Skip to main content

[Cross-posted at The Left Coaster.]

Waiting is not one of my skills, right, but for once I was positive that patience would not be necessary for a certain element of this unholy regrettable evolution of fiscal cliff which always amuses me and offers good illumination of public policy:  the Defense Keynesians.1 If in fact there is no deal this month “sequestration” triggers in and Defense gets cut $57 billion.

California will lose $4.5 billion in defense spending and 135,000 jobs, December hadn’t even arrived and the stark warning went out in the San Francisco Chronicle. It seems the most simple of statements yet is fraught with so much contradictory history from our cher cousin Republicans one can only chuckle—in one way—that the warning exists at all.

Basely, seriously, one must accept the premise that government spending creates jobs.  It’s as if to say clouds produce rain, but as we all know facts and reality are extremely slippery mental concepts for Republicans, when it’s time for stimulus from a Democratic President Republicans will look you straight in the face and say government spending doesn’t work for employment.

Defense Keynesians are protective of defense spending, not jobs.  Where were they when the 2008 stimulus was chopped by those Presidents from Maine?  Nowhere.  Where were they when the 2009 stimulus desperately needed passing but wasn’t even introduced? Absent.  Where in fact have they been in the last four years of utter employment disaster? Gonzo.

Giggles are the only response at the aghast nature of proposed defense spending—how could you!  The United States has a totally psychotic defense spending posture, obscene levels that dwarf any other nation in comparison, not only are these puny “sequestration” cuts absolutely necessary they’re just the first in the face of a coming massive wave that someday will get the DOD budget to $300 billion with no ongoing wars.

Defense jobs are not same in delivering utility to the little people via public sector employment, not hardly.  Work and spending that produces an artillery shell produces a physical element that just sits there on a shelf or in a tank, it doesn’t instruct, feed, prevent disease, build a road or produce clean energy.

Yes yes yes I know, we all must be so secure in this world since I’m supposed to be afraid of the Mexicans massing at the border.  Defense and security are necessary governmental elements, of course, but the point is that the rest of government spending is rigorously demanded total accountability all the time, goddamnit if those kids don’t learn fire the teachers.  Yet defense spending is granted this so special status of nebulous, cloudy irrational notion of “security,” accountable to only how afraid irresponsible public officials want their constituents to be.  Impressive.

To those 200,000 who will lose their jobs, demand that your government immediately replace them with employment that builds roads and refurbishes shelters in the hope that spurred economic growth will soon get you another job.  It’s a brutal answer but I didn’t devise this system, there is no other way.  When the New England paper industry was decimated in the last 20 years all those jobs were lost and not a god damn thing was done except pathetic unemployment insurance.

It doesn’t have to be that way, so easy to spend on the little people instead of tanks and helicopters.  We’re all Keynesians now, it’s been said so many millions of times, yet it never really seems to actually happen.  Why is that?  Keynesian economics makes perfect easy sense with only a little study, but unfortunately it also results in a liberal politics precisely geared toward helping little people, not defense contractors or Wall Street crooks.  We all see the issue, I’m sure.

Yet there still is hope if only in the knowledge this absurd destructive level of defense spending in the United States, coupled with desperately needed little people social spending, will force a new reality of budgetary behavior.  We won’t police the world and will employ our people, base political reality could force it.  Bring it on, Defense Keynesians, the strident complaining will bring about the necessary change faster.  Right?

Finally I thought the journalism of Ngue and Murphy in the Chronicle linked here was not bad.  Immediately after the listed Defense cuts were the proposed social cuts, with a good emphasis that any cutting in an economic downturn is profoundly stupid economics.  The conclusion emphasis on what would happen to the crushed fee-fees of those making over $250,000 was ridiculous (they still won’t be hurting at all, Jesus), but for a Defense Keynesian entry this was all right.

[1] Economist John Maynard Keynes.

Originally posted to paradox on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 05:35 AM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Poll

We're all Keynesians now.

30%31 votes
12%13 votes
5%6 votes
1%2 votes
0%1 votes
47%48 votes

| 101 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  spot on, IMHO. lots of dem states will be hit by (21+ / 0-)

    defense spending cuts - along with CA, think MA with all its engineering/defense companies. Not to mention TX.

    An artillery shell not only just sits there as a useless artifact, producing nothing, it also gets blown up when used, leaving nothing but a crater in something or someone(s), leaving us with nothing but often hardened feelings against us.

    Bridges stay there, raising the standard of living, commerce, communication between people. Broad-band access connects us with the world of ideas and needed goods. Wind turbines help secure our future. Schools give us the future.

    Etc.

    I hadn't really considered the born-again Keynesian aspect of the defense industry. Enjoy your Simpson-Bowles style cat food, MIC, and don't let the rest of us bother you as we enjoy the irony of your new-found economic liberalism.

    Fear is the mind-killer - Frank Herbert, Dune

    by p gorden lippy on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 06:16:52 AM PST

  •  Keynesians?? (9+ / 0-)

    You mean people like Obama who were born in that similarly named African country?

  •  yeah, booooy! (10+ / 0-)

    i think "defense Keynesisans" is even better than "deficit scolds."

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 06:25:19 AM PST

  •  How much better off would we be if: (18+ / 0-)

    We started already paying many unemployed folk to retrain in some area of health care -- so it is possible to actually provide the needed services to folks who are starting to have access to   much more fiscally responsible preventive health care from Obamacare changes kicking in.

    We kill more people with cars than Bin Laden could have ever hoped to.    Yet we can't convince idiots to spend big amounts to provide saner, safer public transit  -- to cut down spending on roads & lower air pollution caused by ineffective people moving.

    We spend more per prisoner per year --- sometimes for life, than it would have cost to have sent same persons to Harvard quality education for their much fewer early years.

    We spend more on paper textbooks (which can get outdated very quickly) than it would cost if we converted to ebook texts & provided one nook per pupil on which to read them.   We'd probably have fewer spinal problems in future years --- caused by heavy booked back pack toting while student bones are still softish & growing.    I have no idea how many germs are spread by paper text sharing from year to year.

    By giving kindles/nooks to all students -- there'd be no need to steal them & no market to sell stolen ones to.  Like one Scandinavian country which eliminated bicycle theft -- by providing free public bikes and racks on a take one here, leave it there basis.   Cuts down air pollution in cities and is excellent way to help keep populace healthy from the exercise.    On the down side --- it really would hurt the sales of bike SECURITY locks since there is no longer a need to steal wheels.

    Maybe if we stopped bombing people to use up our stock of swords, we could better afford to butter up our plowshares and feed our folks into better health.    

    Family planning & even abortions are cheaper and safer than forced birthism & resulting need to repair the damage of producing throwaway children who we apparently won't have jobs for when they're grown.  

    What finally forced revolution of Arab Spring?  Having no hope because even with a good educations --- there were not enough living wage jobs for overpopulation caused by too much childbirth for the available resources.

    One of the coolest bills pre presidential Obama pushed thru?  Fed money to retrofit or buy new --- school buses which are otherwise causing health problems by lack of filtration of the toxic fumes on school buses.  Leaking inside to gas kids, especially ones with breathing allergies, and leaking outside to   pollute the breathing of surrounding taxpayers.  

    Like they said in $6 million man --- we have the technology.   We just need to refocus it on living well --- rather than hating, killing, robbing, pillaging our fellow humans.

    De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

    by Neon Mama on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 07:00:10 AM PST

  •  It's why I don't worry about the "cliff": (11+ / 0-)

    the only consensus in Washington is for the same spending and deficits that congress has already voted for.   The cliff was congress's creation, and it can simply take it back.

    One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

    by Inland on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 07:46:10 AM PST

  •  War is a crappy jobs program (13+ / 0-)

    For $57B we could rebuild most of the elementary schools in this country more than 50 years old, and we would have something to show for that spending for decades.

    "Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed." -- Vaclav Havel

    by greendem on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 07:55:57 AM PST

  •  While I am sympathetic to the desire to come up (7+ / 0-)

    with a new moniker for the Capitol Hill Gang trying to scam us again, linking Keynes to them is really disrespectful.

    What we have here in the Capitol Hill Gang is a bunch of cowardly pols who need all that military hardware to feel even minimally secure. They're bullies and show-offs and triangulators supreme.  That is, they have figured out how to make others do their dirty work and keep their own hands clean. In another era they might have been compared to Pontius Pilate. But, what that tells us is that these agents of deprivation are not new. They deprive (which is really theft) because they have no practical skills. If they talk well, we let them get away with it because knowing we're being deprived makes it easier to put up with.
    Where we have a problem is when they get just too greedy. And that's about where we are now at. The scam has gone too far. It's time to tell the Uncle Cons "no."

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 08:05:35 AM PST

  •  You are misunderstanding the argument (0+ / 0-)

    All localities are dependent on their exports to survive. If you have a lot of defense companies around, your local exports are defense products to the government.

    If the spending was wasteful, your locality doesn't care about that. It just wants the transfer payments to keep rolling in from elsewhere, especially since it will be very disruptive for them to stop.

    So there's no conflict there and no hypocrisy. Of course people are going to want transfer payments from elsewhere to keep coming. You don't need to be a Keynesian to know that money coming in from elsewhere is a good thing (for you, at least).

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 08:53:20 AM PST

  •  One of the reasons that Texas does not appear (8+ / 0-)

    on the role of states that get back more from the federal government than they pay in is because of the big military bases they have. Take away that federal largess and the swagger will vanish.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

    by hestal on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 09:14:47 AM PST

  •  Keynesian economics fill two vital (8+ / 0-)

    functions in an up and down economy. The up side which is just as important as the down side as the government pays down the debt and limits borrowing so the private sector can do its thing.  Our Republican friends never do this. They cut taxes, borrow money and funnel our grandchildren's cash to the umber wealthy.

    In a down cycle the government borrows money and makes needed investment in our infrastructure. This increases aggregate demand and primes the pump in our economy. Our Republican friends never do this. They cut taxes, borrow money and funnel our grandchildren's cash to the umber wealthy.

    The real genius of this is that there are things the private sector can not or will not do that are vital to the progress of our country. When you look at it Keynesian economics  is a beautiful system that allow individuals and companies in the private sector to fly and also allows us through government to do the necessary things that have to be done in order to advance and maintain a decent civilization.

    Join the War on Thinking. Watch Fox News- John Lucas

    by Jlukes on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 09:59:51 AM PST

  •  Keynesian economics does not necessarily (3+ / 0-)

    favor the little people over the big interests.  Keynesianism is about making capitalism succeed under capitalism's own definition of success, which is hardly a far leftist ideal.

    It's been a hundred years, isn't it time we stopped blaming Captain Smith for sinking the Titanic?

    by happymisanthropy on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 10:10:43 AM PST

  •  Given that a goodly amount of the money (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    means are the ends, kurt, radarlady

    spent on war during the past decade went into their pockets, I'm not feeling their pain. I don't want to see anyone losing a job and I know it will hurt communities but shared sacrifice includes us all and it's about time that it was their turn.

    Mere opinion, but it looks like the easy money would be from private intelligence contractors, Homeland security and the countless cost over-runs that seem to plague government projects.

     

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 10:17:08 AM PST

  •  Defense Contractor Spending (9+ / 0-)

    The real facts are that Defense contractor spending on munitions is notoriously Capital intensive, not Labor intensive.  Spending on building more tanks and plane results in a NET LOSS of jobs. It would actually generate more net jobs just to shut down some munitions factories and give the savings to taxpayers.  Because this type of R & D and manufacturing is spread around the country, each Congressional district with a Defense plant wants to keep THEIR JOBS, regardless of the negative effect on the national economy.  We have been living with the Military Industrial Complex so long, most people forget what a drag it is on the overall economy.

    •  Hilarious (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      So is building windmills and solar panels the same thing?

      It would have to be, right? Big, capital-heavy, hyper efficient manufacturing on large capital goods? How could defense be any different than green manufacturing in this regard?

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 11:17:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not sure I buy Kayo's argument, but... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alice kleeman, howd, kurt, Kevskos

        Windmills and solar panels produce electricity, which can be used by businesses and individuals for productive purposes, thus growing the economy.

        Tanks and other weapons produce nothing, and their use and maintenance consume resources and manpower that could otherwise be put to constructive uses.

        I don't know what's been trickling down, but it hasn't been pleasant---N. Pelosi

        by Russycle on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 12:25:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mrs M

          I agree, but that's the point. Everything needs to be judged on its output, not whether it 'creates jobs' or whatever.

          If we need tanks, make those. If we need windmills, make those. Just don't spew out any argument at all because you like one of them but not the other.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:03:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But what do we "need" so many tanks FOR? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            radarlady, Kevskos

            And so many airplanes?
            And so many helicopters?
            And so many other insanely expensive hi-tech killing toys?

            Maybe if we minded our own damn business more, and stopped trying to be the Biggest Bully in the World, we wouldn't need so many things that are only good for destruction.

            If it's
            Not your body,
            Then it's
            Not your choice
            And it's
            None of your damn business!

            by TheOtherMaven on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 07:37:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It was (0+ / 0-)

            not an argument.  It was a statement of fact.  A tank adds very little economic activity to the economy after it is built.  A windmill, continuing the example, produces energy that is used by other agents to do things like run factories and type on computers.  The windmill is going to add value to the economy every day it is operational.

            •  That wasn't the argument (0+ / 0-)

              The argument is that it's stimulative.

              If you are going to argue that we should build windmills to make clean power, I'm completely in agreement.

              However, if the argument is some kind of stimulative element "look at all the jobs!" I don't buy it.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 05:17:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Dumbass. (0+ / 0-)

                 You missed the point entirely.  I did not say anything about the windmill being green power, that is just one of its attributes.

                Building the tank itself is stimulative, then it adds nothing to the economy.  Build a windmill and the building is stimulative and then the power it produces is also stimulative.  Thus much much greater economic stimulus for the buck then the tank.  

                •  Like I said (0+ / 0-)

                  We disagree. Stimulus is worthless. Money spent purely for stimulative purposes is wasted.

                  Money spent buying things of value in the most cost effective manner possible isn't wasted.

                  (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                  Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                  by Sparhawk on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 11:29:15 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What do (0+ / 0-)

                    you think money spent on stimulus is used for?  It buys things. Done best it buys things that produce more stimulative effects like windmills, highways, High Schools, etc. .  Done worse you give tax cuts or buy war planes, tanks, prisons or bail out Wall Street.

                    We don't disagree you refuse to listen even to yourself.  Look at your last sentence.  That it what stimulus spending is.

      •  UMass study finds tax cuts provide more jobs (4+ / 0-)

        than the military. So taking money from taxpayers and putting it into munitions results in a job loss. This is not true for clean energy, healthcare, or education. They all create more jobs than they cost.

        Here are the numbers from the 2009 University of Massachusetts PERI study. There is a nice graph on page 5.

        Jobs per $billion:

        Military = 11,600
        Tax Cuts = 14,800
        Clean Energy = 17,100
        Healthcare = 19,600
        Education = 29,100

  •  One Dkos user (11+ / 0-)

    The guy who made the Tea Party patriots movie- Conceptual guerilla.  

    He had a great rhetorical device that he used when questioning a Republican Party chair.  

    The Republicans always want to argue that govt spending doesn't 'create jobs.  They will argue with you until they are blue in the face that the New Deal did not get us out of WWII.

    So he asks them, "Did all of the spending that occurred with the new deal get us out of the depression?"

    The guy says, "No, of course not.  That made it worse..."

    CG says, "So what got us out?"

    Guy says, (like all good cons), "The war got us out of the depression."

    CG- "Why?"

    Guy- "Well, we had to get everyone in the US to work in support of the war effort, and all of that production..."

    CG- "Where did the money come from to pay for all of that new work?"

    Guy- "The government...."

    CG- "So massive government spending go us out of the depression?  I thought govt spending made things worse." #

    Streichholzschächtelchen

    by otto on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 10:48:47 AM PST

    •  No (0+ / 0-)

      We got out of the Depression because the rest of the planet was flattened and we (and the Soviets) were the only industrial power left standing.

      The "gov't spending stimulates the economy" crowd would do well to look at Japan after their 1990 crash. Massive gov't spending, bridges, roads, infrastructure. Their stock market and home prices continued to slide, down almost every year until the present.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 11:23:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. We were out of the depression several (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, shaharazade, howd, radarlady

        years before the war orders started coming in, according to every major index of economic activity.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 11:41:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Japan (0+ / 0-)

          What happened there? Have you even looked?

          Also, post WWII, Keynesians complained bitterly about the lost spending and how it would wreck the economy. Oops, we cut government spending massively and everything turned out ok despite their pleas.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:13:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I thought we were talking about the Depression (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kevskos

            in the US. And all major economic indices show that we were out of it before the first war order came in.

            Perhaps you should go review bonddad's and New Deal Democrat's series on the Depression, starting here.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:21:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

              The common dodge of the Keynesianism defender. I always put the same challenge out and get zero response.

              Keynesianism is supposed to be this law of economics, right?

              Simple question: Name another scenario than the New Deal that Keynesianism worked, in any country, ever. Bonus points for it being comparatively recent.

              Japan: complete failure as I described (but you will not even entertain) despite doing exactly what you think we shoulg be doing. Greece: Massively overspent and collapsed. The US housing bubble: formed from Fed "stimulating" intervention by cutting rates too far.

              Every time the lesson is taught. Spend within your means, be frugal and careful, or be destroyed.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 02:27:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  How about the US in 2008? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kevskos

                The Obama stimulus created jobs and helped get us out (as much as we are). A larger stimulus would have done a much better job, but at least we have had some job growth. Europe chose austerity and they are heading back into another recession.

                I don't know the specifics of Japan. But I do know that Krugman studied Japan carefully and that is why he is more of a Keynesian than he was before. Perhaps you should read Krugman's work on Japan.

                •  Re (0+ / 0-)
                  The Obama stimulus created jobs and helped get us out (as much as we are).
                  We aren't "out". We're running massive trade and government deficits (over 100% of GDP now... it used to be at 50%!). And we're running 10% of GDP deficits which means the problem gets 10% worse a year.

                  We papered over a private debt problem by making it a public debt problem. What's the next step?

                  (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                  Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                  by Sparhawk on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 04:25:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  That isn't quite true (0+ / 0-)

        The war did get us out of the depression. You are correct that we had a functional economy after the war unlike most of the rest of the previously industrialized world. We benefited from that position, but it was the process of mobilizing for war that got us out of the final effects of the depression.

        I have never been able to figure out if Fox is the propaganda arm of the Republican party or is the Republican Party the political subsidiary of Fox.

        by Dave from Oregon on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 05:12:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re (0+ / 0-)
          We benefited from that position, but it was the process of mobilizing for war that got us out of the final effects of the depression.
          How can you separate the two? Especially when we have Japan as a counter-example?

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 05:27:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course it was a progression (0+ / 0-)

            But the economy was growing through the war period and then 10M consumers came home from the military and a huge amount of pent up demand was unleashed. We also served foreign markets where there were no foreign competitors.

            I have never been able to figure out if Fox is the propaganda arm of the Republican party or is the Republican Party the political subsidiary of Fox.

            by Dave from Oregon on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 05:22:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  pshaw. only defense spending creates jobs (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, laurnj, Dave from Oregon

    All the rest of that entitlement stuff? That's for lazy greedy bastards who can't find a real job.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 11:14:11 AM PST

  •  Great post (6+ / 0-)

    It's not hard to figure out what needs to be cut when you look at a pie chart and see that our 'defense' budget is the biggest section. The masters of war and all the profiteers suck the life out of our economy. Not to mention that the workers in the 'defense' industries are paid by the government as the contractors are funded by congress. It's also tragic that American workers have rely on jobs from an industry that makes an obscene profit off death and killing globally.

    Why can't we have an economy that's for the common good of our society rather then one which looks upon workers as a profit loss to the multinationals. What kind of an economy relies on endless war and destruction along with the so called financial industries which make a profit sucking the life out of our real economy? All these too bigs are working against our national interests and were supposed to sacrifice so that they can keep wrecking the world for their empty profit.

    Pretty bad when all American workers are told that they have to pay the debt's of these leeches and be grateful that they get to have a job creating global mayhem and misery. Why can't we have jobs that benefit our society and make something that the world wants and needs rather then drones, bombs and weapons of destruction.      

    •  Heart and Soul of the Problem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade

      Boy what a great comment!   You get to the essence of the problem with your question:

      Why can't we have an economy that's for the common good of our society rather then one which looks upon workers as a profit loss to the multinationals.
      How many times have you read the business section of a paper and seen the headline, "Stock price rise as XYZ Company Lays off 10,000 Workers".  And this is suppose to be good news!

      Poor man wants to be rich. Rich man wants to king. And the king ain't satisifed until he rules everything. B.Springsteen

      by howd on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 02:20:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The FBI takes an 8% hit in the sequester... (0+ / 0-)

    And just how is that good for the country?

    Same for the IRS - and considering the huge multiple of return on investment for dollars spent on the IRS (it's something well over 10 to 1), cutting the IRS budget by a few billion dollars will cost the country tens of billions in lost revenues.

    But hey, when your avowed goal is to drown government in the bathtub, you have to attack every single facet of it, don't you?

    Cheers.

    Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. Friedrich Schiller

    by databob on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 02:49:04 PM PST

    •  Re (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave from Oregon
      The FBI takes an 8% hit in the sequester... (0+ / 0-)
      And just how is that good for the country?
      I don't know, do they spend 8% of their budget on pot enforcement? Let's sequester it and forget to give it back when the budget issue is resolved.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 04:27:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Those job losses are impossible... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CardCarryingLibrul, melo

    ...because everyone knows the government doesn't create jobs, therefore there can't be any to lose.

    Seriously, though, asking them to build roads is silly. I'm an Aero Engineer (Though I'm not in the industry) and not really interested in building roads. I'd rather see the money going to space exploration and upgrading our transportation system (high speed trains, etc.) But I got what you meant: infrastructure. I would like to see America not just rebuilt in those terms, but also the tech sector. Quit with the off-shoring rewards and the H1B's. Apply tariff's to tech not manufactured/created in the U.S. and make it a penalty to not use our own resources here at home.

    Oh, and with regard to infrastructure, make huge investments in green infrastructure. I know it's wishful thinking, but I might as well dream big.

    Regulated capital serves the people, unregulated capital serves itself.

    by Alumbrados on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 03:27:02 PM PST

  •  Ah, I can't wait to use this argument! eom (0+ / 0-)

    -7.38, -5.38 (didn't see that coming) I lie to myself because I'm the only one who continues to believe me. - Vermin

    by 84thProblem on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 04:29:44 PM PST

  •  Our defense spending dwarfs other nations. (0+ / 0-)

    So does our economy. Not really an apples to apples comparison. And no I'm not opposed to cutting military spending, I'd cut it 30% in a heartbeat. But intellectually dishonest arguments set me off, regardless which side of the political spectrum they come from.

    We spend about 5% of our GDP on defense. I'd like to that down to 2-3%. But 5% is not wildly out of step with any or developed nations military spending. Not even close.

    You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

    by Eric Stratton on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 07:10:58 PM PST

  •  Japan (0+ / 0-)

    During the "Lost Decade", Japan never even got to 5% unemployment.  They had slow GDP growth but still solid employment.  We have anemic GDP and shitty unemployment.  Ask the guy who just got laid off if he would take a halfway decent government job in exchange for slower GDP growth and he will say, "sure, just one question, what is GDP"?

    http://www.indexmundi.com/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site