What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
86 Comments
- warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29Every 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. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
—April 16, 1953 - warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16A man who is far wiser than you or myself summed my feelings and applied to the subject.
- Y2JCrisis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Actually, Ike's farewell address was entirely a warning against military spending and the military-industrial complex. George Washington was the only other president to have a farewell address, I guess he felt that the issue was important enough for it to be addressed.
- blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19ALL increases in government spending slow down the economy. It's not just military spending. Every dollar that is forcibly taken away from the person who produced it is another dollar that is spent inefficiently and immorally.
- pizzaman100, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19Military spending as a percent of GDP is at a near historic low. It's currently at 3.9%. Compare that to 9% during Vietnam, 11% during Korea, and 38% during WWII.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php - dogstar0125, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@nuck, the problem is that this "fact" out of context is misleading. Here are some other facts:
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2336&issue_id=18 - ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10This report seems to make too many sweeping generalizations... as does your comment.
There is a difference between funding a war and defense-funded research. In fact, if you think all defense spending is a waste... you're just ignorant of history. Case in point: DARPAnet and computers in general.
For better or for worse, the bulk of government funded speculative tech research is done through the DoD. While some of this is "building guns and bombs" some of it is longer term analysis that will eventually become "the next Internet", etc. Corporations are often too focused on the bottom line to put serious inroads into tech that might not pan out in a reasonable amount of time. That's just the way it is. Even though it's government bloat, research funded by DARPA doesn't always have concrete goals, but explores unique ideas used elsewhere (Neural Networks, genetic programming, etc).
Commercial R&D: it was a good idea, but we are bored with it, so give us back our money. DoD R&D: no good results yet? Keep trying.
Really. - DetroitAdam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Inflation is a tax and the Federal Reserve doesn't publish real numbers anymore. M3!
- SandorClegane, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10"Since 9/11 there hasn't been a foreign strike on our land"
Before 9/11 there hadn't been one since Pearl Harbor. BFD. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Vietnam resulted in 13% inflation as we tried to inflate our way out of debt. That "investment" did not pay off. As Sun Tzu said, the longer your military is out, the more expensive everything becomes as they tend to spend lavishly.
In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.
http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html
Yet here we are, repeating history and ignoring lessons learned thousand of years ago. - Wosat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Reports also show that increased tax rates slow down the economy. Gosh, another pesky fact-based report to get in the way of a popular left-wing talking point. Any of you think Al Franken or Bill Maher will correct themselves? Me neither.
- petunia77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5it may seem like a "duh" to many people...but the drain on our economy is one of the less publicized and less obvious ramifications of the war in Iraq.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Ah a true die hard lefty, my favorite part of any meal. So you'd like to talk Reaganomics? Ok, here are some "righty" talking points to think about:
1. Inflation dropped 8 points by the time he left office.
2. Interest rates fell 6 points
3. And eight million new jobs were created.
4. Oh yeah, there was that whole collapse of the Soviet Union thing, but economics had NOTHING to do with that.
As for now:
1. The IRS states that the top 1% of earners pay 37% of all Federal Income taxes.
2. the bottom 50% pay little or no taxes.
So there you go. You and I can argue and spit out facts, numbers, and charts. Bottom line though is you are talking about Socialism and it's been proven that Socialism does not work. Right, wrong, or indifferent, those are the facts. If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions. - swrostmore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Just because C&L is talking about a study, doesn't mean they are in any way responsible for the content of the study. I think the Center for Economic Policy or whatever is publically funded.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The US went into massive debt for WW2 ( http://elidourado.wordpress.com/files/2006/06/debt-gdp.png ) but we rebuilt Japan and Germany which paid off. But those two had a history of democracy and western ideals/openness to western ideals. They weren't suicide bombing our forces en masse during our occupation of those countries, rebuilding them went relatively smoothly.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Mu99ins, since invading 2 countries hasn't seem to have done much (apart from spawning more terrists) couldn't they have just used the CIA and Special Forces to actually track down bin Laden (like they were doing already.) Even if small units still hadn't got bin Laden by now the "war on terror" would still be on better track.
- DetroitAdam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Where's Osama? He's not on the FBI's most wanted list for 9/11. On another note, who runs the Federal Reserve and where's our gold? Why does our government borrow money from a private entity? Where's all those trillions of dollars that went missing from the Pentagon? Interesting questions to ponder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_VXgKyJVVU
Peace to you from Detroit - CrackaPleeze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ nuck and pizzaman
Read the link you posted. You're confusing GDP with discretionary spending. I should say, confusing the two or conveniently ignoring the huge difference between them...
If you don't know the difference between the two, you shouldn't bother saying anything. And you shouldn't vote. - DetroitAdam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The money paid in income taxes doesn't even pay for the debt to the private bankers at the Federal Reserve. We need to remember that. The Federal Reserve not a part of the Government but controls almost every aspect of our life. It's sucking value/fiat dollars out of our pockets like a giant vacuum cleaner from the sky. Consolidation is power and it's happening fast. Shatter left/right paradigms. Spending means printing paper or entering digits into a computer. Fight for truth! Go for hard, solid, and strong money systems.
Peace to you from Detroit and please investigate our systems of control and money.
Adam - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Tax increases on people who already have so much money, that they can't possibly spend all of it, don't have any affect on the economy,"
***** Money they pay in taxes is money they do not invest in the economy. Get a clue.
"Putting money in the hands of the federal governemnt, which would spend it, would stimulate the economy,"
You just contradicted the article. - ackza, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Well what about these companies?
http://iranfromiraq.blogspot.com/2007/04/war-is-good-business-apparently.html
Halliburton, Catipillar, Exxon Mobile, Chevron, Shell, BP, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Rockwell Collins, general Dynamics? At least stock prices for all those companies skyrocketed, like 200%+!!! Isn't this economic stimulation? - skyscape, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I guess we are not spending enough on millitary cause our economy is beating the records.
- cassholio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3you guys forgot the first WTC bombing in 1993.
- stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@pizzaman100,
Military spending is at an all time low???? LOLOLOLOL.... Iraq ring a bell? - poornbroken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4the fact is that the richest 1% actually took risks to get where they are at. (or their parents did)
what did the poorest 20% do? or correctly, what DIDN'T they do.
there is a reason why rich people are rich, while poor people are poor. and... just because you're poor does not mean you can't pursue the american dream. just because you have more resources does not equate to satisfaction with your station in life. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That's obvious. Any govt. spending slows down the economy since the govt doesn't produce thing for consumers. Instead they take tax payer's money and spend it on things that tax payer's may or may not need. Higher taxes means less money to spend or invest.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Oh, they spend it alright. Spend it like drunken whores! It's called "pork barrel spending". Alas, both parties are INCREDIBLY guilty of it.
- ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Economists have known this for years. The only way war is a boon to the economy, is when the entire economy is geared for war. We in the US are not geared for war, so only military contractors and their investors benefit.
- poornbroken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Mr. CEO will put that money in a private bank, who will use that money to provide capital to enterprenuers. (who will in turn hire people, etc.)
the govt will take that money and spend it on pet projects. govt projects, in general, are projects that will not generate revenue. - viviwanu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not for Huliburton!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Usually you piss me off, but I have to agree, I'd have to see some supporting evidence to be convinced on this one.
(disclaimer: I'm at work and can't read the link yet, it's just an important enough subject that I already know I need a second opinion) - stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ hdtvdust,
Actually, Thomas Jeffersom, a liberal, would have considered you to be a traitor to the Constitution and country regarding all your other totalitarian rants. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Dow: Longest bull run in 80 years
http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/04/markets/markets_0400/index.htm?cnn=yes - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Building things that get blown up does not help an economy, overall. The US prospered after WWII because their infrastructure was left intact, so they exported goods to Europe and Asia.
- Recluse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2In other news, Fire burns things.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Ah, so by that logic taxing the rich (who already shoulder most of the tax burden) even more is a way to stimulate the economy? What would be the point in trying make more money if the end result would be more taxes? Where's the incentive? Why would I want to make more money only to have the gov't take it away and give it to the poor who already pay next to nothing in taxes? Everyone likes to bitch at the rich because they pay so "little" in taxes. How about the money that goes back into the economy by keeping people employed? If the rich start to feel there's no reason to invest in anything because any money they make is going to taken by the gov't then it's going to have a domino effect. What you're talking about is Socialism and Socialism doesn't work. "But I guess simple economics are a bit hard for you to handle eh?"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Uhmm, well embassies are considered territories of the countries they represent so with that being said, there were the two embassy bombings in Africa, then of course there was the attack on the USS Cole. As far as wars being bad for the economy, I believe World War 2 help lift the US out of the depression.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lessee now, the Dow has gained about 5,500 points since the war started. Gee, if it weren't for that pesky war, I bet it would be at least 10 kajillion points higher!
- stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@geekee,
Yeah... all on the backs of poor folks again in other countries earning slave wages because of outsourcing middle class jobs here, at the same time driving up the largest national debt, taxing the middle class, whie giving the wealthiest folks tax breaks and fudging numbers on top of it all. Bravo, bravo.... screw American workers to enrich the elite. The people always never benefit. How's that weak dollar and who benefits from DOW anyways? You losers must really think all Americans are that stupid... maybe because you really are? - AnimalTaglits, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I had to right a 2 page essay on this for my Macroeconomics final.
- bobzibub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Dugg for humor.
- LukeSkope, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1BFD=Big ***** Deal, stupid.
- TheSak, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Taxes are a necessary consequence of spending. What has happened to spending since the current administration took office?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2So what would slow down the economy more?
Increased spending or more terrorist attacks on our soil because our president was too scurred to do anything(Bill Clinton)? - megarock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Lessee now, the Dow has gained about 5,500 points since the war started."
Yes, but if you count how far it plummeted as soon as Bush walked into office it's still below. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Spoken like a true free market economist! Diggs for you!
- poornbroken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@step
we COULD take back our american dollars if they didn't like it. but they seem to like it quite alot, that they're bending over backwards to get it.
and, think about it... the price of computers would not, could not, have the price it currently have w/o that cheap labor. or all those cheap products made in third-world countries that we take forgranted every day.
we have americans spending money and time to put a factory in a third world country; that will probably generate revenue for them. now that factory has provided a supplemental income for the father of 12. its probably twice the income he can get from trying to sell his produce in the local market. i'm sure life isn't peachy keen for him or his family, but its a source of income.
the fact is, we ALL benefit one way or the other. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's exactly the case stepnw1f! You're absolutely right! I benefit from this "bloodbath in Iraq" everyday. I've got my account in the Caymans and in Switzerland all set up. I know you're smarter than that, don't be a nit.
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 