Is the National Debt Really Driven at 174 Miles Per Hour by Obama?

[Office_Shredder]

lol. No, but I could name a couple hundred of them if we had no military.

Even if we had no military, the vast majority of nations would still be incapable of moving an actual invasion force to our country. And of those who do have the technology and money, many don't have the population necessary (for example, Finland has 5 million people in it... which simply isn't enough to support an occupation of a country this size).

So while there would be countries capable of invading and occupying the US, the number would not be very large actually

 

[Al68]

Even if we had no military, the vast majority of nations would still be incapable of moving an actual invasion force to our country. And of those who do have the technology and money, many don't have the population necessary (for example, Finland has 5 million people in it... which simply isn't enough to support an occupation of a country this size).

So while there would be countries capable of invading and occupying the US, the number would not be very large actually

Sure, the actual number would be much less. Due also to the fact that any small country that tried it would have to contend with the more powerful countries.

But my response was intended as humor, not actual analysis.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Sure, the actual number would be much less. Due also to the fact that any small country that tried it would have to contend with the more powerful countries.

But my response was intended as humor, not actual analysis.

No, they would simply be incapable of invading the US. Take Fiji. The Fijan navy is designed solely to ensure sovereign control over its territorial waters. It is completely, 100% incapable of moving an attack force from Fiji to the United States of America, and supplying it during the invasion. Even if it was, the entire miltary of Fiji, including reserves, is less than 10,000 people. With numbers like that, it's physically impossible to invade a nation the size of the United States of America.

The population of San Fransisco is 8,000,000. The number of people in Iraq is less than 4 times that, yet we had about 20 times the size of Fiji's military in Iraq. Fiji's military would be incapable of taking and occupying the city of San Francisco.

Fiji isn't unique in this. The vast, vast majority of nations are not organized enough, technologically capable and large enough to enact an invasion of the United States. The United States has difficulty occupying a country 1/10th its size in the form of Iraq, how many countries would truly be able to hold onto a country the size of the US? My guess at the moment is nobody. Especially considering the US has little natural resources for its size, and its main economic strength is in its political stability and strong infrastructure, invading the country would have little benefit.

While the comment may have originally been for humorous purposes, it definitely brings to light the question of: Is there an actual threat of invasion and occupation by a foreign power? Who's capable of doing it, and what advantage would they gain by doing it?

 

[turbo]

Uh, turbo, you just said you would eliminate the US military. So after that, just about any country could invade and occupy the US!

I didn't say that I would eliminate the military. We just don't need all the weapons systems (especially offensive capabilities) that we have currently. That's very different.

 

[vociferous]

This probably provides the best perspective on debt - the debt as a percentage of GDP
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Interestingly, it looks like the tax-and-spend democrats win hands down.

I think that is a rather simplistic and disingenuous way of looking at the data, since it does not acknowledge the branch of government that actually controls the purse strings of the government, the congress.

Like, for instance, during the Reagan years, Democrats were firmly in charge. The deficit spending should largely be looked at as a compromise between the Reagan administration which wanted to dramatically cut taxes and cut spending on social services while increasing the military budget and the Democrat-controlled congress, which wanted to preserve social services.

Likewise, during the Clinton administration, the balancing of the budget was done by Clinton and the Republican-dominated congress, so they both deserve credit for that.

During the Bush years, most of the budget was passed while congress was split or while Republicans controlled it, so the combination of increased spending with decreased taxation (leading, of course, to massive national debt) was mostly the responsibility of President Bush and the Republicans in congress.

Neither party has a monopoly on fiscal responsibility (not spending more than the government makes in revenue).

As for Obama, a lot of economic experts are advising spending over balancing the budget to stimulate the economy. I have no idea how fiscally sound that theory is, but I think we should probably wait to judge the current leadership in Washington until their term is over, when we can get a better idea of how the policies being enacted today will affect the economy and the national debt.

 

[mheslep]

Now that is some impressive paranoia! Can you name one country capable of invading and occupying the US? I thought not.

After 9/11, 7/7, and on and on, obviously invasion is not the main threat.

 

[turbo]

After 9/11, 7/7, and on and on, obviously invasion is not the main threat.

So did the Bush/Cheney war, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens make you feel safer?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so using that as a justification for more war is irrational. If you want to punish the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, freeze the bank accounts of wealthy Saudis who fund the radical fundamentalists who actually did the deed. Don't slaughter innocent people in a country that had nothing to do with the attacks.

 

[WhoWee]

Like, for instance, during the Reagan years, Democrats were firmly in charge. The deficit spending should largely be looked at as a compromise between the Reagan administration which wanted to dramatically cut taxes and cut spending on social services while increasing the military budget and the Democrat-controlled congress, which wanted to preserve social services.

I'm doing this from memory. I seem to recall Carter being on TV quite often with charts and graphs discussing our military capabilities versus the Soviets. Carter whined and flipped through his information, while inflation and unemployment soared and hostages lingered in Iran.

Reagan was elected with a promise of change and assured the nation. The timing of the release of hostages helped to calm fears. He basically said don't worry - I'll take care of it - and everyone seemed to rest easier.

As for spending, Reagan spent so much money in an arms escalation that many believe he collapsed the Soviet Union. I happen to think their collapse was inevitable. But, Reagan is largely credited.

A by-product of his spending was defense jobs and a huge up-tick in the economy - and lower interest rates followed. Both of those ingredients, along with tax cuts to spur direct investment in business took us out of Carter's recession.

Clinton faced a different set of problems - apples to oranges. Clinton had to put the brakes on spending and top priority became the balanced budget. Clinton got credit, but Congress cooperated and made it happen. Again, this is off the top of my head and mostly opinion.

 

[mheslep]

So did the Bush/Cheney war, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens make you feel safer?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so using that as a justification for more war is irrational. If you want to punish the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, freeze the bank accounts of wealthy Saudis who fund the radical fundamentalists who actually did the deed. Don't slaughter innocent people in a country that had nothing to do with the attacks.

A whatta what? Iraq? Bush/Cheney? Can we have any kind of coherent conversation any more? We are talking about the size and scope of military spending. My first instinct is not to punish anyone, especially since most of them are dead, but to prevent the like from happening again, especially from those who still say that's exactly what they want to do.

 

[turbo]

Lets look at recent history here. I said that making investments in our infrastructure would be healthier for our country than all this runaway military spending. Then Al said that the US could be invaded and Russ claimed that I wanted to scrap the military (a blatant misrepresentation) and then you dragged 9/11 into it as if it had some sort of relevance to the concept that reducing military spending is dangerous. You guys are pretty nimble - misrepresenting my stance and dodging from excuse to excuse.

 

[mheslep]

You didn't qualify. You left the question open as to as what you meant:

[...]What would happen if the money the US spends on its military was spent on [...something else]

.. you dragged 9/11 into it as if it had some sort of relevance to the concept that reducing military spending is dangerous. ...

It absolutely does have relevance to military spending. These kind of attacks illustrate what can be done by para military and guerrilla groups if left to themselves. Suggesting that all the US has to do to prevent such threats is to lock some Saudi bank accounts is not reasonable. The US president as well as many of the leaders of NATO have made clear that part of what's needed to prevent more of the same is to deny the Taliban and Al-Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan. It is vastly expensive to project the force the US currently fields in Afghanistan. No other nation has anywhere near enough military means to do the job (that far away).

BTW, I don't believe the US needs some of its big ticket defense items, and I'm glad to see Gates killing them. But that would never lead me to make the open ended statement you did above.

 

[WhoWee]

Lets look at recent history here. I said that making investments in our infrastructure would be healthier for our country than all this runaway military spending. Then Al said that the US could be invaded and Russ claimed that I wanted to scrap the military (a blatant misrepresentation) and then you dragged 9/11 into it as if it had some sort of relevance to the concept that reducing military spending is dangerous. You guys are pretty nimble - misrepresenting my stance and dodging from excuse to excuse.

I thought we were talking about the National Debt - hence my "Reagan was the mother of all subsequent spenders" rant.

However, Clinton and Gingrich realized where we were headed and pulled us back. But apparently we haven't learned a thing.

If you look closely at the posted chart - Obama is taking us to the exact point we would have been if Clinton and Gingrich did nothing.

 

[turbo]

I thought we were talking about the National Debt - hence my "Reagan was the mother of all subsequent spenders" rant.

However, Clinton and Gingrich realized where we were headed and pulled us back. But apparently we haven't learned a thing.

If you look closely at the posted chart - Obama is taking us to the exact point we would have been if Clinton and Gingrich did nothing.

My point (though misrepresented and dragged into la-la land) was that not all debt is created the same. If we spend a billion dollars to get 5 5-22s at $200M each, that makes a lot of money for some defense contractors with little benefit to our economy. Spend an equivalent amount building wind-farms, and we would be financing some labor-intensive work, employing skilled trades-people who would then have more money to spend. They are both debts, but one has large short-term pay-back in both economic stimulation and reduction of our over-dependence on foreign energy, which I consider to be a threat to our national security.

 

[WhoWee]

My point (though misrepresented and dragged into la-la land) was that not all debt is created the same. If we spend a billion dollars to get 5 5-22s at $200M each, that makes a lot of money for some defense contractors with little benefit to our economy. Spend an equivalent amount building wind-farms, and we would be financing some labor-intensive work, employing skilled trades-people who would then have more money to spend. They are both debts, but one has large short-term pay-back in both economic stimulation and reduction of our over-dependence on foreign energy, which I consider to be a threat to our national security.

And to bring us full circle - I'll say it again - unless we can charge countries protection money, the investment in military hardware doesn't provide a return on investment the way a direct investment in an economically productive asset could.

 

[turbo]

And to bring us full circle - I'll say it again - unless we can charge countries protection money, the investment in military hardware doesn't provide a return on investment the way a direct investment in an economically productive asset could.

That's true. It's lost money. Fiscal conservatism is the first victim when the hawks control the DoD and have free rein to establish spending policies. If you oppose wasteful spending on projects that don't address our country's needs, the flag-waving and chest-thumping starts, cowing the ignorant and silencing the fearful. Few in DC have the guts to try to rein in waste in the military or bring our troops home, for fear of being accused of not "supporting our troops". Eisenhower knew that we were heading into this problem decades ago, and our country has not managed to address it effectively. Starting and perpetuating unjust, unnecessary wars is not a conservative activity by a long shot and the wasted revenue is a threat to our country's economic health.

 

[WhoWee]

That's true. It's lost money. Fiscal conservatism is the first victim when the hawks control the DoD and have free rein to establish spending policies. If you oppose wasteful spending on projects that don't address our country's needs, the flag-waving and chest-thumping starts, cowing the ignorant and silencing the fearful. Few in DC have the guts to try to rein in waste in the military or bring our troops home, for fear of being accused of not "supporting our troops". Eisenhower knew that we were heading into this problem decades ago, and our country has not managed to address it effectively. Starting and perpetuating unjust, unnecessary wars is not a conservative activity by a long shot and the wasted revenue is a threat to our country's economic health.

Since you brought up Ike, I'll tie this all together in another semi-rant.

The highway system enabled an expansion of commerce into markets large and small nationwide. While the roads didn't return a direct payback, the increase in trade yielded jobs and ultimately tax revenue. Repairing those roads does not provide the same yields - mostly prevents the revenue base from shrinking.

Also expanded under Ike, we've invested untold $ billions in nuclear research, weapons, and delivery systems. We lead the world into the nuclear age - nuclear power is OURS! Great you say - now what?

In order to realize a return on this investment, (to greatly over-simplify) the US should be using this research for peaceful purposes - like supplying electric power to the world. Had the strategy had been to build and manage nuclear plants on SELECT military bases around the world and sell the host countries power - some of those countries might have experienced economic growth and we would (again) realize a return on investment from those bases.

But NOoooo, just like domestic oil, we are now expected to turn our backs on nuclear power - because of environmental concerns. Instead, we encourage other countries to run with those technologies while we plan to build wind mills and erect solar panels. This might be a good time to mention we can't seem to move quickly with wind and solar either now because of bats, prairie dogs (or something), and again environmentalists (and coastal property owners like the Kennedy clan).

The world laughs at us. We shoot ourselves in the foot every time we allow the tail to wag the dog.

Which of course brings us back to charging the non-nuclear free world for protection again - had this started under Ike, we might be debt free.

 

[turbo]

Luckily, Maine is rural and fiscally conservative, even though we tend to be more libertarian on social issues. Just about all the wind-farms in New England are here, with more on the books. We are a net exporter of electricity due to all the hydro dams that were built here years ago. It's a juggling act, trying to restore free-run anadromous fisheries with fish-ladders, etc, but that's the way it goes. Since the Edwards dam in the state capital (Augusta) was breached years back, salmon, sturgeon, striped bass, and other gamefish and bait-fish have made a huge rebound. Tourism is big here, and decent fisheries are vital, so we are open to making dam-owners pay for their blocking the rivers for decades.

You know what is really galling? We pay as much or more for electricity than the other NE states even though we consume far less electricity than we generate. The power generators are getting a free ride on dams that were build many decades ago. Most are unmanned and remotely-controlled, so except for maintenance they are very low-cost investments with predictable long-term paybacks.

Years ago, Maine Yankee (nuclear power plant) faced a re-licensing challenge and shut down, as did its sister plant in Seabrook NH. Great! Let's push the lost capacity onto oil-fired and coal-fired plants, poison the air with acidic aerosols and rain heavy metals into our ponds, lakes, and rivers. Thanks to ignorance and short-sightedness, we have mercury and cadmium bio-accumulating in fish and game-animals. There ought to be some adults crafting energy policy, but they seem to be in short supply.

 

[turbo]

The highway system enabled an expansion of commerce into markets large and small nationwide. While the roads didn't return a direct payback, the increase in trade yielded jobs and ultimately tax revenue. Repairing those roads does not provide the same yields - mostly prevents the revenue base from shrinking.

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) has pushed for relief from the federal load-limits on the interstate highway system. Currently, the Feds would deny our state highway funds if we let trucks over 80,000 lb GVW use the interstates. That's pretty crazy in a state that relies so heavily on pulp, paper, and logging, because it forces all the heavy trucks onto secondary roads winding through small towns, compromising public safety, and damaging lightly-built roads. I expect that the measure will pass and we'll get an exemption to allow 100,000 lb GVW trucks on I-95 and its feeders. That would save a lot of fuel, and probably more than a few lives, as well as reduce maintenance costs on rural roads. Once in a while, politicians get it right.

 

[WhoWee]

I am certain of one thing. There are limits to, and consequences of, decades of bad decision making in the name of winning votes.

We are fast becoming a nation of "smart-arses". It's an attitude that (I believe) derives from our litigious nature, exasperated by our welfare mentality, and popularized by our deteriorating social expectations.

I can assure you of this, if we ever need help - we'll be on our own.

 

[turbo]

I am certain of one thing. There are limits to, and consequences of, decades of bad decision making in the name of winning votes.

We are fast becoming a nation of "smart-arses". It's an attitude that (I believe) derives from our litigious nature, exasperated by our welfare mentality, and popularized by our deteriorating social expectations.

I can assure you of this, if we ever need help - we'll be on our own.

You're probably right. The last administration (more than any other in my lifetime) diminished the US in the eyes of our allies. Even if our former allies (or former enemies) could bail us out of future difficulties, it would be a hard sell at home. Britain, France, Germany, Japan? Nope!

We'd probably have to pin our hopes on China, who might prop us up just so they'd still have a market to sell into. Economic weakness is the biggest threat to our national security, IMO (dependence on foreign energy, foreign credit, etc), but the neo-cons want to perpetuate this fraud as long as their patrons are getting wealthier. We are on a self-destructive path, and it is not pretty. Now that "free trade" has gutted our industries and "outsourcing" is limiting the vitality of our service industries, we may not have the economic power to recover from any additional down-turns. We are not in a normal, cyclical economic system as many "conservatives" claim, but in a gamed system that profits few at the expense of many.

 

[Al68]

Economic weakness is the biggest threat to our national security, IMO (dependence on foreign energy, foreign credit, etc), but the neo-cons want to perpetuate this fraud as long as their patrons are getting wealthier. We are on a self-destructive path, and it is not pretty. Now that "free trade" has gutted our industries and "outsourcing" is limiting the vitality of our service industries, we may not have the economic power to recover from any additional down-turns. We are not in a normal, cyclical economic system as many "conservatives" claim, but in a gamed system that profits few at the expense of many.

What fraud? What patrons? What system? Free enterprise? What are you talking about here?

And what is a neocon? Obviously you aren't referring to the dictionary definition of a neoconservative.

 

[WhoWee]

What fraud? What patrons? What system? Free enterprise? What are you talking about here?

And what is a neocon? Obviously you aren't referring to the dictionary definition of a neoconservative.

A mix of 2 old stories. In order to control your own destiny - you can't eat the golden goose.

In business, the first concept taught is that of a "going concern". It's also an assumption that the US will remain solvent - debts are guaranteed. When Congress doesn't even read trillion dollar legislation - confidence in the system deteriorates. When GM bondholders are kicked to the curb and the company taken over by the Government and the UAW - confidence in the system deteriorates.

I heard it summed up rather well yesterday - Nancy Pelosi was crying last week because she knows everyone hates her - classic. Obama was right - it's time for real change in Washington - he just brought the wrong kind of change. The 2010 elections will be fun.

 

[Astronuc]

Years ago, Maine Yankee (nuclear power plant) faced a re-licensing challenge and shut down, as did its sister plant in Seabrook NH. Great! Let's push the lost capacity onto oil-fired and coal-fired plants, poison the air with acidic aerosols and rain heavy metals into our ponds, lakes, and rivers. Thanks to ignorance and short-sightedness, we have mercury and cadmium bio-accumulating in fish and game-animals. There ought to be some adults crafting energy policy, but they seem to be in short supply.

Seabrook is still running and in fact it has been uprated. Maine Yankee was on old plant, one of the original 1st gen PWRs, and it needed significant capital improvement. MYAPCo had some serious issues. Had they held out, they might have been able to sell the plant. It would be worthwhile to build a different type of plant, e.g., modern nuclear plant or a combined cycle plant there.


As for the interstate highway system, planning for that began after WWII, when Americans observed the capabilities of Germany's Autobahn. A benefit of such a highway system was the rapid movement of troops and armour, and commercial transportation was another benefit.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/interstatemyths.htm

But -

Myth: Defense was the primary reason for the Interstate System.

The primary justifications for the Interstate System were civilian in nature. In the midst of the Cold War, the Department of Defense supported the Interstate System and Congress added the words “and Defense” to its official name in 1956 (“National System of Interstate and Defense Highways”). However, the program was so popular for its civilian benefits that the legislation would have passed even if defense had not been a factor.

 

[turbo]

Sorry, and thanks for the correction. My friend Steve was working there and ended up moving to Skowhegan to work in the SD Warren mill when the Seabrook expansion was cancelled. I conflated that to an eventual decommissioning of reactor 1.

Much of Vermont's electrical power is still supplied by a nuclear plant - Vermont Yankee.

As for re-tasking Maine Yankee, the most recent proposal I have heard of is building a coal-fired plant there. That proposal was not popular with local fishermen, though, and it hasn't been raised since, to my knowledge.

Recent development on the energy front: Cianbro bought the former Easter Fine Paper plant on the Penobscot River, and has been fabricating modules for off-shore oil platforms, and shipping them by barge to the gulf.

There is a large pool of talented fabricators/welders/millwrights in this state, and a lot of deep-water ports, so coastal Maine would be a great place to fabricate and ship wind turbing-generators.

 

[Astronuc]

Seabrook 2 was canceled though.

A lot of the later (late 70's) sites where one unit exists were designed for 2 units, e.g. Seabrook, Wolf Creek, Callaway, etc. I believe the containment at Seabook 2 was mostly done. I was at the site several years ago, and I seem to remember looking at the rebar.

 

[turbo]

Seabrook 2 was canceled though.

A lot of the later (late 70's) sites where one unit exists were designed for 2 units, e.g. Seabrook, Wolf Creek, Callaway, etc. I believe the containment at Seabook 2 was mostly done. I was at the site several years ago, and I seem to remember looking at the rebar.

Many people complained about the lack of a viable evacuation procedure for that area, which is pretty silly. It wasn't a secret that evacuation would be a problem. Anybody who has tried to get in or out of the NH beach area on a hot day knows that you could easily be stuck in traffic on 101 or 1a for the better part of an hour, moving at slower than a walk.

 

[Insanity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

just more data...

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't say that I would eliminate the military. We just don't need all the weapons systems (especially offensive capabilities) that we have currently. That's very different.

[separate post]Russ claimed that I wanted to scrap the military (a blatant misrepresentation)

It is very different and it doesn't at all match what you said:

What would happen if the money the US spends on its military was spent on infrastructure...

Perhaps you didn't mean it and meant to connect that better to your earlier statement about certain weapons systems, but that quote is general: it contains no qualifiers to make it more specific. "the money the US spends on its military" is all of it. I didn't misinterpret it, (on purpose or otherwise) - it was completely clear. If you misspoke, you should acknowledge it.

Anyway since you're clarifying, please clarify more: Tell us exactly how much money you think we should spend on the military. Someone posted earlier that we current spend 18% of our GDP on it. What do you think the number should be?

My point...was that not all debt is created the same.

This is true.

If we spend a billion dollars to get 5 5-22s at $200M each, that makes a lot of money for some defense contractors with little benefit to our economy.

It makes a lot of money for defense contractors and the employees of defense contractors and the investors for defense contractors. That is a direct contribution to the economy. And that's in addition to the primary benefit of spending that money - that national defense thing.

Spend an equivalent amount building wind-farms, and we would be financing some labor-intensive work, employing skilled trades-people who would then have more money to spend. They are both debts, but one has large short-term pay-back in both economic stimulation...

In that sense, it is exactly identical to spending money on F-22s. Building F-22s is labor (and technology) intensive and it employes skilled trades-people who then would have money to spend.

...and reduction of our over-dependence on foreign energy, which I consider to be a threat to our national security.

Agreed. So really, defense spending and spending on wind farms have exactly the same ultimate purpose and short term benefit.

 

[russ_watters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

just more data...

Bush turns out to be a very unique President on that list: the spending he did at the end of his term to push up the debt was spending that may all come back with interest. I would be interested to see if people update their graphs in a few years to reflect that or if they attach the profit from that to the numbers for future presidents (most of the benefit would go to Obama).

 

[turbo]

Russ, since I am from a poor rural state, you should expect that I have quite a few lifer-military friends and relatives. I do. You do not know me, and your claim that I want to scrap the military is ridiculous.

I was pointing out that when we re-task military spending to civilian projects, we get greater efficiencies, quicker pay-back, and a broader stimulation of our economy. If you think that buying 5 F-22s at $200M each (with a projected maintenance cost of $50K/per hour of operation) is somehow equivalent in economic impact to spending a billion dollars on renewable energy and the infrastructure needed to support it, then I suggest you shut off talk radio and study real economics.

To build a $1B wind farm, you need site studies, surveying, engineering, civil engineering, road-building, construction of on-site facilities, upgrade of electrical distribution systems, etc. You also need a resurgence in heavy industry, the ongoing loss of which is a serious deterioration of our national security. Somehow, you claim that spending that money on 5 fighter jets that we do not need to fight a threat that we do not face, is equivalent. I disagree and I think most real conservatives would, as well.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, since I am from a poor rural state, you should expect that I have quite a few lifer-military friends and relatives. I do. You do not know me, and your claim that I want to scrap the military is ridiculous.

All you need to do to rectify that is correct your earlier statement where you said precisely that. You misspoke: why can't you just acknowlege it?

I was pointing out that when we re-task military spending to civilian projects, we get greater efficiencies, quicker pay-back, and a broader stimulation of our economy. If you think that buying 5 F-22s at $200M each (with a projected maintenance cost of $50K/per hour of operation) is somehow equivalent in economic impact to spending a billion dollars on renewable energy and the infrastructure needed to support it, then I suggest you shut off talk radio and study real economics.

The only talk radio I listen to is sports talk. In any case, I used the logic of your argument and showed that it applied to both cases equally. All you are doing here is stating a claim without providing a logical argument to support it. And it is a claim that is quite clearly devoid of logic - or, rather, directly contradicts its own logic.

Regarding the maintenance costs: how are those different from the procurement cost except that they provide economic stimulus on a continuous basis?

To build a $1B wind farm, you need site studies, surveying, engineering, civil engineering, road-building, construction of on-site facilities, upgrade of electrical distribution systems, etc. You also need a resurgence in heavy industry, the ongoing loss of which is a serious deterioration of our national security.

Once again, you haven't explained how any of that is any different from defense spending. All of those components are contained in the engineering, design, and manufacturing of a fighter jet. Heck, turbo: as I'm sure you know, most wind turbines in the US are manufactured by a company that makes a decent fraction of its income via defense!

Somehow, you claim that spending that money on 5 fighter jets that we do not need to fight a threat that we do not face, is equivalent.

At face value, it obviously is. I've shown the parallels - you haven't shown any differences!

I disagree and I think most real conservatives would, as well.

I do not place a high value on your interpretation of what "conservative" means.

 

[Insanity]

Bush turns out to be a very unique President on that list: the spending he did at the end of his term to push up the debt was spending that may all come back with interest. I would be interested to see if people update their graphs in a few years to reflect that or if they attach the profit from that to the numbers for future presidents (most of the benefit would go to Obama).

It would be difficult to determine who is exactly responsible for what.

 

[russ_watters]

It would be difficult to determine who is exactly responsible for what.

Not really, no. TARP funds are very specifically tracked.

 

[russ_watters]

This doesn't go far enough:

Heck, turbo: as I'm sure you know, most wind turbines in the US are manufactured by a company that makes a decent fraction of its income via defense!

Many of the actual products that GE makes are sold to both commercial users and defense users. Ie, GE makes jet/gas turbine engines. One specific example: the DC-10 is propelled by GE turbofan engines and the DC-10 is used both for military and civilian purposes. So when Boeing buys jet engines from GE, the difference between military and civilian spending is a matter of paperwork only. Beyond that, derivatives of that engine (the LM2500) are used to power civilian and military ships and power plants. They powered the frigate I was on, for example. http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/aero_turbines/en/index.htm

The LM2500 is made by GE's energy division: the same division that makes the wind turbines. Realistically, funding for a new KC-10 tanker or a wind turbine puts money into the pocket of some of the same people!

Note: The F-22 is powered by Pratt & Whitney engines, which are also dual use, but I don't know of any specific examples off the top of my head like I did for GE.

 

[turbo]

All of those components are contained in the engineering, design, and manufacturing of a fighter jet. Heck, turbo: as I'm sure you know, most wind turbines in the US are manufactured by a company that makes a decent fraction of its income via defense!

Guess what? The wind-turbines being installed in Maine are coming in through deep-water ports in Canada, traveling Route 201 south to Skowhegan, Route 2 to Newport, and then north on I-95 to their installations. We have regular traffic advisories about them, including their planned impacts on local roads. Hadn't heard?