Obama, is he over his head?

[backpasture]

Please explain how that happens in actuality rather than theory?

Well, it happened with the New Deal (despite the revisionist history some Republicans are trying to put out there these days).

[Patrick Johndrow]

Well, it happened with the New Deal (despite the revisionist history some Republicans are trying to put out there these days).

WWII bailed us out of the GREAT DEPRESSION...talk about rewriting history.

[backpasture]

WWII bailed us out of the GREAT DEPRESSION...talk about rewriting history.

Okay, then maybe you can answer the question I posed to Bob:

"Explain to me, though, how money spent on tanks, planes and ships is more stimulative than money spent on bridges, roads, damns, and utility infrastructure."

[K G]

Okay, then maybe you can answer the question I posed to Bob:

"Explain to me, though, how money spent on tanks, planes and ships is more stimulative than money spent on bridges, roads, damns, and utility infrastructure."

I'll let Bob put up his own answer. Permit me if I may to post my take on the question....

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..........

JMHO regards,

kg

[backpasture]

Money spent on tanks, planes, and ships went into the pockets of folks working to bring an end to WWII.


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..........

No one is going to debate whether or not WWII was worth fighting. But, the question is how it was more stimulative to the economy than infrastructure projects. Your main argument is that the infrastructure improvements are not evenly dispersed across the country, and that that not everybody gets a piece of it. But, that also holds true for defense spending. Some areas certainly benefit more than others from defense spending.

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.

[K G]

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,

kg

[backpasture]

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.

[zeus3925]

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,

kg

Tell that to the folks that rode the I-35 bridge down into the Mississippi in Aug 2007.

[Marvin S]

Well, it happened with the New Deal (despite the revisionist history some Republicans are trying to put out there these days).

Would that be for the concrete floors put in the outhouses?

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!

[backpasture]

As Patrick said, & KG & others have so eloquently stated, it only got better when WWII started.

I know they said it. They can say the sky is red and the grass is purple, too, but without some empirical evidence it doesn't mean much. It's easy to say something, but it's much harder to prove a point when the facts are against you.