Comments on: Budget Deficit Blowback

By: Greg0658

Greg0658 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:50:27 +0000

builders & sponges/yinyang
don’t tear yourself up there TakBak04
take it from me – toss them shoes
the fractured wheel supporting the wagon has to collapse
then folks will rally together to get it going again
right now industries/factions/tribes are fighting for the scraps
that’s just how it is
that’s nature

By: Willy2

Willy2 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:49:55 +0000

With US military spending at anbout $ 1 trillion (!!!. Not some $ 650 billion !!) the US can reduce its spending significantly.

How utterly, totally and completely insane US military spending has become can be illustrated by the nuclear weapons. The US still has over 9,000 nuclear warheads in all sorts and sizes. If the US wants to, it can turn the entire world into one giant radioactive hellhole. But in spite of all that nuclear firepower the US commisioned in march 2007 the development and construction of a new generation of hydrogen bombs. This is a very good example of military keynesianism.

The entire system of military spending crowds out the private sector. Companies working solely for the military can’t compete with private firms.

By: DuchessGateau

DuchessGateau — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:42:56 +0000

Unfortunately, less and less of our military spending benefits U.S. contractors. Therefore, the amount of Keynesian stimulus effect it has is less than it used to be, and it was never the best way to stimulate the economy. Comparisons to military spending during WWII are misleading. Things have changed. Computers and other military hardware are manufactured overseas, and Haliburton isn’t an American company. They don’t pay taxes because they moved their HQ to the Bahamas and then Dubai.

By: philipat

philipat — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:17:37 +0000

Airbus SAS will be interested in the acknowledgement that the US Military subsidises Boeing?

By: Neil C Denver

Neil C Denver — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:23:16 +0000

The father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, warned about the overreach of imperial empires. It’s a lesson that pseudo-conservatives have not learned, and neither have the so-called American liberals.

By: retrogrouch

retrogrouch — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:01:18 +0000

When Kristol starts talking Keynes – you know you’re in for BS. Of course when Kristol talks . . .

By: Joe Friday

Joe Friday — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:45:20 +0000

“The military is our secret Keynesian weapon. William Kristol was the first to say that if we needed to spend stimulus money, it should be most quickly and efficiently spent through the Pentagon.”

Yet another example of why Kristol is consistently wrong.

“Many have argued that this is a very inefficient way to achieve those economic goals.”

Because it IS a VERY inefficient way to create jobs.

“But it is the way we’ve chosen since the Reagan build-up began 30 years ago.”

No, that’s why job creation during the Reagan administration was of such poor quality.

According to IRS data, there were no NET new jobs created during Reagan’s two terms that paid more than $20,000. Hence the reference at the time to “McJobs”.

Oh, and Ferguson is a alarmist.

By: retrogrouch

retrogrouch — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:43:39 +0000

This is a recipe for disaster (moving stimulus money through the DOD because they’re “efficient”) Military spending is inflationary. It does not produce consumer goods. It moves money into the economy, withdraws resources (steel, brass, and other commodities) from the private sector, and provides no new goods for this. The result is inflation.

BTW we already spend more per year on our military then the rest of the world COMBINED. Do we really need to increase that?

By: Deflator Mouse

Deflator Mouse — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:42:30 +0000

Gee, for a guy who already knows when he’s going to die (spooky), Ferguson has it all bass-ackwards. Empires decline because they over-reach, militarily. This creates crushnig debt and a largely non-productive economy.

By: Dogfish

Dogfish — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:24:43 +0000

william… or just let the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc, worry about Al Qaeda. Terrorism is an intelligence, law enforcement, and foreign policy issue. You can’t defeat an idea with guns… quite the opposite in fact. I always drew a comparison between our current path of military action against terrorism with attempting to defeat a puddle of water by punching it. It’ll just spread the water around. We need to change the conditions to promote evaporation of the idea. “Drain the swamp” as George Galloway put it.

What we are doing is exacerbating the problem, but then cynical ole me sees that as intentional to further justify the “defense” spending and allow for more war profiteering. “Disaster capitalism” as Naomi Klein put it. Cataclysmic events are no longer looked at as times to come together and do the right thing, but as profit opportunities were the margins are highest.