WashPost: War With Iran Would Rescue Economy

[Purveyor]

Washington Post political correspondent David Broder has kind words for President Barack Obama in in his opinion column Sunday, arguing that it isn't the president's fault the economy is stuck in reverse.

But the four-decade-plus veteran of Washington politics offers a startling solution to the president's political and economic woes: March off to war with Iran.

The president, who is "much smarter" and "more inspirational" than any of his opponents, could benefit from a confrontation with Iran because it would strike up a war machine that would pull the US out of economic stagnation, Broder argues.

He writes that there are "essentially" two ways that an economy can be grown: Through the natural economic cycle, and through war.

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

MORE...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/washpost-war-iran-rescue-economy/

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Look how good the economy is with TWO wars we already have.

[ibegurpard]

2. let's send him to start it

[tabatha]

3. Killing others, destroying property to enrich ourselves.

How completely sick. And this from a Christian nation?

[alsame]

4. I've been hearing this rightwing BS "war is good for the economy"

all my life. Guess they're trying it out on a new generation now.

[Uzybone]

5. has Broder finally gone totally insane?

[BlueMTexpat]

14. Either that or just senile. n/t

[Enrique]

6. the banality of evil

[indepat]

9. Has Broder lost his effin' mind?

:shrug:

[Bitwit1234]

7. First thing they should do in that case is take the republican

voting list and start drafting.

[Speck Tater]

8. What EXACTLY was it about WWII that rescued the economy?

It was enormous levels of government spending.

The economy could just as easily have been rescued by that same level of government spending on infrastructure projects, or space exploration, or energy independence projects.

[Lurks Often]

16. That and the removal of

millions of men from the civilian economy. Probably as close as we'll ever come to having unemployment be 0%.


And no, I am not advocating war with Iran.

[Speck Tater]

23. And now that I think a little more deeply on the subject...

it also pretty much destroyed Europe's means of production giving America a HUGE market for its industrial production.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. I say we go to war with Europe!

[Lurks Often]

28. Both Europe and the US faced a

mini Depression after the war, in the US, the vast influx of men returning from the military combined with the huge layoffs from all the factories producing military equipment, left more people then jobs.

In Europe, England was still facing shortages into the early 1950's and WWII is really what led to the end of England as a global power, although losing India as a colony certainly contributed to the end.

[joshcryer]

32. We didn't even pay off WWII completely until Clinton.

[joshcryer]

31. Yep, WWII was socialist / Keynesian. Any big project would have a similar effect.

Krugman has been arguing for it for years.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. There is a third way.

Take al the borrowed $$ that would go into the war & use it to provide jobs, universal health care, and a whole new 21st century infrastructure for America.

The bad part, of course, is that Iran wouldn't be radioactive.

The good part is that we would be healthier, fully employed, and building toward the sustainable technologies that are ultimately the only way to maintain a healthy world ecosystem.

[sally cat]

11. This idiot actually thinks the Democratic Party is the party of war?

[Lurks Often]

17. Might want to try reading your US history

World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam* all started under a Democratic president.



*Vietnam: a valid argument can be made that the very beginnings of Vietnam originated under Eisenhower, but it was Kennedy and Johnson that escalated it to the level that most people remember.

[Exilednight]

12. Because Iraq and Afghanistan just aren't enough. n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. War is now being pitched as an "economic recovery opportunity" now?

:eyes:

:wtf:

Does anybody also remember how Bushco repeatedly argued that the Iraq invasion/occupation would o.k. because it would essentially pay for itself with oil revenues (and Saddam's fortunes) to finance the reconstruction and how well THAT worked out? :eyes: :puke:

[tledford]

29. The Rummy said the Iraq war would cost $2 billion. eom

[vaberella]

15. They just want to kill Muslims (and Christians and Jews in Iran). Fuck them. n/t

[Jennicut]

18. Why, we aren't in debt enough, lets start another war! David Broder, it is

officially time to retire. Idiot.

[Mass]

19. Time for Broder to retire. No, it is overdue. \nt

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

20. The obvious flaw in Broder's idea.

Apart from the insanity of starting another war itself of course - is that any wars in that particular corner of the planet will cause a ridiculous leap in oil prices (which will then be amplified by the true criminals and terrorists on Wall Street) and that will then ripple throughout the entire economy.

You saw what Chimpy's $4/gallon gas did to this country. Imagine what $8/gallon would look like.

I've seen Hell. I spent three days down there a while back. This would be closer than you would ever want to get.

[Yavin4]

21. Mid-Terms Are A Day Away, and These Fuckers Are Already Starting The War with Iran Meme

Un-fucking-real.

[janewin]

22. Bombing Iran wont jump start the economy

If we truly wanna use war for this, then we better start nuking (bombs are too ineffective and expensive), China, Japan, South Korea, Europe (except Portugal, Ireland, Green and most eastern block countries), Mexico, Israel and Canada. If we eliminate all our competition and a huge chunk of the unemployed men, we will see a huge boost in GDP growth, bigger than whatever we got coming out of the great depression.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Insanity.

[paparush]

25. Yeah, oil at $200+ a barrel would just perk that old economy right up.

[Aramchek]

26. Broder can be the first person shipped over to Iran.

[joshcryer]

30. The comparison to WWII is not new. However, WWII was an intrainsically socialist approach.

Krugman goes in to this: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/arsenal-of-recovery/

But in the prewar buildup you had a clear-cut expansion of federal spending on the order of 14 percent of GDP. That’s a real experiment with the economy. And the results were clearly Keynesian.

Spending money will save economies.

We don't have to spend it on war, however.

Energy independence, public health care, things like that are just as valid approaches.

Utterly unlikely to even be proposed though.

[Ninten12]

33. Hmmm... They thought that about the Iraq war too.

War has done nothing but destroy this economy. While we sit here and flush money that we don't have down the toilet while the Chinese dedicate billions each month to wind and solar power.