It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Pentagon Strangles Our Economy: Why The U.S. Has Gone Broke

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


There is some validity to your argument, but keep in mind that social programs would not be necessary if there were true fiscal responsibility and effective oversight. When the Pentagon can simply "misplace" a quarter of our total national debt, the looting of this nation becomes completely obvious.

I support a strong military, but not war profiteering.




posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


No, our nation is not in a war, our president is the one that have created a war.

Two different things here, his war is bankrupting our nation.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


You got it there, the line between supporting our military and feeding the profiteers of war has been interwined so much that one can not survive without the other.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
History shows what happens when we ignore our national defense.

The article also ignores the fact that we are in a war and the fact that our military isn't as big as it needs to be for the job that needs to be done.


What is unfortunate is the successful execution of the 'campaign' to create and strengthen our perception that there is an actual need to 'attack' someone else. So far, having an army hasn't protected America from squat. We've never been invaded, no army has threated our national infrastructure. every large-scale assault on American interests turns out to be revealed, after the fact, to have been preventable, or at least it could have been minimized had it not been contrary to business concerns.

I have read your posts before, and I respect your opinion highly, but I believe that you must be aware of these facts. How many times have our leaders 'allowed' America to be bloodied, to justify the battle cry 'We must defend democracy, we must defend our way of life." only to have our children mangled and killed, and to add insult to injury, forgotten once they could no longer be of use to that end - with neither our 'democracy' nor 'our way of life ever once threatened?

In fact the only threats are to businesses and large international combine plans. And we have allowed our leaders to prostitute our nation to serve their desires. Our American soldiers have been reduced to a tool to bully others. And they demand we need more.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
No, our nation is not in a war, our president is the one that have created a war.

Two different things here, his war is bankrupting our nation.

Can't we have a discussion without this sort of idiotic, partisan rhetoric? I mean, I never supported the war from the beginning, but I'm so damn tired of everyone pointing the finger at Bush for the entire Iraq war. There we tons of people in our intelligence who supported the war, tons of people throughout the executive, and massive, bi-partisan support for it throughout Congress. All of a sudden, when the public starts speaking out against it, you have the Democrats quickly switch sides.

Don't turn this into a political game of finger-pointing. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


I have to agree with you there. I think we all know that if Hillary moves back into the White House, we'll still wind up with McCain's hundred-year war.

EDIT to add: But that does not mean that Bush is still not more to blame than anyone else. They've all got blood on their hands. So does anyone who votes for either party.


[edit on 4/27/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


You can take it anyway you want to, that is your personal opinion I got mine and so beat it.




[edit on 27-4-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by marg6043
No, our nation is not in a war, our president is the one that have created a war.

Two different things here, his war is bankrupting our nation.

Can't we have a discussion without this sort of idiotic, partisan rhetoric? I mean, I never supported the war from the beginning, but I'm so damn tired of everyone pointing the finger at Bush for the entire Iraq war. There we tons of people in our intelligence who supported the war, tons of people throughout the executive, and massive, bi-partisan support for it throughout Congress. All of a sudden, when the public starts speaking out against it, you have the Democrats quickly switch sides.

Don't turn this into a political game of finger-pointing. Thanks.


I would agree wholeheartedly assuming we accept that the entire issue of party affiliation is an illusion, thus rendering Mr. Bush, his cabinet, the judiciary, and all legislatorial bodies tools. But then, that begs the question, who's are the tools guiding hands? By what will are the tools used to effect the changes and activities we have all suffered under thus far? Certainly not ours. Bush may be an expedient scape-goat, but then, who put a gun to his head and made him swear to defend and protect the constitution? By ceasing to blame him, are we clearing him of guilt? I think that all the oil in the Middle East couldn't do that.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I agree, I like this post. I just speak out blaming Bush as the sole cause (such things as "Bush's war" and whatnot). Personally, I'd start by investigating where this intelligence came from and why we acted on it. But you have to look at the Senate and the intelligence community as a whole to find the blame; for all we know (though I may doubt it), Bush was acting rationally based on what he was told. If so, we have to examine who told him it, and why. Most people were probably innocent. Hell, it could simply be an honest mistake, but who knows?

Has this sort of investigation been done on ATS? What about at all, or by the government? I've never had the chance, but if I wouldn't be alone, I'd be curious to hear at least what has been done and if it would be practical to do it from the outside (ex. us).



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


I googled federal budget pie chart and clicked on the top ten and not one of them agreed on the appropration of spending... your chart suggests that we spend 19% on defense and that seems terribly low... another suggested 36%, which includes the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and from what I have read that seems more accurate.

Perhaps pittence was the wrong word but when you take into account that one we have only 2 natural borders and the literal impossiblity of actually invading and occupying America by any other nation... the ammount we spend on defense is patently absurd... by all accounts we spend more on defense that Russia, China, Great Britian, France and a few other countries combined... that is insane... we are still running with a cold war military when we don't need it... and not to mention we also have a fetish for high tech high cost war toys... give me a break. We could slash our defense budget in half and still be the most powerful nation, militarly, on the planet. When you add in all the foreign aid we give out ( I am not talking about humanitarian aid for disasters) and the hundreds of bases we maintain overseas.... the good that we could be doing here with that money is staggering.

I know you are an anti-tax fanatic and thats your problem but fortunately most Americans have more common sense... none of us like taxes but our quality of life would be far lower if it weren't for government spending... we already know what corporations would do... take the money and run and screw everybody else.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


You forgot to add the mismanaged tax payer money that has gone missing in the so call reconstruction of Iraq and war efforts for the security of Iraq.

Money that is rightfully of the US citizens and should have been used for our own border security.

But as usual since 9/11 the war profiteers has been rewarded handsomely in Iraq to waste tax payer money.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


so true so very very true.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
To use last year budget or past to reference the exact amount that the U.S. spends in military affairs is useless mainly because many of the funding for the wars come in war funding bills that Congress approve outside the scope of the budget that is approve for a specific fiscal year.

With that said, is not surprise that the tab for these wars has been expensive but in reality it doesn't compare to what this country spends on social programs. I don't have the source right now but I read that last fiscal year more that 50% of the budget was spend on social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare and others. That's 50%!!

If we talk about military spending, this country spends 3.5% of its GDP in military, which is not high at all if you look that during the Vietnam war it was 6% of our GDP going to military, almost doble.

The reason why this country is going broke is not the Pentagon or military spending, surely it is a factor, but it would be naïve to think that is the sole reason for our current economic situation. If that was the case I will be the first one to say that everything is going to be gravy once these wars are over and the military budget get sliced and appropiation bills are no more, which would be also naïve, our economic troubles are far more deeper than that I believe.



[edit on 29-4-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Overall used of money on the Invasion of Iraq.


Since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration has spent more than 30 billion dollars in U.S. taxpayer funds and another 20 billion dollars in Iraqi funds under its control for the reconstruction effort. The war in general has reportedly cost more than 450 billion dollars.


This only on the reconstruction effort is pleanty of millions that are not included when the Bush administration ask for additional funds during the year for Iraq.

Neither is included when the defense budget is put together. Is on additional funding

CORRUPTION: More U.S. Money Wasted in Iraq, Audit Finds

ipsnews.net...



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


And let us not forget Social Security is supposed to be a separate entity unto itself. It is a trust fund, never meant to be considered a "usable part" of the Federal budget. We keep hearing about how much it costs and how it's no longer solvent, but the primary reason for its insolvency have nothing to to with any flaw in its design. Fact is, recent administrations have been "dipping in" to the fund to pay for pet projects, war and occupation costs, etc. It's the Federal equivalent of having a mutual fund, putting in $5K, and taking out $2K a few months later to pay for a vacation.

As for the Iraq war, Bush gets the blame because he accepted it. In his statements about being "The Decider", he essentially takes ownership of the war (which is technically over-he told us so himself; this is actually an "occupation") and its consequences. Whistleblowers in the intel community have been telling us for years Bush ignored their warnings of false leads, hoaxed intel, and inconclusive evidence in his rush to judgment.

Besides, even if we had solid intel, the UN inspectors were on the ground in Iraq (Saddam having decided to comply with the demands of the international community) and they weren't finding anything, confirming the intel we had was bogus. Bush then used the second clause in the Congressional authorization for the use of force (the first being Saddam's non-compliance with UN inspections, which he effectively nullified by letting them in) stating we could take action if conclusive evidence surfaced linking Saddam's regime to 9/11. Bush literally lied through his teeth, stated such evidence existed (despite bin Laden and Saddam being deadly enemies who would kill each other on sight), had his cronies cook the intel to make it real, and sent us off to war. Then he comes out and says there were no links between Saddam and al Qaeda.

So which is it? No matter which way you slice it the justification for the Iraq war and the subsequent occupation is based on lies, pure and simple. I don't care if Saddam was a dictator or not; ousting him was for the Iraqi people to decide, not us; removing him from power "just because" he was a dictator was not in the Congressional authorization for the use of force. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and the law was broken. And since Bush is "The Decider", he takes the blame.

On the size of our military--it's plenty big enough. More than large enough to do what it should be doing--ensuring our national self-defense. Its current bloated size is based on the Cold War notion of "Force Projection", which, frankly, is outdated and unnecessary. We do not need to "fight them there" in order to prevent having to "fight them here". Anyone who believe this is a coward who would rather believe lies about security than accept the fact that freedom isn't always safe and sometimes involves real risk.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


I found some charts...







(Source: International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2002-2003 (London: IISS and Oxford University Press, 2002), Table 26, pp. 332-37. The "All Other" category includes the combined military budgets of Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Cuba, and Vietnam.)



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 



I don't have the source right now but I read that last fiscal year more that 50% of the budget was spend on social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare and others. That's 50%!!


Even if this were true, it would not shock or offend me considering that one in eight Americans are living below the poverty line. This includes millions of people who get up and go to work everday at minimum wage jobs.

Now factor in that even if you are making twice what the official poverty line is, you are still poor and have difficulty paying for basic necessities. So now you can see that half of Americans are poor. So then it would make sense that half of our budget has to go to helping the poor, instead of giving them jobs that would pay them a reasonable living wage, like we used to have in this country only decades ago.


edit for spelling


[edit on 4/29/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 











posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Even if this were true, it would not shock or offend me considering that one in eight Americans are living below the poverty line. This includes millions of people who get up and go to work everday at minimum wage jobs.

Now factor in that even if you are making twice what the official poverty line is, you are still poor and have difficulty paying for basic necessities. So now you can see that half of Americans are poor. So then it would make sense that half of our budget has to go to leping the poor, instead of giving them jobs that would pay them a reasonable living wage, like we used to have in this country only decades ago.


That is no s#, hands-down. And great finds on the charts and pics! Stars for ya



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I googled federal budget pie chart and clicked on the top ten and not one of them agreed on the appropration of spending... your chart suggests that we spend 19% on defense and that seems terribly low... another suggested 36%, which includes the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and from what I have read that seems more accurate.

Googled? Are you sure you're looking at FY 2007?

Maybe we can put something together from the Office of Management and Budget.


Originally posted by grover
Perhaps pittence was the wrong word but when you take into account that one we have only 2 natural borders and the literal impossiblity of actually invading and occupying America by any other nation... the ammount we spend on defense is patently absurd... by all accounts we spend more on defense that Russia, China, Great Britian, France and a few other countries combined... that is insane... we are still running with a cold war military when we don't need it... and not to mention we also have a fetish for high tech high cost war toys... give me a break. We could slash our defense budget in half and still be the most powerful nation, militarly, on the planet. When you add in all the foreign aid we give out ( I am not talking about humanitarian aid for disasters) and the hundreds of bases we maintain overseas.... the good that we could be doing here with that money is staggering.

I don't like the whole force projection policy, I think it's a cold war relic that ultimately fails at getting the world to do what you want. I don't like running bases overseas and giving out foreign aid (actually, I think the latter - giving tax money to other countries - is treason). I do, however, believe in far more research and development and training.
But remember that no nation has ever been attacked for being too strong.


Originally posted by grover
I know you are an anti-tax fanatic and thats your problem but fortunately most Americans have more common sense... none of us like taxes but our quality of life would be far lower if it weren't for government spending... we already know what corporations would do... take the money and run and screw everybody else.

I'm not an anti-tax fanatic, you need to tax to give the government money. But the magnitude of this tax is literally strangling and oppressive. Lower tax is a better tax, always. And when you use it on social programs, you couple high tax with economic interference, a recipe for disaster.


Also, this is FY 2008, as per The Washington Post:



Source: www.washingtonpost.com...

[edit on 29-4-2008 by Johnmike]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join