Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Money Spent on War vs. Money Spent on Infrastructure

I was reading a news article yesterday in which the (obviously liberal) reported "defended" the Obama administration by saying that even though deficits will climb dramatically under Obama, that deficit spending on infrastructure helped the economy more than money spent on the Iraq war.


Is that true?

Initially, I read the statement without really questioning it.  He was, after all, a news reporter writing a news (not an opinion or commentary) article.  Surely that article had been researched, proofread and re-read by a number of editors and fact-checkers.  

But later in the day, I got to thinking about that comment (which wasn't the point of the whole article, by the way). And the more I thought about it, the more I thought, "That can't really be true, can it?"

It's not like money spent on the war gets sent directly to Iraq and is blown up. Money spent on the Iraq war is money that is for the most part spent here, in the US economy. Weapons and ammunition are manufactured here.  Soldiers pay is mostly deposited in US banks and spent by the solders families here, or by the solders themselves when they return home. Vehicles, food, and other supplies are purchased here in the US and shipped to Iraq for use by the soldiers.  All that money goes back into the US economy. Or a large portion of it, anyway. That is, in essence, how World War II (not FDR's policies) brought us out of the Great Depression.

Much of the money spent on infrastructure stays here in the US, as well.  Think about all the asphalt spent on road construction, for example.  Where does that come from?  From ... uh ... oil, which comes from the Middle East. 

Okay, that was a bad example.

Certainly, the labor that helps create and update our infrastructure helps the US economy.  Many legal and illegal Mexican immigrants work on the crews that build our roads, bridges, railroads, and ..... then they send that money to Mexico ... no wait.  That's a bad example, too.

Let's consider ... Universal Health Care; a process in which the Federal Government becomes the facilitator in taking money out of the hands of working Americans in order to directly benefit non-working Americans as well as immigrants from Mexico and from .... wait a minute.  I guess that's not going to really help the economy, either.

Okay, I need a little help here ...

5 comments:

Obama Nation March 24, 2009 at 12:07 PM  

Before you mentioned it, I was going to say exactly what you said: war got us out of the Great Depression, not FDR's New Deal. It's sad that so many people are uninformed on that one (mostly because of liberal history teachers).

Chuck March 24, 2009 at 5:42 PM  

I'm right with Obama Nation, WWII got us out of the depression. Good take on the infrastructure money.

Conservative Scalawag March 24, 2009 at 7:52 PM  

Man,I am referring to FDR a lot today.

Just like the NRA and WPA programs,this will fail to do what it is intended to do. Provide jobs for Americans and stimulate spending here.

As to military, the democrats never spend on the military,but cut the budgets for social programs instead.

Z March 25, 2009 at 12:30 AM  

Sounds like you don't need a bit of help here......great post. Good thinking.
BUT, our COUNTRY needs a BIG BIT OF HELP here unless more people start thinking like we already do!

ana.durso April 25, 2010 at 8:21 PM  

I agree that a lot of the things that Bush got ridiculed for, are a lot of the very same things B.O. gets praised for.When Bush did it, it was called imperialism. When One Big Ass Mistake America did it, it was called diplomacy. You have to love the hipocrisy.

About This Blog

This blog is about my opinions and world view.  I am a conservative, evangelical Christian.  Generally speaking, if you post a comment, I'll allow you to express your view.  However, if you say something hateful, untruthful, or just generally something I don't like, I may remove it.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP