The increase in US defense spending in 1952 was to fund the American-Korean War or what Americans call the Korean War.
There are two basic ways: 1. Increase the government's spending. It is a good way to grow the economy . The money the government spends goes into the economy as wages, profit, and revenue. most government spending adds some money to the economy. The drawbacks to this is that it is very hard to control. Politicians have a knack for spending gobs of money carelessly. If it is not reigned in quickly, it can cause massive inflation, large government debt, and ultimately lead to a need to increase taxes, which brings us to the second way... 2. Cut taxes. It gives money back to consumers and businesses,Also it has one major drawback: unlike outright governemnt spending, it is NOT a quick fix. This is because some of the money will be saved or invested, so it is not spent (and thus given to workers as wages and businesses as revenue) as quickly as government spending. But this reason is also why it is so much more effective than government spending. The market decides where to spend the money from cut taxes.
An increase in the nation's money supply lowers interest rates, thus decreases the cost of doing business. With a higher return on investment, investment spending increases and so too does aggregate supply. As aggregate supply increases, aggregate demand increases and so prices go up. Thus real GDP and APL increase.
The UK, as with most countries around the world, is limiting spending to try and reduce its national deficit. For many years the government spent more than it took in through taxation, and so the country ended up in a lot of debt. In an attempt to limit how much we need to spend, the Chancellor is imposing cuts so that the deficit is reduced.
The crowding out effect is an idea/theory of macroeconomics. Generally, it states that an increase in govt. spending that produces a deficit (an expansionary fiscal policy), will result in recessionary effects. When governments run a deficit, they have to borrow from the loanable funds market, in order to get the money to pay for things. By increasing the demand for loanable funds, they in turn increase the real interest rates for these loans. Because of higher interest rates, businesses will not likely invest as much, thus they are being "crowded out." So although the G component of aggregate spending (C + Ig + G + Xn) increased, the Ig part (business investment) will decrease. Economists debate over how big of an impact the crowding effect has, but all typically agree it happens to some degree.
President Obama's policies, including the stimulus package, have caused the slowest increase in federal spending of any president in almost 60 years, according to data compiled by the financial news service MarketWatch. See the graph in the related links below for the facts of the matter.Overall, for FY 2010-2012, which are the budgets which the Obama Administration are responsible for, about $11 Trillion has been spent by the Federal government, which includes warfighting costs and the stimulus, but excluding TARP (the bank bailout), which was passed under the prior Bush administration and is thus included on the FY 2009 budget. This results in about a 10% total increase (~4% annunal increase) over the prior 3 years of the Bush Administration (FY 2007-2009).
He was trying to get the Soviets to agree to reduce nuclear arsenals.
Because he's black.
well he as just said some of his budget he says no new taxes wants massive tax cust and a increase in defense spending so that is already busting a hole in the deficit mitt romney doesn't have a serious plan
From such an action (increase in government spending by 5 billion and a Marginal Propensity to Consume of 90%), the GDP would increase (in the scope of simplicity) by 4.5 billion. This is because government expenditures is counted in GDP, and in this case 90% of it is consumed by the populace, so 5B * .9 = 45B. But, being that the GDP is Consumption + Gross Investment + Govt. Spending +(-) Imports/exports, one could suggest that the GDP would increase by just 5B because that which is not consumed is saved (and thus invested).
So that they know how much they are making or spending and so as to stop them bankrupting the company.
If you don't want to answer the question just say so. What is Obama spending the trillions of dollars on. National defense, Afgan war etc
Obviously not, be were not all sane people in the world so 'the bad guys' have to kept at long reach.
The process of the ending of the Cold War began in the 1980s. Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980 and served two terms to 1988. So he was in power for much of that era . He increased military spending, threatened to build "Star Wars" missile defense system. Which forced The Soviet Union to increase spending, which may have driven them into bankruptcy.
So much offense! But not enough to make up for so little defense.
Reagan, being a conservative, had cut funding for federal programs like welfare and food stamps. However, after doing so he greatly increased funding for defense. This included research and development programs, weapon build-up, etc. The best way to understand Reagan's obsession with defense spending is by looking at his proposal to develop Star Wars. No, not the films, but rather a system of lasers that would detect and destroy any incoming missiles. So, to answer your question, if anything in particular led to the budget deficit, it was defense spending.
Reagan, being a conservative, had cut funding for federal programs like welfare and food stamps. However, after doing so he greatly increased funding for defense. This included research and development programs, weapon build-up, etc. The best way to understand Reagan's obsession with defense spending is by looking at his proposal to develop Star Wars. No, not the films, but rather a system of lasers that would detect and destroy any incoming missiles. So, to answer your question, if anything in particular led to the budget deficit, it was defense spending.
Reagan, being a conservative, had cut funding for federal programs like welfare and food stamps. However, after doing so he greatly increased funding for defense. This included research and development programs, weapon build-up, etc. The best way to understand Reagan's obsession with defense spending is by looking at his proposal to develop Star Wars. No, not the films, but rather a system of lasers that would detect and destroy any incoming missiles. So, to answer your question, if anything in particular led to the budget deficit, it was defense spending.