National Deficit over $1 Trillion? I'm shocked!

[PLC1]

If you believe in stimulus packages (just generalizing here) then really the quickest manner to get money into the hands of people and into the economy is through military spending. We got out of the Great Depression with a war, etc.

Therefore, those who support the stimulus packages, should not be blaming the war for much of anything, since if war spending actually did anything, history would show us that it would have helped the economy more than anything else.

I therefore find it ridiculous when the assumption is made that the war caused our problems, and we therefore need stimulus to get us out of them, since governmental war spending is nothing more than stimulus.

It is akin to saying, "stimulus caused our problems, so we need more to end them."

The war added to our debt, just as the stealfromus package has added to the debt. Both are manifestations of a government that has become too big, too powerful, too expensive, and should be pruned back. Since neither party is willing to try to rein in government spending, it looks like the debt is just going to continue to grow. What the end result of that will be, no one knows, but it is not likely to be good.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The Iraq War did not cause the current economic conditions.

Spending billions on bombs and building up Iraq , is billions not spend on the US..also wars especialy when not going well, tends to hurt consumer confidence, as well as the shift in oil prices caused by the war..4 buck a gal gas killed this econ, and was in large part do to the war...and of course profit taking by oil companies that many would debate the legality of...aka price fixing..

 

[pocketfullofshells]

All of the situations so far have been manufactured IMO. Having to bail out GM so they don’t go bankrupt, then they go bankrupt anyway exc.

Stim package having to be passed so fast that no one voting for it had time to read it, then obama takes 3 days to sign it but when it was on the floor being voted for it was a dire emergency, pass it now, no time to read it hurry hurry.

It seems to be all manufactured emergencies.

well then Bush must have manufactered them,,,because it all happened under his watch..not Obama...he just pulled the trigger basicly due to timing of when he took over. also this it was all set up in some grand conspiricy...makes you sound like a oooo black UN Helo's are watching me nutcase conspiricy theorist.

 

[Pandora]

well then Bush must have manufactered them,,,because it all happened under his watch..not Obama...he just pulled the trigger basicly due to timing of when he took over. also this it was all set up in some grand conspiricy...makes you sound like a oooo black UN Helo's are watching me nutcase conspiricy theorist.

Well if that is what you think of me then I am better off than I thought before

 

[BigRob]

Spending billions on bombs and building up Iraq , is billions not spend on the US.

Someone has to build the bombs. And at least at the start American companies were getting no bid contracts to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure. While not all the money spent on the war directly had an impact on the US, large portions of that spending went directly into the US economy.

also wars especialy when not going well, tends to hurt consumer confidence, as well

Granted.

as the shift in oil prices caused by the war..4 buck a gal gas killed this econ, and was in large part do to the war...

What? Iraqi oil exports were (supposedly) heavily sanctioned for years before the war and yet we did not see $4 gas. If anything, putting the Iraqi oil back at full production would have amounted to a decrease in energy prices as supply increased.

Blaming the war for $4 gas is outrageous and based on no quantifiable evidence.

and of course profit taking by oil companies that many would debate the legality of...aka price fixing..

I do not agree with this statement at all. There were many factors that caused high gas prices, this not being one of them in my view.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Someone has to build the bombs. And at least at the start American companies were getting no bid contracts to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure. While not all the money spent on the war directly had an impact on the US, large portions of that spending went directly into the US economy.



Granted.



What? Iraqi oil exports were (supposedly) heavily sanctioned for years before the war and yet we did not see $4 gas. If anything, putting the Iraqi oil back at full production would have amounted to a decrease in energy prices as supply increased.

Blaming the war for $4 gas is outrageous and based on no quantifiable evidence.



I do not agree with this statement at all. There were many factors that caused high gas prices, this not being one of them in my view.

one its not debatable if they made huge profits, and as I stated, it is debatable if it was done legaly or not.

2. the war created huge instability, thus causing gas to go up. it added fears of more attacks on oil plants outside Iraq as well, and helped cause gas to go up. also of course there was talk of buyers pushing up the prices illegaly, useing the war as a means to it...

building bombs and ammo does not realy make up for what we lost...now if this was WWII and we had to build planes, tranks, trucks and evrything on that scale, yes it would help....though it also would mean we where costing alot more in lives....

 

[Andy]

one its not debatable if they made huge profits, and as I stated, it is debatable if it was done legaly or not.

2. the war created huge instability, thus causing gas to go up. it added fears of more attacks on oil plants outside Iraq as well, and helped cause gas to go up. also of course there was talk of buyers pushing up the prices illegaly, useing the war as a means to it...

building bombs and ammo does not realy make up for what we lost...now if this was WWII and we had to build planes, tranks, trucks and evrything on that scale, yes it would help....though it also would mean we where costing alot more in lives....

Right... a lot of "talk" about buyers pushing up the prices illegally. Ok, besides "talk", what exactly do you have in terms of evidence? I'm willing to hear this out, if you actually have something in support of the lame argument.

At this point "debatable" is about all you can say about it, because you can say that someone said someone somewhere did something illegal, and therefore you can debate that something illegal was done. Once again zero evidence, just another grand conspiracy theory that has nothing supporting it except that people support it, so it must be true.

Actually, it really didn't help in WWII either. If you trace GDP after the war, it fell right back to where it would have been at the rate of GDP increase, if the war had never happened.

 

[BigRob]

one its not debatable if they made huge profits, and as I stated, it is debatable if it was done legaly or not.

Throwing aside the question of legality, you seem to indicate that an American company making large profits was bad for the economy. I am afraid I do not follow this logic.

2. the war created huge instability, thus causing gas to go up. it added fears of more attacks on oil plants outside Iraq as well, and helped cause gas to go up. also of course there was talk of buyers pushing up the prices illegaly, useing the war as a means to it...

I would say this could be argued for the immediate time around the invasion. Outside of that the effect would be minimal in my view. Oil prices around the time of the invasion were around $25 a barrel, a far cry from the highs we saw well after the invasion was over.

building bombs and ammo does not realy make up for what we lost...now if this was WWII and we had to build planes, tranks, trucks and evrything on that scale, yes it would help....though it also would mean we where costing alot more in lives....

I am not sure I follow the logic here again. You claim the economy in the United States was hurt horribly by the war, and then claim that American companies making a lot of money is to blame. American companies making money tends to be good for America.