On this day, let us all be proud of America

quote:

---

Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, a distinguished scholar and former top U.S. official, concluded in a paper last year that the U.S. is spending $12.5 billion a month just to run the war.

​

They estimate with all costs added in, including interest on money borrowed to fund it, the total war bill will exceed $3 trillion. Yup, that’s a 3 followed by 12 zeros. It’s like a bailout, except the money is mostly spent on guns.

---

source
SaltWire | Halifax

quote:

---

War is good business, it is a known fact.

---

No it isn't. It is known as the broken window fallacy. It is easy to just make statements but you need to have evidence to back it up.Here are arguments debunking this cliche.
Are Wars Good for the Economy?
#Foldvary’s archive | Progress.org News, Blogs & Insights
Page Not Found – The Future of Freedom Foundation

quote:

---

which was proven that Suddam was going to start manufacturing again, after the embargo was lifted.

---

Please provide citations to show this is true.

quote:

---

dumb logic to me. It's like if you were down to your last 5 bucks, and someone walked up to and said, spend $10, so you can get out of debt.

---

Just because it is dumb to you doesn't make it untrue. Economists of all stripes acknowledge that government spending stimulates the economy. Please show anything by any economist that argues against this.

quote:

---

The only branch of the government that makes money, is the one that sells military surplus.

---

First of all I didn't know we had a military surplus "branch". Second I guess you don't understand what profit is. You don't make money if you sell something for less than you paid for it. You can reduce your total costs but you dont make money if you pay $1 billion for something and then sell it for $1 million.I do not think the sale of military surplus is a very big part of the governments revenue. Maybe you know something I don't if you do please keep us informed of this new business venture the government has.My gist is that it is bad form to just make wild ass comments and assertions without evidence. We will jump all over you if you do.I am looking forward to you presenting evidence to validate your comments and assertion.

Correct. But these same economist will agree that government spending has a stimulative affect. Maybe grudgingly.This current economic crisis and its causes have thoroughly discredited the Friedman school of thought, but of course they will not go willingly into the night.

Where the hell else is it going to go? Are they going to be flying to Monaco to spend it? When the economy is in the crapper, the best way to stimulate it is to get money to the middle and lower classes. Money in the pockets of the rich is counterproductive. Read the previous posts.

Since when are drugs, prostitutes, and gambling not part of the economy. And why is there an assumption that people on food stamps will spend their money on that? Why do you assume they will be more likely to spend it on that than anyone else?Are you saying poor people are moral failures? They are more prone to immorality than people with more money? Open up that thread baby, I'd love to respond with facts and love to hear your anecdotal evidence.I venture to guess people with more disposable income are more likely to spend their money on drugs, prostitutes, and gambling than people that are just trying to find housing and food.But then being poor means your a bad person doesn't it.

You can deny it all you want, but you imply a causation. Crime and poverty are very complex subjects. One thing that seems to escape your ability to conceive is what causes crime by poor people.People with the disposable incomes are the best customers of the drug dealers, prostitutes and Gambling dens. If I wanted to make money I certainly wouldn't market to poor people. I venture to guess plenty of people from wealth areas of St Louis, make it to East St Louis to buy drugs and prostitutes. I was in the Soulard and St Charles last week and there was plenty of drugs there.As for the whole economy bit, I still don't understand your reasoning. Economy - The system or range of economic activity in a country, region, or community:or try this- The economy is the realized social system of production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other area. A given economy is the end result of a process that involves its technological evolution, civilization's history and social organization, as well as its geography, natural resource endowment, and ecology, among other factors.Maybe these endeavors do not pay taxes, but the obviously contribute to the economy Ther is no other way to read what you said.

People have abused food stamps and other benefits. This is no big news flash. What is the implication you are trying to make?Or are you "just saying"Have some backbone would you and come out and say what your point is.You may not like my sarcasm in mocking your argument, but there is no need to resort to name calling. That has no place in this discourse.

I stand corrected. Amazing how deep they can put their heads in the sand.Reality means nothing. Dogma is everything.

Damn even more personal attacks. I gave you definitions of THE ECONOMY. Spending whether legal or illegal contributes to the economy. That was the point I was trying to make with RiverRat. I don't care what your interpretation of what he meant is( and isn't it up to him to tell us what he meant), the point is he was wrong. I merely pointed it out.You then jump in with a point that they could spend it on "drugs, prostitutes and gambling". Again, wrong. This would contribute to THE ECONOMY.You continue to say this is not true but offer nothing to back it up except personal attacks. How does spending on these things not contribute to THE ECONOMY? Because crack dealers and their customers are part of THE ECONOMY. Not a part we like, but they are still a part of THE ECONOMY. You keep implying poor people and people on food stamps tend to spend more of their money on illegal things, but continue to deny you make any implication. Also, you do not provide any evidence except personal anecdotes. I think maybe you don't understand what the word means. Imply - to indicate or suggest without being explicitly statedIf you are not making an implication, then your catty comments are doing nothing further the debate.And again enough with the name calling. I am sick of it and will not stand for it.