How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality

[scooterbug44]

WWII was a government spending program if there ever was one.

The problem is that in Iraq and Afghanistan we are paying others 2-3x what we pay American soldiers to do the same jobs. If Americans were doing those jobs we would have much lower unemployment, lower costs, and a stronger economy.

We would also be far more invested in those wars as a country because of the numbers of people needed - probably requiring a draft.

At the peak of World War 2, 10% of the population was in the armed forces and their jobs were taken over by others.

Currently it is 0.5% and those are mostly career military, not short term volunteers who have vacated a job and a significant percentage of military supplies are not made in the US.

 

[LuciferSam]

LS, you were, I believe, not alive during WWII. I was and they were sacrifices. We had rationing and war bonds, and many, many others. You're right, everyone pulled together, but all were aware, including us kids, of what the sacrifices were. Even kids worked and worked hard. At the age of 13, I was checking at Safeway stores and that was before the change was printed out for you to give to the customer. No, I am not for going back to the good ol' days but a little of being personally responsible for what happens in one's life and that of your neighbor's would sure be a help. The community awareness so present then would be great as well.

All I'm saying is that you do what you have to do, and if the alternative is much worse than the "sacrifice", then you're not really giving up anything. I do understand everybody suffered during this time and during the depression as well. Well maybe not everybody, there are always exceptions, but you know what I mean.

 

[LuciferSam]

The problem is that in Iraq and Afghanistan we are paying others 2-3x what we pay American soldiers to do the same jobs. If Americans were doing those jobs we would have much lower unemployment, lower costs, and a stronger economy.

We would also be far more invested in those wars as a country because of the numbers of people needed - probably requiring a draft.

At the peak of World War 2, 10% of the population was in the armed forces and their jobs were taken over by others.

Currently it is 0.5% and those are mostly career military, not short term volunteers who have vacated a job and a significant percentage of military supplies are not made in the US.

I think a war is a terrible way to stimulate the economy. We would have been much better off if WWII never happened and the government found some other way to spend money and create useful jobs and industries in the process.

 

[idlewind]

The Great Depression started under Hoover. His approach was to cut spending & balance the budget. FDR took a very different tack: massive govt spending programs.
The Great Recession started under GWB. He tried TARP & auto co. bailouts. BHO tried a large stimulus package.
Now the Conventional Wisdom, shared by Both parties is that we should cut back govt spending in a very large way. The two sides agree there should be large cuts, although they disagree on specifics; one side wants larger cuts than the other.
I'm no economic expert, but my bet is that large cuts will be made & that history will judge that to have been a harmful approach.
My intuition is that the FDR approach should be pursued until the economy is healthy again, & only at that time make draconian cuts.

Thx to futurebeachbum for initiating this thread.
I encourage all to read Zakaria's full article at
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077943,00.html

The fact is that Hoover INCREASED government spending dramatically during his term. Government spending did not work for Hoover and did not work for Roosevelt. Only the massive employment due to WWII ended the depression. Liberals want to have us believe that Hoover was a conservative who cut spending but this simply is not true.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-..._deficit-spending-hoover-years-herbert-hoover

 

[Andy A]

I think a war is a terrible way to stimulate the economy. We would have been much better off if WWII never happened and the government found some other way to spend money and create useful jobs and industries in the process.

I couldn't agree more that war is a terrible way to stimulate an economy but we had no choice with WWII. The Japanese decided they were going to empire build in the Pacific and we were in their way so they attacked Pearl Harbor. The United States was not responsible for the sneak attack on Hawaii and, again, we had no choice.

 

[scooterbug44]

I agree that war is a terrible way to stimulate the economy, but since we ARE spending so much money on it, I think we should try to maximize our economic benefits.

 

[LuciferSam]

I couldn't agree more that war is a terrible way to stimulate an economy but we had no choice with WWII. The Japanese decided they were going to empire build in the Pacific and we were in their way so they attacked Pearl Harbor. The United States was not responsible for the sneak attack on Hawaii and, again, we had no choice.

Of course I agree. To me this raises interesting questions. If the fiscal stimulus brought on by world war could bring about economic recovery, why couldn't a peacetime fiscal stimulus of some sort be equally effective? I'm talking about useful infrastructure projects, alternative energy, things like that. Some of this even benefits national defense. For instance, you might want to save as much petroleum for vehicles that really need it such as planes, and ships, and tanks. Lets migrate over to electric for automobiles. Most obviously, reducing our dependence on foreign oil is in our national security interests.

Of course we are concerned about national debt, but the reality is that WWII racked up huge debt as a percentage of GDP. Does only imminent national emergency and the prospect of being forced to learn another language justify this kind of spending, stimulus, and corresponding debt?

 

[scooterbug44]

The military has been testing using alternative fuels and trash instead of oil for years.

So far their biggest problems are politicians beholden to oil companies and getting enough biofuels.

Every Air Force Aircraft except drones (they are too busy being used as intended to test) can fly on something besides oil.

The Navy is testing planes and boats with a variety of fuels including algae.

And the US army's concern about supply lines has funded "Mr. Fusion" (like the one from Back to the Future) which uses kitchen trash to fuel generators so they use 90% less diesel and produce 1/30th of the trash (which also costs $$ and fuel to be transported out).

 

[Andy A]

Of course I agree. To me this raises interesting questions. If the fiscal stimulus brought on by world war could bring about economic recovery, why couldn't a peacetime fiscal stimulus of some sort be equally effective? I'm talking about useful infrastructure projects, alternative energy, things like that. Some of this even benefits national defense. For instance, you might want to save as much petroleum for vehicles that really need it such as planes, and ships, and tanks. Lets migrate over to electric for automobiles. Most obviously, reducing our dependence on foreign oil is in our national security interests.

Of course we are concerned about national debt, but the reality is that WWII racked up huge debt as a percentage of GDP. Does only imminent national emergency and the prospect of being forced to learn another language justify this kind of spending, stimulus, and corresponding debt?

Nice try. IMO you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Stimulus created by WWII is a far cry and entirely different from the stimulus Obama created.

 

[Geo]

We aren't advocating for the type of spending/stimulus we have seen from Obama (or GWB)- quite the contrary.

We want to see spending on infrastructure. We want to see investment. Not the tax cuts and shovel ready projects that were the focus of the recent stimuli.