What if for 1 year—just 1 year—we allocated as much—$$$—for infrastructure as we did for defense?

[kpete]

Money for Something

* Posted by ryan on November 3rd, 2009 filed in Economics

What if for one year — just one year — we allocated as much money for infrastructure as we did for defense?


With that kind of money you could entirely build out a national network of true high-speed rail. One year’s worth of defense spending gets you that. Which makes one wonder: where are all the economists, wringing their hands over cost-benefit analyses of these defense expenditures? Does anyone doubt that the net benefit of $100 billion spent on high-speed rail is easily higher than that for the last $100 billion spent on defense? Have a look at this if you’re unsure.



And while the gains to new investments in infrastructure (and not just in transportation) would be large, it isn’t as though we lack critical needs. What was the cost, human and economic, of the I-35 bridge collapse? Of the Metro crash and resulting limitations on service? Of the Bay Bridge shutdown? And of course, investments in infrastructure constitute positive contributions to the economy, which ultimately strengthen our ability to direct resources toward defense. Aimless defense spending, on the other hand, may well make us poorer and less secure.

more:
http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=2250
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/11/reconstruction-for-the-usa.php

[Obamanaut]

1. There are more than 700 military sites in nearly 40 countries. Just

imagine if only the money for the leases were made available here, not to mention the salaries of all the military and civilian personnel.

Close them all, bring the people home. If we REALLY need that many in the military, reopen some of the previously closed bases or expand some of the existing ones. If we don't need a standing military of that size, reduction through normal attrition is one answer.

It is time to stop being the police force fot the world.

[T Wolf]

2. the rulers of this country will never spend as much on life as they do on death.

What other industry create a product that is designed to be destroyed and never reused? That way, they can get another multi-billion dollar contract to build another.

[TheKentuckian]

3. It would be nice but probably a drop in the bucket

I'm guessing we need to reinvest at least 5 trillion into ourselves to have a 21st century foundation. I'm also pretty sure it would more than pay for it's self in under 10 years.

5 trillion would pay for near 100% renewable energy, the grid, high speed internet everywhere, a 1st rate high speed rail, updating many homes for efficiency, and much of the sewer and water supply investment we need.

[Barack_America]

7. The jobs created would give back.

As opposed to wasting our money on wars overseas.

[LeftHander]

4. It costs a lot of money to blow the brains out of children at check points in other countries....nt

[stray cat]

5. A different group of unemployed Americans but still unemployed

[BolivarianHero]

8. That's why America needs a stronger welfare state...

It will make it easier to support people who would suffering during the dismantling of the military-industrial complex as they transition to jobs that genuinely build a better world.

[Barack_America]

6. Well, our recovery wouldn't be a "jobless" recovery, for one.

We'd also have enough jobs for our soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The GI bill is great, but many of our soldiers went into the military because they either didn't want to, or weren't adequately prepared to go to college.

These soldiers have sacrificed and should not be forced to a lifetime of low paying, no benefit jobs.

[jgraz]

9. But... you can't use infrastructure to kill brown people

:shrug:

[Echo In Light]

10. Killing is their bu$iness, and bu$iness is GOOD

No defending 'freedom & democracy,' just spreading "democracy; what the fascists prefer and obviously NEED to call it.

[Johonny]

11. Eisenhower made the argument that infrastructure was vital

for defense and thus spent money on it.

[FormerDittoHead]

12. He also warned us of the military industrial complex, so that's 2 for him. n/t

[madrchsod]

13. a war that would engulf the northern hemisphere!

europe would become a client state of soviet union and all of asia would be under control by red china . after the soviets and red chinese control all of europe and asia they will turn their armies to crush the united states of america. the east coast to the mississippi will be controlled by the soviet union and the rest of the nation by red china

yes! will must sacrifice so we will remain free!

[Go2Peace]

14. If only it were quite so simple

War begets war and aggression begets aggression.

The USSR saw it's "aggression" as a "necessary" response to WW2 activities and later as a necessary to their "security". Remember that they were invaded and almost lost their country completely.

We feared them, but they also feared us. We both had heavy rhetoric that threatened the other. I am not sure that, had we had something similar to WW2 happen in south American and Mexico was used to make war with us and almost win, that we might not have acted similarly and expanded our borders to buffer our security.

We will never know if we could have taken a less confrontational and more diplomatic path how different the cold war period may have looked.

[Greyhound]

15. You are joking, right? n/t

[madrchsod]

16. yes..china and india will be the major war this century

billions of people fighting over the last of the resources in asia