimulative?

 

[AmericanFirst]

I have never claimed it wasn't. What I have said is spending on Roads, and building Projects is very short term. While spending on goods and Services provided by Private Sector Companies is much more long term stimulative in nature.

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?

Class Warfare becomes you Carbonated...you don't disappoint...as does your utter hatred for those folks that protect your sorry ass.

He is a socialist, what do you expect?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Well, for you guys on the right in this thread who have now admitted that government borrowing and spending is stimulative,

why did you oppose, and continue to oppose, stimulus spending, and why did you all claim that spending wasn't stimulative?

AND, why do you insist on now CUTTING government spending, when you're admitting that it would be counter-stimulative?

You are totally screwed up, like most libtards I know.

 

[The T]

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?

Class Warfare becomes you Carbonated...you don't disappoint...as does your utter hatred for those folks that protect your sorry ass.

He is a socialist, what do you expect?

More self-loathing?

 

[The T]

Well, for you guys on the right in this thread who have now admitted that government borrowing and spending is stimulative,

why did you oppose, and continue to oppose, stimulus spending, and why did you all claim that spending wasn't stimulative?

AND, why do you insist on now CUTTING government spending, when you're admitting that it would be counter-stimulative?

YOU will never admit to getting the Government's jackboot off the necks of the private sector.

 

[Sallow]

I have never claimed it wasn't. What I have said is spending on Roads, and building Projects is very short term. While spending on goods and Services provided by Private Sector Companies is much more long term stimulative in nature.

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.

 

[editec]

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

Because that's their kneejerk response to cutting social spending.

And because defence spending is also descretionary spending thus subject to cuts.

Coincidently, I just posted a couple videos of an economist who believes that stimulating the economy by building up military spending is the BEST kind of stimulus spending for the economy.

RICHARD KOO.

You right wingers who love the military but hate Keynesian spending ought to take the time to listen to him.

You might discover that you have been supporting Keynesian economic policies all along and didn't relly know it!.

I think the Keynesian Model recomends that the government spend in slow economic times and create a surplus during good economic times.

Right.

Our government, under both parties, has only created the debt part of the equation.

Right again.

If the Keynesian Model is compared to breathing, we have been exhaling only and nver inhaling.

An apt analogy except exactly the opposite

It was not the Keynesian model that screwed the pooch, it was over stimulaing the SUPPLY SIDE.

Our country has NEVER followed Keynesian economics. All we do is spend too much. That is not Keynseian.

Our county empluyed Keynesian economic policy to fund WWII, actually.

Take a look how the national debt grew as a result

Look, some of you folks seem to think that Keynesian economic policies is a theory in direct opposition to say SUPPLY SIDING economic policies.

No, it isn't.

They are both possible directions in policy of the same monetary theory that underpins our entire economic system.

MACRO all about keeping supply and demand aligned in a way that keeps the factories running, people working and consuming. It is seeking a balance between what we make and what we consume.

When the supply-side has too much capital, the economy bogs down.

When demand-side has too much juice, the economy bogs down, too.

Right now the debt overhang is making most of us NOT SPEND because we are frightened.

WE are saving and paying down our debts, and not enough of us are spending,

So the kind of economy we have invented for ourselves is bound to slow down.

That's exactly why the deficit spending of WWII brought us out of the depression.

That is also why Hitlerian Germany got out of their depression before the rest of the West did, too.

The thing to try to get into your skull is that money is the tool of mankind, not its master.

When our economy collapsed in 2008, did the factories evaporate? Did the crops stop coming in? Did all the workers get sick?

No, none of that happened. Our productive capacity was intact.


EVerything that was in place one day didn't disappear, yet the economy collapsed because the ACCOUNTING of debt is so out of line with the ACCOUNTING of what people have to pay off that debt.

Think deeply about this and keep telling yourselves the TRUTH about money.

It isn't REAL...it is a tool, an accounting invention, and one that sometimes needs adjusting.

Believe me if we cut spending NOW?

We are going to make this economy even sicker than it is right now.

Everything most of you are being told about this system is WRONG for THIS economy we are currently dealing with.

We need money and LOTS of it (trillions of dollars, actually) to replace the money that millions and millions of American families have lost due to the RE collapse and the stocfk market collapse.

Obama half trillion dollar STimulus just wasn't enough to offset the trillions of dollars that were lost in the collapse.

The middle class, I am informed has already lost 4 trillion in equity on ther homes.

No idea how much people lost in the markets but I'll bet that was trillions, too.

All that money lost?

But all the DEBT is still there.

See the problem now?

 

[rdean]

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.

If Spending Federal Dollars to Build a road is "Stimulative" Then it is damn sure Stimulative when the Government spends money to, Buy Bullets, or Fuel Air Planes, or Build a ship, or a plane.

Hell if you want to get real Technical even the Money they spend paying the troops, is stimulative. I mean didn't they tell us Food Stamps and Unemployment are stimulative? If those things are, then surely a GI's Pay check is as well.

So why do Liberals want to cause the Lay Offs of Thousands of American workers, in US defense Contracting Companies?

What are conservatives so scared of? They were TOLD about Bin Laden and didn't take it seriously.

They think weapons and money will keep them "safe". Well the money isn't theirs and they don't know how to use the weapons.

I hear the super rich are furious with Warren Buffet for suggesting their taxes should be raised.

It's funny when I'm told what I think by someone who isn't capable of thinking himself.

Whoever accused you of "thinking" had it all wrong. They didn't realize your memorized slogans were still somewhat new.