Are you more concerned about putting food on the table and paying rent or a terrorist attack?

[pnwmom]

22. Not that this should be a factor in deciding, but wars typically stimulate economies.

Last edited Mon Sep 8, 2014, 11:30 AM - Edit history (2)

So fighting ISIS might not damage our economy.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/an-iraq-recession/

One thing I get asked fairly often is whether the Iraq war is responsible for our economic difficulties. The answer (with slight qualifications) is no.

Just to be clear: I yield to nobody in my outrage over the way we were lied into a disastrous, unnecessary war. But economics isn’t a morality play, in which evil deeds are always punished and good deeds rewarded.

The fact is that war is, in general, expansionary for the economy, at least in the short run. World War II, remember, ended the Great Depression. The $10 billion or so we’re spending each month in Iraq mainly goes to US-produced goods and services, which means that the war is actually supporting demand. Yes, there would be infinitely better ways to spend the money. But at a time when a shortfall of demand is the problem, the Iraq war nonetheless acts as a sort of WPA, supporting employment directly and indirectly.

SNIP