Theoretically, deficit spending would be of benefit to an economy in the long-run if and only if the return on investment exceeds the marginal opportunity cost (interest rate). Basically, if the public funds were to be invested in something like education, scientific research, or infrastructure then it can have a positive long-term affect. Amen to that... it is partially designed so that we debate false dichotomies based on party lines and never arrive at a discussion of the true problems in our economic planning. "Does deficit spending work?" That's not the right question, we should be asking "Are our spending priorities correct, and how much waste and inefficiency does Wahsington D.C. create?" Spending money so we can consume something, throw it away, or blow it up in the desert is not a good economic policy whether it is borrowed or not. Borrowing money for wasteful and ineffective spending is just marginally worse. It cannot be done infinitely to postpone the inevitable, and it will eventually collapse leaving a catastrophic effect worse than the recession it sought to avoid. Discuss has a good point: Theoretically. Guerilla is just insisting that in the real world of power and personal greed, politicians waste our money.
I still can't buy it. Servicing a constantly growing debt, degrades marginal benefit. That's one part of it, but not all of it. It's a game of decreasing (net) returns. A ponzi scheme totally dependent upon sustained and increasing growth. We all know the sun doesn't shine every day, and nothing lasts for ever. That's the lesson of Ponzi.
The US has an all volunteer force which vastly increases costs as opossed to countries that have a draft. The US also relies heavily on missles and air support which is very expensive. In Vietnam the F-4 went into service without a gun and was outclassed by the cheaper and older MIG-17. The F4 was able to come into its own once a canon was added and it also became vastly cheaper to shoot down an enemy aircraft.
Rebecca, that figure does not include entitlement debt (which is significantly more than straight government spending). See: U.S. Heading For Financial Trouble?: Also: David Walker on Glenn Beck We need to invest over $50 trillion right now to cover entitlement obligations. Kinda puts the less than $10 trillion dollar figure everyone talks about into perspective, doesn't it?