Military spending boost the economy

[okfine]

So I'm getting banned for asking questions?

The censor is against their principles.

 

[whoisit]

Your entire premise is wrong. War only benefits bankers, war material makers, and politicians. This is why we are always at war.

Do you think it right to murder millions of foreign civilians so that our economy does well?

I always enjoyed studying history and some recent history was interesting to say the least. I am a conservative type but always verify.
When Bush the grinner was in office, I studied up on his history because because of the illegal war in Iraq and 911.
I found out that Bushs grandfather was a banker and politician and had some dealings with Hitler.


Photo of the two,

 

[Oddball]

Should we be using the same amount of money we used during WW2 for military spending? People say we spend too much but shouldn't we be prepared for a cosmic size war so we can help the economy? If we don't do that then we may not be able to dig ourselves out of another depression. The war led to thousands of jobs and ppl joining the army. So when a liberal says we spend too much should we say no we need to so we can better the economy.

My daily dose of economic illiteracy..

 

[Oddball]

Government spending on anything will boost the economy

 

[task0778]

Should we be using the same amount of money we used during WW2 for military spending? People say we spend too much but shouldn't we be prepared for a cosmic size war so we can help the economy? If we don't do that then we may not be able to dig ourselves out of another depression. The war led to thousands of jobs and ppl joining the army. So when a liberal says we spend too much should we say no we need to so we can better the economy.

A lot of people will die in a cosmic sized war, one hopes we can find a better way to achieve economic growth without killing millions of people, not to mention trillions in property damage. And some people believe that more gov't spending on anything is not the most efficient or effective way to better the economy. And that includes military spending, which is very wasteful. Why spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight a cosmic war that may never happen? Instead, we ought to be adopting policies and spending that incentivize jobs and business creation or expansion, without regard to political gain. Sadly, we can't seem to do that; too many pigs at the trough.

 

[Desperado]

Should we be using the same amount of money we used during WW2 for military spending? People say we spend too much but shouldn't we be prepared for a cosmic size war so we can help the economy? If we don't do that then we may not be able to dig ourselves out of another depression. The war led to thousands of jobs and ppl joining the army. So when a liberal says we spend too much should we say no we need to so we can better the economy.

You mean government spending is good for business. No difference between the government spending money on NASA, Infrastructure or the military. Only difference is that with NASA or Infrastructure or you don't get the associated wars to go with it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Should we be using the same amount of money we used during WW2 for military spending? People say we spend too much but shouldn't we be prepared for a cosmic size war so we can help the economy? If we don't do that then we may not be able to dig ourselves out of another depression. The war led to thousands of jobs and ppl joining the army. So when a liberal says we spend too much should we say no we need to so we can better the economy.

In WW2 the massive spending was offset by massive U.S. production. Even the women went to work--Rosie the riveter--to create and make things for the war effort and domestic consumer needs. Economics 101

Massive government spending at a time when U.S. production was unusually low is why the inflation we're seeing now is so extreme. Pouring more government dollars into a stagnant economy will only make it worse and increase the misery index.

 

[Friends]

If [more military spending] worked in WW2 wouldn't it work now?

Military spending and employment is government spending and employment. I am glad that we entered World War II, but the money could have been better spent for civilian purposes. This is what President Eisenhower said in his Cross of Iron speech, delivered April 16, 1953 to newspaper editors at the Statler Hotel, Washington, D.C.:

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.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Dwight Eisenhower Cross of Iron Speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors (text-audio)

 

[Oddball]

In WW2 the massive spending was offset by massive U.S. production. Even the women went to work--Rosie the riveter--to create and make things for the war effort and domestic consumer needs. Economics 101

Even then, a lot of the production was sent off to faraway lands to be potentially destroyed....Not exactly a great business model.

 

[22lcidw]

In WW2 the massive spending was offset by massive U.S. production. Even the women went to work--Rosie the riveter--to create and make things for the war effort and domestic consumer needs. Economics 101

Massive government spending at a time when U.S. production was unusually low is why the inflation we're seeing now is so extreme. Pouring more government dollars into a stagnant economy will only make it worse and increase the misery index.

We were still a rising nation, and the fiat currency was not abused like it is now.

 

[Foxfyre]

Even then, a lot of the production was sent off to faraway lands to be potentially destroyed....Not exactly a great business model.

True. It was the beginning of the snowball that would create an untenable national debt ratio of debt to GDP rising about 77% for the first time in the nation's history and reaching 113% It would back off some at the end of the war becoming more manageable. Deficits were almost eliminated in the late 1990's due to Newt Gingrich's GOP reformers aided and abetted by Tim Penny and 30+ reformer Democrats and by a reluctant President Clinton who finally saw it politically expedient to go along. In 2013 the ratio of national debt to GDP rose above 100% and has stayed above 100%. Neither Congress nor any administration is even trying to manage it.

The only solution is not more government spending, but ending all government spending other than what it is contractually or legislatively obligated to spend and ending government policy that expands government costs from year to year and is bleeding the resources from the American people who get nothing in return.

 

[rightwinger]

View attachment 666104

You think war boosts the economy?
What does it produce other than dead bodies?

 

[KissMy]

The only place worth taking would be Venezuela because they have the most oil, are close enough to run a pipeline to our refineries & have a disarmed population.

Bur war for oil didn't work in Iraq or anywhere else.

 

[emilseine]

You think war boosts the economy?
What does it produce other than dead bodies?

It worked in ww2

 

[Sandisk]

You say it's the worth thing to spend money on but yet we did it during ww2 and look how that worked out. Even if we don't use hardly any of the equipment we will still not be wasting it b/c it will help the economy. Hey it worked with FDR didn't it?

1) worked out? The standard of living during WW2 in America was shit. And the only reason our economy boomed after WW2 was due to every, single, other, major power being broke/destroyed/communist.

2) helps the economy?
Please answer this simple question:
Which would increase the taxpayer's standard of living more?
a) $30 billion of their taxes on a Carrier Battle Group?
Or b) let them keep that $30 billion so they can buy better housing/cars/furniture?
a or b?

3) the 'New Deal' is overrated.
During the 1920/21 Depression, Wilson/Harding cut spending and taxes.
Result?
The DOW and UR (unemployment rate) dropped back to near, pre-crash levels in 3.5 years. All while lowering the national debt by 10%.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1900 - 1949

www.treasurydirect.gov

The Depression You've Never Heard Of: 1920-1921

When it comes to diagnosing the causes of the Great Depression and prescribing cures for our present recession, the pundits and economists from the biggest

fee.org

Under FDR's 'New Deal'?
The DOW took 25 years to reach it's pre-crash level.
The UR took 14 years to reach it's pre-crash level.
And the national debt doubled.

Historical US Unemployment Rate by Year

The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.

www.thebalance.com

The New Deal is MASSIVELY overrated.

No offense, but your idea would lower the standard of living - not raise it.

 

[KissMy]

The only place worth taking would be Venezuela because they have the most oil, are close enough to run a pipeline to our refineries & have a disarmed population.

Bur war for oil didn't work in Iraq or anywhere else.

Of course it would be smarter to make a deal with Trinidad, buy a small TBM & bore a tunnel into the heart of Venezuela's Orinoco oil field & drain it into our tankers.

 

[KissMy]

It worked in ww2

We spent $7 trillion on wars in Iraq & Afghanistan causing our economy to suck.

 

[Oddball]

You think war boosts the economy?
What does it produce other than dead bodies?

I have no idea what you're blabbering about....But the subject at hand is economics, so neither do you.

 

[rightwinger]

I have no idea what you're blabbering about....But the subject at hand is economics, so neither do you.

Basing your economy on war is blabbering

 

[Resnic]

The 1920s and the 1950s were incredible years after winning wars abroad.

The country and it's people were also much different than today's.

We won't see great days again until we get rid of a lot of people today that are running the whole thing in the ground and their supporters and even the ones who just sit on the side and let it all happen.