12 Facts About Military Spending That Will Make Your Head Explode

page: 5
80
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


Military bases in over 120 countries, monopoly on the United Nations security council, almost dictatorial powers with regard to the foreign policy of any allied nation, involvement or complete oversight in the overthrow or attempted overthrow of over 50 foreign governments, multiple puppet regimes around the world. Empire may be a harsh word, however empire building is the easiest and shortest way to describe these actions. I'm not saying America is the only empire in the world, but it most certainly is one.

edit on 22-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeissacred
 


So you would trust the power of security council in the hands of France? Chad? Brazil? Please.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


You're missing my point, no one should have a monopoly on world affairs. Any decisions which should be made should be made by a collective of representatives from around the world, especially when the decisions made are about or in the interests of America which often have alot of resonance (much of it negative) around the world.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeissacred
 


I like your title. “Life is sacred" I agree. I think that is what America values as well. Despite being right or wrong for going into some of these countries with our military. We are attempting to preserve life.

Saddam: Killing tens of thousands with chemical weapons.
Hitler: Killing Millions of Jews
Afgan: Terrorists organizations killing thousands of jews and americans

Along with the Middle East having poor human rights. Women cant vote, they are beaten, they have no options or choices except to do what there told. There are places in the middle east and africa that practice female circumcision, it’s so awful, I can’t say the word. Point being, there is a lot of evil people and places out there, and although America may be wrong from time to time, They do try to help and do what is right, not bring empires. Men and women of all backgrounds can now vote and decide their future in the country of Iraq. The choice is theirs. This is what Im driving at. We may occupy countries and rebuild, but not against their will. Maybe against the terrorists will, but not the citizens. Majority of citizens are thankful in afgan and Iraq for Americas contributions. There are some really good heartfelt stories about the thankfulness that has been shown from those countries to ours. Our intention is not to spread the American flag but give others the tools to build their own nation and decide for themselves. And guess what, incase you haven’t seen the news lately. People want the dictators out and have the option to vote and chose and have more freedoms.
Why do you think bush wanted a democratic country in the Middle East? Because he knew the other countries citizens would look on and want to fight for the same freedoms we gave to Iraq. Please take a look at this all, and not from a pessimistic view but from a holistic, optimistic view. Is any of what I’m saying getting through to you? Am I just lying and full of it? You have seen the people of Syria, Egypt, Libya fighting for a better life. Rioting. Even the people of Iran have been in their own ways. Say what you will about the guy, but Bush was a lot smarter than we gave him credit for. He knew what he was doing and set up a domino effect in the middle by starting with Iraq. Dominoe effect being start with one country, and the others will want the same Freedoms as well, and that is exactly what we are seeing today. All other countries are tired of their dictators and want the same rights as the people of Iraq. They want to choose. And was there WMDs? Yes, here is a list, but even though the papers like the New York Times found out about it. They hid it, not informing us. Because of their own agenda.

1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and " conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency
edit on 22-6-2011 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-6-2011 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Lets take a minute to think about the money they spend off the books



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


If America (not just America I must stress there are many countries who are involved in exactly the same things however given the nature of the thread let's stick with America and it's immediate allies) really cared about preserving life, human rights and so on they'd distance themselves their Arab puppet regimes in Saudi Arabia (arguably one of the most repressive states in the world and a close US ally) and the Emirates which are at the whim of US foreign policy. It's important to remember that it was the USA (along with it's allies) who sold chemical/biological weapons to Saddam in order to use against the Iranians, Saddam was an ally until he didn't want to be at the whim of US foreign policy, it was only then that he became the bogeyman we had in the run up to the Gulf war. No one in the USA (or any other western nation for that matter) cared about the repression of women in the Middle East when we were arming the 'Mujahideen' (or the 'brave freedom fighters' as Ronald Reagan called them) when they were shooting the guns we gave them at the Soviet invaders instead of the 'Coalition' invaders. Now the same people are considered terrorists for using the guns we gave them to fight people who invaded their country to fight against our invasion.

If human rights were at the forefront of American foreign policy the US government would have sent troops into Sudan, would challenge Israel's oppressive policies against the Palestinians and the illegal settling of land outside of their borders and the many other travesties around the world (but none of that is the immediate 'interest' of the US establishment).

Iraq isn't a bastion of 'freedom' and wasn't a success, over a million people were killed there by sanctions and the wars imposed upon them. You really think Iraq has made the middle east better? Saddam was a horrible dictator, of course, he killed thousands of people, but our 'side' in the conflict has killed over a million, collectively punished the Iraqi people because they had a ruler our establishment didn't like. There have been and still are many dictators throughout the world who the US hasn't even challenged.

Look at what happened in Egypt, a repressive dictatorship which was one of the biggest recipients of US foreign aid and when the people said they wouldn't take it anymore and began to riot on the streets the western media's main concern was Israel and losing Egypt as an ally, why? Because the weapons used against the Egyptian people had been supplied by the USA (again, not just the USA but considering the subject)

Since you mentioned Iran let's talk about Iran. A democratically elected leader was overthrown (by the USA and Britain coincidentally because they wanted to secure their exploitation of Iran's oil wealth and protect it from nationalisation) and the Shah was installed as dictator and began his repressive policies, silencing dissent and acting in the interests of the USA, Britain.

This is the true nature of modern western foreign policy, stealth imperialism. America isn't the only country doing it, but that doesn't make it acceptable.
edit on 22-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)


Disclaimer: I've left out alot of history and key events in this post, though it may seem specifically aimed at America it's important to note that many countries are involved in much of the clandestine behaviour I've talked about in this post and my points should not be viewed as anti-American, the American people are victims as much as everyone else.
edit on 22-6-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


You should try a literal lateral thinking: We are empire building today, but the territories and subjects are economic. It's a subtle, and important distinction, because it allows to pretend that we aren't imperialists. But we are. We just use corporations and the central banks, in place of legionairs or tanks.

Of course, we keep the legion around in case any of our vassal states go rogue and tries to cut our corporations out of the money (resources).



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
It really makes me sick that we can spend this kind of money on military might. And all of the money spent on the military is from, you guessed it, the hard working tax payers like you and I that work overtime and only see fifty percent of that hard earned money. Bring the troops home now, hire more teachers, pay them the money they deserve to teach our children, our future leaders. Could you imagine if we spent a quarter of the military budget on educating our youth? And putting these soldiers, instead of overseas in someone elses country, right here protecting our own borders.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
After reading the article that was given there are a few things that can be stated:
The US military may seem to be spending a lot of money, the question should be asked, is it worth it? And the answer has to be yes. While this piece is written in the point of being bias towards education, and department that gets money from all levels of the economy. No other system gets money 5 times as much than the schools and education department, as schools get money from the county, city, state, and federal government. Taxes that you pay to the county, city, state and the federal government all flows into the education and schools.
While some people think that the military spending is a bad thing, yet no one is willing to admit the following:
It was military spending that allows for the modern creature comforts that we all enjoy. And this has been since the dawn of time. It was the military that permitted the growth in the technology for say metal working. It was the military spending that allowed for people to enjoy items such as modern flight, jet, and radar. Military spending managed to push the frontiers of science, medical technology and telecommunications. There is much that military spending has been a driving force forward in technology far greater than non military. Next time you take a trip, even the very maps that are used for road trips were at one time a military tech.
But then again, the fact on the budget is misconstrued, according to all of the government websites, the military eats up some 18% of the total budget, not 80%.
And while people look at the bases in all of the states, many don’t mention how the congressmen from those states fight with everything not to have the military bases in their states close down. Military bases add to local economies, employ people to work on those bases, and the military service members spend money out in the local towns, that will help build a local economies that will benefit the different states.
While the US has the largest military, that is well supplied, the question is why has no other nation in the world, our allies picked up the military baton and increased its military? While it may seem like it is overkill, yet at the same time, if they get into trouble, it is the US military that is there to back them up. It is the US military that has managed to attempt to keep the peace, and prevent some acts of aggression by other rogue nations around the world. There has only been 2 attacks on US soil in the modern age, that being Dec 7, 1944, and Sept 11. That is it. Other countries have had acts of terrorism, attacks. They have been bullied, and cowed into doing what they do not desire to do.
After all it was the US military that broke air records with one airplane, and put a man on the moon, and has gone farther to the depths of the oceans.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


1. How is it "lazy" to identify culprits in the NWO agenda (I said "Bush/Cheney/Obama/fill-in-the NWO stooge...) as the terrorists in 9/11? I mean, that cabal pulled it off.
2. Why is it "laughable?


There is no undeniable evidence that they did it. There is some ambiguous evidence that they may have let it happened, but that's the most of it.


You make it sound as if it's a matter of religion. Like One must have faith. It is NOT My beliefs I speak. It is My convictions based on analysis. When You offer evidence that shows I am in error, I am quite happy to admit it.


It's laughable because, as always Mr Amaterasu, you never even try to see anything beyond your own beliefs.


All You have done is oblique ad hom. Have I ever said to You that You do or don't do things? No. I may say, "It's My opinion that You do this," or "It seems that." Or ask a question, like, "You do this other thing, don't You?" giving You the opportunity to refute.

You? You don't own Your views of Me the way I do of My own views of You. You state it as "fact" that I "never," and My "beliefs" are narrow. Very spookish of You.

But no.... I tried for the longest time to hold onto the Disney-perfect world, but evidence and logic support the inside job to a tee. And especially when viewing history does the pattern emerge all the clearer. You SEEM to have issue putting the puzzle together far enough to see the whole picture. (I THINK it is YOURS that is the narrow view.)


It's quite laughable and its why you don't have much merit for your statements, I can see past my beliefs.


Sweetheart, I can see two points of view for not claiming to see the forest for the trees. Either One is so emotionally tied to the picture They had of a perfect (or near perfect) government that They will NOT allow Themselves to go there where They must be wary - in fact, They let fear control them: it's too scary to THINK about! It can't be true!

Or... They are spooks. [shrug]

And is that an implied ad hom there? You can see past Yours but I cannot see past mine? Of course, it's moot, because We are not talking "beliefs" We must have "faith" in. We're talking deep analysis.


I can say yes, it does look like a demolition. I cannot state that there is much proof other than what looks like. And I've seen a lot of things that look like something but aren't it. And I'm not ready to rush into assumptions, unlike yourself.


Let's use ol' Occam's Razor... The most straightforward explanation for the three buildings coming down is...? Demolition. If the story had been demo from the start, no One would question it. Now, since the buildings came down as they did, with the announcement that it WASN'T CD, there have been numbers of theories floating around. The "pancake" theory went through its heyday, but was shot down because it would have left the central columns standing. The "all that paper and jet fuel weakened things so that the weight caused the whole buildings to just give" theory with a fuel bomb going all the way to the lobbies" and other convoluted "explanations" just keep stretching to try and cover the details.

What is the only explanation that needs no stretching? CD.



Do They then? [looks around] I see a great many angry People, love, and NONE of Them has blown anything up. Huh. I wonder when They all will begin this blowing up stuff... Heck. They haven't even HIT someOne, let alone blowing stuff up.


Well there was that ats member who took a shot at a congresswoman, but I guess that doesn't matter in your viewpoints.


(Ooo. Congrats on owning it!) I will not say that out of 300 million People, there will never be One who might behave aberrantly. But if We live in fear of that One in 300 million People striking somewhere - We might as well bury Ourselves in a hole in the ground and never come out. (And I give good odds of that Guy being a plant...a manchurian candidate, perhaps. But that is an educated guess.)

No, the occasional whacko going ballistic happens, regardless of what We might do. You, however, seemed to implying that ALL (or even half?) angry People threw snit-fits and dropped bombs, or whatever.



No it isn't. Most Humans still control Themselves when angry. And besides... All these "terrorists" are NWO propaganda.


No, most people do not control their anger.


Huh?!? They may get angry, They may yell, but They don't go killing things in a snit-fit. They control THAT behavior.


That's why Bush had +80% approval after 9/11 and nobody would have been against him nuking Afghanistan.


Oh, no. THAT was a case of Their anger both directed and misdirected - deliberately. Their anger was propped, used, and They were thereby manipulated. But NONE decided to go fly planes into THEIR buildings because of this anger.


Terrorists are not propaganda.


Given that the vast majority of the "terrorist" attacks have been fishy at best, and the Media hypes "terror." Talks about the "War on Terror" to justify brutality, invasion and usurpation. Keeps this idea in the fore, as though every american city will soon be nuked by terrorists... Given this, I think it's fair to say it's propaganda.


Like I said in another thread. Get out of your closet and see the world.


I assure You, I have seen much, more than most. (Own that, love, as in "I THINK You should get out of...")


I've seen angry people ready for blood against the cops, against the government, against their fellow man. Now I'd save a cop, or a government man, or a random dude on the street. But I certainly would not try to stop the victim of a rapist from shooting her attacker. That's not my place. Fact of the matter is terrorists exists. Today we call them terrorists, but they've been called everything from patriots to pirates, mercenaries to gladiators. They exist.


[sigh] Victims of rape protecting Themselves is hardly in the same ballpark as "terrorists." Social uprising is not terrorism. Plotting bomb destruction. THAT's terrorism. At least as *I* have been using it.

But if You have to win a point by changing the definition, conrats again. If We change the definition to whatever You want it to be, You'll be right every time.



Ahhh. Children throw snit-fits. They must be children You are speaking of (regardless of actual age), because part of becoming an adult is growing out of snit-fits. And I really am aghast that You suggest that a child's snit-fit is equal to countries bombing other countries. And... If You are correct, there are MANY countries about to throw snit-fits, because They have never done so They are long overdue. After all, countries bomb one another like children throw snit-fits. Watch out!


They are ready to, There's just a superpower in the way of doing it.


You've got to be kidding. Really. ALL the countries are armed and champing at the bit to lob bombs at One anOther but the Big Brother Superpower won't let Them. Dear, most countries couldn't care less about other countries as long as the other countries leave them alone. Now who is it that needs a reality check?


The same reason a child will stop being a child when presented with a whip and repeated punishment.


Oh. I see. We have Them beaten into submission! Ahhhh.



Rest assured, when America collapsed there will be wars everywhere, and probably China will try to be the next world police man.


I will not so rest. Surprises happen even still.



Speak for Yourself, then. I am not a terrorist. I follow the three Laws.


No, you just don't accept what's within you. Every man has a limit. Yours may be higher, but it still exists.


Uh. Ok. Sure. Um. Yeah. Heh. You're right.




I have no clue what You're alluding to.


Not many locked in their ways do.


WTF. You make a cryptic remark that seemed nonsequitur and it obviously had some reference that I am not immediately privy to, and You respond with another oblique ad hom.

Go ahead and respond, Gor, but I will be paying You no heed. I learned that lesson once, I should just stick with it. You know the line: have a nice life.
edit on 6/22/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags
edit on 6/22/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags again



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Well you see, in many ways it is a matter of faith. Because quite frankly, the simple fact that things fall down is more than enough evidence. The explosion alone was as large as a bunker buster. It is a matter of faith to state that the government explicitly did it and that terrorism is propaganda, when evidence is to the contrary. That being that people do want to blow of stuff and the government, and government stuff. Now what there is evidence for, is that the government may have allowed it to happened to some degree. But to state they did it is baseless.

You ask for proof, but you are on a conspiracy forum. The proof is the official story. I don't have to link you to it, you know it. The proof needed is yours to prove it wrong.




But no.... I tried for the longest time to hold onto the Disney-perfect world, but evidence and logic support the inside job to a tee. And especially when viewing history does the pattern emerge all the clearer. You SEEM to have issue putting the puzzle together far enough to see the whole picture. (I THINK it is YOURS that is the narrow view.)


Can't see why. A look at history and the now reveals that America has gained nothing if it was an inside job. Take a snapshot of America 2000 and America 2011 and the proof is all there. Americans trust the government less, Nations trust America less. America is more poor, more weak, more hated, and more in debt then in 2000. Most of the oil in the region goes to Asia, and America has literally gained nothing from the war then the guarantee that it's going to collapse now. 2000? We were pretty swell. Had wealth, had technology, the people did what the government asked because they trusted it. See that's the thing. How could a government so perfectly create this attack, but so carelessly take advantage of it? If they did it for power, where's the dictator? If they did it for oil, where's the oil? If they did it to take our liberties away while we slept, why is the government so mistrusted, revolution one incident away, and every move of the government scrutinized beyond molecular comprehension.




Let's use ol' Occam's Razor... The most straightforward explanation for the three buildings coming down is...? Demolition


No, it's not. The most unbiased straightforward response is the official story. That it was an attack. Stating it was a demolition piles on luggage of assumptions. Assumptions of a team there. Assumptions of the plan, countless assumptions. If one took a person in the year 2000 and showed them the full footage, most people would think it was the planes. And this is also, btw, why most people don't believe it was demos. Most people, like me, would consider it quite possible the government knew. Most people would state it's quite likely the government may have even made it more likely and possible. But to state most people would say it was demos, which is occam's razor, is false. Because even today most people don't believe that, and most people did not believe it at first. Occam's razor also goes for the first reaction people have. The first reaction most people had was that someone attacked them and that the planes brought down the tower.

So please, don't take subjective opinion and ploy it as objective truth. Fact is it simply isn't.




If the story had been demo from the start, no One would question it.


People like me who saw the planes would question it. Perhaps we would be more inclined to believe it to be a conspiracy.




The "pancake" theory went through its heyday


No it hasn't. It's still the official story and I haven't much seen any reason not to believe it. Ever wonder why the new WTC has main buttresses that are gigantic on the outer structure? They learned their lesson. Redundant structure is good.




The "all that paper and jet fuel weakened things so that the weight caused the whole buildings to just give" theory with a fuel bomb going all the way to the lobbies" and other convoluted "explanations" just keep stretching to try and cover the details.


This is the same official story. You just took the first month of explanations and played it as if it was conflicting report. All those reports are true, and they all prove it was not controlled.




What is the only explanation that needs no stretching? CD.


Sure it needs stretching. How do you explain the logistics? How can no one have come clean (even the most secretive of plans have had leaks). Why is it that in the age of the hacktivist, no leaked data reveals such a truth? How is it that they could have fabricated the materials needed. And as always, someone's conscious always gives. That's the fundamental reason why so many government leaks happen. No one has given yet. There's plenty of other stretching needed, but of course that goes against your viewpoint, so it must not exist right?




I will not say that out of 300 million People, there will never be One who might behave aberrantly

So you're saying there are terrorists. Contradicting what you said before.




But if We live in fear of that One in 300 million People striking somewhere - We might as well bury Ourselves in a hole in the ground and never come out.


You are assuming their existence merits a response. Death happens, I just don't care when terrorists do the killing. The more that die the less there are. Of course I'm all for landing two stealth black hawks at a facility and rocking some stones around, but otherwise, I see no reason why the existence of terrorists merits the need to fear them.




(And I give good odds of that Guy being a plant...a manchurian candidate, perhaps. But that is an educated guess.)


It doesn't make him not a terrorist. A terrorist, fundamentally, is an agent of death for another way of life.




No, the occasional whacko going ballistic happens, regardless of what We might do. You, however, seemed to implying that ALL (or even half?) angry People threw snit-fits and dropped bombs, or whatever.


So yes, terrorists do exist. Glad to see you back tracking. "seemed to implying that ALL (or even half?) angry People threw snit-fits and dropped bombs, or whatever" Is not a complete sentence, but I assume you mean that I am saying that all angry people will through bombs? Yes actually. All angry people, when pushed to their limits, will so what they must to end the anger. It's biology. What do you think happens when you corner a lion with a spear? It just bows to you and lets you kill it? Unless you're a bushman chasing down the kill for 7 hours, it most certainly will not. People break, and when they do, they become monsters. Muslims flying planes into towers is no different than a mother killing the kidnapper of her daughter. It's people being pushed to the limits, and then responding accordingly.




Given that the vast majority of the "terrorist" attacks have been fishy at best, and the Media hypes "terror." Talks about the "War on Terror" to justify brutality, invasion and usurpation. Keeps this idea in the fore, as though every american city will soon be nuked by terrorists... Given this, I think it's fair to say it's propaganda.


Like what? The only fishy terrorist attack against America was 9/11. It wasn't the first terrorist attack and it won't be the last. Bombings in Iraq were not fishy. It was oppressed people at their limits responding. 100,000 angry Chinese protesters is not fishy. Same as above. a billion angry Muslims overthrowing their government is not fishy. It's the above. Angry Greek and Irish burning police vans in the street is not fishy. It's the above.




Go ahead and respond, Gor, but I will be paying You no heed. I learned that lesson once, I should just stick with it. You know the line: have a nice life.


yes well, maybe if you responded logically you wouldn't have people like me pop up and show you why you are wrong. You might want to stop claiming to be of logic, because you're not.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kellynap43
So your going with the philosophy that if we left Hitler alone, he would have just gone away. Ask how the Jewish Nation how they feel about Typcial tree hugger talk. Let me know how that works out for you. Pick up a history book from time to time. Other wise I have no time to waste with people who are not in tune with real historical events.


Huh? Where do You get the idea I thought Hitler would have gone away if He had been left alone? How do You get "tree-hugger?" What are You on about?


This is a small list of what was found WMD wise in Iraq: (but not reported) Sad that you take in everything that you hear.

• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium


Uranium is NOT a weapon - well, unless You drop it into someOne's pants, I suppose...


• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons


Really? What kind of chemicals? And...the BIG question...were these a threat to the US? Did it look like it could be delivered to Our doorstep? If not, it was not the WMD We were told about, that threatened US.


• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas


That's not WMD. That's WCAD. Weapons of Confined Area Death. And was Saddam going to cart them over here? I think not. ZERO reason to invade and usurp.


• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs


But that's NOT WMD. Was there sign of building these? And what "radioactive materials?"


• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin


And the rockets to deliver these to the US were where? And as I recall those were old and deteriorating.

NOTHING on that list justifies Us going over there and stomping on Them (and securing the oil).


I randomly did a search for jobs in chicago, over 100,000 hits in the chicago tribune. There are jobs. People just decide to use as much unemployment as possible unless there going to be paid 6 figures, because it only makes since that they deserve the same wage in which they left their old company. lol That is not how the world works. Sometimes one has to start over. That envolves getting off your tail and working hard. I know, maybe a hard concept to comprehend for a few.


Yeah... I did a search too, and many - most even - required specialized knowledge and experience. And even if all those jobs were filled, That would employ a drop in the bucket. (I bet a large number were overlap jobs, too, by the way, being posted on several boards. I see that happen a lot.)


Believe you? No I will not. Since I currently work with one of the state goverments and see first hand how many people take advantage of the unemployment and welfare benefits in our state. Its criminal.


I worked for the EDD and found many who really wanted a job. And that was BEFORE so many were laid off, lost everything. Sure there were a few who I could tell had no interest. I don't know where YOU are, but I know many professionals who cannot find even menial work. They're "overqualified." (How many timed have I heard THAT!?!)


Most pay nothing? Pretty big generalization. Do you happen to have there 1040's or 1120 business tax returns to back up that claim?


From: www.forbes.com...


The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.



Ford Auto Company Earnings: They pay a lot of taxes. A LOT.
media.ford.com...
I could list 1,000 more profit earnings, but someone like you may get confused with the reading.


Uh... You do know that EARNING don't mean you PAID TAXES, right? Or are You confused?


As far as companies that dont Pay taxes, that does happen. GE. But as long as theyre using that to keep the heat on and find new alternative ways to energy, Im all for tax breaks. But maybe you dont like heat.


Oh, You crack Me up. GE is only looking for new energy They can put a meter on. There already is plenty of energy in the plenum, which We could use to run everything without paying anyOne for the energy. But that would eliminate the need for money, remove power over others in favor of autonomous power over self, and oh, They don't want THAT.


Small business owners have over 120,000,000 employees in america. But that isnt significant enough for you. Use just a little commen sense. lol www.census.gov...


Wait. Are We talking small CORPORATIONS (that was the word We both used in the last exchange)? Or small businesses? There IS a difference.


You and I agree. But there influence is very insignificant at this point. The People have much more power, if they want it.


Oh, indeed We do. And I aim to push Them to use it.


Last time I checked, WWI and WWII we tried to stay out of. Along with many others. Middle east? Yea, we might be there for a little reason called oil. But again, the last time I checked, the world runs on oil. So preventing a mad man from burning all the oil and creating civil and economic strife is bad in whose deranged mind? Oil is needed to keep the world running, if we need to help protect that precious resource, then we must. Sucks, but unless you have a better concept for shipping trillions of dollars of goods across seas for trading purposes, I would shut up.


Oil is fully unneeded. We live in a sea of energy. It is everywhere. It is called variously plenum energy, zero point energy, radiant energy (Tesla), orgone (Reich), and other more mystical names like Ki, Chi, Prana...


What do the swiss have? Gurantee they do not have the freedoms and oppurtunities that this country has. (US)


Please provide data. To My knowledge, the Swiss are not being physically accosted when They board a bus cross country - I was here. Patted down, even. No. Freedom is a faded illusion here now.


Civilized? LOL I cant argue with that. Like my father says, "cant aruge with stupid" Because countires like North korea , Cambodia, and the Congo are so civilized. A lot of countries dont even let women vote.


I wish I had context here. I am unsure what the point I made that You responded to here... Ah. Here it is now:




Too bad the rest of the world does not have the knowledge, the reserve, fortitude, and character to step in and put things straight.

Wow. You sure swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker, didn't You? The rest of the world understands that if One behaves like a bully, One will be treated as such. They are far more civilized, I guess. (And how are they going to step in and stop false flags, lies and propaganda?)


You implied that the "rest of the world" is dumb, sluggish, squeamish and lacks character because They don't step up to the plate and solve problems and so We USians have to. I say that's bull. The problems You want solved are internal in nature. And so the rest of the world CAN'T solve them for Us.


Again. Deflecting. Did we or did we not step in when needed and saved millions upon millions of lives in the process along with promoting freedom and democracy in europe and the americas for decades to come? But in your mind Im sure we were just there for the French women or something crazy like that.


In some cases, We did, though I believe there were war suppliers pushing Their preference, and others posed to advance agendas even then... Don't know about the decades to come, but if the batting average continues as it has, My guess is those days are over, our government is now run by a cabal, and They are cinching Their control.


LIttle advice. Let off the Gas on the NWO thing. Its kind of creepy.


Advice from Me: Creepy though They are indeed, pretending They don't exist is a deadly mistake in the end. If no One talks, They can continue unhindered.


If we are invading and setting up empires everywhere, then please tell me where? (Pulling out of IRAQ 2010).


We left Iraq last year? Really? I missed that! Where are the news reports?


Currently pulling out of Afgan.


Really? I missed the news that We are leaving Afghanistan. Or are You counting some troop withdrawal as "leaving?"


Dont believe we have to many citizens relocating from the United States to Iraq to start a new life and influence american values. And if we invade so much, why did we give the Phillipines back to their own people? Again, please think.


How long ago was that that We gave the Philippines back? Oh. It was 1946. Please understand that the issues started with Project Paperclip, where Nazis were secretly brought to this country AFTER the war. It took a few decades for the takeover/makeover to be fully set in motion. In 1948 Orwell (some possibility He was involved with the Nazis, too) wrote 1984. It now looks like a blueprint for the future.
edit on 6/22/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags
edit on 6/22/2011 by Amaterasu because: I hate tags! LOL!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
The Report From Iron Mountain say give the crazies what they want. That way we will know where they are. Let the sociopaths kill each other, some of us get killed oh well life is just a ride, it will happen again. Don't be scurred



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoRiBu
The Report From Iron Mountain say give the crazies what they want. That way we will know where they are. Let the sociopaths kill each other, some of us get killed oh well life is just a ride, it will happen again. Don't be scurred


Bless Bill Hicks.

Indeed. Stand tall. Be vocal. Push up and out from the mold They are cramming Us into. Don't live in fear. Accept life's risks and be part of a solution.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
None of us will have the last word! as that is reserved for Bill Hicks?






I have been thinking about Smedley Butler lately and the timing of his warning to congress...

Anyone else?

I mean sure "war is a racket" yet look who he told that to, when he told it to them etc etc...

There is always truth in lies so yeah "war is a racket" yet perhaps the men who were trying to take control of our country at that time were simply trying to retake control???

not to say that they were good yet the common perception is that the government at that time was good...
Was it? I do not think so and thats complicating my big picture puzzle abit....

Anyone else?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
I don't know if this has been written before as I only read half the thread


Here's a fact for you that sums it up for me... it was on a UK news show a couple of years back.

If you'd have spent £26,000,000 (about $40,000,000) a DAY, every day since the birth of Jesus Christ, you would still have spent less than the American government has spent on defence since the end of WW2.

True... and that's since 1946


That's a whole lotta money...



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN
 


Its too bad they can't or won't order to them to put down their weapons and return home. I think that would put all the money back where it belongs and the soldiers could than work together to create new jobs. + step towards world peace. What a joy that would be.





new topics
top topics
 
80
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join