This is not a joke (at least not on my part). David Broder, the longtime columnist and reporter at a formerly respectable newspaper, quite explicitly suggested that fighting a war with Iran could be an effective way to boost the economy. Ignoring the idea that anyone should undertake war as an economic policy, Broder's economics is also a visit to loon tune land.
Broder tells readers:
"Can Obama harness the forces that might spur new growth? This is the key question for the next two years.What are those forces? Essentially, there are two. One is the power of the business cycle, the tidal force that throughout history has dictated when the economy expands and when it contracts.
Economists struggle to analyze this, but they almost inevitably conclude that it cannot be rushed and almost resists political command. As the saying goes, the market will go where it is going to go.
In this regard, Obama has no advantage over any other pol. Even in analyzing the tidal force correctly, he cannot control it.
What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy."
Sorry Mr. Broder, outside of Fox on 15th the world does not work this way. War affects the economy the same way that other government spending affects the economy. It does not have some mystical impact as Broder seems to think.
If spending on war can provide jobs and lift the economy then so can spending on roads, weatherizing homes, or educating our kids. Yes, that's right, all the forms of stimulus spending that Broder derided so much because they add to the deficit will increase GDP and generate jobs just like the war that Broder is advocating (which will also add to the deficit).
So, we have two routes to prosperity. We can either build up our physical infrastructure and improve the skills and education of our workers or we can go kill Iranians. Broder has made it clear where he stands.
Broder should also see if he can get the draft reinstated, too. You gotta keep those poor people in their place, somehow. Killing them is pretty effective.
The younger Iranians, students, would love to see the end of the current leadership in Iran. They want a moderate government, not an ultra-religious regime. Does anyone remember the Iranian riots between the Ayatollahs and the students? Think for a minute, Broder, you idi Ot. The minute we go into Iran bombing their cities with "shock and awesome stupidity", all of those rebellious younger generations will focus their rebellious attitudes right on the U.S. (where it belongs, if we do such a stupid thing).
And I don't care if it puts gold in American pockets. It just isn't right.
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/we_need_human_law_to_replace_flawed_law?te=npe
http://www.youtube.com/barbaratodish
http://www.the7thfire.com/Todish/Life_Coaching_and_its_Implications_for_Communication.html
http://www.flyinginplace.com
What is needed is a massive requirement for inexpensive arms that are labor intensive to produce and an unsophisticated non nuclear opponent. The obvious answer is a conventional attack on Brazil. Its land mass and population are similar to ours; it would require an enormous effort and supplying the military's needs would produce thousands of jobs and even more troops.
So there you have it Today Brazil Tomorrow full emploment!
One, that World War 2 most definitely boosted the U.S. economy. And two, the opening sentence to the final paragraph in Broder's column: "I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected."
And, the draft. Now, the only people who got rich was Bush/Cheney and a few neo-cons and shareholders.