Double standards of bellicose anti-spending conservatives

by hamilcarr 11 Replies latest social current

• 

  hamilcarr

  Hypocrites?

  Implicitly, some advocates of continued largesse for the Pentagon concede that the case cannot be made fully in terms of our need to be safe from physical attack. Ironically--even hypocritically, since many of those who make the case are in other contexts anti-government spending conservatives--they argue for a kind of weaponized Keynesianism that says military spending is important because it provides jobs and boosts the economy. Spending on military hardware does produce some jobs, but it is one of the most inefficient ways to deploy public funds to stimulate the economy. When I asked him years ago what he thought about military spending as stimulus, Alan Greenspan, to his credit, noted that from an economic standpoint military spending was like insurance: if necessary to meet its primary need, it had to be done, but it was not good for the economy; and to the extent that it could be reduced, the economy would benefit. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/frank?rel=hp_picks
• 

  jeeprube

  Hypocrites indeed!
• 

  beksbks

  Aaaahhhh Hamil, you've used one of my favorite words. I believe I first heard it when the Russians referred to Reagan as "Bellicose".
• 

  BurnTheShips

  There are hypocrites everywhere. To use military spending as a Keynesian tool is just as stupid as using spending in other areas. Many point to the size of the military budget as evidence of bellicosity, but in reality it is a giant engine for redistribution and political favors as well as existing to serve its core function (natinal defense).

  Still the core function of the military is a legitimate function of government; without a sword and the willingness to use it, there is no plow and the fruit it provides.

  BTS
• 

  hamilcarr

  There are hypocrites everywhere. To use military spending as a Keynesian tool is just as stupid as using spending in other areas. Many point to the size of the military budget as evidence of bellicosity, but in reality it is a giant engine for redistribution and political favors as well as existing to serve its core function (natinal defense).

  Still the core function of the military is a legitimate function of government; without a sword and the willingness to use it, there is no plow and the fruit it provides.

  Nice example of doubletalk. Actually you perfectly fit the description of a bellicose anti-spending con.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Care to explain how? I agree with your premise, but that does not negate the need for a national defense, so long as a thing called a "nation" exists and threats to it's citizens exist.

  BTS
• 

  hamilcarr

  Care to explain how?

  Would you favor cutting in military spending? The problem with you is that you're constantly making high claims without any back up. Prove me that America will falter if the military budget gets lowered.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Would you favor cutting in military spending?

  Absolutely. Since when have I suggested otherwise? All too often your are blinded by stereotypes and are made to look foolish.

  BTS
• 

  hamilcarr

  Fair enough.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Fair enough.

  The current budget is far too large to be justified by a national defense only. Like I said, a large part is a tool for redistribution and political favors.

  BTS