US military spending as a percentage of US GDP was 4% in 2007, compared to over 40% during WW2. Currently, GDP is shrinking at a 0.5% annual rate. A 25% increase in defense spending (from 4% of GDP to 5% – not realistic) would but GDP growth back in the black without Orwellian garrison state nuke scenarios. Your comparisons are off by an order of magnitude, geopolitical fabrications notwithstanding.

-

http://knol.google.com/k/alexander-emilfaro/gov...

The consumption crisis is largely a red herring. The overall tax burden in the US is substantially smaller than in other developed meaning that government spending composes a significantly smaller percentage of GDP than other developed nations. In fact, the annual deficits that the US runs indicate that the government spending ratios overstate the current tax burden on Americans.

Consumption is only ~50% of GDP in much of Europe because the other ~50% is government spending. Since the countries we're discussing all have comparable GDP per capita, we can see that the real difference is that the US economy is consumer-driven. And now that that part is faltering the solution to address the systemic weakness (The 70/30 split) is to increase government spending and balance the split. So, really, Obama is proposing the correct solution based on the criteria you've set forth. Most importantly, the type of spending Obama is proposing has huge long term benefits. Bombs are a one-time purchase. Infrastructure pays dividends.

There's none to be had, and this fundamental failure of analysis will undermine everything he seeks to do.

Here's what happens next.