Vote Early and Vote Often!

Snowdoggie wrote: But it is not spent on industrial capacity or infrastructure that would actually build up the economy or improve the country. It is spent on weapons that are destroyed in a foriegn country.

Who builds those weapons? Who supplies the materials and parts? The money ins't blown up. The MONEY goes to contractors and employees, and factories, and facilities. To use my Lockheed Martin example again, there are a few dozen large facilities locally to me that are leased ny Lockheed Martin, have Lockheed Martin signs on the sides of them, and employ thousands of workers. But you say that isn't industrial capacity or infrastructure.

And MOST of the military budget is NOT spent on weapons, but on facilities and employees, as well as contractors for many other services, from medical to transport to facilities management, to food services, to, well, dozens of other areas.

That you can say that the money simply gets blown up is absolutely ridiculous.

Chris, I'm just saying (and the figures back it up) that wars have rarely, if ever, actually been good for any country's economy, and a relatively small percentage military spending reaches the laborer level of the workforce, at least compared to what once did. Where it once took X people to make a tank, a plane, or whatever other material the military needed, it now takes Y, and Y is much smaller than X was.

I'm not dealing in absolutes here. Anytime you have massive government spending, there tends to be a lot of people who benefit from it. But looking military spending vs. economic boost, the benefit is much, much smaller than it is when the massive gov't spending is on something that requires a lot of labor, like building bridges or other infrastructure improvements.

Not really interested in arguing or belaboring the topic, just pointing out that the common wisdom that "wars are good for the economy" doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

Tim Baxter wrote: Not really interested in arguing or belaboring the topic, just pointing out that the common wisdom that "wars are good for the economy" doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

Plus, that money doesn't come out of nowhere. You're taking taxpayer money to pay military contracts, or you're growing debt.

You're taking money out of the economy to put it back into the economy. That's economic perpetual motion, and works just as well as mechanical perpetual motion does.

You can't tax yourself into a job.

Joe G said:It's funny and sad if you read campaign speeches from 20 years ago, or even 50 years ago. They all promise to "fix" education, protect the enviornment, and get us free from dependence of foreign oil. Oh yeah, and every 4 years a new savior will make our middle class more affluent, and make sure our health care system is affordable, and accessible. How's that working for you?

You forgot "Balance the Budget" and "Pay down the national debt." Berkeley those mother berkeleyers.

Snowdoggie wrote:

carguy123 wrote: No, and according to Wiki the Dems have had control off virtually everything since 1953 up until the Repubs finally got a little congressional power during GW.

Here? It says the Republicans controlled both houses from 1994 to 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

I'm really surprised how many people have no clue what a supermajority is and what the difference is between that and having control of Congress.

More importantly it is shocking to realize how few people understand the ramifications of a supermajority in both branches plus the Executive office.

This should have been covered in Jr High School Social Studies.

One party or the other ALWAYS has control of Congress. No party has had a supermajority in both branches of Congress since the 1930's.

Salanis wrote:

Tim Baxter wrote: Not really interested in arguing or belaboring the topic, just pointing out that the common wisdom that "wars are good for the economy" doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

Plus, that money doesn't come out of nowhere. You're taking taxpayer money to pay military contracts, or you're growing debt. You're taking money out of the economy to put it back into the economy. That's economic perpetual motion, and works just as well as mechanical perpetual motion does. You can't tax yourself into a job.

And yet he said it DOES work of you put it directly into labor... But it's still money coming from taxes, thus road building and dam building, etc, are still taxing your way into jobs. You can't say it works in one scenario and doesn't in another.

The point is still this: the money spent by the governemnt on the military is still going to job creation and infrastructure, just as it would with public works projects. it goes back into the economy the same either way and into local economies exactly the same. The only difference is the product.

I wasn't arguing that war is good for the economy. That's a strawman. I was pointing out that the money spent by the military goes back into the local/national economy the same as if it were spent on any other social program. The people that RECIEVE the money: military personnel, contractors, businesses, facilities management, etc, still spend the resulting money here in the US just as they would if they were a contractor building roads or dams.

If you took the money that the military was spending and put it to public works projects, the same exact amount of money would be entering the US economy, and from the same source, so saying it would be BETTER served "right here at home" is misleading at best, and using a moral objection rather than a factual economic objection.

Lastly, it's still been shown that the money going to the military is a smaller portion of the budget than the portion going to Social Security, Welfare, Medicare/Medicade, and other social programs. And unlike Welfare, the money going to the military is paying people to work rather than pay people to sit around.

Private enterprise (capitalism) is a self sustaining system which is the biggest difference between it and socialism or communism.

Simple economics: if you want to generate a steady income stream you need to sell a product which requires periodic replacement or maintenance. That generates repeat sales which then generate profits which then generates jobs. That's why you see things like the Lexmark printer which you pay $69 for, then when you need a printer cartridge six months later that cartridge sets you back $39. Lexmark didn't make #$@^ on the printer but they make it up big time on the consumables. You get hit hard because they know after a while someone will figure out how to refill the cartridges and cut into their cartridge sales. So they come out with a newer model which uses a different cartridge, the cycle starts anew. Lexmark's employees and the company pay approximately 30% in taxes with little or no money from the US Treasury. This cycle can perpetuate itself.

Apply this to other scenarios; if you happen to make military consumables and a war starts, you will suddenly ramp up sales and your business is booming. You hire people and pay for plant expansions to meet the demand. Yours isn't the only company, so there are big segments of the economy which benefit all because the war is causing the military to fling consumables down a rathole.

Your employees and your company are paying taxes which average approximately 30% which help to finance the war. Since the taxes paid out are less than the tax money coming into the company, it's not a self perpetuating cycle from a financial standpoint and that's the main difference between this scenario and the printer cartridge one, because the treasury cannot take in less than it spends and stay solvent. This means they have to raise taxes or borrow. Once the war ends, you have to ramp down production because the consumables are no longer needed, you close plants and lay off employees slowing the economy.

If that same money is spent here at home on items like roads and bridges etc, they are not generally considered consumables. While it still helps the economy, it's not as big a boost as the war rathole. The employees and the company will pay approximately 30% of the funding back to the treasury in the form of taxes. Again, the treasury is taking in less than it spent and again must raise taxes or borrow. Once the project(s) are done, the same thing as the military scenario: close plants and lay off people. But now in both these last two the government owes a bunch of money.

Welfare recipients rarely, if ever, pay taxes and that means the money given to them generates very little return to the treasury until that money is spent with companies which then pay their employees who then pay taxes which may only total about 10-15% of the welfare payout. Again, the treasury has to raise taxes or borrow but it's a larger amount now. That makes welfare a disproportionately large drag on the treasury and consequently the economy.

The ultimate problem with capitalism and modern production methods is that we are capable of producing an excess of goods that is more than the population could consume without just throwing it away. Capitalism, by its very nature relies on scarcity of resources to not meet every demand. When supply exceeds demand, the system becomes worthless.

The only way to control this is to artificially engineer a sink of goods that will generate scarcity. This reason needs to be something the population can be made to believe in, in order to get them to go along and keep them in line.

There is no activity that will consume the goods of production faster than a war.

If you engage in a perpetual war with an equal opponent who has no desire to see the war end, you can maintain artificial scarcity, and secure your power base, indefinitely.

Edit: Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbFG-jmpXJI

pwnt!

and now after throwing gas on a fire.. I'm running away so only my bum hair gets singed..

ignorant wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbFG-jmpXJI pwnt! and now after throwing gas on a fire.. I'm running away so only my bum hair gets singed..

Hey, linking KO to "gas" is pretty funny; more so since he was "fired" from direct campaign commentating.

On a more serious note, here's a link to check out:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533132337982833.html

Sorry, no video; you have to read this one.

Oldsaw, that's a very good article.

It accurately summarizes an enormous concern.

Oh, and there IS a little video attached!

that WSJ article isn't bad.. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have some of those fears myself.

but as an old engineering professor once said... "never throw out better, because it isn't best"

ignorant wrote: that WSJ article isn't bad.. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have some of those fears myself. but as an old engineering professor once said... "never throw out better, because it isn't best"

Referencing your former professor is OK if you sincerely believe that

1) The Western European economic models are superior.

or

2) A new Democrat--led US government will do a better job.

Number 1 is debatable, number 2 is laughable.

2 might be laughable 2 you .. but many in the US believe it.