Can a continuing war keep the economy going ?

In the past, a war has been useful during bad economic times. Is it different this time around? After all, we did not cut taxes during any other war in our history. What does that tell you? These greedy bastards are more concerned about their taxcuts than they are the security of this country. They are treasonous.

... this war (or even the one in Afghanistan, for that matter) has little to do with security. If anything, they've made security worse.

Tax cuts in the midst of both have made the economic situation worse, no question. The US survived the very large deficits created by fighting WWII, but that survival had much more to do with the economics of the time after WWII--the US was the manufacturing and export leader of that time. Taxes on the very rich and corporations were still at WWII levels, so there was enough tax money to work at paying debt, and there were fewer worries about balance of trade, since we were a net exporter then.

Situation's different today. Lord Bush seems more like the King and Queen of Spain, borrowing from everyone and his brother to carry on foreign wars of expansion--every single dollar for prosecution of these wars comes from deficit spending.

Whether it's a successful gambit or not depends upon how long foreign powers continue to buy that debt. If something happens to cause them to lose confidence, Bushie-boy and his pals will have sunk us in some deep shit.

Cheers.

Remember, a dollar spent on defense is less helpful to the economy than a dollar invested in general industry. Defense industries are not as labor-intensive as others. Add to that the corruption we've seen (given no-bid contracts with re: to Iraq), and I think you'll agree that our chances of rebuilding our economy through more defense spending are pretty slim. Defense spending only hastened the downfall of the former Soviet Union.

economics 101--military spending does not produce wealth under any circumstance

In which case war spendings become the ultimate trickle down reaganomics.

I would not be surprised at all if analysis shows that the recent economic boost is in part triggered by the war.

Unfortunately, we're playing war on borrowed money. We don't have to fear a Chinese invasion, because at this rate we will just have to hand over the country as a down payment for what we owe them.
With any luck they'll let us work off the remainder.

This is a shellgame that some say is doomed to collapse, but we've been living under this spend now, pay later military for over 60 years now.

When one talks about the debt, it's always assumed this is money we borrow or owe, but it's rarely discussed who it's borrowed from or owed to. That, of course, are the big banks who are tied in with the corporates and industrialists who comprise the large corporate welfare state this country has become.

It's not just the military...that's just one arm of this beast...it's also farm subsidies, large grants and other treasury give aways to the private sector, creating wealth for the principals and stockholders. Then when the debt needs to be fed, the money runs through the large banks and brokerage houses that have transitioned from the quick buck days of the daytrader to sucking off the defecit and debt again.

Right now the Repugnicans have a blank check to spend billions on this war that goes to their biggest supporters and the short term gain is all that matters. The overall largess of the government and the dollar has prevented any serious collapse and many think this game can not only go on indefinitely, but the more debt and spending the better.

to bankrupt this country and put all the money that remains in the hands of few. Once the economy goes down the toilet, that money will be used to (figuratively?) buy up the remains of the whole fucking place.

"Starving the beast" is a longstanding option

Americans need to face up to the fact that their $20k, $100k and $500k stock investment portfolios are not going to do any thing for the economy while big companies like Microsoft are taking their profits to invest in China, India, Brazil and Eastern Europe. Why provide a tax incentive via the capital gains tax rate, at the expense or burden of the American Taxpayer when the investments aren’t being made into the US economy to generate jobs for Americans? So the bottom line is its time to revisit that tax policy because the average taxpayer is subsidizing Global industrialization with no benefits for them. Once they wake up to this fact the market is going to going to get dumped big time. Many have already done this and are putting money into real estate and gold.

If it was not for the war, I think the public would and should be outraged, turmoil is simmering. A judgment day will come....

The poor take the brunt of that.

economics is all about supply and demand
ie the invisible hand
markets readjust itself to the ideal condition of balance

with regards to the economy is that past wars have increased the number of jobs in terms of producing goods/products related to supplying troops with what they need. An increase in jobs led to more money in "regular" people's pockets. This could be characterized as a "trickle down" effect.

in the bush* wars - we do not see an increase in the number of jobs, just alot of war-profiteering for a select few - the money stays stuck at the top - no trickle down just tinkle-on for "regular people".

We are the United States of War

It's been this way all of my life. It really sank in when I travelled.

Spend some time in Europe and Canada and you'll se exactly what I mean.

Without war, this country would cease to exist.

It gives it an unnatural, unsustainable high.

If it costs $180 billion a year (or whatever it is), this is $180 billion added to our budget deficit, which weakens the dollar and puts upwards pressure on interest rates (if those did rise, the economy would be in trouble).