So I've been thinking, many on the left say we need massive economic fiscal stimulus to recover the economy. They say the reason fiscal stimulus hasn't worked in the past is not enough money spent. However, they say WWII represents a time when the nation finally did spend the massive amount needed. Also the Reagan recovery. I know Republicans point to things like Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation, but Reagan also upped defense spending significantly. So could Reagan inadverdently have given a Keynesian-style economic push to the U.S. economy as well? One thing I have been reading on military forums (I do not have any official source on this however) is that a major problem with the U.S. military's vehicles, such as Humvees for example, is that: 1) They were never meant to be driven the distances they have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan 2) They were never meant to be fitted with all that armor they have tacked onto them, which strains the engines and transmissions and causes blown transmissions, parts wear out far faster, etc...basically a lot of the military's equipment, or at least the Army and the Marine Corps's, is getting very worn out far faster than was ever intended. Now Paul Krugman wrote an article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=h...Q2AQ5DWQ5EQ5DQ3EXdKdQ3EKQ5DWQ5E5GAEkCK@Q23Hko - you'll need an account there to read it though), discussing how he thinks we are on the verge of another depression, and that the worst thing to do now is cut spending, and he laments that is what Europe wants and what seems will start happening in America. He says that yes, Greece is a major example of what happens with long-term deficits and debts, but in times of economic crisis, short-term deficit spending is good. So my question is, would not upping defense spending a good deal be perfect for this scenario? Think about it: 1) It seems to have really worked at creating jobs in the past (WWII, Ronald Reagan) 2) Assuming the military's vehicles are worn out, the military, in particular the Army and Marine Corps, could really use it to a degree (new vehicles, like Humvees). 3) It would be short-term. Unlike stimulus spending that goes into bloated state bureaucracies or feeding demands of public employees unions or entitlement programs certain people in government want to create (which are impossible to end once began), you spend a bunch of money to replace worn out military hardware with brand-new military hardware, and then once done, you have no problem drawing down spending. I am sure you'd have to fight to even sustain it for the length one might feel is needed. You just make sure the new vehicles will not require any substantially higher defense budget once replaced (if anything, if they have new parts that are easier to maintain, the budget might be able to be a bit less). But for example if building the Air Force all the F-22s it wants would mean a substantially higher budget for the Air Force to maintain the F-22s, then one would probably need to be careful there I'd think (I have no clue if the F-22 is cheaper or more expensive to maintain then the F-16s and F-15s). So such deficit spending on defense would be a short-term form of deficit spending, just as the Keynesians want, according to them it has worked in the past (WWII) (I can't imagine how it would not create lots of real jobs), and the military likely needs it right now (correct me if wrong). What say you people?