The US really DOES spend more on defense than the rest of the world!

42 posts / 0 new

This is a common claim you hear, but it is often pointed out as a lie.

So I checked.

Yes, the US officially spends 687 billion for defense. This works out as more than the top 20 defense spending countries.

But if you add up the rest of the countries (here) you just get 875 billion!

Most people, if they looked at the US budget would think 875 billion is a extrememly conservative estimate of our defense spending. After all there is the VA (100 odd billion), parts of the DOE, the Interior, Treasury (retirement bennefits), NASA, State Department, Homeland Security, share of debt interest, and surely the EPA, not to mention other black budget security items we have no knowledge of - that can easily go to 875 billion. Then there are things like the opportunity costs of the people coming back from wars ending up unemployed or homeless.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

If the debate were only about how big the shitpile really is, we would at least not be dealing with people who think we need more. That we are spending as much on our military as the few "contenders" in the minds of paranoids would be bad enough. For all the macho bluster of our chickenhawk cons; and for all the Warrior America rites we have been getting on tv in the name of the Prince of Peace, one ought to see that we have a serious war-drug problem and need a serious non-violent rehab. With homeless and hungry at home, we keep the world safe for oil tankers.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I was told recently that our defense spending isn't a problem even though it has more than doubled since pre 9/11 and that doesn't include the cost of our wars now and into the future. I told them they are full of shit since your party wants to cut programs for the needy first, forget about closing tax loop holes, forget all the welfare corporate America recieves from the taxpayers every year. We have to cut programs for the needy first is the only thing they know. These people have no compassion for people but only for money. IMO.. "Compassionate Conservative" is nothing more than an oxymoron.

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 6:49 am

Remember 'benign neglect?" Same oxycrap for morons.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

We have spent nearly $1.3 trillion (and still rising) on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now we are getting postured to invade Iran. Just think of the good that could have been done with that money to keep our promise to the elderly and help the poor and homeless. Oh, but wait, that would not be good profitable to the military indusrtial complex!!!

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

I am not talking about the defense budget. I am refering to the amount of money that has been spent strictly for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That money is not included in the budget!!!

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

FY 2012 Defense breakdown-

Total =925 Billion-------Military defense =737 ------Veterans =125 ------------Foreign military aid =15

Foreign economic aid=48

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_fy13bs12011n_30#usgs302

Bernie Sanders is right. The defense budget has tripled since 1997.

Fy 1997 Total defense= 325 billion / military defense 270 billion

Erik300's picture
Erik300
Joined:
Apr. 2, 2010 10:44 am

http://costofwar.com/en/ This is what we are spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

This is much bigger than an argument about the published and hidden costs in budget figures. Empires distort their host countries to support their superfluous and vainglorious military and economic reach. Even when they are sucking the life from the countries they are occupying, the wealth does not go into the real interests of the people of the host country, it goes to the generals and industrialists and big landowners who support "the economy of scale" needed by the masters of the empire.

The gold of Spain made China wealthy as it passed through the Conquistador's homeland. Rome kept having to seize the lands of political opponents, and to create them in order to seize them in many cases, in order to keep the locals from rioting.

The National Security State would not be were there no imperialism involved. We would not 'need' to protect ourselves from 'terrorists' were we not raping and pillaging globally. Our "national interest" would not depend upon access to oil in other countries; and we would be ordinary customers rather than military threats to boot.

Our education could take a realistic look at the world and what creative contribution we could make rather than have to serve the interests of a corrupted Commerce and militarism. Our Business Schools could be freed of ideology and ready to explain why businesses need to have social and economic regulations to compete and cooperate to the benefit of the country and the world. There would be no "great powers" filled with "grandiose dreams" to be served, only the usual suspects of modest means to dominate or create their own fantasies in the lives of others.

What we have lost in this serious social pathology of the American Century I and II is our contact with the humanity of the world. Serious rehab needed for all Americans. Liberal dry drunks and Neocon methheads, along with Libertarian 'isolationists' and Tea Party nostalgia make an interesting therapy group. None of us are ready to run the therapy sessions.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

I am not talking about the defense budget. I am refering to the amount of money that has been spent strictly for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That money is not included in the budget!!!

But I heard that Obama DID put the wars on budget books explaining the increase in his defense budget.

Erik300's picture
Erik300
Joined:
Apr. 2, 2010 10:44 am

It is so fascinating to see liberals perpetuate this meme about Iraq war funding, Obama, and the "budget books". I suspect it is a way for the liberal ego to rationalize away the massive increases in government spending since Obama took charge.

http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Congressional_actions_on_the_Iraq_War_f...

Thom really needs to do a refresher course on his show to explain how congress has funded the war via "continuing resolutions", and how since the FY 2009 budget we haven't even HAD a budget.

Remember, soldiers have been paid, gas has been bought and used, humvees built and shipped. It HAS been paid for.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 10:21 am

Cal, do you EVER really listen to the show? Over the years we have all been complaining including Thom about Congress continuing war funding. Many of us ask our congress critters to vote against these and in many cases mine does so I can't complain. But he is one of the few real progressives left in congress. If your congress critter votes for these war resolutions then give 'em hell! Of course now our militerrorists are anxious to play with the new toys they got for Christmas.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Calperson:

It is so fascinating to see liberals perpetuate this meme about Iraq war funding, Obama, and the "budget books". I suspect it is a way for the liberal ego to rationalize away the massive increases in government spending since Obama took charge.

http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Congressional_actions_on_the_Iraq_War_f...

Thom really needs to do a refresher course on his show to explain how congress has funded the war via "continuing resolutions", and how since the FY 2009 budget we haven't even HAD a budget.

Remember, soldiers have been paid, gas has been bought and used, humvees built and shipped. It HAS been paid for.

I think the GOP House passed the Ryan Budget? That budget is a total joke and insult to America. So no wonder no budget has been passed. The Dems would never vote on garbage like that. It doesnt even fund the Obama Cares health plan It would add $62 trillion to the national debt by 2050. It would basically abolish Medicare. The Ryan budget is class war on the American middle class.

Erik300's picture
Erik300
Joined:
Apr. 2, 2010 10:44 am
Quote Calperson:

It is so fascinating to see liberals perpetuate this meme about Iraq war funding, Obama, and the "budget books". I suspect it is a way for the liberal ego to rationalize away the massive increases in government spending since Obama took charge.

http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Congressional_actions_on_the_Iraq_War_f...

Thom really needs to do a refresher course on his show to explain how congress has funded the war via "continuing resolutions", and how since the FY 2009 budget we haven't even HAD a budget.

Remember, soldiers have been paid, gas has been bought and used, humvees built and shipped. It HAS been paid for.

There isn't any doubt the war proffiteers have been paid Cal. The problem is it's with borrowed money. Now if your buddy bush hadn't went out and started two useless wars and put this country into deeper debt along with the largest expansion of government in our history just think how much we would all be better off today. When Clinton left office this country's economy was headed in the right direction. Thanks to the USSC they installed bush and the rest is history not one that most would be proud of. Why do you think the wingnuts want to try and rewrite it every chance they get? Calling them miserable failures would be a compliment.

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 6:49 am
Quote Sprinklerfitter:

Thanks to the USSC they installed bush and the rest is history not one that most would be proud of. Why do you think the wingnuts want to try and rewrite it every chance they get? Calling them miserable failures would be a compliment.

Between the spending, borrowing AND expansion of the federal government under the most recent Republican president, what's a conservative to do, but rewrite history?

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I certainly did not vote for bushie or support his illegal wars or his massive, excessive, unconstutional spending and bailouts for the banksters. But I believe the current occuppier of the white house has not only continued the illegal wars along with massive bailouts of his wallstreet puppetmasters, he has added more to the national debt that all presidents from Washington to Reagan. http://cnsnews.com/node/72404

The dumbocrats do not understand the debt ceiling

The Rupulsive do not understand the dbt ceiling

Liberals do not understand the debt ceiling.

Neocons do not understand the debt ceiling

Here is a simple explanation of it-----Lets say you come home from work and there has been a sewage backup inyour neighborhood. You have shit up to the ceiling. What do you do? Raise the ceiling or pump out the shit???

We have the opportunity in 2012 to pump[ out the shit and we are fools if we don't!!!

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

Including the current occupier and the current slate of repulsive candidates, who is the ONLY one that has and is speaking out against the Bill of Rights destroying Patriot Act and the even more destructive National Defense Authorization Act of 2012?

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

FYI Calperson, it IS true that Obama put the wars on the books after years of funding the costs as "supplemental". Its also true that nearly all of the "big government" expansion that Republicans scream about is due to the massive expansion of the "security state" that happened under Bush. Everyone seems to forget that Obama froze "non-security" spending when he came into office. Now that we're burdened with the cost of supporting a massive security state infrastructure conservatives want to exploit the opportunity to insist that we can't afford things that actually do bring us security like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Read this article, it will blow your mind! http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm

How IS it true since we haven't had a budget in years? What are these "books" you are talking about?

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 10:21 am

"FYI Calperson, it IS true that Obama put the wars on the books after years of funding the costs as "supplemental". Its also true that nearly all of the "big government" expansion that Republicans scream about is due to the massive expansion of the "security state" that happened under Bush"

It is still continuing under the present occupant!!! He is as much of a NWO schill as was Bush, as Clintion, etc.....

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote Calperson:

How IS it true since we haven't had a budget in years? What are these "books" you are talking about?

The government still spends a certain amount of money each year whether it is according to a budget proposal or with a "continuing resolution". Seriously, if you are going to make an argument at least make a coherent one.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm
Quote mdhess:
Quote Calperson:

How IS it true since we haven't had a budget in years? What are these "books" you are talking about?

The government still spends a certain amount of money each year whether it is according to a budget proposal or with a "continuing resolution". Seriously, if you are going to make an argument at least make a coherent one.

Exactly, a "continuing resolution". We don't do budgets anymore and we fund the various branches of government, including the Iraq part of the military budget, through "continuing resolutions" every few months when we run out of money.

As the link I posted above shows this is exactly the same way the Iraq war was funded from 2003 - 2006.

To say Obama brought the war on to the "books" is what is not coherent.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 10:21 am

Perhaps I can clear things up a bit.

You can go to the Economic Report of the President site and get all the government spending does in a year - off and on budget (wars and no wars, continuing resolutions and other).

The issue about the Iraq wars etc... not being 'on budget' means that in Oct 2008, the FY2009 Bush budget proposal (which will be from Oct 2008 to Sept 2009) was a laughable 3.1 trillion. It did not include the Iraq wars, the bailouts, TARP, and the effect of the sliding economy on increasing welfare spending. It was a joke. Obama took office in January. The budget was calculated on Sept 2009, and behold, the budget had swelled to 3.5 trillion (I don't recall the exact numbers, but you get the idea! Thus, the conservatives blame Obama for increasing spending 400 billion, when in fact it was mostly Bush's idiocies. The same foolishness happened with the deficit.

You can always see what the government has spent over the year by visiting the economic report of the president. And, in this sense, there is always 'a budget', because there is always someone calculating how much the government spent and estimate how much it will spend in the future.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I recall that the FY 2009 ended at $11.9 Trillion national debt Oct 1 2009. The FY 2009 deficit was a RECORD $1.6 trillion whci was .25 trillion more than Obama's FY 2010 budget deficit!

The Neo-cons (do we call them baggers now) always say that Bush's national debt stopped when Obama took office Feb 2009 when the natl debt was $10.__ trillion. Too tired right now to check exact figures. And they attribute Obama's contribution to the national debt from that time when he took office. Typical RW propaganda.

Erik300's picture
Erik300
Joined:
Apr. 2, 2010 10:44 am
Quote Erik300:

The Neo-cons (do we call them baggers now) always say that Bush's national debt stopped when Obama took office Feb 2009 when the natl debt was $10.__ trillion. Too tired right now to check exact figures. And they attribute Obama's contribution to the national debt from that time when he took office. Typical RW propaganda.

Is this still bushie's fault??? obamas-spending-spree-andrew-stiles

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

Send Friend

Print | Text

Obama’s Spending Spree: By the Numbers

By Andrew StilesFebruary 14, 2011 12:40 P.M.Comments21

Here is President Obama’s budget for fiscal year 2012 (and outlook through 2021). And here is a look at some of the numbers that stand out:

$3.73 trillion — total spending this year (25 percent of GDP, highest levels since World War Two).

$46 trillion — total spending over the next decade.

$8.7 trillion — total new spending over the same period.

$26.3 trillion — Total new debt, including entitlement obligations, predicted by 2021.

$7.2 trillion — Total deficit predicted by the end of the decade.

$1.1 trillion — How much the White House estimates the proposal will reduce the deficit over the next ten years

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote bullwinkle:
Quote Erik300:

The Neo-cons (do we call them baggers now) always say that Bush's national debt stopped when Obama took office Feb 2009 when the natl debt was $10.__ trillion. Too tired right now to check exact figures. And they attribute Obama's contribution to the national debt from that time when he took office. Typical RW propaganda.

Is this still bushie's fault??? obamas-spending-spree-andrew-stiles

Yeah, you could say that but I think its mostly Reagan's fault for starting Reaganomics and the current debt when he spent more in 4 years than all previous presidents COMBINED whcih was why he TRIPLED the debt from 1 to 3 trillion.

---------------------------------------------

Bush Tax cuts causes 27% of current deficit -----(2011)

Bush Great Recession (unemployment) causes 28% of current deficit-

Obama Stimulus causes 32% of current deficit---(Needed to get us out of the BUSH RECESSION )

Two Bush Wars causes 14% of current deficit

Here's the original article with graphs. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3...

Erik300's picture
Erik300
Joined:
Apr. 2, 2010 10:44 am

Bush equals wasted money and lives while the Obama stimulus helped reverse the tide. It was not nearly enough, but that 'spending' was an investment, not just a pipeline to corrupt crony corporados.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Obama Stimulus causes 32% of current deficit---(Needed to get us out of the BUSH RECESSION )

$900 billion to bail out his wallstreet puppeteers and his too big to fail bankster buddies and we are still in a recession if you are not a 1%ter. Just think what bushie's $800 billion "bailout" and obummers $900 billion "stimulus" =total $1.7 trillion would have done if it had been given to the poorest 100 million Americans. $17,000.00 apiece I believe. It might have been a little inflationary but look at the stimulus it would have created.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote bullwinkle:...$900 billion to bail out his wallstreet puppeteers and his too big to fail bankster buddies and we are still in a recession if you are not a 1%ter. Just think what bushie's $800 billion "bailout" and obummers $900 billion "stimulus" =total $1.7 trillion would have done if it had been given to the poorest 100 million Americans. $17,000.00 apiece I believe. It might have been a little inflationary but look at the stimulus it would have created.

1/3rd of the stimulus was tax cuts, another third was welfare. And all this was for a 2 year time period.

And the stiumulus is now contributing nothing to the deficit, because there is barely any left.

TARP ended up in making a profit, and much of the money the FED lent to the Banks is also paid back.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Not entirely true, Dr Econ

Upgrade to Safer IE9


Tip : Use comma (,) to separate multiple quotes. Learn more...

Banks Pay Back TARP Funds by. . .Borrowing From Treasury

By Daniel Gross


Most of the big banks have repaid the government funds they received under the Capital Purchase Program (CPP), the pillar of TARP under which Treasury bought preferred shares in the nation's banks. Enough so that, combined with dividends and sales of warrants, Treasury has declared that taxpayers have earned a profit on the CPP. Thus far, $245 billion has gone out, and $255 billion in repayments, interest and warrants has come back, yielding a profit to taxpayers of $10 billion. And there's several billion more where that came from.

Many of the small banks that took relatively small chunks of capital have been slower to exit. Last week, however, there was a mini stampede. The transactions are reported here. Eight banks paid back their funds on July 14. They were:

  • Eagle Bancorpof Bethesda, MD: $23.235 million
  • First California Financial, Westlake Village, CA: $25 million
  • Cache Valley Bank, Logan, UT: $4.77 million, plus $263,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants
  • Security Business Bancorp, San Diego, CA: $5.8 million, plus $290,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants
  • BOH Holdings of Houston, Houston, TX: $10 million, plus $500,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants
  • BancIndependent, Sheffield, AL: $21.1 million, plus $1.055 million to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants
  • York Traditions Bank, York, PA: $4.871 million, plus $244,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants
  • Centric Financial, Harrisburg, PA: $6.056 million, plus $182,000 to buy back preferred shares granted to Treasury in lieu of warrants

That adds up to a total of $103.3 million.

But sometimes there's less than meets the eye. Generally, banks that repaid CPP funds did so with cash raised from earnings, or by raising new outside capital. In finance and banking you always have to read the fine print. And if you go back to the report, you'll notice that the fine print accompanying the entries for each of the above exits makes reference either to Footnote 49 or Footnote 50. Footnote 49 reads: "Repayment pursuant to Title VII, Section 7001(g) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 using proceeds received in connection with the institution's participation in the Small Business Lending Fund." Footnote 50 reads: "Repayment pursuant to Title VII, Section 7001(g) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — part of the repayment amount obtained from proceeds received in connection with the institution's participation in the Small Business Lending Fund."

All of which is to say that these banks repaid cash owed to a program run by the Treasury Department by. . . borrowing from another program run by the Treasury Department.

The Small Business Lending Fund was created last fall as part of the Small Business Jobs Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation passed last fall. The idea was to make cash available to smallish community banks (those with assets of $10 billion or less), and then give them incentives or rewards for making small-business loans, defined in this fact sheet as "certain loans of up to $10 million to businesses with up to $50 million in annual revenues."

Here's how it works. As with the CPP, Treasury will lend to the banks by buying preferred shares. As with CPP, the shares bear a five percent annual dividend rate. (However, Treasury won't receive warrants in exchange for making the loans, as it did under CPP). So far, so similar. But here's the difference. Banks that have boosted, or will boost, their lending to small businesses will pay a lower interest rate. "If a bank's small business lending increases by 10% or more, then the rate will fall to as low as 1%. Banks that increase their lending by amounts less than 10% can benefit from rates set between 2% and 4%." Meanwhile, those that take the cash and don't lend will be punished. "If lending does not increase in the first two years, however, the rate will increase to 7%. After 4.5 years, the rate will increase to 9% if the bank has not already repaid the SBLF funding."

Sounds good. But it seems like the first recipients (the deadline for application was May 16, 2011) are using the capital largely to replace more expensive CPP capital. So, for example, Eagle announced that it was using $23.25 million of the $56.6 million in SBLF funds it received to exit the CPP, effectively replacing five percent money with one percent money. As Chairman and CEO Ronald D. Paul noted: "We are also proud to note that our growth of $98 million in SBLF qualified loans over the initial reporting period has made us eligible for a dividend rate of 1.0%, the most favorable dividend rate available in the program." First California Financial used the entire amount of its SBLF funding ($25 million) to repay CPP funds. Security Business Bancorp used nearly 70 percent of the $8.9 million in SBLF funds it received, at the low one percent rate, to pay back its CPP funds.

There are likely many more such examples to come. This first round represents a small portion of the funds available under the SBLF. And the SBLF represents a potentially excellent deal for banks. (Borrowing $10 million at 1 percent instead of 5 percent adds up to a $400,000 annual savings in interest costs.) As important, the initiative offers banks that have yet to earn their way out of TARP a quick and easy exit. SBLF and TARP may each have four letters, but only the latter is regarded as a four-letter word.

Replacing one form of government capital for another doesn't do anything to lessen the public sector's involvement in the system. As with the CPP, taxpayers will eat the costs if banks taking SBLF funds can't return the capital. And I'd much prefer to see banks exiting TARP on their own power. But this new wrinkle at least remedies a design flaw of the original CPP by rewarding banks for lending more and punishing them for hoarding cash.

Still, when combing through the reports of TARP exits, it's important to realize that many banks are simply swapping a government crutch for a cheaper government walking stick.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

DRC----He bought votes by paying off the public unions.

http://mediatrackers.org/2011/06/did-80-of-federal-stimulus-funds-go-to-public-unions/

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote bullwinkle:DRC----He bought votes by paying off the public unions.http://mediatrackers.org/2011/06/did-80-of-federal-stimulus-funds-go-to-public-unions/

Again, 1/3rd was tax cuts, 1/3rd was welfare, and the rest was stimulus money. A lot of the rest went to state and local governments, because idea was they could spend it on worthwhile projects like infrastructure. The fact that much of these were union jobs should be no suprise to anyone. It's like the oil tax cut going to oil companies.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Dr Econ, most of the money went to PUBLIC employee unions so they could make huge donations to obummer and the democratic party as directed by union bosses. The banks repaid a lot of the TARP money with other borrowed government money at a cheaper rate!!! Taxpayers are still on the hook.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

Just to make it clear. All of that money is not spent on defense. It is spent IN THE NAME OF DEFENSE. There is a huge difference. Cut the fat and spend what is truly needed for the defense of our country and you would have a huge savings.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Just to make it clear. All of that money is not spent on defense. It is spent IN THE NAME OF DEFENSE. There is a huge difference. Cut the fat and spend what is truly needed for the defense of our country and you would have a huge savings.

Excellent point BW. Expanding your empire is NOT to be confused with defending your country.

Have you heard the old sports saying: "the best offense is a good defense"? It is not just a valid axiom for sports, but for national survival in a dangerous world. Defense is critical for survival, but overextending your empire threatens your survival more than no defense at all. Our chickenhawks have the axiom ass-backwards when they claim: "our best defense is a good offense" and we need to take the battle to them before they bring it to us. The financial savings from downgrading the empire is merely the icing on the cake while we improve upon our survival.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Just to build on your point Laborisgood, it really should be understood that much our our defense spending is wasted on building and maintaining systems for ridiculous scenarios presented by those who have a financial stake in selling to the Pentagon. We spend incredible amounts of money on "missile shields" and the like without any real likelihood that they will ever need to be deployed or without knowing if they will even work like they're supposed to (remember "starwars"?). It is the Maginot Line syndrome whereby we build these magnificent fortifications only to have actual threats come from some unforeseen quarter. Not to mention the fact that our own militarization only intensifies tensions between us and other states and societies. Our safety and security is threatened by falsely assuming a sense of security for having spent wildly on weaponry. Its like imagining you are safe in your home because you have a loaded shotgun handy only to be killed in a drive-by.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm

mdhess, and excellent account of the waste of war and "defense."

bullwinkle, I think you confuse what Bush did, what Obama has really done, and what the Congress makes him do. If you wanted to have a Kucinich break with the past, you had to break the power of corporate rather than come as a uniter and bipartisan President of All. I have lots of complaints about the Wall St. connection, Summers, Geitner, etc. There are political reasons why bad ideas have to be given a test, and a downside to be seen as a critic of what has not been tried when it is favored by the powerful. If you are trying to make us think that Obama is like Bush, just think of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bolton and the list goes on.

The Progressive Caucus' People's Budget is by far the best way to cut deficits and stimulate the economy without damaging people and communities. That it has not been embraced by others is evidence of their commitment compromising truth to serve power. We do not elect emperors to speak truth to power. C'mon Man!

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

DRC, I understand what Bush was and did. Obama is just another front man for the same system that controlled Bush, Clinton, etc. He has continued (even more openly) the same controversial and individual freedom and liberty destroying actions started by Bushie and others before him- wars, indefinite detention and misuse of executive order to evade the Constitution (albeit with the complacency of Congress as they have the same puppetmasters). Many of the articles of impeachment Kucinich introduced against Bush would certainly apply to Obama as well.

It is obvious that he is very tight with the Goldman Sachs and J P Morgans on Wall St. His administration is filled with figures of previous administrations who contributed knowingly to the crisis of speculative, toxic paper and economic chaos and are now in charge of "solving the problem" and axccelerating the corporate welfare, treasury-assisted transfer of wealth from the middleclass to a dominant minority (the 1%ters).

Unless and until we break form this corporate-government intentional destruction of the economy, the middleclass, and Constitutional freedoms and liberty of individuals , things are only going to get worse. Much worse, unless you are part of the elite oligarchy.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

I would like to add that the same could be said for our "welfare" programs as it is with our "Defense Spending". I've seen first hand how much of our tax dollars that is supposedly spent on the general welfare of those in need is actually diverted to those that provide the service. I've been in many a government subsidised nursing home where the tenents receive very poor treatment and pretty poor facilities while those in charge of the place have extravagant offices and drive caddy's to and from their over the top homes.

Take a closer look at those that are in charge of social programs or even our local VA and you find a very disturbing pattern of administrators raking in tons of government cash that would be much better put to use on the actual people who need help. There is a lot of money diverted on it's way to where it's supposed to go.

The problem with cutting back the funds that are intended for the needy is that those in need will suffer more and those in charge will retain what they've always had.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote bullwinkle:Dr Econ, most of the money went to PUBLIC employee unions so they could make huge donations to obummer and the democratic party as directed by union bosses. The banks repaid a lot of the TARP money with other borrowed government money at a cheaper rate!!! Taxpayers are still on the hook.

The money actually went to state and local governments. They then decided to spend it on unions. But are you saying that state and local governments should not be unionized? Why don't we all work for $1.00 a day like they do in China.

The money was spent after the election.

The amount repaid by TARP that was borrowed was small peanuts (according to the article).

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I totally agree with you , Bush_Wacker. Ron Paul says that the expenditure cuts that he will make by closing all the unconstutional foreign military bases and stopping all the illegal invasion and occupation of sovereign countries and by bringing all the troop home to defend our borders he will use half of that saving to help the needy and keep our promise to the elderly. That plus doing away with 5 money wasting cabinette departments would go a long way towards providing more funds to help those in need , that is if the money could filter through those government administrators hands and actually go to help those in need.

Not true Dr Econ. Public employees are forced to join unions and the dues that are extorted from their wages are used by the union bosses to help elect those candidates that espouse a larger ever more intrusive government, from local entities all the way to DC .

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm

Currently Chatting

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system