Riverwind (imported) wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:14 pm Mac, history 101, This country has always had debt, from day one, its part of our system its part of who we are, I believe it was Hamilton who set up the stock market and said debt was a good thing and its been that way ever sense. Look it up.

River

Yes, MANAGEABLE debt is a good thing; that is how the middle class could afford houses and create a growing economy; a balanced budget is one of those esthetic ideals that really isn't practical. We had a balanced budget in 1930. Nothing came in; nothing came out, and then in 1933 FDR started spending and SLOWLY the economy came to life.

But spending money on wars is rarely a good idea; sometimes it is simply a necessity, but it is always bad because you never get the money back, bullets and bombs are simply wasted because they blow up, better to spend it on dams, highways or healthcare because you get something for it. And starting a war to track down Osama bin Laden and then invading Iraq because Dick Fucking Cheney wants their oil because he's committed to an antiquated energy policy is the height of stupidity and irresponsibility, unless it is voting for those morons in 2004 when you already knew they were ruining the country.

GM has laid off thousands, declared bankruptcy, cancelled their health insurance because they simply can't afford the current wealthfare system that dumps billions into insurance exec salaries rather than healthcare. We can't afford the bloated, bureaucratic, non-professional wealthfare system that the Republican party is determined to defend to the last man.

And the late, unjustly admired Ronald Reagan stated that one of his administration's goals was the abolition of Social Security; just think of the misery and poverty that son of a bitch would have caused if he had succeeded. Now you know why God in his infinite Wisdom allowed for the existence of Alzheimer's Disease, so there was a fitting end to Ronald Reagan's life.

gareth19 (imported) wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:00 am But spending money on wars is rarely a good idea; sometimes it is simply a necessity, but it is always bad because you never get the money back, bullets and bombs are simply wasted because they blow up, better to spend it on dams, highways or healthcare because you get something for it. And starting a war to track down Osama bin Laden and then invading Iraq because Dick Fucking Cheney wants their oil because he's committed to an antiquated energy policy is the height of stupidity and irresponsibility, unless it is voting for those morons in 2004 when you already knew they were ruining the country.

From an historical view point war is good for the economy. Look at WW2 before it started we were in the great depression and war pulled us out. Also, war speeds innovation and creativity, the earliest computers were created to generate ballistic trajectories for the troops. The modern freeway system was created by Hitler so he could move his troops around faster, and Eisenhower copied that idea and started building freeways in the U.S. for national security reasons. However, long term war is bad for the economy because it will start to drain away resources that would be going to civilian life which causes people to start turning against the war. Also, a economy can falter if the war ends to suddenly as the government needs to slow down its purchasing of war goods before the end of a war comes around which was a significant reason behind the start of the Great Depression (Governments failed to anticipate the end of WW1).

Yes bullets and bombs are a one shot item, but the need to be a little better then the enemy causes innovation so that the mechanisms behind the bullet or bomb improve. The mechanisms behind the bullets or bombs being everything from the weapon itself to transportation to the field of battle and including how it was made at the factory plus all the issues of moving troops into position faster and more efficiently in order to use the better bullets and bombs.

IbPervert (imported) wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:37 am From an historical view point war is good for the economy. Look at WW2 before it started we were in the great depression and war pulled us out. Also, war speeds innovation and creativity, the earliest computers were created to generate ballistic trajectories for the troops. The modern freeway system was created by Hitler so he could move his troops around faster, and Eisenhower copied that idea and started building freeways in the U.S. for national security reasons. However, long term war is bad for the economy because it will start to drain away resources that would be going to civilian life which causes people to start turning against the war. Also, a economy can falter if the war ends to suddenly as the government needs to slow down its purchasing of war goods before the end of a war comes around which was a significant reason behind the start of the Great Depression (Governments failed to anticipate the end of WW1).

Yes bullets and bombs are a one shot item, but the need to be a little better then the enemy causes innovation so that the mechanisms behind the bullet or bomb improve. The mechanisms behind the bullets or bombs being everything from the weapon itself to transportation to the field of battle and including how it was made at the factory plus all the issues of moving troops into position faster and more efficiently in order to use the better bullets and bombs.

War is good for business.

Invest your child!

(in 1968 it was "invest your son")

ole' hippie Moi prime Califo-nia herb.