Abstract American presidents since 1945 have deliberately considered reducing defence spending as part of a plan to shrink deficits, but they have also found there is a level of defence spending they dare not fall beneath. Using qualitative analysis, I examine the rhetoric these leaders have articulated to consider the trade‐offs between the economic costs of deficit spending and the military budgets necessary to defend the nation against military threats. Part One of this study (published in Economic Affairs , vol. 45, no. 3) examined rhetoric through the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. Part Two examines rhetoric from the Nixon through Biden administrations, analyses the total results and, finally, sets out the contribution of this research. These results inform debates over the US national debt, deficit spending, and the mixture of spending cuts and revenue increases needed to achieve a balanced budget.
David Tier (Sun,) studied this question.