That's more or less what I'm getting at, Charlatan. If the U.S. wants to fix its most serious problems, it will need to think long and hard about dismantling the empire and building a functional nation with today's globalized realities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla
It's not an either/or question. Spending for war is justified if it's in the defense of the US. Prior to 2003, the evidence and Saddam's own actions strongly hinted that Iraq had WMD and Saddam was not afraid to use them. Even a number of Democrats supported taking action against Iraq. Bill Clinton had made statements previously that Iraq needed to be dealt with.
|
It's not an either/or question, I agree. However, the net effect of one vs. the other reveals stark differences. The stimulus spending is a domestic infusion of wealth that will have a direct impact on the economy, no matter how short term. The spending on theatres of war has an impact as well, but much of that wealth disappears almost immediately and much of it flows to a relatively few hands. And the aftermarket isn't something most people want to think about, because much of that relates to health care for broken veterans.
War is big business. The money spent on it isn't money that leads to long-term prosperity. But that's not the purpose of war, and it's up for debate as to whether it was necessary to "deal with" Iraq and whether the methods suited the situation.
Quote:
|
Obama's deficit spending has far exceeded what Bush spent on a year to year basis. If Obama keeps up his stupid stimulus programs the deficit attributable to him will be at least double what Bush accumulated.
|
I understand the concern about the amplitude of the spending overall, but the deficit amount isn't something one can easily pin on Obama completely. He came into office to take on two theatres of war, the fallout of a sub-prime mortgage crisis, and one of the worst downturns in the global economy. Couple that with a bloated, post–Cold War military; a series of tax cuts established by the previous president; a dysfunctional finance industry; a general population with a record-low (i.e. negative) savings rate and deplorable debt-to-asset ratios; and it still being less than a decade since the most horrific domestic terrorist attack in American history.
Obama came into office to find himself in the eye of a perfect storm. America's dealing with a really shitty series of events and circumstances. Even if Obama chalks up the largest deficit of any term of presidential office ever, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Look at other presidencies and tell me how many of them had such challenges—all at once.
Quote:
|
I don't agree with much of what Beck has to say, but on deficit spending, he is dead on. There is no way a nation can borrow it's way to prosperity at the tune of more than a trillion dollars per year.
|
This is missing the point. And if Beck is really saying that, then he doesn't understand the economics behind it, or he's being disingenuous. (As an aside, I find it interesting how he goes on about investing in gold when it's currently priced at the highest level in history. I know this is his "sky is falling" response to America's fiat currency, but seriously....)
Deficit spending is never about "spending yourself to prosperity." No one in their right mind thinks that borrowing money to buy goods and services is doing so for the sake of prosperity. This is what the financially ignorant thinks, and I highly doubt the Obama administration thinks this is possible. If the situation were different, and the economy were better, Obama wouldn't likely have set up the same stimulus packages, nor would he likely spend as he is now in general.
Deficit spending is about biting the bullet and taking it like a man (sorry for the lame metaphor). Obama warned Americans about tough times. He never promised this was going to be easy.