by Alcassin » Fri 14 Mar 2008, 15:46:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')Were you cheering on 911 like the Palestinians did?
We don't bother with Israelis destroying their houses and expel them from their land.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')on't worry more than the "Palestinians" were cheering. Follow where trillions of dollars in taxpayers money has been spent since then.
AC, most of them aren't paid, war is on credit
Taxpayers mostly
will pay for it.
Peak oil is only an indication and a premise of limits to growth on a finite planet.
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
by Angry_Chimp » Fri 14 Mar 2008, 16:45:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alcassin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')Were you cheering on 911 like the Palestinians did?
We don't bother with Israelis destroying their houses and expel them from their land.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')on't worry more than the "Palestinians" were cheering. Follow where trillions of dollars in taxpayers money has been spent since then.
AC, most of them aren't paid, war is on credit
Taxpayers mostly
will pay for it.
YAHOO!!!!
==AC
“When plunder has become a way of life for a group of people living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it, and a moral code that glorifies it.”
~Frederic Bastiat
http://tinyurl.com/385qq8
Using official budget figures, William D Hartung, senior fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York, provides a number of helpful comparisons:
Proposed US military spending for FY 2008 is larger than military spending by all of the other nations in the world combined.
At $141.7 billion, this year's proposed spending on the Iraq war is larger than the military budgets of China and Russia combined. Total US military spending for FY2008 is roughly 10 times the military budget of the second-largest military spending country in the world, China.
Proposed US military spending is larger than the combined gross domestic products (GDP) of all 47 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
The FY 2008 military budget proposal is more than 30 times higher than all spending on State Department operations and non-military foreign aid combined.
The FY 2008 military budget is over 120 times higher than the roughly $5 billion per year the US government spends on combating global warming.
The FY 2008 military spending represents 58 cents out of every dollar spent by the US government on discretionary programs: education, health, housing assistance, international affairs, natural resources and environment, justice, veterans' benefits, science and space, transportation, training/employment and social services, economic development, and several more items. [2]
.....
Redistributive militarism: Escalation of military spending
But while the Pentagon contractors and other beneficiaries of war dividends are showered with public money, low- and middle-income Americans are squeezed out of economic or subsistence resources in order to make up for the resulting budgetary shortfalls. For example, as the official Pentagon budget for FY 2008 is projected to rise by more than 10%, or nearly $50 billion, "a total of 141 government programs will be eliminated or sharply reduced" to pay for the increase.
These would include cuts in housing assistance for low-income seniors by 25%, home heating/energy assistance to low-income people by 18%, funding for community development grants by 12.7%, and grants for education and employment training by 8%. [9]
Combined with redistributive militarism and generous tax cuts for the wealthy, these cuts have further exacerbated the ominously growing income inequality that started under Reagan. Ever since Reagan arrived in the White House in 1980, opponents of non-military public spending have been using an insidious strategy to cut social spending, to reverse the New Deal and other social safety net programs, and to redistribute national/public resources in favor of the wealthy. That cynical strategy consists of a combination of drastic increases in military spending coupled with equally drastic tax cuts for the wealthy. As this combination creates large budget deficits, it then forces cuts in non-military public spending (along with borrowing) to fill the gaps thus created.
For example, at the same time that Bush is planning to raise military spending by $50 billion for the next fiscal year, he is also proposing to make his affluent-targeted tax cuts permanent at a cost of $1.6 trillion over 10 years, or an average yearly cut of $160 billion. Simultaneously, "funding for domestic discretionary programs would be cut by a total of $114 billion" in order to pay for these handouts to the rich.
The targeted discretionary programs to be cut include over 140 programs that provide support for the basic needs of low- and middle-income families such as elementary and secondary education, job training, environmental protection, veterans’ health care, medical research, Meals on Wheels, childcare and HeadStart, low-income home energy assistance, and many more. [10]
by jlw61 » Fri 14 Mar 2008, 17:40:25
While your article was rather enlightening, I must take some issue with your final remarks.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Angry_Chimp', '
')For example, at the same time that Bush is planning to raise military spending by $50 billion for the next fiscal year, he is also proposing to make his affluent-targeted tax cuts permanent at a cost of $1.6 trillion over 10 years, or an average yearly cut of $160 billion. Simultaneously, "funding for domestic discretionary programs would be cut by a total of $114 billion" in order to pay for these handouts to the rich.
While I abhore the Iraq war and find GWB to be perhaps the worst president ever, I would like to remind everyone that the millitary (defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic) is a proper function of our government and any type of welfare is NOT. I fully agree that we are spending way too much on military adventures across the world. However, I would also point out that the $5+ trillion dollars on the war on poverty was a miserable failure.
Further, and this is perhaps the most important point I wish to make, cutting taxes
does not cost anything!
Spending is what costs the american people money.
We have gotten into this mess because not only did we allow the jerks in Washington to define the argument, but we gave them free reign to create new definitions for the argument.
When somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what he means. -- Otto Harkaman, Space Viking
-
jlw61
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Mon 03 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Sunny Virginia, USA
-
by Angry_Chimp » Fri 14 Mar 2008, 19:04:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jlw61', 'W')hile your article was rather enlightening, I must take some issue with your final remarks.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Angry_Chimp', '
')For example, at the same time that Bush is planning to raise military spending by $50 billion for the next fiscal year, he is also proposing to make his affluent-targeted tax cuts permanent at a cost of $1.6 trillion over 10 years, or an average yearly cut of $160 billion. Simultaneously, "funding for domestic discretionary programs would be cut by a total of $114 billion" in order to pay for these handouts to the rich.
While I abhore the Iraq war and find GWB to be perhaps the worst president ever, I would like to remind everyone that the millitary (defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic) is a proper function of our government and any type of welfare is NOT. I fully agree that we are spending way too much on military adventures across the world. However, I would also point out that the $5+ trillion dollars on the war on poverty was a miserable failure.
Further, and this is perhaps the most important point I wish to make, cutting taxes
does not cost anything!
Spending is what costs the american people money.
We have gotten into this mess because not only did we allow the jerks in Washington to define the argument, but we gave them free reign to create new definitions for the argument.
I smell what you are cooking but the basic idea here is that the "government" is long gone. Now it’s just a “store front” for the ruling class to lauder its booty. Many moons ago the "government" became [arguably was designed] to be nothing more than a tool to milk a population and send the vast majority of the wealth to the top while maintaining the illusion of “democracy”. It is so blatantly obvious now that it is a true miracle of the modern age that so many can be lulled into a blissful ignorance while the obvious is stomping on right their face. The magnitude of the military spending is mind boggling. There are so few enemies and so much energy to blow we even have to create our own enemies. The oldest trick in the book…
“There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, the allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest - why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors. . . The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, it was manifestly Rome's duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs... Even less than in the cases that have already been discussed, can an attempt be made here to comprehend these wars of conquest from the point of view of concrete objectives. Here there was neither a warrior nation in our sense, nor, in the beginning, a military despotism or an aristocracy of specifically military orientation. Thus there is but one way to an understanding: scrutiny of domestic class interests, the question of who stood to gain.”
~Joseph Schumpeter, 1919 The Roman Empire
Last edited by
Angry_Chimp on Fri 14 Mar 2008, 20:39:42, edited 1 time in total.
by jboogy » Fri 14 Mar 2008, 19:51:55
jlw61 wrote
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')I would like to remind everyone that the millitary (defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic) is a proper function of our government and any type of welfare is NOT.
I would like to remind you of the preamble to the constitution; "ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, promote the blessings of liberty...
and$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')urther, and this is perhaps the most important point I wish to make, cutting taxes does not cost anything!
Spending is what costs the american people money.
Nonsensical bullshit. First you say the government is duty bound to defend us, then you say we don't actually have to spend any money to do it. Which is it? Do we spend on the military and levy taxes to pay for it? Or will the war fairies make the tanks, planes and ships appear magically?
Perhaps the population would be less swayed to socialism if we had fewer examples of socialism from our "Free Market Capitalists". -----fiddler dave
by Angry_Chimp » Fri 14 Mar 2008, 21:56:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Angry_Chimp', '
')I smell what you are cooking but the basic idea here is that the "government" is long gone.
Can you find a new meme, or take it somewhere new? We've heard it all before.
Obviously if you feel the need to read my post and make comments you must have some morbid interest. Maybe you are a masochist who likes to read material that torments your fragile intellect. You know there is an ignore button or, imagine this revelation, you could just skip over my posts. I'm sorry if the facts rattle your precious beliefs and slide up you ass like a forty foot pole with spikes in it, but that’s life buddy. Now take your voodoo memeology bullshit and go fuck yourself.
Thanks,
==AC
by jlw61 » Fri 14 Mar 2008, 22:13:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jboogy', '[')b]jlw61 wrote
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')I would like to remind everyone that the military (defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic) is a proper function of our government and any type of welfare is NOT.
I would like to remind you of the preamble to the constitution; "ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, promote the blessings of liberty...
The "...promote the general welfare..." interpretation was one time I wished Hamilton would have kept his trap securely shut. I would strongly argue that this does not mean provide for a welfare state. They didn't have our concept of welfare back then! The seeming unlimited growth of the "war on poverty" and the abject failure of same is proof that government does not belong in the "welfare" business.
What, in part, it does mean, in IMHO, is that government should be transparent and protect the rights of its citizens. This will provide an environment where people can prosper by their labors, live according to their beliefs, and freely associate with others.
The Hamilton view also leaked heavily over into the interstate commerce clause which has given us some really poor decisions over the years. Not the least of which it allowed government to bully the states into building the current highway infrastructure and cause the railroads to nearly fade away.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
and$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')urther, and this is perhaps the most important point I wish to make, cutting taxes does not cost anything!
Spending is what costs the American people money.
Nonsensical bullshit. First you say the government is duty bound to defend us, then you say we don't actually have to spend any money to do it. Which is it? Do we spend on the military and levy taxes to pay for it? Or will the war fairies make the tanks, planes and ships appear magically?
When somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what he means. -- Otto Harkaman, Space Viking
by jlw61 » Fri 14 Mar 2008, 22:39:07
Chimp, part of me wants to agree with you but another part forces me to add the following to the mix
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') smell what you are cooking but the basic idea here is that the "government" is long gone. Now it’s just a “store front” for the ruling class to lauder its booty. Many moons ago the "government" became [arguably was designed] to be nothing more than a tool to milk a population and send the vast majority of the wealth to the top while maintaining the illusion of “democracy”. It is so blatantly obvious now that it is a true miracle of the modern age that so many can be lulled into a blissful ignorance while the obvious is stomping on right their face. The magnitude of the military spending is mind boggling. There are so few enemies and so much energy to blow we even have to create our own enemies. The oldest trick in the book…
I must agree in part and that is that the government first conceived is indeed long gone. We seem to moving towards a corporate state. We seem to look for enemies where ever we can and to meddle into the lives of everyone we can find. The populace as a whole does indeed seem to be lulled into a stupor.
Such a construct argues that the barbarians are at the controls. War is usually bad for business unless it is used to break the will of the enemy. Thus we have two opposing views. War is bad for business, yet the current administration appears to be looking for more wars and executing them sooooo badly! Thus I would argue that the shadow lords are not yet in control.
However, I would also submit that the power has not yet been wrested completely out of the hands of the masses. Further I would posit that it can not, so long as we have anything resembling a fair election AND the ability to force our elected officials to do our bidding. Why do those in congress take serious note when hundreds of angry phone calls come in from their district regarding an issue? Why were there no riots in 1994, when the country was practially ripe, but simply a large win for the Repubilicans at the polls? The people have a vote and the only way to influence anything is through division. Only a fool would try to overturn a landslide vote.
As long as citizens have the ability to redress wrongs in a peaceful manner (or unpeacefully through force of arms), then the government is never going to be but so corrupt.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')“There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, the allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest - why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors. . . The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, it was manifestly Rome's duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs... Even less than in the cases that have already been discussed, can an attempt be made here to comprehend these wars of conquest from the point of view of concrete objectives. Here there was neither a warrior nation in our sense, nor, in the beginning, a military despotism or an aristocracy of specifically military orientation. Thus there is but one way to an understanding: scrutiny of domestic class interests, the question of who stood to gain.”
~Joseph Schumpeter, 1919 The Roman Empire
Good quote! It has more than a ring of truth and shows, in part, why the Roman empire no longer exists. However, decadance was also a problem in Rome, and the patterns seem to be in the process of repeating themselves. The question is, since the US citizen has more power than that of the Roman citizen, what will be our fate?
The movie, while fanciful, does show what one determined individual can do (especially in the movies) when they are willing to risk it all for a belief!
And that one determined individual multipled several hundred or thousand times is what has kept the worst abuses of our government in check.
When somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what he means. -- Otto Harkaman, Space Viking
