Money spent on tanks, planes, and ships went into the pockets of folks working to bring an end to WWII. There was a collective, cohesive effort to defeat Axis powers and keep Nazism and Japanese Imperialism from making slaves out of a good part of the free world. Money spent on those tanks, planes, and ships kept our shores safe (after Dutch Harbor, Alaska, was invaded during the attack on Midway in April, 1942) and allowed the USA to grow into the world power that it is today. There were no Republicans and Democrats during WWII building those tanks, planes, and ships....only Americans. ALL Americans benefitted from the money spent on those tanks, planes, and ships. They helped save the world.
Money spent on bridges, roads, dams, and utility infrastructure stands to be spent according to lawmakers with personal agendas and political paybacks in mind. How will those dollars be allocated? To whom do we give the responsibility of picking the bridges, roads, dams, and utility infrastructure to be built/rebuilt and therefore affect the economy of the areas chosen? The financial benefit will be geographical, not national....and of course we haven't begun to hear the posturing of which blue states need the money most..........
Explain to me how defense spending puts more money in more pockets, and distributes that money more evenly and 'fairly' across the country than infrastructure spending.
I guess I can spell it out again for you....we ALL benefit from defense spending. Please don't tell me I have to explain how.
We don't ALL benefit from bridges, roads, dams, and utility infrastructure UNLESS they are spread out on a nationwide basis.
Not very likely regards,
You appear to be arguing that defense spending is good because the army defends us, but that has nothing to do with the economic benefit of that spending.
We all benefit from both types of spending. They both put money into the economy, which people spend. They don't spend all their money at home, so money pumped into the economy, regardless of the source, is beneficial to the economy at large.
Or would that be because everyone on the make work jobs had their own shovel to lean on?
Or would that be the price controls & ration coupons for food staples?
Or would that be the Commodity Relief Program that all private sector people received except those unwilling to accept a handout?
Or would that be that there was so little private investment that returning draftees had nothing to return to - that is, if they returned, as there are hundreds of thousands buried on foreign soil defending the freedoms of such as yourself.
As Patrick said, & KG & others have so eloquently stated, it only got better when WWII started. Trickle down didn't really begin until after the war ended, a couple of good crops & price controls expired.
I find little in FDR's legacy praiseworthy, & for your info, I saw it all happen. We weren't taught the truth about FDR & socialism even when I went to school.
PS - this is the last post you have made I will answer & only this one because you apparently don't come up for air often. You need to get your stuff together!
It is certain that the number of those who reason well in difficult matters is much smaller then the number of those who reason badly ........ reasoning is like running & unlike carrying, hence one Arab steed will outrun a hundred jackasses.
Everyone's friend is No One's friend