|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:18 pm Post subject: Wars sending U.S. into ruin |
 |
|
More to the point:
ERIC MARGOLIS:
| Quote: |
U.S. President Barack Obama calls the $3.8-trillion US budget he just sent to Congress a major step in restoring America�s economic health.
In fact, it�s another potent fix given to a sick patient deeply addicted to the dangerous drug � debt.
More empires have fallen because of reckless finances than invasion. The latest example was the Soviet Union, which spent itself into ruin by buying tanks.
Obama�s total military budget is nearly $1 trillion. This includes Pentagon spending of $880 billion. Add secret black programs (about $70 billion); military aid to foreign nations like Egypt, Israel and Pakistan; 225,000 military �contractors� (mercenaries and workers); and veterans� costs. Add $75 billion (nearly four times Canada�s total defence budget) for 16 intelligence agencies with 200,000 employees.
The Afghanistan and Iraq wars ($1 trillion so far), will cost $200-250 billion more this year, including hidden and indirect expenses. Obama�s Afghan �surge� of 30,000 new troops will cost an additional $33 billion � more than Germany�s total defence budget.
...
China and Russia combined spend only a paltry 10% of what the U.S. spends on defence.
There are 750 U.S. military bases in 50 nations and 255,000 service members stationed abroad, 116,000 in Europe, nearly 100,000 in Japan and South Korea.
Military spending gobbles up 19% of federal spending and at least 44% of tax revenues. During the Bush administration, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars � funded by borrowing � cost each American family more than $25,000.
Like Bush, Obama is paying for America�s wars through supplemental authorizations �� putting them on the nation�s already maxed-out credit card. Future generations will be stuck with the bill.
This presidential and congressional jiggery-pokery is the height of public dishonesty.
America�s wars ought to be paid for through taxes, not bookkeeping fraud.
If U.S. taxpayers actually had to pay for the Afghan and Iraq wars, these conflicts would end in short order.
America needs a fair, honest war tax.
The U.S. clearly has reached the point of imperial overreach. Military spending and debt-servicing are cannibalizing the U.S. economy, the real basis of its world power. Besides the late U.S.S.R., the U.S. also increasingly resembles the dying British Empire in 1945, crushed by immense debts incurred to wage the Second World War, unable to continue financing or defending the imperium, yet still imbued with imperial pretensions.
It is increasingly clear the president is not in control of America�s runaway military juggernaut. Sixty years ago, the great President Dwight Eisenhower, whose portrait I keep by my desk, warned Americans to beware of the military-industrial complex. Six decades later, partisans of permanent war and world domination have joined Wall Street�s money lenders to put America into thrall.
Increasing numbers of Americans are rightly outraged and fearful of runaway deficits. Most do not understand their political leaders are also spending their nation into ruin through unnecessary foreign wars and a vainglorious attempt to control much of the globe � what neocons call �full spectrum dominance.�
If Obama really were serious about restoring America�s economic health, he would demand military spending be slashed, quickly end the Iraq and Afghan wars and break up the nation�s giant Frankenbanks. |
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2010/02/05/12758511-qmi.html
I have one major point of disagreement with EM:
| Quote: |
| Washington�s deficit (the difference between spending and income from taxes) will reach a vertiginous $1.6 trillion US this year. The huge sum will be borrowed, mostly from China and Japan, to which the U.S. already owes $1.5 trillion. Debt service will cost $250 billion. |
I think he means "Household Sector".
http://www.sprott.com/Docs/MarketsataGlance/12_2009_MAAG.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If Obama tried to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan he would be accused by conservatives of 'cutting and running' and 'not staying the course'. If he takes the advice of his military commanders and goes for the 'surge' option he is accused of wasteful military spending. What option does he have? The republicans in the senate would never allow any decrease in military spending anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If Obama doesn't have the balls to make tough decisions that have near term political consequences for him but long term benefits to the country, he's in the wrong line of work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The more libertarian types say 'defense' is just about the only legitimate government expenditure. Granny can freeze to death in the dark as long as we buy a new aircraft carrier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The more libertarian types say 'defense' is just about the only legitimate government expenditure. Granny can freeze to death in the dark as long as we buy a new aircraft carrier. |
Completely irrelevant. Keep your axe grinding to the comment section of OMGOBAMA.com. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| If Obama tried to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan he would be accused by conservatives of 'cutting and running' and 'not staying the course'. If he takes the advice of his military commanders and goes for the 'surge' option he is accused of wasteful military spending. What option does he have? The republicans in the senate would never allow any decrease in military spending anyway. |
He needs to do what's best for America, regardless of Republican rhetoric. He is the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. He can order a full withdrawl without Republican support. As far as Republicans not allowing spending decreases, Democrats have one of the strongest legislative majorities in history. It's time to stop using that excuse. Democrats need to create a strong, fiscally responsible budget and stick to it. Cut military spending and then let Republicans demand an increase, rubbing it in the public's face that their fiscally conservative rhetoric and their actual policies don't match up.
He recently said he'd rather be a great one term President than a mediocre two term President. Well, the topic of warfare is one way in which he's proving the exact opposite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The more libertarian types say 'defense' is just about the only legitimate government expenditure. Granny can freeze to death in the dark as long as we buy a new aircraft carrier. |
Power companies and Gas companies cannot shut off the power to elderly people in the USA. However I have heard of some street people that froze to death and that was in Albuquerque which is relatively warm compared to the rest of the country.
As far as the War Machine, the US doesn't want regimes in countries like North Korea, Iran and actually China too. They just keep popping up and we may have to have a military to deal with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The more libertarian types say 'defense' is just about the only legitimate government expenditure. Granny can freeze to death in the dark as long as we buy a new aircraft carrier. |
Completely irrelevant. Keep your axe grinding to the comment section of OMGOBAMA.com. |
Irrelevant? Really? Why am I confused? This thread title is about wars breaking the US budget, isn't it? My point is that one of the two major parties, and more generally, a large chunk of the right, favor immense defense spending. At the end of last week one of the Senators put a hold on all 70 presidential appointments to offices unrelated to defense, all for $40 billion+ for a couple of defense-related pork projects.
Excuse me for thinking so, but I believe the pressure that is largely responsible for the problem is relevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think a 'collapse' of the American Empire' is pretty much guaranteed. When India and China overtake it economically it will be forced to become more efficient. This means cutting spending on military bases that don't have any real importance (S.Korea?) and simply not being able to engage in wars of choice.
The current situation is a result of America sitting at the top of the tree. In the future it won't be able to be so wasteful if it wants to stop a domestic collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The more libertarian types say 'defense' is just about the only legitimate government expenditure. Granny can freeze to death in the dark as long as we buy a new aircraft carrier. |
Completely irrelevant. Keep your axe grinding to the comment section of OMGOBAMA.com. |
Irrelevant? Really? Why am I confused? This thread title is about wars breaking the US budget, isn't it? My point is that one of the two major parties, and more generally, a large chunk of the right, favor immense defense spending. At the end of last week one of the Senators put a hold on all 70 presidential appointments to offices unrelated to defense, all for $40 billion+ for a couple of defense-related pork projects.
Excuse me for thinking so, but I believe the pressure that is largely responsible for the problem is relevant. |
Fine. Then a huge chunk of the left, as we presently see with President Obama and friends, has joined the R's and endorsed a philosophy of warfare statistism.
Now libertarians, in thier own words:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/13/stop-the-war-stop-the-spending/
Read Yata. Learn Yata.
Why you would throw libertarians in the same lot as Shelby is just silly. In fact, the democrats interests lie more with Shelby than libertarians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
soakitincider
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sending?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The more libertarian types say 'defense' is just about the only legitimate government expenditure. Granny can freeze to death in the dark as long as we buy a new aircraft carrier. |
Completely irrelevant. Keep your axe grinding to the comment section of OMGOBAMA.com. |
Irrelevant? Really? Why am I confused? This thread title is about wars breaking the US budget, isn't it? My point is that one of the two major parties, and more generally, a large chunk of the right, favor immense defense spending. At the end of last week one of the Senators put a hold on all 70 presidential appointments to offices unrelated to defense, all for $40 billion+ for a couple of defense-related pork projects.
Excuse me for thinking so, but I believe the pressure that is largely responsible for the problem is relevant. |
Fine. Then a huge chunk of the left, as we presently see with President Obama and friends, has joined the R's and endorsed a philosophy of warfare statistism.
Now libertarians, in thier own words:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/13/stop-the-war-stop-the-spending/
Read Yata. Learn Yata.
Why you would throw libertarians in the same lot as Shelby is just silly. In fact, the democrats interests lie more with Shelby than libertarians. |
Indeed. In fact, Yat's favorite libertarian, Ron Paul, is one of the very few legislators, D or R, who have consistently opposed the wars while also calling for many bases around the world to be closed.
Yat, while your ophthalmologist may not be able to cure your tunnel vision, Drs. Ron and Rand Paul can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| To be a libertarian is to oppose wars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HalfJapanese
Joined: 02 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hate to break it to you guys, but the President is just a figure head that has pretty much no control over anything. The real power is located in the cabinet members, and the people behind the cabinet members, and further back.
The REAL people in power are the Globalists who own the international banks (including the Federal Reserves) and they have used the power of money to systematically destroy the U.S. economy (and many other economies). By destroying the U.S., other countries will be able buy out the U.S. for cheap, and install a new global currency that will be easy to control (Since the USD value has plummeted) and create the North American Union between Canada, U.S., and Mexico. These are the same people who created the European Union, causing the individual countries to lose their sovereignty.
So by creating more money "out of thin air" it further depletes the value of the dollar and quickly speeds up their plans.
Their Ultimate goal is to reduce the global population down to 500 million people b/c it is easier to manage. They have already been doing this by putting sterilizing and cancer causing chemicals in our food/water/vaccines/etc. There are off course other means by which they have been reducing the population.
I could go on all day about this, and their are tons of other information and events that tie into all this, but if you know the real history and tactics about how the elites have taken over/destroyed countries, then you can pretty much can figure it out.
Just follow the paper trail and figure out who has what to gain.
P.S. Get ready for the next False Flag Attack that will lead to the invasion of Iran and World War III. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HalfJapanese wrote: |
Hate to break it to you guys, but the President is just a figure head that has pretty much no control over anything. The real power is located in the cabinet members, and the people behind the cabinet members, and further back.
The REAL people in power are the Globalists who own the international banks (including the Federal Reserves) and they have used the power of money to systematically destroy the U.S. economy (and many other economies). |
You know, I was just thinking we needed another bank conspiracy theorist to talk down to us and educate us on this topic; none of us had heard about this cabal of eugenicist bankers before. Thanks for breaking the bad news. Are you really half Japanese? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
