Change you can believe in.

[wkmac]

The Wall Street Journal's editorial writers fear that any day, we will be naked unto our enemies. President Obama, they warn, wants to lavish money on everything but the military. America faces an array of threats, and "Obama's budget isn't adequate to those challenges."

Really? Cindy Williams, a defense scholar at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and former assistant director of the Congressional Budget Office, points out that Obama wants to spend 2 percent more in the next fiscal year than President Bush allocated for this year, and 9 percent more than we spent last year.

Bush also planned for the defense budget (apart from Iraq and Afghanistan) to shrink slightly each year starting in 2010. Obama's blueprint calls for the defense budget to remain about the same. "Spending will actually be higher under Obama's plan than under Bush's," says Williams.

So much for the Myth of Democratic Defense Cuts

But there's another part of this story that I find most interesting. From the same article:

But as conservatives have been known to point out, Washington policymakers have funny ways with numbers. Last year, the Defense Department asked for an increase of nearly $60 billion in the 2010 budget over what had been planned. The Obama administration declined but agreed to a smaller increase.

So conservatives should be pleased, right? Wrong. Since the increase the Pentagon got is less than it wanted, they claim Obama is "cutting" defense spending. By that logic, if you ask for a 50 percent raise and get only 10 percent, you've suffered a pay cut.

Why I find this so interesting is because going back to the 1990's and the Republican Congress and even into the first term of Bush where Repubs. had it all, if some favorite democrat bureacracy got a raise in budget but not the desired increase democrats called for, in others words "we want 50% but you are only giving us 10% so you are cutting" and when this happened, republicans correctly cried foul in the politicial deception of calling this a cut. Well it seems now the shoe is on the other foot and look at who is fostering the same deception as they once protested against?

The only change I see in Washington is in underwear and socks and I'd even entertain evidence that my thinking there could be wrong.
Other than that, Change is a complete myth too!

 

[wkmac]

In the same article above from Reason, there was also this:

We not only spend more than anyone else, we spend more than everyone else. Globalsecurity.org reports that in 2004, the United States lavished $623 billion on the military. All the other governments on Earth together managed only $500 billion. Even this gap understates our dominance, because most of the other top spenders are U.S. allies.

No nation can dream of challenging us in the air or at sea. We have a huge nuclear arsenal capable of inflicting mass annihilation on a moment's notice.

Meanwhile, the demands on our military are easing rather than growing. Under the agreement Bush signed with the Iraqi government, which Obama has reaffirmed, we are supposed to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. The threat from al-Qaida has been greatly reduced.

Still, looming threats can always be found. The Washington Post had a story the other day about China's military expansion, which has enlarged its budget to more than $100 billion in 2008. This trend worries the Pentagon. "Given the apparent absence of direct threats from other nations," says the Post, "the purposes to which China's current and future military power will be applied remain uncertain."

But our spending that year was more than $600 billion. And China, come to think of it, is not the only country spending a lot on the military despite the absence of direct threats from other nations.

Benjamin Friedman of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington notes something generally overlooked in Washington: "In a literal sense, the United States does not have a defense budget." Our military outlays go for all sorts of purposes—"the purported extension of freedom, the maintenance of hegemony, and the ability to threaten any other nation with conquest." But defending the nation's basic security? That's a small share of our military outlays.

If we focused on what is vital for our safety and independence, we could spend a lot less money. But if there is no limit to what we have to do to police and remake the world, there is also no limit to what we can spend.

So called conservatives scream bloody murder about the gov't using taxpayer dollars and it's power for jobs programs and wealth redistribution. They'll quote Marx and throw around the tags of communist and socialist at every whim to drive their point home. But they never see the very same thing when it comes to the military/industrial complex. There never see tax dollars compelled from Americans as wealth redistribution and income reallocation in the exact same way as so-called liberals, communist, socialist would redistribute wealth to non-workers and the bums of society. Any time you take money from me by any means other than my volunteering to do so without force or fraud and then doing with that money what I would not do if left to me to make the choice, that is wealth and income redistribution!


A Yahoo or Google search of defense spending/job programs in various combinations brings up links to look at but I did find this from USA Today May/1996' and use it because of it's 13 year rear window look and then coming forward.

Randolph Bourne in 1918' wrote War is the Health of the State and for those who prefer a limited gov't, war is the crisis mechanism by which the State itself grows. The continuence of war is necessary to justify the existence of the State and a growing State. Have we won the "War on Drugs" after decades and decades of battle? Have we won the "War on Poverty" after decades of battle? Inflation? Illiteracy? Single mother child births? Drunk driving? The list is endless but in that timeframe what has grown while the problem for all practical purposes is the same if not worse? What would the impact on government and to the unemployment rate be if all of a sudden we did win those wars? If you work in those areas for gov't, do you want to win or do you want more of the problem so you can advance and have job security? Self interests folks is not a dirty, greedy, evil liberterain thing by any stretch.


However, in all that warfare, nothing is ever defeated once and for all but The State and it's bureacracy grows up to focus on said war, grows literally into it's own industry and with it ever greater powers needed to give the appearance of actually doing something. Bourne has it right,

War is the health of the State!

 

[Jones]

'lil Abner had it all figured out a long time ago
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index/?cid=222036

 

[wkmac]

'lil Abner had it all figured out a long time ago
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index/?cid=222036

Ain't it the truth!

 

[wkmac]

Jones,

Good ole' Greenwald also takes to task the other guilty party in the Empire State.

 

[wkmac]

IS THIS CHANGE?

April 07, 2009

Obama Defends Bush Wiretaps

Posted by Stephan Kinsella at April 7, 2009 03:05 PM
Liberals who thought Obama would be better than Bush are idiots. I noted in Obama/Bush and the State Secrets Privilege the Obama administration's siding with Bush's on the State Secrets Privilege. And now, as reported here, "The Obama administration is again invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration's wiretapping program, this time against a lawsuit by AT&T customers who claim federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records."
Congrats, demonrats!
Update: Reader Jason Gordon writes: "In addition to the AT&T case you posted from the SF Chronicle is this one from Monday regarding the Electronic Frontier Foundation's case against the NSA. True to form Obama deploys the fraudulent state secrets privilege."
See also Glenn Greenwald on this.

source

I guess as Bill Clinton said, it would be determined on what the definition of "IS" is!



Conrad to Comrade! Conrad to Comrade! I'm poking with my stick again!

Love and Kisses!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Braveheart]

All elected officials are corrupt to some one. The Reps had 8 years in office and 12 of 14 years of control of congress. Now the Dems have a swing at it.

Some times one has to be in office for a while to rein in the other side. I am an independent as I have beliefs on both sides. I have friends on both sides and people I do not care for on both sides.

At least congress voted to forgo their raises next year and Obama froze the salaries of all his staff making $100,000 per year or more. Two small gestures but it is a start.

We need to do many things to fix the country.

#1 Reinstate the Glass Steagal Act that both the Reps and Dems repealed at the end of Clinton's last term. It was put in place in the 1930's to keep seperate the investment banks, savings and loans, real estate, and insurance industries.

#2 Repeal the Commodities Modernization Act that the Reps and Dems passed under Bush in his first term that made many investments UNREGULATED like "credit default swaps". That is why no one could regulate the fact that these sub-prime investment securites among other things were not properly financially backed and overbilled as safe and secure when in reality they were NOT!

#3 Reinstate the short sale uptick rule/law that was in place from 1938-2007 but repealed by the SEC under Bush in July 2007. This was a nice speed bump/speed governor to control the abuse of short sales. I do not like short selling period. Why would anyone want to bet against a company and want it to lose value? It hurts capital investment and drags down the stock market.

#4 Pass cunsumption based sales tax like the fair tax!

#5 Tax internet sales that the selling and buying states share in the proceeds.

#6 Stop the automatic raises congress gets and prevent them from controlling it.

#7 Stop the automatic pensions congress members get for just one term of service. Make it like us 20-30 years of service then you get a pension.

#8 Ban all lobbyist period!!!!!!!!!!!!

#9 Pass the Death Sentence for people like Ken Lay, Bernard Madoff, Dennis Kozlowski, Charles Keating and the like. Death by shark tank!!!

More is needed but these would be a nice start.

 

[diesel96]

IS THIS CHANGE?


Quote:
April 07, 2009

Obama Defends Bush Wiretaps

Posted by Stephan Kinsella at April 7, 2009 03:05 PM
Liberals who thought Obama would be better than Bush are idiots. I noted in Obama/Bush and the State Secrets Privilege the Obama administration's siding with Bush's on the State Secrets Privilege. And now, as reported here, "The Obama administration is again invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration's wiretapping program, this time against a lawsuit by AT&T customers who claim federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records."
Congrats, demonrats!
Update: Reader Jason Gordon writes: "In addition to the AT&T case you posted from the SF Chronicle is this one from Monday regarding the Electronic Frontier Foundation's case against the NSA. True to form Obama deploys the fraudulent state secrets privilege."
See also Glenn Greenwald on this.


source

I guess as Bill Clinton said, it would be determined on what the definition of "IS" is!



Conrad to Comrade! Conrad to Comrade! I'm poking with my stick again!

Love and Kisses!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know I agree with you on this...... So poke your stick in another pile of poop and see if it's sticks.....

Here ya go.....Don't lock the door to your room and don't go blind viewing these links.....lol

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/keith-olbermann-obama-and-wiretapping

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#30116228
Countdown with Keith OlbermannCountdown with Keith Olbermann

http://www.eff.org/

 

[diesel96]

So much for the Myth of Democratic Defense Cuts

Sure is convenient how they fail to mention that Bush had the Afghan and Iraq budgets seperate from the defense budget. B O has moved them all together. Therefore, overall spending is cut. Having the two war fronts budgeted on seperate spending bills forced the dems to vote on a single particular item, one in which they railed against. It forced them to put up or shut up, they never did shut up, but they did continue to vote for war funding. This has nothing to do with their insane version of baseline budgeting, it is in fact, a cut....Don't you like mythbusters on the Discovery channel ?.....

 

[wkmac]

Sure is convenient how they fail to mention that Bush had the Afghan and Iraq budgets seperate from the defense budget. B O has moved them all together. Therefore, overall spending is cut. Having the two war fronts budgeted on seperate spending bills forced the dems to vote on a single particular item, one in which they railed against. It forced them to put up or shut up, they never did shut up, but they did continue to vote for war funding. This has nothing to do with their insane version of baseline budgeting, it is in fact, a cut....Don't you like mythbusters on the Discovery channel ?.....

Convienance or is it just such an accepted fact that mentioning it is not needed? Someone jumps off a 20 story building and plunges to their death and no where in news accounts do they say, "the victim jumped and gravity pulled them to their death!" We just accept gravity as being there. But then everyone has a motive right?


As for defense spending, this past wekend, Robert Higgs was on C-Span's In Depth for 3 hours taking calls, most not real nice either because of his Anarcho/Laissez Faire/Libertariann POV, but during the discussion he talked about the enormous defense spending in the country. He pointed out the way gov't hides defense spending in other agencies budgets that would make the total even greater than it is. For example, much of our nuclear weapons cost as it relates to the military and defense purposes are actually in the Dept. of Energy budget and not in the actual Dept. of Defense budget. There is also monies in the State Dept. budget that get used for military purposes and just this morning I watched some of the Coast Guard Commandant's appearance at the National Press Club on 3/3/09 (thank you C-Span) in which he told about the money they get from the National Science Foundation for their own mission protecting our nations coastline. Coast Guard funded by monies from the National Science Foundation! Even that one took me by surprise and I'd never guess that in a million years even as smart and superior in intellect from Tieguy that I am!
I figure even if not true, if I got Tieguy conned then I'll at least get some comedic mileage out of it!
Love and Kisses Tie!

Anyway, in Feb. 2006' Military.com ran an article entitled "How Big is the Defense Budget?" and it just shows that Congressional Budget creativity goes a long way to hide the truth.

Obama may be the Luke Skywalker you think he is but he's surrounded by the Sith and therefore the Darkside still rule the day. And even Olberman and Maddow are starting to recognize and speak out even though I'm sure it took a lot for them to muster the courage to do so. I relate having experienced similar myself in Reagan's first term.

All you Yoda's can be loyal but you also need to speak up or the Sith will win again! You can take that one to the bank!

D,

You should have done like me and voted for Ralph Nader in Nov. but then I'm an anarchist and understand the principle of the sine wave and to get to a postive you have to go through the negative!

Besides, could you imagine Ralph and his ideas forcing the democrats to be real liberals instead of these make believe neo-libs who are really neo-cons themselves and out to grab personal power and wealth for themselves! Now you know why I voted Ralph because I know they really don't want that briar patch as much as they pretend they do! Give them exactly what they don't want and then letting this show them for the hypocrites they really are! That would have been such fun! And at least Ralph would have told Wall Street to got take a jump and I'd bet auditing the Federal Reserve would have a huge advocate too! Another big reason I voted Ralph.

 

[wkmac]

With all the talk about the auto industry, nationalizing the auto industry, etc. I ran across an op-ed at Taki's Magazine about Steve Rattner who is, if you will, referred to as the "Car Czar!" How accurate? but it is catchy.

Now I can't remember having heard the Rattner name or not but since in the above op-ed, the NY Times was mentioned, I thought a google was in order so here is what I found about our new "Car Czar."

NY Times 4/17
Steve Rattner

NY Times 2/24
New York Financier Picked as Top Adviser on Auto Industry Bailout

NY Times 4/6
Obama’s Top Auto Industry Troubleshooter

NY Times 4/17
Obama Adviser Said to Be Tied to Pension Deal

NY Times 4/22
Quadrangle Facing Questions Over Pension Funds

But I save the "best" for last as it includes something that proves so interesting when you consider the word "CHANGE" in relation to this new adminstration.

NY Times 4/17
In State Pension Inquiry, a Scandal Snowballs

Let me quote from above for that dramatic effect!

The inquiry into corruption at the New York State pension fund started simply enough. Alan G. Hevesi, the former comptroller, was accused of using state workers as chauffeurs for his ailing wife.

But by the time Mr. Hevesi resigned his office in late 2006, investigators for the Albany County district attorney’s office were examining a more troubling problem: allegations that Mr. Hevesi’s associates had sold access to the state’s $122 billion pension fund, using one of the world’s largest pools of assets to reward friends, pay back political favors and reap millions of dollars in cash rewards for themselves.

Hundreds of investment firms have been subpoenaed. Three people have been criminally charged and another has pleaded guilty to a felony. And the scandal has grabbed the attention of Wall Street, as members of the investment establishment’s top tier now face scrutiny.
The Carlyle Group, the politically connected private equity firm, is among the companies whose transactions are being examined. Steven Rattner, just appointed to serve as the Obama administration’s point man in the bailout of the auto industry, has emerged as a significant figure.

The Carlyle Group and Rattner is according to the above "has emerged as a significant figure!"



Say it ain't so!!!!! Not Bush and Cheney's Carlyle Group!



Watch how easy this flows.

Bush, Carlyle, Republicans! Bush, Carlyle, Republicans! Bush, Carlyle, Republicans! Bush, Carlyle, Republicans! Bush, Carlyle, Republicans! Obama, Carlyle, Republicans! Obama, Carlyle, Republicans! Obama, Carlyle, Republicans! Obama, Carlyle, Democrats! Obama, Carlyle, Democrats! Obama, Carlyle, Democrats! Obama, Carlyle, Democrats!

See how that just flowed right in there and if your not looking closely, you'll never catch it. That is how these scoundrels operate. If you think putting a rose in the middle of a cesspool is gonna sweeten the stinch, the only thing you end up with is a rose covered in ------- (I can't say that word but you know what it is!)



Something to think about. If this country and what we are doing and the course we've been headed in for years via both political parties is so great, then did you ever ask yourself why we owe some much debt to the Chinese and we give Russian titles to heads of gov't bureacracies?

 

[1989]

Is that the best excuse you can come up with???

Bernanke is a BUSH appointee and also an idiot.

Does this mean you now think obama is an idiot for reappointimg an idiot? Although he maybe the first appointee that isn't a criminal.

 

[tieguy]

Convienance or is it just such an accepted fact that mentioning it is not needed? Someone jumps off a 20 story building and plunges to their death and no where in news accounts do they say, "the victim jumped and gravity pulled them to their death!" We just accept gravity as being there. But then everyone has a motive right?


As for defense spending, this past wekend, Robert Higgs was on C-Span's In Depth for 3 hours taking calls, most not real nice either because of his Anarcho/Laissez Faire/Libertariann POV, but during the discussion he talked about the enormous defense spending in the country. He pointed out the way gov't hides defense spending in other agencies budgets that would make the total even greater than it is. For example, much of our nuclear weapons cost as it relates to the military and defense purposes are actually in the Dept. of Energy budget and not in the actual Dept. of Defense budget. There is also monies in the State Dept. budget that get used for military purposes and just this morning I watched some of the Coast Guard Commandant's appearance at the National Press Club on 3/3/09 (thank you C-Span) in which he told about the money they get from the National Science Foundation for their own mission protecting our nations coastline. Coast Guard funded by monies from the National Science Foundation! Even that one took me by surprise and I'd never guess that in a million years even as smart and superior in intellect from Tieguy that I am!
I figure even if not true, if I got Tieguy conned then I'll at least get some comedic mileage out of it!
Love and Kisses Tie!

no problem buddy , though you probably should treat me better since I'm probably one of the few posters here who actually tries to read some of the crap you post here.

 

[av8torntn]

Sure is convenient how they fail to mention that Bush had the Afghan and Iraq budgets seperate from the defense budget. B O has moved them all together. Therefore, overall spending is cut. Having the two war fronts budgeted on seperate spending bills forced the dems to vote on a single particular item, one in which they railed against. It forced them to put up or shut up, they never did shut up, but they did continue to vote for war funding. This has nothing to do with their insane version of baseline budgeting, it is in fact, a cut....Don't you like mythbusters on the Discovery channel ?.....

Wait a minute you guys were telling us the last budget was a Bush budget and not an Obama budget. If the last budget was the Obama budget then you can join with the rest of us and admit he lied when he said he would not sign a budget with earmarks since it had over four thousand earmarks or 9000 depending on what you count.

 

[wkmac]

no problem buddy , though you probably should treat me better since I'm probably one of the few posters here who actually tries to read some of the crap you post here.

ELIZABETH, IT'S THE BIG ONE! I'M COMING TO JOIN YOU HONEY!

 

[av8torntn]

More change.


China's national flag to go up in White House on Sept 20
By Hou Lei (chinadaily.com.cn)
Updated: 2009-07-13 16:45

The national flag of the People's Republic of China (PRC) will be hoisted at the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on September 20, media reported Sunday.

Chen Ronghua, chairman of Fujian Association of the United States, told reporters that their application was approved not only because of the sound Sino-US relations but also because China is a responsible country.

"Many Americans admire China due to the success of last year’s Beijing Olympics," said Chen.

More than 1,000 people will attend the ceremony and the performances held after it, according to Zhao Luqun, who will direct the performances.

Zhao said the performances will demonstrate the friendship, magnanimous spirit and kindness of modern Chinese people.

 

[Catatonic]

ELIZABETH, IT'S THE BIG ONE! I'M COMING TO JOIN YOU HONEY!

Thanks ... I liked Red Foxx (Fred Sanford).
I've actually used that line, with my hand over my heart, many a time at work when someone said something that was incredulous and incongruous.

 

[Crumbx]

More....Are you falling for the predictable GOP strategy demonizing symbolic targets drumming up Rep/Con Neanderthal-like emotionals staring at caveman drawings....field mouse, accorn, birth cert, Reid, Pelosi, Frank ......It's so easy (distracting Rep's) a caveman can do it....[/quote]

YUP. Death Panels it is.

 

[toonertoo]

Lookout More, we have another Newbie.

 

[moreluck]

Ho-hum. Yawn !! Bring 'em on !!