• The National Debt.

    From BOB KLAHN@1:123/140 to ALL on Wed Dec 4 14:29:42 2013

    This is an analysis of pre-WWII records of the national debt,
    going back to 1790. The idea is to look at how things have
    changed and what happened back then to make a difference in how
    the debt has grown since then.

    Details on some of the factors affecting the collection of the
    data found at the end of the commentary.

    **************************************************************************

    The national debt is really not that difficult to deal with, you
    know. Look at history. Yes, there has not been one single year
    since this country was founded that it was debt free, but there
    were multiple times where the debt was drastically reduced.

    In researching that I looked for a reduction of 40%-50% or more
    in the pre-Civil War period, and after the Civil War I looked at
    debt as a percentage of GNP as well as dollar reduction. Before
    1890 I didn't find stats on the GNP.

    readily available. I'm not getting paid for this after all. Oh,
    and they used GNP rather than GDP then. Not enough difference to
    matter for this purpose.

    From 1790 till 1930 I find 7 times when the dollar amount of the
    debt went down to those specs, 1803-1811, 1815-1835, 1838-1839,
    1843-1847, 1851-1857, 1866-1893, 1919-1930.

    From 1890 to 1930 twice it went down enough as percent of GNP I
    feel confident in calling it on the road to, if not paying off
    the debt, then making it trivial. Twice, 1835 and 1915, I call
    it so close to paying off the debt it could have been done.

    The actual debt went from $127 million in 1815 to $38 thousand
    in 1834. I call that on the road to paying it off, but that was
    the dollar amount low point. By 1915 the debt was at aprox 2.5%
    of GNP. IOW, by spending 1/2 of one percent of GNP every year
    for 5 years we could have paid it off. In 1930 the debt debt was
    at 16% of GNP, again, awfully close to payoff range, in my
    opinion.

    So, just how did that happen? Well, graphing federal spending it
    became immediately clear. The debt was brought down drastically
    by cutting federal spending........ on the military.

    You weren't expecting that, were you?

    Yes, it was cuts in military spending that brought the debt
    down. Every time in the pre-1930s US a major reduction in debt
    was during a period of low military spending. So, it appears to
    be simple, just cut military spending and you cut the debt.

    Note, that does not mean low social welfare spending.
    (Republicans call everything not military "social welfare".)
    Much of that time social welfare spending was higher than
    military spending, and it went up while military spending was
    down. Even when military spending went up, social welfare
    spending sometimes went up, yet the debt stayed down. When
    the debt did jump it followed military spending jumps.

    However, that leaves the question, why, if they so drastically
    cut the debt, didn't they continue on that route to pay off the
    debt? Well, let's look. The 1835 and 39 declines seem to have
    ended with recessions so bad as to qualify as depressions, the
    worst this country saw before the Civil War. The 1840s into the
    1850s showcased three major recessions, plus a war. The
    Mexican-American war may not be on the top of your list, but
    spending sure shot up.

    As to the others, oh yeah, when the debt fell by so much, then
    it shot up again, that was when military spending jumped
    drastically.

    Now why was that? I'll just speculate. When you drastically cut
    military spending, you drastically reduce your military. Now,
    nice as we like to think people are, there are always some who
    will look around, find you are weak, and decide it's a good time
    t o take what you have. Or maybe they just want to knock you
    down a peg. So, when the debt drops drastically, we have a war
    to bring it back up.

    That appears to be about how it goes. Major spending increases
    are actually major military spending increases during that time
    frame. So, do we cut the military, drastically reduce the
    budget, then get a war, or do we try to think it through just a
    bit better?

    Notice I focused on the period from 1790, the first year I
    could find these numbers for, until 1930. I chose that time
    frame because, from 1930 on everything changed. Between 1919 and
    1930 the debt dropped, as I said, to 16% of GDP. From 1920 to
    1930 this country had 11 consecutive balanced budgets, the
    longest string of the 20th century. Then came the Great
    Depression. Seems balanced budgets of the 20th century are
    consistently followed by recessions. The longest strings seem to
    have the worst recessions .

    The national debt went up to 50% of GNP by 1940, at which time
    GNP was back to where it was in 1930. Don't even start to think
    that was all because of increased social welfare spending.
    Remember, that $16 Billion in debt was 16% of GNP when the GNP
    was $100 billion. In the first few years of the depression the
    GNP dropped 46%. When that $100 billion dropped 46% that 16%
    turned into aprox 28% of GNP. All that before borrowing one
    penny more. Ten years of depression just under doubled the debt
    to GNP ratio. After that World War II kept it climbing, so fast
    and skyrocketed the economy so much that by comparison the
    depression was trivial. Yes, military spending did it again.

    Since World War II we have not had a year of low military
    spending. Even the Vietnam war only increased military spending
    a relatively small percentage of GDP. Military spending did go
    lower, but not much, and not for long.

    Before World War II we could, and were, attacked by foreign
    foes, but it was difficult for them to launch and supply any
    military effort over that distance. In World War II and after we
    learned, the oceans no longer protect us. We are vulnerable to
    attack, and with today's weapons, destruction.

    **************************************************************************

    Most of the numbers here came from the Govt Printing Office's
    publication, "Historical Statistics of the United States From
    Colonial Times to 1970", Bi-Centennial edition.

    Please note that figures before WWII may differ from post WWII
    figures, and the older they get the more they may differ. In
    earlier years the numbers were far less rigorously collected,
    that and communication difficulties made them much less
    reliable.

    Throughout this I used current dollars, not constant, or
    inflation adjusted, numbers. Since I was looking at the dollar
    amount of the debt so inflation adjustment was not applied. That
    plus, the record difficulties make inflation adjustment for very
    old data difficult. Also, I broke up my research into
    pre-Civil War, pre-WWI, and Pre-WWII. The scale of the numbers
    jumps drastically between those periods.

    I did not, in this case, look much at post WWII because there
    has been no time since WWII that the debt went down
    significantly, and no time that military spending went down very
    much or for very long. Which makes it a different situation.

    Which is another way of saying, after Dec 7, 1941, everything
    changed.


    BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@bex.net http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

    ... War is God's way of teaching us geography.
    --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to BOB KLAHN on Thu Dec 5 18:01:36 2013
    Hello Bob,

    This is an analysis of pre-WWII records of the national debt,
    going back to 1790. The idea is to look at how things have
    changed and what happened back then to make a difference in how
    the debt has grown since then.

    Haven't you learned anything from what Dick Cheney taught you?
    Deficits don't matter. Nor does the national debt. Think about
    it.

    In the olden days, people spent whatever cash they had on hand.
    Then some bright soul came up with the splendid idea of lending
    money to those who had no money. That went pretty well, until
    it came time for those who had no money to pay up. But there
    was an easy solution for that problem, known as "debtor's prison".
    People who owed other people money could be owned. Kind of like
    slavery, but without the ball and chain.

    Today we have something similar, called credit. Companies give
    these plastic cards to people, who use these cards to spend real
    money they do not have on stuff they do not need. And then, when
    those people do not have enough money to pay the debt, the amount
    of credit is increased so that they can spend some more money they
    do not have on things they do not need. This is an especially
    useful way to spend money during the Christmas shopping season ...

    Details on some of the factors affecting the collection of the
    data found at the end of the commentary.

    In the future world of Star Trek, no humans use money as money has
    become a thing of the past. Klingons just take, as they are a warrior
    race, never having had the need or want for money. And Vulcans, well, sometimes they are too into themselves to even notice if money exists.

    The national debt is really not that difficult to deal with, you
    know. Look at history. Yes, there has not been one single year
    since this country was founded that it was debt free, but there
    were multiple times where the debt was drastically reduced.

    A debt-free economy would be a doomsday scenario. It would be
    like having an economy encased in concrete.

    In researching that I looked for a reduction of 40%-50% or more
    in the pre-Civil War period, and after the Civil War I looked at
    debt as a percentage of GNP as well as dollar reduction. Before
    1890 I didn't find stats on the GNP.

    It was always boom and bust, the federal government being weak
    in comparison to what it is today.

    readily available. I'm not getting paid for this after all. Oh,
    and they used GNP rather than GDP then. Not enough difference to
    matter for this purpose.

    Not many taxes were collected in those days.

    From 1790 till 1930 I find 7 times when the dollar amount of the
    debt went down to those specs, 1803-1811, 1815-1835, 1838-1839,
    1843-1847, 1851-1857, 1866-1893, 1919-1930.

    The federal government did not have many programs back then.
    Aside from funding our military, there really wasn't much else
    that needed to be funded.

    From 1890 to 1930 twice it went down enough as percent of GNP I
    feel confident in calling it on the road to, if not paying off
    the debt, then making it trivial. Twice, 1835 and 1915, I call
    it so close to paying off the debt it could have been done.

    Two big wars - The War of Northern Aggression and WWI - along
    with the Spanish-American War. Nothing else of any consequence
    was funded during that time frame.

    The actual debt went from $127 million in 1815 to $38 thousand
    in 1834. I call that on the road to paying it off, but that was
    the dollar amount low point. By 1915 the debt was at aprox 2.5%
    of GNP. IOW, by spending 1/2 of one percent of GNP every year
    for 5 years we could have paid it off. In 1930 the debt debt was
    at 16% of GNP, again, awfully close to payoff range, in my
    opinion.

    The Mexican-American War occurred prior to the War of Northern
    Aggression, but that cost was trivial.

    So, just how did that happen? Well, graphing federal spending it
    became immediately clear. The debt was brought down drastically
    by cutting federal spending........ on the military.

    You do not cut your way out of a Great Depression or Great Recession.
    In order to make money, you have to spend money. Preferably other
    peoples' money. That is the way it works for an economy to grow.

    You weren't expecting that, were you?

    Austerity might sound good, but in actuality is pure evil.

    Yes, it was cuts in military spending that brought the debt
    down. Every time in the pre-1930s US a major reduction in debt
    was during a period of low military spending. So, it appears to
    be simple, just cut military spending and you cut the debt.

    If it was "cuts in military spending that brought the debt down"
    then why did it lead to the Great Depression and WWII? Today we
    are enjoying the Great Recession (nobody wants to call it another
    Great Depression). Republicans have brought austerity to the
    table, calling it their solution to the crisis. Democrats went
    along with it, with the Budget Control Act of 2011. And now our
    young people are reaping the benefits, having no choice but to
    live at home with mom and dad, dependent on them for everything,
    as the only jobs they might be lucky enough to find are flipping
    burgers at some fast food joint or working at some retail store
    such as wally world, part timers with meager wages.

    Note, that does not mean low social welfare spending.
    (Republicans call everything not military "social welfare".)
    Much of that time social welfare spending was higher than
    military spending, and it went up while military spending was
    down. Even when military spending went up, social welfare
    spending sometimes went up, yet the debt stayed down. When
    the debt did jump it followed military spending jumps.

    Cutting food stamps makes much more sense than gutting our military.
    After all, people can eat the burgers they make at fast food joints.
    Or dig in the trash cans outside those fast food joints when nobody
    else is looking.

    However, that leaves the question, why, if they so drastically
    cut the debt, didn't they continue on that route to pay off the
    debt? Well, let's look. The 1835 and 39 declines seem to have
    ended with recessions so bad as to qualify as depressions, the
    worst this country saw before the Civil War. The 1840s into the
    1850s showcased three major recessions, plus a war. The
    Mexican-American war may not be on the top of your list, but
    spending sure shot up.

    There were no federally-funded social programs in those days.
    Nor were food stamps available. People lived off the land, and
    paid little if any taxes. In times of war, people die. Rich
    folks know that, which is why they recruited folks who lived
    on the farm. Life was cheap, and usually short, in those days.

    As to the others, oh yeah, when the debt fell by so much, then
    it shot up again, that was when military spending jumped
    drastically.

    Yeah. Weapons cost a lot more than human lives.

    Now why was that? I'll just speculate. When you drastically cut
    military spending, you drastically reduce your military. Now,
    nice as we like to think people are, there are always some who
    will look around, find you are weak, and decide it's a good time
    to take what you have. Or maybe they just want to knock you
    down a peg. So, when the debt drops drastically, we have a war
    to bring it back up.

    The greatest asset a country has is human resources. Sending our
    young men and women off to war is depleting our national treasure.
    But warmongers refuse to look at things that way ...

    That appears to be about how it goes. Major spending increases
    are actually major military spending increases during that time
    frame. So, do we cut the military, drastically reduce the
    budget, then get a war, or do we try to think it through just a
    bit better?

    By cutting our military we get a peace dividend. Rather than
    cutting the budget (austerity), we should use that peace dividend
    for government programs that help the poor and middle class. The
    very wealthy can look after themselves, and be thankful for what
    this country has already given them.

    Notice I focused on the period from 1790, the first year I
    could find these numbers for, until 1930. I chose that time
    frame because, from 1930 on everything changed. Between 1919 and
    1930 the debt dropped, as I said, to 16% of GDP. From 1920 to
    1930 this country had 11 consecutive balanced budgets, the
    longest string of the 20th century. Then came the Great
    Depression. Seems balanced budgets of the 20th century are
    consistently followed by recessions. The longest strings seem to
    have the worst recessions .

    FDR did not have an ideology. He did what needed to be done,
    bringing this country out of the Great Depression and defending
    this country from a world gone mad. Various government programs
    were enacted that helped the poor and middle class, along with
    saving the wealthy from themselves. Yes, FDR saved the wealthy
    from themselves. The very first thing he did as president was
    to declare a bank holiday (which was really about a week),
    closing the bad banks and keeping the good ones open. Had he
    not done that, the wealthy would have been among the poor and
    homeless.

    Gotta spend money to make money ...

    The national debt went up to 50% of GNP by 1940, at which time
    GNP was back to where it was in 1930. Don't even start to think
    that was all because of increased social welfare spending.
    Remember, that $16 Billion in debt was 16% of GNP when the GNP
    was $100 billion. In the first few years of the depression the
    GNP dropped 46%. When that $100 billion dropped 46% that 16%
    turned into aprox 28% of GNP. All that before borrowing one
    penny more. Ten years of depression just under doubled the debt
    to GNP ratio. After that World War II kept it climbing, so fast
    and skyrocketed the economy so much that by comparison the
    depression was trivial. Yes, military spending did it again.

    Republicans believe in shock economics. Bring a country to its
    knees by decimating the economy through austerity, then start a
    war to get the economy booming. Maggie Thatcher did it, ruining
    Britain's economy and then bringing it back with the Falkland
    Islands War. George W. Bush did it, tanking the American economy
    and then bringing it back by wait a minute Barack Obama brought
    it back ...

    Democrats believe in people economics. Most famously by FDR.
    I'll spare you the details.

    Since World War II we have not had a year of low military
    spending. Even the Vietnam war only increased military spending
    a relatively small percentage of GDP. Military spending did go
    lower, but not much, and not for long.

    Had it not been for the Cold War, the peace dividend would have
    been HUMONGOUS. President Truman would have ended the draft, and
    our military would have become nothing more than a glofified police
    force. We would have been best friends with Russians, as well as
    Chinese, student exchanges being the rule rather than the exception.
    Oh, it would have been a wonderful world, a world of peace and love. Unfortunately, we went on to elect a military man as our president.
    General Dwight D. Eisenhower. And do you know what he said? He
    said "I hope the American people never elect a military man as
    president again." Ike knew what he was talking about.

    Before World War II we could, and were, attacked by foreign
    foes, but it was difficult for them to launch and supply any
    military effort over that distance. In World War II and after we
    learned, the oceans no longer protect us. We are vulnerable to
    attack, and with today's weapons, destruction.

    Japan bombed our ships to smithereens at Pearl Harbor without
    much difficulty. Al-Qaeda terrorists used passenger airplanes
    as guided missiles to bring down two WTC towers (a third WTC
    also collapsed), plus damaging the Pentagon, without much
    difficulty. The point is, we will always be vulnerable to
    attack, regardless of the size of our military. Making our
    military larger is not going to prevent such attacks from
    happening.

    Most of the numbers here came from the Govt Printing Office's
    publication, "Historical Statistics of the United States From
    Colonial Times to 1970", Bi-Centennial edition.

    Yeah. Mark Twain said something about statistics. And he
    wasn't very flattering about it.

    Please note that figures before WWII may differ from post WWII
    figures, and the older they get the more they may differ. In
    earlier years the numbers were far less rigorously collected,
    that and communication difficulties made them much less
    reliable.

    Google "shock economics" and you will begin to understand
    the Republican modus operandi in today's modern world.

    Throughout this I used current dollars, not constant, or
    inflation adjusted, numbers. Since I was looking at the dollar
    amount of the debt so inflation adjustment was not applied. That
    plus, the record difficulties make inflation adjustment for very
    old data difficult. Also, I broke up my research into
    pre-Civil War, pre-WWI, and Pre-WWII. The scale of the numbers
    jumps drastically between those periods.

    An interesting analysis. However, another grouping might
    reveal a deeper insight -

    * Washington to Lincoln
    * Lincoln to FDR
    * FDR to Obama

    If there was one war to distinguish different periods, the
    Spanish-American War comes to mind. That war distinguishes
    when the US became a global power. Some might cite WWII as
    a better example, but in my view the Spanish-American War
    gave the US more influence.

    I did not, in this case, look much at post WWII because there
    has been no time since WWII that the debt went down
    significantly, and no time that military spending went down very
    much or for very long. Which makes it a different situation.

    Marxian economics would postulate the stronger economy would
    always win in a contest (war) between nations. However, as we
    have learned from experience, a determined foe can make the
    cost of victory too prohibitive to keep (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan).

    Which is another way of saying, after Dec 7, 1941, everything
    changed.

    Japan became our friend. Germany became our friend. Italy became
    our friend. Russia became our friend. China became our friend.
    The whole world became our friend. Bill Clinton left office, leaving
    this country with a surplus, along with the highest approval rating in
    history of any president. And then George W. Bush went and blew it,
    turning the surplus into a deficit, telling each and every American
    to hug their children and go shopping ...

    .. War is God's way of teaching us geography.

    "Is our children learning?" - George W. Bush

    --Lee

    --- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)
  • From BOB KLAHN@1:123/140 to LEE LOFASO on Wed Dec 11 11:00:34 2013
    Hello Bob,

    This is an analysis of pre-WWII records of the national debt,
    going back to 1790. The idea is to look at how things have
    changed and what happened back then to make a difference in how
    the debt has grown since then.

    Haven't you learned anything from what Dick Cheney taught
    you? Deficits don't matter. Nor does the national debt.
    Think about it.

    I learned that no member of the Cheney Family should be allowed
    anywhere near the national check book.

    ...

    Details on some of the factors affecting the collection of the
    data found at the end of the commentary.

    In the future world of Star Trek, no humans use money as
    money has become a thing of the past. Klingons just take,

    That was in the early Star Treks. By Deep Space 9 they had come
    up with a form of money, Gold Pressed Latinum.

    as they are a warrior race, never having had the need or
    want for money. And Vulcans, well, sometimes they are too
    into themselves to even notice if money exists.

    Long time ago I read a book in which the author mentioned going
    into a bank at the Vatican. He suggested to the teller that he
    must see a lot of people naive about money.

    The teller responsed, "In my experience, no one is naive about
    money."

    I would disagree with him, but he probably saw a very limited
    clientele.

    The national debt is really not that difficult to deal with, you
    know. Look at history. Yes, there has not been one single year
    since this country was founded that it was debt free, but there
    were multiple times where the debt was drastically reduced.

    A debt-free economy would be a doomsday scenario. It would
    be like having an economy encased in concrete.

    For a very short time wouldn't be so bad, as long as we avoid
    war and depression. In the long run it wouldn't work.

    In researching that I looked for a reduction of 40%-50% or more
    in the pre-Civil War period, and after the Civil War I looked at
    debt as a percentage of GNP as well as dollar reduction. Before
    1890 I didn't find stats on the GNP.

    It was always boom and bust, the federal government being
    weak in comparison to what it is today.

    The number of recessions before WWII amazed me. And their depth.
    The small ones were worse than anything after WWII until the
    current one. This one is not as bad for depth, but length is
    awful. It started in 2007 and is still going on.

    readily available. I'm not getting paid for this after all. Oh,
    and they used GNP rather than GDP then. Not enough difference to
    matter for this purpose.

    Not many taxes were collected in those days.

    They were in war time.

    From 1790 till 1930 I find 7 times when the dollar amount of the
    debt went down to those specs, 1803-1811, 1815-1835, 1838-1839,
    1843-1847, 1851-1857, 1866-1893, 1919-1930.

    The federal government did not have many programs back then.
    Aside from funding our military, there really wasn't much
    else that needed to be funded.

    Actually, most of the time non-military spending was close to,
    or more than, military spending. Building a country was
    expensive.

    When military spending went down the debt went down. Then came
    another war and both went back up.

    From 1890 to 1930 twice it went down enough as percent of GNP I
    feel confident in calling it on the road to, if not paying off
    the debt, then making it trivial. Twice, 1835 and 1915, I call
    it so close to paying off the debt it could have been done.

    Two big wars - The War of Northern Aggression and WWI -
    along with the Spanish-American War. Nothing else of any
    consequence was funded during that time frame.

    There was no War of Northern Aggression, unless you count
    Canada's part in the War of 1812. If you count 1890 to 1930, WWI
    was the only biggie. Between 1835 and 1915 the Civil War was the
    biggie.

    The actual debt went from $127 million in 1815 to $38 thousand
    in 1834. I call that on the road to paying it off, but that was
    the dollar amount low point. By 1915 the debt was at aprox 2.5%
    of GNP. IOW, by spending 1/2 of one percent of GNP every year

    ...

    The Mexican-American War occurred prior to the War of
    Northern Aggression, but that cost was trivial.

    Yet there was a spike in military spending and debt, to $57Mill.
    Big compared to previous years, but trivial compared to the
    Civil War.

    So, just how did that happen? Well, graphing federal spending it
    became immediately clear. The debt was brought down drastically
    by cutting federal spending........ on the military.

    You do not cut your way out of a Great Depression or Great
    Recession. In order to make money, you have to spend money.
    Preferably other peoples' money. That is the way it works
    for an economy to grow.

    The times when the debt went down were times of peace, and no
    major recessions. There were plenty of smaller recessions, but
    that didn't stop the decline in debt.

    You weren't expecting that, were you?

    Austerity might sound good, but in actuality is pure evil.

    True.

    Yes, it was cuts in military spending that brought the debt
    down. Every time in the pre-1930s US a major reduction in debt
    was during a period of low military spending. So, it appears to
    be simple, just cut military spending and you cut the debt.

    If it was "cuts in military spending that brought the debt
    down" then why did it lead to the Great Depression and
    WWII?

    Cuts in military spending were frequently followed by war. In
    this case, however, the Great Depression and WWII maked the
    change in the whole situation. For the first time the US was
    truly vulnerable to international attack.

    The Great Depression was largely a matter of the rich soaking up
    everything, and massive corruption. Just like now.

    Today we are enjoying the Great Recession (nobody
    wants to call it another Great Depression). Republicans
    have brought austerity to the table, calling it their
    solution to the crisis.

    Republicans have been pushing austerity even during prosperity.
    That is their mantra, their religion. Except where it suits them
    to spend, that is.

    Democrats went along with it, with
    the Budget Control Act of 2011. And now our young people
    are reaping the benefits, having no choice but to live at
    home with mom and dad, dependent on them for everything, as
    the only jobs they might be lucky enough to find are
    flipping burgers at some fast food joint or working at some
    retail store such as wally world, part timers with meager
    wages.

    No argument with that.

    Note, that does not mean low social welfare spending.
    (Republicans call everything not military "social welfare".)
    Much of that time social welfare spending was higher than
    military spending, and it went up while military spending was
    down. Even when military spending went up, social welfare
    spending sometimes went up, yet the debt stayed down. When
    the debt did jump it followed military spending jumps.

    Cutting food stamps makes much more sense than gutting our
    military. After all, people can eat the burgers they make
    at fast food joints. Or dig in the trash cans outside those
    fast food joints when nobody else is looking.

    You forgot your sarcasm alert.

    However, that leaves the question, why, if they so drastically
    cut the debt, didn't they continue on that route to pay off the
    debt? Well, let's look. The 1835 and 39 declines seem to have
    ended with recessions so bad as to qualify as depressions, the
    worst this country saw before the Civil War. The 1840s into the
    1850s showcased three major recessions, plus a war. The
    Mexican-American war may not be on the top of your list, but
    spending sure shot up.

    There were no federally-funded social programs in those
    days. Nor were food stamps available. People lived off the
    land, and paid little if any taxes. In times of war,

    There were still a lot of cities and towns, and non-military
    spending often exceeded military spending. After all, building a
    country was expensive.

    people die. Rich folks know that, which is why they
    recruited folks who lived on the farm. Life was cheap, and
    usually short, in those days.

    True.

    ...

    Now why was that? I'll just speculate. When you drastically cut
    military spending, you drastically reduce your military. Now,

    ...

    The greatest asset a country has is human resources.
    Sending our young men and women off to war is depleting our
    national treasure. But warmongers refuse to look at things
    that way ...

    True. Also cutting education has that effect.

    That appears to be about how it goes. Major spending increases
    are actually major military spending increases during that time
    frame. So, do we cut the military, drastically reduce the
    budget, then get a war, or do we try to think it through just a
    bit better?

    By cutting our military we get a peace dividend. Rather

    True, but it's long term. Do you expect congress to think long
    term. Plus, you reduce the opportunity for rich people
    corruption. Will congress accept that?

    than cutting the budget (austerity), we should use that
    peace dividend for government programs that help the poor
    and middle class. The very wealthy can look after
    themselves, and be thankful for what this country has
    already given them.

    True.

    Notice I focused on the period from 1790, the first year I
    could find these numbers for, until 1930. I chose that time
    frame because, from 1930 on everything changed. Between 1919 and

    ...

    FDR did not have an ideology. He did what needed to be
    done, bringing this country out of the Great Depression and
    defending this country from a world gone mad. Various

    I don't know if that means he didn't have an ideology, but he
    did what he had to.

    government programs were enacted that helped the poor and
    middle class, along with saving the wealthy from
    themselves. Yes, FDR saved the wealthy from themselves.

    Honesty is the best business policy, when it's backed by law.

    Had he not done that, the wealthy would have been among the
    poor and homeless.

    Not that that's a bad thing.

    ...

    Republicans believe in shock economics. Bring a country to
    its knees by decimating the economy through austerity, then
    start a war to get the economy booming. Maggie Thatcher

    An expression of their contempt for the working class.

    ...

    Since World War II we have not had a year of low military
    spending. Even the Vietnam war only increased military spending
    a relatively small percentage of GDP. Military spending did go
    lower, but not much, and not for long.

    Had it not been for the Cold War, the peace dividend would
    have been HUMONGOUS. President Truman would have ended the

    Utopian fantasy deleted.

    ...

    Before World War II we could, and were, attacked by foreign
    foes, but it was difficult for them to launch and supply any
    military effort over that distance. In World War II and after we
    learned, the oceans no longer protect us. We are vulnerable to
    attack, and with today's weapons, destruction.

    Japan bombed our ships to smithereens at Pearl Harbor
    without much difficulty.

    Other than the fact that the carriers weren't there. That cost
    them heavily.

    Al-Qaeda terrorists used
    passenger airplanes as guided missiles to bring down two
    WTC towers (a third WTC also collapsed), plus damaging the
    Pentagon, without much difficulty. The point is, we will
    always be vulnerable to attack, regardless of the size of
    our military. Making our military larger is not going to
    prevent such attacks from happening.

    Yet not haveing the military means losing without a chance.
    Hobson's choice.

    Most of the numbers here came from the Govt Printing Office's
    publication, "Historical Statistics of the United States From
    Colonial Times to 1970", Bi-Centennial edition.

    Yeah. Mark Twain said something about statistics. And he
    wasn't very flattering about it.

    Was that Twain, or Will Rogers?

    ...

    Google "shock economics" and you will begin to understand
    the Republican modus operandi in today's modern world.

    Greg Palast mentioned that. Otherwise known as Disaster
    Capitalism.

    ...

    An interesting analysis. However, another grouping might
    reveal a deeper insight -

    * Washington to Lincoln
    * Lincoln to FDR
    * FDR to Obama

    One major reason for the grouping I chose was, the size of the
    numbers jumped so much after the wars I chose as dividers, it
    was hard to fit them on the same charts.

    The Civil War numbers chart out as practically nothing compared
    to WWII.

    If there was one war to distinguish different periods, the Spanish-American War comes to mind. That war distinguishes
    when the US became a global power. Some might cite WWII as
    a better example, but in my view the Spanish-American War
    gave the US more influence.

    Yet the numbers still won't fit on the same chart.

    I did not, in this case, look much at post WWII because there
    has been no time since WWII that the debt went down
    significantly, and no time that military spending went down very
    much or for very long. Which makes it a different situation.

    Marxian economics would postulate the stronger economy would
    always win in a contest (war) between nations. However, as
    we have learned from experience, a determined foe can make
    the cost of victory too prohibitive to keep (e.g. Iraq,
    Afghanistan).

    Which should have been learned in Vietnam. As one commentator
    said, we can always go home, they have no place to go. So they
    either keep fighting or be conquered.

    Which is another way of saying, after Dec 7, 1941, everything
    changed.

    Japan became our friend. Germany became our friend. Italy
    became our friend. Russia became our friend. China became
    our friend. The whole world became our friend. Bill

    Friend? A bit loose use of the word.

    Clinton left office, leaving this country with a surplus,
    along with the highest approval rating in history of any
    president. And then George W. Bush went and blew it,
    turning the surplus into a deficit, telling each and every
    American to hug their children and go shopping ...

    And the right compared him to Churchill.

    .. War is God's way of teaching us geography.

    "Is our children learning?" - George W. Bush


    BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@bex.net http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

    ... Horror showed on the Princess' face when she realized the frog was French. --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)