The Case That Wars Fuel U.S. Economic Booms

[lisagurl]

FEMA's plan for a big catastroph may be quit horrible.

What's the difference? Everything is horrible after a big catastrophe

[lizbeth]

it's all for the bankers benifit. not the small time banks, the world banks. they fund both sides of wars. victory leads to profits and defeat leads to being able to buy everything up for pennies on the dollar in order to build it all up and do it all over again.

becuase of that, there is never going to be any motivation to do ANY of the wonderful things on your list Rebis. as unfortunate as it is, there is no profit in prevention (disease, disaster, etc). and profit is all that matters after all. even jindal's republican response the other day made that even more obvious. "spend money on volcano awareness?!?! what a waste of money! it's not like I'm from a place that could ever have any kind of natural disaster!"

now if you'll excuse me, I need to apply some more tinfoil to my cool pirate hat that I made.

[RebeccaFog]

Those are all great ideas Rebis, and would probably be a better allocation of resources rather than continuing pointless wars.

Thanks.  It's all about the people.

[lizbeth]

I disagree, kind of.

When I got my house, I made absolutely certain that the payments were within my means.  WELL within my means.  And, I would never ever take a loan against the house unless it was a health emergency.  Never ever (unless it was a health emergency).

while I applaud you for making the responsible decisions, not everyone was able to do that. most of the people affected during this crisis were first time borrowers who were just trying to start a family and in their opinion they did everythign the proper way. they only wanted to live the american dream, like we all do. when you are told that your $300k house will go up to $700k in a few years, it's very tempting to assume you can afford it after a couple years of your ARM and then use all that equity to paydown and refinance. this was a trap that got many first time buyers into houses that admittedly were beyond their means, but honestly that's all developers were building - multi bedroom mini mansions.

It is the responsibility of individuals to understand their finances.  Nothing gains value forever.  I don't even understand how anyone could think that.

that's a fundamental flaw of capitalism. it's entirely based on growth. and when growth inevitably slows and stops we sit around and scratch our heads wondering what went wrong. what's the solution? I don't know - touger reglutaions on both the lenders and borrowers is only a start, but as long as we are a growth based economy, home values will always rise and fall in a bubble.

I feel bad for people but I can't grasp how someone can bring this kind of trouble upon themselves.  I mean, it's different if you do everything responsibly and then tragedy strikes and you get creamed by circumstances.

the vast majority were living within their means - albeit some were stretched quite thin. and those circumstances hit more often then not, it's not a coincidence that as the unemployment rate approached 9% (closer to 13% actual) that delinquent payments skyrocketed and the foreclosure rates quadroupled.

as for the flippers that are struggling? they made their own bed.

[RebeccaFog]

oh.

Flippers are going to be mad when they discover the plan to help people in distress.  It doesn't include dolphins.  (I'm sorry I said that)

[SomeMTF]

FEMA:s first priority is not to protect people, cities, rural areas, legimitive goverment and rule of the law it is rather ''control'' population during disarters or civil unrest. Under Reagan admistration it developed basics of current plans by George Bush Sr, Oliver North and some others. It came first in publicity in Contra-Iran hearings in 1987. The grand plan was more effecient keeping goverment safe from people in case of civil unrest (that was expected to rise in case US would have invided to Nicaragua for example).

And how much of stories of secret FEMA running detention facilities are true? Is that all paranoia? However Operation Garden Plot is a real plan that exists. Is there huge secret detention centers in Alaska for example as rumored to wait those who disagree with goverment in the case the program would be carried out?

[lizbeth]

FEMA:s first priority is not to protect people, cities, rural areas, legimitive goverment and rule of the law it is rather ''control'' population during disarters or civil unrest. Under Reagan admistration it developed basics of current plans by George Bush Sr, Oliver North and some others. It came first in publicity in Contra-Iran hearings in 1987. The grand plan was more effecient keeping goverment safe from people in case of civil unrest (that was expected to rise in case US would have invided to Nicaragua for example).

well, it's the federal emergency management agency isn't it? of course it's set up to control people to prevent civil unrest and make sure that things are managed during an emergency. fema isn't protecting anyone they are only enacted after a disaster of some kind occurs, and they have to be requested by the state so I don't foresee fema rounding up everyone and putting them into cages - that will be done by the local (militarized) police forces when it happens.

I don't know what nicarragua has to do with fema though....  I"m not a big fan of FEMA (especially after it's failures during katrina in getting people the help they needed long after the leves were breached), but i think they are necessary in a large scale disaster (like hurricane andrew).

And how much of stories of secret FEMA running detention facilities are true? Is that all paranoia? However Operation Garden Plot is a real plan that exists. Is there huge secret detention centers in Alaska for example as rumored to wait those who disagree with goverment in the case the program would be carried out?

alex jones fan are we?

right now they are just stories, i've seen videos online that supposedly show these prison camps, and they are really using their imaginiation. I don't doubt that our government (and maybe even fema to an extent) has at least looked into the possibilty of detaining large chunks of our population due to civil unrest - and maybe even procured some land, but that is sorta the job of government - to plan for any scenario.

we've never had a peoples revolt in this country (other than the revolution) to try and overthrow our government. if and when that time comes, the federal government will be self preservationist and could very well lock up "insurgents" into these camps. whether or not you agree with those actions will depend largely on what side of the revolution you are on

[SomeMTF]

Also the plan of the Bush goverment to ensure that a legal society continues working after a big catastrophe was not showed to members of the people elected U.S. house of representatives. What that tells about their plan for a real catastrophe? That they may use a natural disaster for example as an excuse to repeal constitutional goverment and declare martial law?

[lizbeth]

thankfully, bush is no longer in power.

we have 3 branches of our government, no single branch is more powerful than the other. our government has been broken for several years now, but that principle still hold true and I get the impression that after 20 years of reagan/bush/cheney/bush in some form has finally made people remember that. I didn't include clinton, becuase he definately had lots of resistance during his time in office and all 3 branches seemed to have influence.

martial law is one of those things that can happen, but it's not a simple as you might think. there are always more of US than there are of THEM. look at how well we did in iraq and afghanistan. we out muscle them 20:1, and yet they managed to resist for 5+ years.

I hate bush as much as the next girl, but if he wanted to declare martial law and do a hostile takeover of the populace, he had at least 3 chances to do so and chose not to (9/11, katrina and the economic crisis).

"their" goal is much more subtle if you ask me, "they" have suceeded in dumbing down america so that no one is aware of what is happening. "they" have managed to make sure that the working class stays under control through debt unti the day we die. I put quotes around "they" becuase we don't know who they are really, it's surely not our government - they are only puppets for the real leaders of this government (the banks and corporations).

[RebeccaFog]

we've never had a peoples revolt in this country (other than the revolution) to try and overthrow our government. if and when that time comes, the federal government will be self preservationist and could very well lock up "insurgents" into these camps. whether or not you agree with those actions will depend largely on what side of the revolution you are on

I'm on the side that wins.

[lisagurl]

That they may use a natural disaster for example as an excuse to repeal constitutional government and declare martial law?

LOL I worked in a FEMA war room during a big Ice storm that took out all the electricity for millions. It is a fact that all leaders of the various government departments local state and federal are all in one room. That way the can coordinate activities. However each leader gives commands to his own people after he and all the others agree on the best action. The main goal is to save lives, second is to save property and restore necessities, third is to return things to normal as soon as possible. They have no authority to arrest only report crimes to the proper authorities.

The right to bare arms is so the government can not rule the people by force. Their would be a revolution like earlier in our history.

[SomeMTF]

I do not believe in stupid paleoconservative/libertarian conspiracy theories. I just said that even govermental programs for ''good'' reasons might be misused to abuse power. However I do not think that they should not exist.
People must not accept totalitarian programs of any kind however.

War in Iraq has rather fuel recession than U.S. economy.

[RebeccaFog]

The right to bare arms is so the government can not rule the people by force. Their would be a revolution like earlier in our history.

I think it would be more of an incursion or revolt that would be put down, or else go on for decades.

[armozel]

I think the Broken Window Fallacy works well here, so I invoke it.

[NicholeW.]

I think the Broken Window Fallacy works well here, so I invoke it.

It certainly holds true here.

When one adds in the so-called hidden costs of war: lives, destruction of already existent infra-structure, materiel destroyed and replaced, resources depleted, civil unrest, etc one finds that the costs of wat are pretty large.

As well the de facto costs of gearing an economy to a war-likely footing only appears to "prime the pump." In actuality the cost of one stealth fighter and the technology and production involved deplete the real economy. The suggested amount of that is that for every one dollar spent on war equipment the domestic economy would provide at least five dollars of goods and services that are otherwise lost.

The entire Reagan-economy was based on tax-cuts for the wealthiest that they would "plow back" into the economy. They may have done, but the plow back occurred at levels of the economy that never "trickled down" to much of anyone. They were a figment of "investment." The "investment" was/is in more securities and larger trust funds for those who benefited.

And if you don't use the war materiel made then the same will apply. The planes, tanks, etc become obsolescent as they sit unused. They must then be replaced so 15 or 20 years later you go right back to the same destructive withdrawal of capital from the domestic economy.

Same is true of Star Wars and other "advanced" wartime technology. It sucks up a lot of creativity and resources and produces something that no one ever wants to use. It just sits there in the sky in a disintegrating orbit around the earth. Boy-toys on a colossal scale.

Nichole

[V M]

The idea, if you could call it that, that war booosts the US economy is absurd to say the least. The US has spent billions on other countries. Feeding them, Protecting them, Helping them build or rebuild. North Korea is so F--- they rely on the US because they can't figure out how to grow enough rice. The US provides aid all over the world and hates war. I get tired of the rest of the world draining us and then talkin' smack. UP YOUR'S with a smile 

[NicholeW.]

The idea, if you could call it that, that war booosts the US economy is absurd to say the least. The US has spent billions on other countries. Feeding them, Protecting them, Helping them build or rebuild. North Korea is so F--- they rely on the US because they can't figure out how to grow enough rice. The US provides aid all over the world and hates war. I get tired of the rest of the world draining us and then talkin' smack. UP YOUR'S with a smile 

Our notions of which governments talk "smack" and which do not certainly differ somewhat, Virginia. From where I sit no governments consistently talk "smack" and threat more than that Of USA.

And, as an American, I also see some reason for other countries to fear us more than welcome us: our foreign policy is like grass in the wind, it changes direction at least every eight years if not more frequently. I mean in 1991 our diplomats were telling Saddam on the day before his invasion of Kuwait that we had no interest one way or another in what he did. Three days later we were decrying his invasion as illegal and a sign he was an outlaw. I mean, that's a rather schizophrenic set of circumstances, no?

And at the top of the list, which goverment is the only government to actually use nukes on another state? TYep, the precedent may cause some nervousness alright.

How often do we actually sit and reach understanding on methods and policy with our "friends?" And how often do we just decide we are going to do something?

As for "pouring money" we surely poured a lot after WWII into western Europe and would have poured more into eastern Europe had the Red Army not already been there. But those were policy decisions meant to shore-up governments that we were afraid would "become communist" if we didn't share some wealth. The trade surpluses we ran and the boost to the 1950s economy and our hegemony in Europe pretty much paid all of that back even if we didn't get gold. We got a lot more.

One can make an argument that in Iraq, and Afghnaistan the "contributions" have been minimal at best and they surely haven't stabilized a darned thing.

Nicaraugua has never reached a footing where it was when the Sandinistas originally deposed Somoza. Much of that thanks to our so-called "Contra War" whereby we poured a lot of money into a "resistance" that was almost 100% of our own making. Otherwise we've been noted for funding armies in the southern American hemisphere and propping up and seating dictatorships that basically ran their countries in ways United Fruit and Anaconda Copper and other major corps of those times found amenable.

I'm not certain that a lot of people see us as a friendly giant that just wants to get along with everyone else in the world.

Nichole

[Janet_Girl]

Many believe that war fuels the economy and point to WWII.  But there was a period of mass unemployment after the war ended.  The economy began to suffer again, till Korea.  It picked up until that one ended.  Then we went in a suffering economy until...... you guessed it.  Viet Nam.

I am not advocating war.  As the song says " War. What is it good for. Absolutely nothing".  I support our troops, but not war.  But it has been a source the stimulate the economy.

FEMA proved to be a joke under King George, but they had a good track record in the past.  They have their purpose and when allowed to do help in disasters.

What would fuel the economy?  Redirect the billions spent on war into health care and building jobs.  Redirect the money for baling out big businesses into rebuilding the country.  If those businesses are going to fail, no amount of money will help them.

I never was one that would not wish for a socialistic government, but the more I see now the more I lean that way.  I always felt that a top down distribution was working, till I saw how much the top CEOs of failing businesses were making.  It is obscene.  Millions of dollars.    But they cut the pay of the people on the front lines.  Their own people suffer.    How does that help the business?  By allowing the CEOs to keep their jobs.

But to create a socialistic government here would raise taxes on the people who could lest afford it.  Should we become a Isolationist country?  Wouldn't that allow people like Hitler to gain power?  I don't know, but if we don't take care of us we will fall like Rome, the British Empire, Czarist Russian.

Does anyone reconize these words?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Maybe it is time again.

Janet

[NicholeW.]

But to create a socialistic government here would raise taxes on the people who could lest afford it.  ...


I don't know, but if we don't take care of us we will fall like Rome, the British Empire, Czarist Russian.

Does anyone reconize these words?

Maybe it is time again.

Janet

The first sentence I am just not understanding. Socialists governments raise taxes on those least able to afford them? How does that notion come to mind? I'm puzzled.

The second is the way of the world. Empires rise and empires fall. As one views empires through the gauze of history one often sees that the really great ones tend to have shorter and shorter lives as technology gets more sophisticated and widespread. Unless, of course, they manage to be closely enough situated to one another that one or more manage to destroy themselves and each other through conflict.

On that basis one would suppose that the American Empire is not long for the political reality.

Nichole

[Janet_Girl]

But to create a socialistic government here would raise taxes on the people who could lest afford it.

Nichole, I am talking about America.  The Big Corporations and Special Interests wouldn't allow Big Business to be taxed in order to support a socialistic government.  Therefore the middle class would be taxed out of existence.  Which is happening now as a matter of fact.

And may be it is time for a revamping of America.  But we shall see what the next four years bring.  Let us hope that President Obama is really going to change things.  If he wants my vote next go round, I certainly hope so.

Janet