patrick.net

Oh oh, Bernake will be giving us turbo charged QE. But it appears private spending picked up and it was mostly due to reduction in govt spending and the biggest reduction in defense spending in 40 years-which may actually be a good thing. But Bernake being Bernake.

those numbers should be seasonally readjusted to appear much better

Consider this a great opportunity to buy!

Scagnetti says

The U.S. economy shrank from October through December for the first time since the recession ended, hurt by the biggest cut in defense spending in 40 years,

"Defense" spending, or more accurately "warfare" spending, does not produce anything. It creates no wealth. It feeds no ones. It clothes no one. It builds no houses to shelter anyone. It creates no cars to transport anyone. It creates no power plants to generate electricity. Warfare spending at its very, very best is necessary waste. In the reality of America today, warfare spending is just unnecessary and counterproductive waste. It makes us less safe by creating economic incentives for war and conflict while generating hatred for America.

If Republicans were truly fiscal conservatives, warfare spending would be the very first thing they would want to cut to eliminate wasteful government spending, reduce the size of the government, and free up resources for more productive use.

Ultimately, we have to take an economic hit when reducing our warfare industry. Whenever society allows a corporation or industry to grow so unbelievably larger than its usefulness would allow, that industry will become a large and dangerous parasite that sucks life out of its host and threatens to kill the host if touched.

Nonetheless, the only way to save the host is to remove the parasite regardless of what short-term effects it has on the economy. Only when we're spending money building new infrastructure rather than anti-Soviet aircraft can our economy truly recover. So the people in the warfare industry must be fired. They must be fired, allowed to be unemployed until after unemployment insurance runs out, and they must be forced to learn new skills, ones that are actually useful rather than destructive. As a side benefit, these people who oppose social safety nets because they have been guaranteed suckling rights to the government teat will suddenly find the value of such safety nets when they can no longer suck Uncle Sam's tit.

It's all Obama's fault!!!

Dan8267 says

They must be fired, allowed to be unemployed until after unemployment insurance runs out, and they must be forced to learn new skills, ones that are actually useful rather than destructive.

We should just bring them home to fix our infrastructure. If you can drive a tank you can drive a steamroller. Don't like it, quit.

That way you don't have to lay anyone off and wages paid will be funneled back into local economies. Maintenance on a caterpillar is a lot less than a stealth bomber.

varmint says

We should just bring them home to fix our infrastructure. If you can drive a tank you can drive a steamroller. Don't like it, quit.

The vast amount of warfare money isn't spent on grunt soldier salaries. It's spent on contracts with mega-corporations like Lockheed Martin. The teat suckers aren't soldiers but rather people working for private "defense" companies building worthless weapons and charging way the fuck too much for them. These teat suckers have never been to war themselves. We send urban blacks to war, not those working for corporations with defense contracts.

Dan8267 says

The vast amount of warfare money isn't spent on grunt soldier salaries. It's spent on contracts with mega-corporations like Lockheed Martin. The teat suckers aren't soldiers but rather people working for private "defense" companies building worthless weapons and charging way the fuck too much for them. These teat suckers have never been to war themselves. We send urban blacks to war, not those working for corporations with defense contracts.

well my proposal fixes that too! Unless Lockheed wants to get into the bulldozer business

Dan8267 says

"Defense" spending, or more accurately "warfare" spending, does not produce anything. It creates no wealth. It feeds no ones. It clothes no one. It builds no houses to shelter anyone. It creates no cars to transport anyone. It creates no power plants to generate electricity. Warfare spending at its very, very best is necessary waste. In the reality of America today, warfare spending is just unnecessary and counterproductive waste. It makes us less safe by creating economic incentives for war and conflict while generating hatred for America.

You are absolutely right, because we know that those who work in the defense industry are sub-human troglodytes, with no family. They buy no groceries, pay no rent or mortgage, drive no cars and use no utilities. They pay no union dues, nor property taxes. they dwell under rocks and bridges, and just know how to make bullets and bombs.
Dan8267 says

Ultimately, we have to take an economic hit when reducing our warfare industry

Why would there be a hit in the economy. They don't buy anything to wear or eat nor a place to live.
Dan8267 says

Nonetheless, the only way to save the host is to remove the parasite

But only certain parasites ... right?

Dan8267 says

"Defense" spending, or more accurately "warfare" spending, does not produce anything. It creates no wealth. It feeds no ones. It clothes no one. It builds no houses to shelter anyone. It creates no cars to transport anyone. It creates no power plants to generate electricity

No, and it's not supposed to do any of these things. Defense was once seen as the only and main purpose of government, not to be a meddlesome busybody in everyone's lives, buying votes by handing out goodies. These other things were to be provided by an industrious, creative citizenry within the private realm.

P N Dr Lo R says

Defense was once seen as the only and main purpose of government,

Au contraire. Postal service, a currency, many other things had priority over War. Those old white dudes railed against a standing army, we didn't have much of one for almost a century. And what do we have now? Yeah. It used to be called the WAR DEPARTMENT by people with sense, rebranding it as defense is misdirection.

varmint says

well my proposal fixes that too! Unless Lockheed wants to get into the bulldozer business

Fair enough. Turning swords into plowshares is an essential part of demilitarizing an economy. We had to militarize our economy back in 1941 because of WWII. The problem is we never demilitarized it. We went from fighting the second world war to fighting the cold war, and when the cold war ended we launched the war on terror so that we wouldn't have to cut warfare spending.

All those intelligence agents wanted to keep their jobs that were no longer needed so they had to invent another boogieman. Make no mistake, there are a hell of a lot of people in this country who are damn glad that 9/11 happened and would prevent a Kyle Reese from traveling back in time to prevent it. These people make their livings off of the 9/11 aftermath and they want it to continue indefinitely. They get a boner every time there's a chance of a terrorist attack because to them, that's dollars.

ownmyown says

You are absolutely right, because we know that those who work in the defense industry are sub-human troglodytes, with no family. They buy no groceries, pay no rent or mortgage, drive no cars and use no utilities. They pay no union dues, nor property taxes. they dwell under rocks and bridges, and just know how to make bullets and bombs.

Harry the Rapist makes a living by raping 12-year-old girls. He has a family, buys groceries, pays rent or mortgage, drives a car, and uses utilities. Harry the Rapist even pays union dues to the Rapist Union, and he pays taxes on all his rape dungeons.

Should we the taxpayer support Harry's rape industry to make sure that poor Harry doesn't lose his job and benefits?

Your Straw Man argument carries no weight. If the people working in the warfare industry were doing something beneficial to society like rebuilding New Orleans and New Jersey, I'd fully support spending my hard earned tax dollars on them and maybe even going into debt for them. But they make their living blowing up brown children. Why the fuck would I support that?

The warfare industry requires war to make a profit. That is why America has been in a constant state of war since WWII. Before WWII peace, not war, was the norm. For the vast majority of the planet Earth today, peace not war is the norm. You take away the profit motive for war and we'll have a hell of a lot less war.

The Economy has stalled, No growth amid fed stimulus from QE 3. It is becoming more obvious that Bernanke lost influence.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

ownmyown says

Dan8267 says

Ultimately, we have to take an economic hit when reducing our warfare industry

Why would there be a hit in the economy. They don't buy anything to wear or eat nor a place to live.

Well, this is the first time I've seen someone stupid enough to point out that their opponent is arguing the opposite of the Straw Man they just set up.

Here's how a Straw Man is suppose to work. You are suppose to pretend that I am making the Straw Man argument instead of the real arguments I'm making. That way you can defeat the weaker Straw Man and do a victory dance. It doesn't work if you point out that my statement directly contradict the Straw Man you just built.

ownmyown says

Dan8267 says

Nonetheless, the only way to save the host is to remove the parasite

But only certain parasites ... right?

Why the fuck are you asserting that I am for protecting some parasites and removing others? What the flying fuck have I ever written on this site that would lead that monkey brain of yours to reach that conclusion?

Please, walk me through your thought process -- and I use the term "thought process" very loosely.

P N Dr Lo R says

No, and it's not supposed to do any of these things. Defense was once seen as the only and main purpose of government, not to be a meddlesome busybody in everyone's lives, buying votes by handing out goodies. These other things were to be provided by an industrious, creative citizenry within the private realm.

First, then it should make up 1% of our economy at most.

Second, I can think of a great number of things that government should be doing besides defense. Here are a few:

1. Protecting people's rights from other people, from government, and from corporations.

2. Protecting the environment. If it helps, you can think of this as a defense or national security issue. It turns out if we destroy our ecosystem, our species ends. This is almost as bad as Cuba invading us.

3. Maintaining public property such as parks, forests, streams, rivers, road ways, highways, etc.

4. Providing infrastructure that the private sector cannot do efficiently such as lighthouses and health insurance.

5. Preventing pollution and prosecuting polluters.

6. Providing a national education system that ensures that people aren't forced into a life of crime and poverty because of the situation of their birth (race, parental income, class, etc.). Granted our public education system sucks, but that doesn't mean a public education system has to suck.

Dan8267 says

Well, this is the first time I've seen someone stupid enough to point out that their opponent is arguing the opposite of the Straw Man they just set up.

Here's how a Straw Man is suppose to work. You are suppose to pretend that I am making the Straw Man argument instead of the real arguments I'm making. That way you can defeat the weaker Straw Man and do a victory dance. It doesn't work if you point out that my statement directly contradict the Straw Man you just built.

You make consecutive conflicting paragraphs, and I'm the one at fault?
What you meant to say was defense spending doesn't put food on your table or clothe your family or affect you in any way.(not possible , but ok.)
first you say warfare spending doesn't do anything productive for the economy, and then you say if we cut that spending it will have a negative impact on the economy. Inconsistent
Let's think of all the government spending that I don't care about, because it doesn't affect me. Well I think milk subsidies (many billions) could go away. I have a cow , so what do I care if milk is $7.00 a quart.
And corn subsidies for methanol production, that stuff just ruins all of my motors , and besides ,I can make my own "methanol"(we have another name for it)

Dan8267 says

First, then it should make up 1% of our economy at most.

Second, I can think of a great number of things that government should be doing besides defense. Here are a few:

1-6 are all wonderful and noble things, but since, as Hillary made in that stunning and brilliant observation the other night in the interview, "The world is a dangerous and complicated place", they would be impossible if there was not first defense.

Dan8267 says

Why the fuck are you asserting that I am for protecting some parasites and removing others? What the flying fuck have I ever written on this site that would lead that monkey brain of yours to reach that conclusion?

Please, walk me through your thought process -- and I use the term "thought process" very loosely.

From your choice of profane eloquence, I can tell you are of superior intellect.

There's a new movie in the works: "The Incredible Shrinking Economy".

Adjusted for inflation (think commodities price, cost of living, etc) this is severe news.

This is like trying trickle down economics with matt leskos free government money and its failing in the worst possible way. Who would have thought?

KarlRoveIsScum says

Moron. You have no idea what corn is and what it's used for.

But I forget who I am talking to! Idiot.

I will try to reply in the same manner I would if we were facing each other in a room. I note that you ,( while hiding behind an anonymous moniker) make statements that you could not back in the company of men. One who is so testicularly challenged, is probably used to the company of limp-wristed, effete castrati; who accept insult easily. Just when did it become fashionable to be a coward . It IS so much easier to call names and denigrate, than to actually reply to a post. I could learn to like it, but do not wish to do so.
There are actually places where opposing points of view are discussed civilly, without venom. I'll leave you with a paraphrase of a George Bernard Shaw quote.
I do believe that between the two of us , we Know everything there is to know. You know EVERYTHING, except that you are an ass. Thankfully, I know that.

Dan8267 says

These people make their livings off of the 9/11 aftermath and they want it to continue indefinitely. They get a boner every time there's a chance of a terrorist attack because to them, that's dollars.

Good friend of mine's husband works for a defense contractor and openly states our tax dollars are a boondoggle for him. He is a complete sociopath (even his wife/my good friend says so--she just sticks around for the money).

ownmyown says

You make consecutive conflicting paragraphs, and I'm the one at fault?

Your perception of my writing is due simply to your faulty reading comprehension skills and as such does not reflect reality.

ownmyown says

What you meant to say was defense spending doesn't put food on your table or clothe your family or affect you in any way.(not possible , but ok.)

No, that is not what I'm saying. Trolls should talk less and listen more. Then they would understand things.

I've said that warfare spending does not produce any wealth. Of course if affects us. It affects us in many very negative ways. It destroys wealth. It diverts resources from productive uses. It kills people. It generates hatred, conflict, and yes, even terrorism. And it causes many other secondary costs that must continued to be paid long after the warfare spending itself.

ownmyown says

first you say warfare spending doesn't do anything productive for the economy, and then you say if we cut that spending it will have a negative impact on the economy.

I said warfare spending produces no wealth. I did not say it didn't affect the economy. Many parasites make their living off of producing bullets and bombs. Take away their income and you take away their demand for vacations, plasma t.v.s, new IPhones, etc. However, that does not justify warfare spending. We could pay these people to give blowjobs and at least we'd be producing wealth in the form of adult entertainment. We could even pay these people to pick their noises and it would be better than warfare spending; they would not be producing any wealth, but at least they would not be destroying wealth and human lives and generating secondary problems that cost to fix or endure.

The fact that you, personally, did not understand this is your fault, not mine. It was clear in my post.

ownmyown says

From your choice of profane eloquence, I can tell you are of superior intellect.

Geniuses often use profanity when dealing with the petulant stupid.

P N Dr Lo R says

as Hillary made in that stunning and brilliant observation the other night in the interview, "The world is a dangerous and complicated place", they would be impossible if there was not first defense.

A certain level of military spending is necessary for defense. The US has surpassed that level by a factor of ten, if not a hundred. The sheer volume of warfare spending that goes on in our country actually decreases our security.

All those bombs built have to be used in order to justify building more bombs, which is necessary to keep the money flowing through the warfare industry. That means violent conflicts must be created where they would not be in the lack of this warfare spending. Our warfare industry increases warfare; it creates its own demand. And by demand, I mean threats to our national security, because that is what demand in this industry is.

Excessive warfare spending harms national security.

Philistine says

Good friend of mine's husband works for a defense contractor and openly states our tax dollars are a boondoggle for him

After 9/11, many people started asking, how can we profit off of this? The answer they all came up with is to sell "security" theater. Irrational fear will drive governments to spend absurd amounts on useless crap. Capitalists love this shit. To them, it's free money.

News flash! Cutting Government spending lowers GDP.

I agree with Dan. What if, instead of Warfare, building nukes and then un-building them, we put money into science and medicine. A Cure for cancer improves quality of life. Warfare lowers it.

Dan8267 says

Granted our public education system sucks, but that doesn't mean a public education system has to suck.

I agree with you concerning the bloated military infrastructure, but why does public education stink? After all, public schools are open to everyone, have certified teachers, provide free tuition and books, and include sports, labs, music, and advanced placement classes. Even transportation to and fro is free. Many public schools even provide free breakfast and lunch for students that would otherwise do without. What would you do to improve on this?

Dan8267 says

Before WWII peace, not war, was the norm.

I do not like war either, but do not kid yourself in to thinking Europe was peaceful until the USA interfered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

HeadSet says

After all, public schools are open to everyone, have certified teachers, provide free tuition and books, and include sports, labs, music, and advanced placement classes. Even transportation to and fro is free.

Ah, but none of that has anything to do with actual education. You are talking about the costs being socialized and the fringe benefits like meals. But what about education itself?

Despite spending approximately $3,000 more per student than the OECD average across primary, secondary and postsecondary education, the United States scores below the OECD average in mathematics, and no better than average in science and reading.

And these statistics include score for both private and public school students! If we counted just public school students, the US rank would be much, much lower.

There are many problems with the US public education system. Watch Stupid in America with John Stossel. Even if you completely disagree with his proposed solutions, at least acknowledge the problems.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Bx4pN-aiofw

HeadSet says

What would you do to improve on this?

What's wrong with the educational system and how to fix it.

Dan8267 says

Ah, but none of that has anything to do with actual education. You are talking about the costs being socialized and the fringe benefits like meals. But what about education itself?

Please read my post carefully - I asked "Why does it stink?" I did not say that it does not stink. I just would like to know why, since all schools are well equipped amd manned. I will watch that video you imbedded, though.

Not all schools are bad, and many students who attend "bad" schools do quite well.

HeadSet says

I asked "Why does it stink?"

If you're a bottom line guy, the answer would be "it stinks because American students are lagging behind most industrialized nations". If you are a details guy, the video goes into some of the specific problems in the public school system. However, I'm more of a fundamental problem guy, so I address the fundamental change needed in education in the link "What is..." above.

Headset, here's another take on the issue:
Two Bay Area researchers analyzed data from international standardized tests over the last decade and have concluded the average scores skew against the United States, which tests more low-income students than other countries, especially those clustered in high-poverty schools.
An apples-to-apples comparison that evens out participation in the tests among economic classes would push the U.S. way up in the international ranking of 34 countries - to fourth place instead of 14th in reading and to 10th place from 25th in math.