"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." -Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
After Bernie danced across the stage to greet Ellen DeGeneres for an appearance on her show yesterday (to the disco music of 'Burn, Baby, Burn'), he sat down to address some serious questions from the host. Right out of the box her first one was framed thusly:
"A lot of people who have a lot of money pay a lot of money (in taxes). So why isn't that amount of money going to the people who don't make that amount of money? Why is it not allocated in the way that you're saying?"
Bernie answered far too ambiguously:
"Well, it's a good question and it has to do with we're spending money in areas where we should not be spending money and we're not spending money where we should be spending money"
He then went into his stock response about "why this so" and "the top one percent owning as much wealth as the bottom ninety percent" - but still not connecting this directly to the misplaced spending - which is almost entirely on DEFENSE! So little wonder Ellen had to keep probing to try to get more explanation.
She went on:
"I still don't understand how we can have that extreme wealth and the middle class is disappearing. ...I understand you're saying there's loopholes but there should be enough money to help everybody else"
Sanders then went into the "incredible greed" of corporate America, but still dodged the 'elephant' sitting in the room pooping all over, the spending of the Military Industrial Complex (which in this fiscal year is estimated to reach $662 billion, this on top of the $4 TRILLION we have already squandered in Iraq and Afghanistan - and which Obama's extension in the latter will see us wasting even more.)
Ellen needed help, but Bernie didn't give it. She vaguely realized that even the obscene wealth of billionaires, the overall tax loopholes of the wealthy and tax havens for the corporations could not account for the wealth gap Sanders cited. It was then his job, to name directly the atrocious spending on the defense establishment - especially since 9/11 - which has now reached an insane proportion.
See e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/07/muricans-need-to-wake-up-about-military.html
But he didn't do it, continually going back to the "billionaires". Yes, their greed and wealth explains part of the gap, but not all. The real bleed down of wealth is a result of obscene defense spending.
In August, 2002, former Defense Analyst Chuck Spinney – appearing on a Bill Moyers ‘NOW’ (PBS) segment- examined how the Pentagon had somehow ‘misplaced’ (couldn’t account for) $1.2 trillion of taxpayer money. He noted that this reckless, careless bookkeeping miscue disclosed the U.S. was no longer a democracy or even a Republic, since a key branch of gov’t had become totally unaccountable.
Three years later, after the Bushies had ramped up defense spending to dramatic new heights, what amounted to 2.4% of GDP as opposed to 1.2%, Spinney predicted it would incept a “war on Social Security and Medicare”. He predicted the total costs of military spending, including in Iraq, and Afghanistan and a de facto perpetual ‘war on terror’ (as well as a burgeoning national security state) would become so great that the major social programs would be slashed to pay for the deficits engendered. How large is the military money pit? What sort of monster must it ‘feed’?
The United States currently maintains 702 military 'installations' in 63 foreign countries (it has 4,471 bases altogether), according to the Defense Department's annual budget statement. These figures don't include bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also spend more on military weapons than the next 25 nations combined.
None of this Bernie mentioned although he spared no opprobrium for the billionaires. My take is that this presents a glaring gap in his inequality arguments and will have to be addressed as further debates unfold and questions become more probing. What will not do is answering Ellen in the way he did, i.e. "we're spending money where we should not be spending money" etc. Because as a moderator the question I'd then ask - which Ellen ought to have - is: "Spending where we should not be spending on WHAT?"
What is Bernie afraid of? I suspect that he doesn't want to be attacked from yet another front, i.e. "weak on defense" when he's already taking so much heat for being a "socialist". And yet, nearly all of Bernie's proposals - from free college tuition to expanding Social Security - would require money from the only money pot that can provide it: defense spending!
Sanders' team needs to work out now how they will address the mammoth defense spending issue and integrate it into their narrative. It will be tricky and admittedly dangerous - no one wants to go up against the MIC - but without doing it all his social support proposals will come off as unrealistic and unachievable.
Sanders' supporters will be watching!
Showing posts with label Military Industrial complex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military Industrial complex. Show all posts
Friday, October 16, 2015
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
It's Time To Increase Taxes!
As I listened and watched latest presidential contender Marco Rubio deliver his spiel, my head spun and began to ache. If elected - admittedly the chances of that are slim and none - he would decrease corporate taxes, banish the estate tax and expand the child tax credit. In other words, dig this nation into an even deeper income hole.
The child tax credit suggestion is especially galling. Why, in a nation which is already overcrowded with 315 million people, do we need a child tax credit at all? One could justify it in the olden frontier days when more people were needed to settle the West, and homesteaders were required. But not now! Indeed, repealing the child tax credit can be rationalized as a back door carbon tax, since each American human leaves an enormous carbon footprint from the instant he’s got his first nappy and sippy cup. Such repeal then is a fair option if Americans refuse to accept an outright carbon tax - which most other industrial nations in Europe have, paid on top of their gasoline costs.
But Rubio's daft proposals fit right into the anti-tax neoliberal demand to reduce government and make it impossible to function except for the most well to do. It is, in effect, policy madness which will continue to hurl this country toward third world status.
The child tax credit suggestion is especially galling. Why, in a nation which is already overcrowded with 315 million people, do we need a child tax credit at all? One could justify it in the olden frontier days when more people were needed to settle the West, and homesteaders were required. But not now! Indeed, repealing the child tax credit can be rationalized as a back door carbon tax, since each American human leaves an enormous carbon footprint from the instant he’s got his first nappy and sippy cup. Such repeal then is a fair option if Americans refuse to accept an outright carbon tax - which most other industrial nations in Europe have, paid on top of their gasoline costs.
But Rubio's daft proposals fit right into the anti-tax neoliberal demand to reduce government and make it impossible to function except for the most well to do. It is, in effect, policy madness which will continue to hurl this country toward third world status.
And the inconsistencies of the jury-rigged tax code are beyond believable. For example, the new top rate of 39.6 percent is
historically low; with investment
income still taxed at special low rates; and the heirs of multimillion-dollar
estates face lower taxes than at almost any time in modern memory. Meanwhile,
working people pay disproportionately higher taxes than market speculators as
well as rich guys who can put money in trusts, or use charitable
deductions. This simply makes no sense. It is an effect of insane neoliberal tax policies that show no sign of abating.
This is why we need to increase taxes. We cannot keep moping along on a super-luxury budget based on chickenfeed national income. I estimate the tax increases will need to be from 10- 15%, p.a. and ought to deal with several exigencies and past oversights:
- The under funding of wars and military operations, as well as those military toys (e.g. F35) for which there have already been monumental cost overruns.
- The desperate need to get cracking on repairing our crumbling infrastructure - including our antiquated power grids - before it gets any worse. Estimated cost by American Society of Civil Engineers? About $1.6 trillion just to get it up to minimal serviceability.
- Reinstating lost IRS funding - a third of a billion bucks at last count - which was removed by the Reepos in their latest budget cutting onslaught. This artificially created deficit was directly responsible for the IRS being unable to handle all the calls for assistance that poured in this past few weeks, including to do with refund issues and fraud problems.
- We need to pay for all the past tax cuts - including the Bush tax cuts - that had not hitherto been paid for! The chart below makes this urgency clear;
If unattended to, then, wars and previous tax cuts will account for nearly half of public debt by 2019. We cannot allow this any more than a family would allow interest on its unpaid credit card debt balloon to the point it would have to hock its own kids.
Now, logically, since the Repukes dug us into this debt hole by refusal to
approve adequate revenue, for both their "wars" and tax cuts (as well as their
insane 2003 prescription drug bill - more a giveaway to Big PhRma), then it is
logical that increased revenue must be the way to dig us out of the debt mess.
As a New York Times op-ed put it two years ago, the first major tax
hits....errr....hikes.... must come from the hides of those who benefited most
from the Bush tax cuts during the "war" years:
"Those taxpayers are the same ones who benefited most from Bush-era tax breaks and who continue to pay low taxes. Even with recent increases, the new top rate of 39.6 percent is historically low; investment income is still taxed at special low rates; and the heirs of multimillion-dollar estates face lower taxes than at almost any time in modern memory."
Incredibly, despite these facts, the Repukes are resisting any cuts to defense, this despite the fact that they haven't - up to now - paid for any of their earlier defense spending shenanigans. They let TWO "wars" go unfunded, during supposed "war time" - a big hoot if there ever was one- plus they've not paid for the two sets of Bush tax cuts that already produced $3.2 trillion in deficits even before Obama got into office.
The alert and aware citizen needs to grasp how tax phobia represents a toxic meme we cannot afford. Its entry into public consciousness has enabled our nation to reach an unsustainable, hyper-indebted condition that will gnaw our gains into chronic losses. Above all, on this tax day, we need to be wary of any presidential contender who expresses an anti-tax position, he or she does not have the nation's welfare at heart.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes once put it:
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society"
Hence, any anti-tax politician by default must be for a state of chronic barbarism.
"Those taxpayers are the same ones who benefited most from Bush-era tax breaks and who continue to pay low taxes. Even with recent increases, the new top rate of 39.6 percent is historically low; investment income is still taxed at special low rates; and the heirs of multimillion-dollar estates face lower taxes than at almost any time in modern memory."
Incredibly, despite these facts, the Repukes are resisting any cuts to defense, this despite the fact that they haven't - up to now - paid for any of their earlier defense spending shenanigans. They let TWO "wars" go unfunded, during supposed "war time" - a big hoot if there ever was one- plus they've not paid for the two sets of Bush tax cuts that already produced $3.2 trillion in deficits even before Obama got into office.
The alert and aware citizen needs to grasp how tax phobia represents a toxic meme we cannot afford. Its entry into public consciousness has enabled our nation to reach an unsustainable, hyper-indebted condition that will gnaw our gains into chronic losses. Above all, on this tax day, we need to be wary of any presidential contender who expresses an anti-tax position, he or she does not have the nation's welfare at heart.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes once put it:
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society"
Hence, any anti-tax politician by default must be for a state of chronic barbarism.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Lowering Standards Will Make For A Dysfunctional Military
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
The 'Brian Williams' Syndrome: Why Do So Many Exaggerate Being Shot At In Wars?
It seems too many people live lives in quiet desperation and that aren't grandiose enough for their liking. Not content with being merely a news broadcaster, or ordinary retired Vet (who never actually saw action, as in 'Nam) they make outsized claims for either being in the middle of war zones, or actually taking fire - getting hit. These losers have to know that others can eventually access the truth on their service, or else can find out without too much effort - including going to sound military news sources such as the newspaper 'Stars and Stripes' or by seeking (using FOIA) military service records.
The latest casualty is NBC News honcho Brian Williams who audaciously claimed on Jan. 10 that the helicopter his "team" was traveling in was "forced down after being hit by an RPG". It didn't take long to expose this malarkey, e.g. when Travis Trenton - an editor for Stars and Stripes - interviewed vets on the mission and flatly stated Williams was in no such chopper, or attack.
According to Trenton:
"To see somebody else trying to take credit for being there....I think it just struck a very personal nerve for them."
As it would for any real vet when a poseur - even another vet who served during the Vietnam War but never actually served in theater, takes credit for being there.
Anyway, forced to recant., apologize and eat crow, Williams has now been forced to take at least a six month leave of absence by his Rockefeller Center bosses. According to a statement released:
"By his actions, Brian has jeopardized the trust millions of Americans place in NBC News. His actions are inexcusable and this suspension is severe and appropriate."
But given Williams' existing stature one is baffled at why he'd try to pass this offal off and even more, why he thought he'd get away with it. Well, maybe for the same reason some ordinary vet would inflate his own service to actually being in 'Nam and even being wounded there when he was really thousands of miles away in a more benign position - out of harm's way. (Not ever believing that others might have records to show his misrepresentation)
But to me this gets to the heart of the whole military worship meme in this country, which has also manifested in other losers donning military medals or insignia they never earned - to attain some mythical bravado they never accessed in real life. We call this medals charade 'stolen valor' and the actual vets who were in those places, and suffered life-threatening wounds in particular operations, have every reason to be infuriated. They earned their medals and ribbons, the poseurs did not - they only bloviate after buying their paraphernalia at surplus stores or online.
But what drives this misplaced war-rush braggadocio? I suspect it is the climate in the country after 13 years of military engagements and the still prevalent post-9/11 meme that feeds and fuels a false patriotism. But the recent occupations are only the tip of the iceberg. According to a recent paper in the June 2014 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. (Also available as free PDF here.):
there have been 248 armed conflicts involving the U.S. and in 153 locations, since the end of World Ward II. Looking at any other hypothetical nation that had been so frequently active in wars, no one would hesitate to cast the label "war monger" or "war like". But instead, we adopt the mantle of pseudo-morality and beat our breasts as the "policeman" of the world. But in a planet of so many diverse conflict sources, infinite resources would be required to police all 200 odd nations all the time. And let's face it, we are in no position to do that.
All this military emphasis then leads to the military being unduly worshipped, and the troops - no matter how menial their service, adulated like freaking gods. Let us bear in mind, first, that these troops volunteered for this service - in whatever guise it came. They weren't drafted as most were during the Vietnam War.
No one, certainly not me, begrudges them their benefits, but this should not include hyper-adulation or special public attention which - let's face it - is bound to induce the "not so grand" wannabe warriors to over-brag and even citizens who happen to be in war zones to hype their experiences (like Brian Williams). If we don't tamp down this disease of militarism we will all be for the high jump. As the paper cited above notes:
"Militarism is intercalated into many aspects of life in the United States and, since the military draft was eliminated, makes few overt demands of the public except the costs in taxpayer funding. Its expression, magnitude, and implications have become invisible to a large proportion of the civilian population, with little recognition of the human costs or the negative image held by other countries. Militarism has been called a 'psychosocial disease,' making it amenable to population-wide interventions. . . .
The United States is responsible for 41% of the world's total military spending."
What we need in this nation is a major mental overhaul and attitude adjustment where we can see people emphasizing helping others in peace zones - like Kayla Mueller did (or thousands of Peace Corps volunteers) instead of bragging about being "warriors" in wars they never actually fought in. Sadly, movies like the still showing "American Sniper" don't help advance this positive aid incentive - but merely make it more difficult to achieve by glorifying a run amuck militarism.
See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-chuckman/60953/how-america-screws-up-the-world-without-ever-letting-its-own-people-know-what-is-happening
And:
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/07/im_a_u_s_veteran_and_american_sniper_is_filled_with_lies_partner/
The latest casualty is NBC News honcho Brian Williams who audaciously claimed on Jan. 10 that the helicopter his "team" was traveling in was "forced down after being hit by an RPG". It didn't take long to expose this malarkey, e.g. when Travis Trenton - an editor for Stars and Stripes - interviewed vets on the mission and flatly stated Williams was in no such chopper, or attack.
According to Trenton:
"To see somebody else trying to take credit for being there....I think it just struck a very personal nerve for them."
As it would for any real vet when a poseur - even another vet who served during the Vietnam War but never actually served in theater, takes credit for being there.
Anyway, forced to recant., apologize and eat crow, Williams has now been forced to take at least a six month leave of absence by his Rockefeller Center bosses. According to a statement released:
"By his actions, Brian has jeopardized the trust millions of Americans place in NBC News. His actions are inexcusable and this suspension is severe and appropriate."
But given Williams' existing stature one is baffled at why he'd try to pass this offal off and even more, why he thought he'd get away with it. Well, maybe for the same reason some ordinary vet would inflate his own service to actually being in 'Nam and even being wounded there when he was really thousands of miles away in a more benign position - out of harm's way. (Not ever believing that others might have records to show his misrepresentation)
But to me this gets to the heart of the whole military worship meme in this country, which has also manifested in other losers donning military medals or insignia they never earned - to attain some mythical bravado they never accessed in real life. We call this medals charade 'stolen valor' and the actual vets who were in those places, and suffered life-threatening wounds in particular operations, have every reason to be infuriated. They earned their medals and ribbons, the poseurs did not - they only bloviate after buying their paraphernalia at surplus stores or online.
But what drives this misplaced war-rush braggadocio? I suspect it is the climate in the country after 13 years of military engagements and the still prevalent post-9/11 meme that feeds and fuels a false patriotism. But the recent occupations are only the tip of the iceberg. According to a recent paper in the June 2014 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. (Also available as free PDF here.):
there have been 248 armed conflicts involving the U.S. and in 153 locations, since the end of World Ward II. Looking at any other hypothetical nation that had been so frequently active in wars, no one would hesitate to cast the label "war monger" or "war like". But instead, we adopt the mantle of pseudo-morality and beat our breasts as the "policeman" of the world. But in a planet of so many diverse conflict sources, infinite resources would be required to police all 200 odd nations all the time. And let's face it, we are in no position to do that.
All this military emphasis then leads to the military being unduly worshipped, and the troops - no matter how menial their service, adulated like freaking gods. Let us bear in mind, first, that these troops volunteered for this service - in whatever guise it came. They weren't drafted as most were during the Vietnam War.
No one, certainly not me, begrudges them their benefits, but this should not include hyper-adulation or special public attention which - let's face it - is bound to induce the "not so grand" wannabe warriors to over-brag and even citizens who happen to be in war zones to hype their experiences (like Brian Williams). If we don't tamp down this disease of militarism we will all be for the high jump. As the paper cited above notes:
"Militarism is intercalated into many aspects of life in the United States and, since the military draft was eliminated, makes few overt demands of the public except the costs in taxpayer funding. Its expression, magnitude, and implications have become invisible to a large proportion of the civilian population, with little recognition of the human costs or the negative image held by other countries. Militarism has been called a 'psychosocial disease,' making it amenable to population-wide interventions. . . .
The United States is responsible for 41% of the world's total military spending."
What we need in this nation is a major mental overhaul and attitude adjustment where we can see people emphasizing helping others in peace zones - like Kayla Mueller did (or thousands of Peace Corps volunteers) instead of bragging about being "warriors" in wars they never actually fought in. Sadly, movies like the still showing "American Sniper" don't help advance this positive aid incentive - but merely make it more difficult to achieve by glorifying a run amuck militarism.
See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-chuckman/60953/how-america-screws-up-the-world-without-ever-letting-its-own-people-know-what-is-happening
And:
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/07/im_a_u_s_veteran_and_american_sniper_is_filled_with_lies_partner/
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Abby Huntsman: Is She A Moron - Or Does She Just Play One On 'The Cycle'?
Once more the question is elicited as to whether Abby Huntsman is a born 'n bred moron, or just plays one in her assorted tube appearances - now mainly on MSNBC's 'The Cycle'. It's one thing to emulate or be a moron in a 'one off' as I pointed out in a post last April, referencing her appearance on Bill Maher's 'Real Time' and having to be schooled by Sen. Bernie Sanders on Social Security, i.e.why cuts to that program hurt millions of seniors. But it's another to be a moron 5 days a week and especially to repeat the mistakes she did last year on Social Security.
This time Abby was publicly 'spanked' by long time Social Security expert, Michael Hiltzik in the LA Times, e.g.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-abby-huntsman-20140314,0,489874.story#axzz2w9RuRdqG
He therein referenced how Huntsman went on an extended rant about Social Security last Thursday on MSNBC's "The Cycle."
As usual, the little uninformed dope got almost everything wrong, which makes me wonder why one of her co-hosts didn't shut her up or change the subject earlier, instead of letting her babble on confirming her moron I.Q. and her incompetence as a political or economic commentator. One of her first howlers was claiming Social Security is "going bankrupt" which shows she doesn't know what bankrupt means, or the law as it applies to Social Security. In fact, if the little moron knew anything she'd know Social Security has NO creditors, hence cannot go 'bankrupt'. Au contraire, it is Social Security which is a creditor to the GOVERNMENT - which has borrowed from it relentlessly over the past forty years.
The following data shows how much has been raided each year from 2000 through 2011, the data from the same Trust Fund sources and GAO:
Year: ................Amount raided
2011.................$67.0 billion
2010.................$87.0 billion
2009...............$137.0 billion
2008...............$180.2 billion
2007...............$186.0 billion
2006...............$185.5 billion
2005..............$173.5 billion
2004..............$151.1 billion
2003.............$155.6 billion
2002.............$159.0 billion
2001.............$163.0 billion
2000.............$151.8 billion
----------------------------
TOTAL: $1.79 TRILLION (and $2.63 TRILLION since 1990)
Now, any person with more than a minimal number of neurons would realize that it doesn't matter if you fill a one gallon bucket with a cup every day (equal to 6 oz.) if there are massive holes in the bottom that let out 5 oz. in the same time!
Also evident from this is that the low worker-to -beneficiary ratio is a red herring meant to deflect attention from the REAL problem which is the yearly raids on monies received from payroll taxes and intended to go to future beneficiaries! So long as these raids continue unabated, NO solution or "re-tooling" of the program will work, including Abby's brilliant "solution" of increasing the retirement age -- by as much as 10 years -- because life expectancies are about 20 years longer than they were in 1935.
First, Abby ought to be forced to read the Sunday NY Times Business section and the main story on the gap in longevity between the upper class rich in a Virginia suburb, and the poverty stricken in McDowell, West Virginia. The latter, on average, live ten years LESS than the former. This resonates with the point made by Hiltzik that "life expectancies are very sensitive to social and economic status". But, if Ms. Butt Brain has her way, virtually none of the poverty stricken seniors would see a single dime.
Second, one doesn't even have to delve into the senior poverty demographic to see what the elderly are still up against. That is, because of the widespread practice of age-ism by companies (often letting workers go at age 50-55 before they can amass sufficient savings) the senior American is faced with a yawning gulf between what he needs in any retirement scenario and what he actually has.
The AARP Magazine (March, 2014, p. 49) referenced this and noted, for example, that even in an ideal condition, a 55 or older American who's successfully saved via his 401k will have about $269,500 total put away. However, though this sounds like a hefty sum one must bear in mind that $220,000 of that will be "needed to cover medical expenses for a 65-year old couple entering retirement." That leaves roughly $49,500 to live off another 25-30 years and we aren't even including possible nursing home stays - say if the senior falls and fractures a hip. In other words, if Abby's genius idea of adding ten more years to collect benefits was realized the couple would be in the shitter. They'd likely have to use the money saved for living expenses, and - if they got seriously ill - have to beg, borrow or whatever from their kids to get help. Don't forget here that Medicare, which idiots call an "entitlement", actually only pays a fraction of medical expenses. For major operations it's only 80% and it pays nada, not one dime, for dental work - which is no mere "luxury" when one is older. (Poor nutrition exacerbates many existing health problems and creates others.)
But according to The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (ibid.), the typical account size for a worker now nearing retirement is only $42,000. Worse, 55% of current workers have no employment based saving at all, usually because they have been stuck in low wage scut jobs that pay minimal wage only and haven't been able to escape. AARP's own analysis found that three fourths of Americans between 55 and 64 have less than $30,000 socked away. According to the article:
"It all adds up to a $6.6 trillion gap between what we have and what we need."
In other words, if Social Security doesn't help to fill that gap, millions of seniors will be in penury. Indeed, the effects will even rebound on Huntsman's own Millennial generation if her nutso ideas are adopted. Her idiotic claim that we need to cut Social Security, or else there will be "nothing left when it comes time for millennials to retire" is the most blatant exposure of her stupidity. In truth, we need to EXPAND Social Security benefits. (The best way is simply to increase the FICA payroll tax threshold, say to $650,000.)
But even if we don't, the truth is that Social Security as it is can pay out full benefits through 2033, and 75 percent of benefits through 2087. In other words, even when Abby is a doddering old lady of 104 she will be able to collect 75% of what seniors do today.
Little Miss Abby whines and whines about "all the spending" but if she pulled her head out of her ass long enough she'd grasp and see that the federal budget game isn't stacking her Gen Y bunch against my Boomers, but rather BOTH our groups against the Military Industrial Complex, which is sucking us all dry. See e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-military-industrial-complex-still.html
She believes the enemy of her Millennials getting their S.S. due is greedy seniors, but in fact it is the Military -defense contractor budget that insists on propping up an empire with 4,400 bases scattered across the globe. These fools seemingly don't understand it wasn't so much barbarians that brought down the Roman Empire but military overstretch.
The next time Abby or any other overpaid, blabbering bimbo thinks of playing the "generational war" meme they need to be reminded of the following:
- Seven million children currently live with grandparents - who depend on Social Security to care for them
- 8.5 million other children (including college kids that find themselves jobless and live at home) who live with elder parents that depend on Social Security to make do.
- The tens of millions of 50-plus Americans who, through their tax dollars and Social Security monies, pensions, provide voluntary contributions to support public schools, child health programs, grandparent guardianship programs as well as other charities that care for homeless kids (e.g. Covenant House).
Concocting war between the generations, pitting young against old, therefore serves no useful or moral purpose. It is merely a cheap, malicious tactic to deflect attention from the REAL problem: the malignant growth of the Military Industrial Complex to the detriment of all of us outside it!
If Abby Huntsman can't finally get this into her hard head, maybe NBC- MSNBC needs to find another more appropriate venue for her. Say like hosting Saturday morning kiddie cartoons!
See also:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/54880/abby-huntsman-promotes-the-wall-street-banksters-big-lie
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Bill Maher Gets It Wrong Again - Joking on Seniors, Sex and "Entitlements"
Bill Maher, again, has it in for seniors. According to his end segment ('New Rules') last night on REAL TIME, and quoting a HARPER's piece, the Federal yearly spending per child in this country is $3,822 while the federal yearly spending per senior is $25, 455. He continues by posing the ludicrous question:
"What kind of world are we leaving for our grandkids, well one where Headstart, nutrition assistance and child welfare are being cut"
Then adds his little hee-haw zinger:
"These days when grandpa finds a quarter behind your ear, he keeps it!"
Really, Bill? You believe this bollocks? He then leads into the reason circulated by the Neoliberal media for why "Uncle Sam's always giving first dollar to grandma"- because she votes. He then veers off into "CDC reports" on how "fucking in nursing homes is at an all time high" and "syphilis and chlamydia in seniors has nearly tripled in the past decade". Both citations are intended to make the gullible believe 99% of seniors are on a real sex binge joy ride in their elder years, and on under 60 y/o citizens' taxpayer dime- while the kiddies starve. Never mind that the senior percentage applicable to Bill's narrative is perhaps 1/2 of one percent, if that. Talk about taking an exceptional incidence and turning it into a commonplace for the sake of fallacious argument!
But hey- it provides Bill with material for his last segment. Also his ending tirade about "why are so many seniors among the angriest people in the U.S., opposing Obamacare, etc. ....despite the fact they have government care that will pay for their ED, penis pumps etc."
Nice jokes, but again, misplaced. If Maher had taken the time to actually read and understand why so many seniors are miffed at Obamacare, he'd have learned that its financial inputs are predicated on $500b in cuts to Medicare - most of which were relatively well concealed until recently. One is cuts to Medicare providers which are causing many seniors to lose their primary care physicians. Tens of thousands of seniors with cancer who need chemotherapy have been turned away from Cancer centers (that deliver the treatments) thanks to just 2% cuts to Medicare providers.
Another is the new hidden bomb in hospital admissions, where the option is left to the hospital - according to the law- to enable the sickly senior to be admitted "under observation only". In this case, the costs are 3 to 5 times higher than they'd have been if it had been full admission. The senior then, after having perhaps recovered from one heart attack, almost has another when s/he sees the bill.
Leaving out Bill's exaggerations concerning the sexual exploits of seniors, let's look at some stark realities. First and foremost is that it isn't seniors "taking" from the kids - but our vastly expanded (since 9/11)military -industrial complex. This is the ‘elephant’ in the room, laying waste to the domestic landscape: the gross, even malignant expansion of the war and national security state. This nexus has benefited from a political establishment invested in the insane policy of perpetual war. It is this policy that has drained us dry and made the country even more vulnerable to terrorism than it would have been had we not stuck our nose in where it never belonged.
It has also left our kids hungry, and our long term unemployed without benefits, and seniors waiting for the next shoe to drop in terms of cuts (e.g. Chained CPI). The much ballyhooed "bipartisan budget deal" in December was a perfect example, in which the military-industrial state was granted an extra $23 b while domestic needs were sacrificed. See e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/12/latest-budget-deal-seeks-to-preserve.html
This Military malignancy has already drained us of over $4 trillion and it may well be much more, when all the medical needs of the returned Iraq and Afghanistan vets are tended to, as well as their future disability benefits finally paid for.
Yet despite naming the ‘elephant’, Maher ignores it and wanders off the beaten path and points to seniors receiving Social Security or on Medicare STEALING "from our children"! And he makes this oh so much more credible because he couches it in yucks about senior sex.
What the elder "sacrifice" mongers like Maher and others forget is that if those "entitlements" weren't there to provide that support, 8 out of 10 elderly would have to move in with those adult "kids". But somehow, the image of rich, greedy old farts persists ....now, thanks to Maher, having endless sex romps.....despite the fact that the AARP's own statistics show that only the uppermost quintile of seniors receive more than $50,000 a year in their retirement. The unlucky ones who don't hit that threshold are eaten alive by medical costs, and let's bear in mind Medicare only pays a fraction of those.
If even $50,000/ yr. sounds like a lot, just think about this: One major accident, say a fall, could land a senior in a nursing home at a cost of $4,000 a month. If the senior is unlucky enough to have the gene that leads to Alzheimers, he could end up in the same position - emptying his or her bank account - to be warehoused in some home. Likely ending up bankrupt. One wonders how this never got onto Maher's joke tableaux, but perhaps it was too serious to blend in. Far easier to hack for cheap laughs.
Are seniors really "cavalier" and "coasting nice and easy" like Bill claims? Hardly! According to the latest Newsletter from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare the "grand bargain" bollocks is still on hold, and with it the yen to implement the chained CPI. As the NL puts it:
"This cost of living adjustment is not a 'technical tweak' but a benefit cut for the oldest and most vulnerable Americans."
Indeed. It reduces the cost of living adjustment down by 0.3 percentage points annually. That translates into a cut in benefits of 3 percent for those who have been retired ten years, 6 percent after 20 years, and 9 percent after 30 years. The people who have been retired the longest and are, therefore, the poorest, will see the largest cuts. After ten years, the senior will lose the equivalent of one whole monthly S.S. payment - and given inflation isn't going away (especially for prescription drugs, fuel, food) this could be disastrous.
And now, based on Bill's jokes, many ponder taking food out of poor seniors' mouths???
Just so we are clear on this, let me also provide a quote from the American Prospect article: 'Stealing From Poor, Making Rich Richer':
"Social Security isn't broke, but millions of retirees who depend on it are, and many more would be broke without it. The average retired worker's Social Security benefit is just $922 a month--about $11,000 a year. Disabled workers average just $862.
One out of three seniors depends on Social Security for 90 to 100 percent of their income. Two out of three seniors depend on it for more than half their income. Even with Social Security, many seniors must choose between eating and heating, paying the mortgage or paying for medicine."
The next time Bill Maher, David Brooks, Robert Samuelson, Tom Brokaw, Richard Haas or anyone else thinks of playing the "generational war" meme they need to be reminded of the following:
- Seven million children currently live with grandparents - who depend on Social Security to care for them
- 8.5 million other children (including college kids that find themselves jobless and live at home) who live with elder parents that depend on Social Security to make do.
- The tens of millions of 50-plus Americans who, through their tax dollars and Social Security monies, pensions, provide voluntary contributions to support public schools, child health programs, grandparent guardianship programs as well as other charities that care for homeless kids (e.g. Covenant House).
Concocting war between the generations, pitting young against old, therefore serves no useful or moral purpose. It is merely a cheap, malicious tactic to take attention from the REAL problem: the malignant growth of the Military Industrial Complex to the detriment of all of us outside it!
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Guest Blog: The American People Have Spoken: No More War Abroad, More Jobs at Home
By Bernie Sanders
At a time of great political division in our
country President Obama has found a remarkable way to unite Americans of all
political persuasions -- conservatives, progressives and moderates. With a loud
and clear voice, the overwhelming majority of the American people, across the
political spectrum, are saying NO to another war in the Middle East -- Syria’s
bloody and complicated civil war.
There are two major reasons why the people in this country are adamantly opposed to the U.S.’s military intervention in Syria.
First, of course, is the much discussed “war weariness.” The United States has been at war in Afghanistan for 12 years, and the war in Iraq dragged on for nearly nine years. The cost of these wars has been horrendous: more than 6,700 American deaths; hundreds of thousands suffering from traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder; and a financial cost of between $4 trillion to $6 trillion by the time the last war veteran receives needed care. Further, as a result of the ineptitude and dishonesty of foreign policy decisions made in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the American people worry deeply about the unintended consequences of another military venture.
But there’s another reason why Americans are reluctant to get involved in a third Middle East war in 12 years. And that relates to the fact that Congress today has a 14 percent favorability rating and millions of Americans have absolutely no confidence that the U.S. House or Senate is even remotely concerned about their needs or views.
Here’s the truth. The middle class in this country is collapsing. The number of Americans living in poverty is nearly the highest on record and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider and wider. And very few people in Washington give a damn.
Year after year the American people have begged the Congress and the president to move aggressively to protect the middle class from total collapse. And, so far, their leaders have failed to act. Today, the American people are demanding action to create jobs for their kids and retirement security for their parents.
They are deeply worried about the state of the economy, and they have every reason to worry. Here’s what’s going on:
There are two major reasons why the people in this country are adamantly opposed to the U.S.’s military intervention in Syria.
First, of course, is the much discussed “war weariness.” The United States has been at war in Afghanistan for 12 years, and the war in Iraq dragged on for nearly nine years. The cost of these wars has been horrendous: more than 6,700 American deaths; hundreds of thousands suffering from traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder; and a financial cost of between $4 trillion to $6 trillion by the time the last war veteran receives needed care. Further, as a result of the ineptitude and dishonesty of foreign policy decisions made in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the American people worry deeply about the unintended consequences of another military venture.
But there’s another reason why Americans are reluctant to get involved in a third Middle East war in 12 years. And that relates to the fact that Congress today has a 14 percent favorability rating and millions of Americans have absolutely no confidence that the U.S. House or Senate is even remotely concerned about their needs or views.
Here’s the truth. The middle class in this country is collapsing. The number of Americans living in poverty is nearly the highest on record and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider and wider. And very few people in Washington give a damn.
Year after year the American people have begged the Congress and the president to move aggressively to protect the middle class from total collapse. And, so far, their leaders have failed to act. Today, the American people are demanding action to create jobs for their kids and retirement security for their parents.
They are deeply worried about the state of the economy, and they have every reason to worry. Here’s what’s going on:
- Real unemployment: Counting those who have given up looking for work and those who are working part-time when they need a full time job, the real unemployment rate is 13.7 percent, not 7.3 percent.
- Average wages: Non-supervisory workers have seen their wages go down by eight cents an hour since the beginning of the so-called recovery and are now a paltry $8.77 an hour.
- Income and wealth inequality: From 2009-2012, the richest 1 percent of Americans captured 95 percent of all new income, while the typical middle class family has seen their income go down by more than2,100. The Walton family, the owners of Wal-Mart, are worth more than $100 billion and own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans.
- College unaffordability: Over the past 30 years, the cost of a college education has gone up by more than 250 percent. The average American graduating from college this year is drowning in debt of more than35,000. Even worse, hundreds of thousands of high school graduates are unable to go to college each and every year not because they are unqualified, but because they can’t afford it.
- Childhood poverty: We live in the
richest country in the world, yet one out of five children in the U.S. is
stuck in poverty. And the reality is that children living in poverty in
America today are more likely to stay in poverty when they grow up than in
any other advanced country on earth.
The lesson to be learned from the widespread opposition to the war is that the American people standing together can make a difference. Building on that momentum, now is the time to demand that Congress create millions of decent-paying jobs repairing our crumbling roads, bridges, dams, culverts, schools and housing.
We need to end our dependence on dirty fossil fuels that are threatening the planet and move toward energy efficiency and renewable energy. We must increase the minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour and lift millions of Americans out of poverty. We must fundamentally rewrite our trade policy so that American products, not American jobs, are our No. 1 export. We must stand up to the greed on Wall Street by breaking up too-big-to-fail banks that have done so much damage to the economy. And, we must make college affordable so that every qualified American can get the education they need to reclaim the American dream.
None of this will be easy. But the American people have proven that if they speak out, if they flood Capitol Hill with phone calls and emails, they can stop a war. Now is the time to use that same energy and passion to save the middle class.
------
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Have Americans - Especially Their Government - Learned Anything From 9/11?
“Americans are apt to scoff at the idea that a military coup in the U.S, as so often happens in Latin American countries, could ever replace our government. But that is an idea that has grounds for consideration.” Lee Harvey Oswald, from his July 27, 1963 talk given at The Jesuit House of Studies, Spring Hill College, Mobile AL.
“Of all the
enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it
comprises the germ of every other. As the parent of armies, war encourages
debts and taxes, the known instruments for bringing the many under the
domination of the few”-
James Madison
Is it possible that one of the things that may have signed Lee Oswald's death warrant - was his little known talk at the Jesuit House of Studies at Spring Hill College, Mobile? James Douglass in his stirring book, JFK and the Unspeakable, certainly put that out there to consider (p. 331) though he also does acknowledge that Lee may never have actually verbalized outwardly the content in his notes. But does it matter? If indeed the CIA was in the process of sheepdipping him, as noted by John Newman ('Oswald and the CIA') then whether he actually said the key words may be immaterial. He had disclosed himself as a threat that had to be eliminated - preferably after his arrest for a murder he didn't commit.
This is a critical observation because many deep politics observers believe that the country rapidly mutated into a military -security state in the wake of Kennedy's assassination. (For a plausible scenario of how it could have transpired via conspiracy, rent or buy the excellent 1973 movie, Executive Action.)
In his
“Our primary long-range interest is general and complete disarmament- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms”.
This could not have pleased the warmongers, especially among his Joint Chiefs - who had already been appalled at his failure to bomb and invade Cuba during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis some eight months earlier.
Anyway, the point of this post is that the U.S. not only emerged as a hyper-militant state (empire) after Kennedy's death, aggressively launching an illegal war in Vietnam - but a national security state as well. The two in concert incepted a toxic policy paranoia that has generated blowback over more than three decades. In the case of Vietnam, the security state propelled LBJ's retraction of JFK's National Security Memorandum 263 ( which would have evacuated all personnel). Worse, LBJ used a security -state developed bogus ploy: the alleged North Vietnamese firing on the Maddox and Turner Joy in Aug, 1964 to justify a full scale war which led to 58,000 Americans killed. Vietnam also launched the weasel ploy of congress "authorizing" further military actions - when actual wars would have been declared, as per the Constitution. All of this in concert, together with how and where the U.S. has stuck its nose in other nations' business (when Kennedy rejected any 'Pax Americana') makes one wonder if American leaders even grasp the concept of 'blowback'.
In a September 13, 2001 interview with the magazine In These Times, Chalmers Johnson (the author of ‘Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire’) was said to “have seen the September 11 catastrophe coming”. Johnson’s 2000 book argued that
This speech probably set the foundation for Kennedy’s plan (under NSAM-263) to pull out of
Back to Chalmers Johnson and some of the answers to questions he gave in his In These Times interview:
Q1. Is what happened on September 11 an example of blowback?
Of course it is. That's exactly what my book was written for: It was a warning to my fellow Americans, a year ago, that our foreign policy was going to produce something like this. It's important to stress, contrary to what people in
Q2. Osama bin Laden has been named the primary suspect in these attacks. In the first chapter of Blowback, you talk about earlier American attacks on Osama bin Laden as an example of "a spiral of destructive behavior."
I heard Sen. John McCain say this morning that the people of
Don't get me wrong. Everyone understands that the people of
Q.3 You implied that this type of terrorist warfare seems to be the warfare of the future. I assume that you would expect to see more?
No nation can hope to beat the
People in
Q.4 If not military force, then what could be effective against this type of terrorist warfare?
What we need to find out is: what are we doing that is provoking this? Is there any flexibility in our policy? Couldn't we alter our policies somewhat? Couldn't we make it our business to try to stay out of fratricidal and hate-laden conflicts? And then, to the extent that we are still the victim of terrorism (which we always will be) then we need a much greater analytic effort to defend ourselves, and that should not be impossible to craft.
Clearly, what happened on September 11 was an almost catastrophic failure of intelligence by extremely expensive agencies that do not do anything. And so far, the American reaction seems to be to target the Bill of Rights more than anything else. Retaliation is not the answer. It hasn't worked for
Q.5 Is it possible that blowback may take place internally as well as externally?
The greatest danger we have now is militarism in
I fear that from this we are going to get even more militarism. That is, more and more functions—including domestic police functions—will be transferred from civilian institutions to the military, and the military will have ever greater authority in our society. We know how that will end based on history, especially of the Roman and British Empires. We're talking here about military overstretch, and the attendant weaknesses of the imperial structure (including continuous financing) that will ultimately lead to total collapse.
--------
Of course, Johnson’s prediction that we’re going to “get even more militarism” has come to pass, what with the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq (violating Article VI of the Nuremberg laws) and now the drums beating ever louder for an attack on Syria - which will really let loose the dogs of blowback if Chalmers Johnson's answers are to be believed - and I do believe them whole heartedly.
Fortunately, the Russians and Vladimir Putin have proposed a way out of the Syria mess, which requires the Syrian regime to declare all stockpiles of chemical weapons, and ultimately subject them to capture or destruction. There would then be a basis for UN inspectors to get on the ground in Syria and do assays and inspections. Of course, this will take time and so the Amerikkan Empire purveyors and blowback inceptors are already huffing and puffing that "it's all a ploy". This because Russia retracted a resolution regarding inspections yesterday. But what none of the pundits said, except Chris Hayes, is that the Russians (rightfully) want NO resolutions done with a U.S. "gun" pointed to anyone's head, whether Russia's or Syria's. Do the resolution, sure, but not under threat that if such and such markers aren't met and 'x' hoops aren't jumped through in 'y' time, an attack will ensue,
The question then is have American leaders learned the lessons of blowback from their policies, which led directly to 9/11? (In that case the establishment of American bases in Saudi Arabia, left from the Gulf War.))
The answer will hinge on what we see Obama and his bunch do now, given the Russian Syrian proposal. Wifey - who watched his speech- told me he was accepting of the deal, and very humble. He actually acknowledged that the U.S. "cannot be the policeman of the world." This at least discloses Obama might have partially learned the lessons of 9/11 but I need to see more than words. I want to see a firm leash put on the military dogs preventing them from being unleashed after Assad or Syria, if certain artificial time limits or conditions aren't met. (And again, bear in mind I already made the case the U.S. has no moral authority to be bossing around anyone, "punishing" or anything else, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-us-lacks-moral-authority-to-launch.html
Will we see more 9/11s? Will we see an increased consolidation of the military -surveillance state even beyond what exists now, which as David Lindorff put it in one blog - surpasses even the excesses depicted in Orwell's '1984'?
That depends on how this Syrian crisis plays out.
The whole world is watching, and all American citizens ought to stay tuned as well!
See also: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-lindorff/51567/a-people-s-victory-over-syrian-attack-plan-in-historic-first-american-empire-is-blocked-at-the-starti
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Has Bill Maher Bought into the “Entitlement Spending Crisis”?
A crowd in D.C. two years ago protests against possible Social Security cuts. Bill Maher somehow thinks that cutting "entitlements" like Social Security will free up more $$$ for those under 18. He's dreaming! What needs to be cut - pared down in HALF- is the Military-Industrial Complex and Military Welfare State.
Bill Maher comes off as an intelligent host of HBO’s REAL TIME, and in most instances his intellect manages to side on the right side of issues. However, in a disturbing few moments last night one wondered if maybe he had too many tokes before his show. In one exchange, which included guest Sam Harris, Bill opined:
“Do we really want to be spending $4 on every adult over 65, to only $1 on every child under 18?”
Guest Sam Harris, a putative, proclaimed liberal, didn’t help matters by suggesting Social Security be “means tested”, so that no high earners could receive benefits.
First, let me hammer Bill before going on to Sam Harris. The issue again, isn’t “ entitlements” such as Social Security, but rather out of control “defense spending” which is really EMPIRE building! I mean, c’mon already! Do we REALLY need 702 military 'installations' in 63 foreign countries with 4,471 bases altogether? This, according to the Defense Department's 2012 annual budget statement.
Clearly, if you’re spending so much on this nonsense there will be little left for humane spending, including on social insurance. Nor will there be sufficient funding for education, teachers. Bill, before disengaging mouth, ought to have considered what spending $0.3b each on 2,335 F-35 bombers would have accomplished for schools, services, paying teachers. Instead, he became an instant Neoliberal moron by parroting their usual lines, almost right out of Bob Woodward’s playbook.
So what Bill actually did with his reckless comment, is disclose being hostage to the false choice paradigm – which he’s often accused others of promoting! Had he done a tad more research, such as into former defense analyst Chuck Spinney’s research, showing that the jump in military spending in 2004-05 by 2% of GDP would mean “war on social programs” – he might have been more temperate. He’d also then have recognized that spending on seniors – whether via Medicare or Social Security, is not counterpoised against spending on education and services for youth. Instead, it is bloated military spending which is gobbling up so much of the budget pie it leaves little for other needs. See also: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-military-industrial-complex-still.html
Bill also appears oblivious to the fact that aging Boomers in their 50s -early 60s) have actually suffered the most in the past decade and hence need the social insurance lifeline the most. Studies have found that Americans in their 50s and early 60s — those near retirement age who do not yet have access to Medicare and Social Security — have lost the most earnings power of any age group. This according to Sentier Research, a data analysis company. Their income fell 10% even as their retirement savings and home values fell sharply at the worst possible time: just before they needed to cash out. They are supporting both aged parents and unemployed young-adult children, earning them the inauspicious nickname “Generation Squeeze.” Meanwhile, a recent study by economists at Wellesley College found that people who lost their jobs in the few years before becoming eligible for Social Security lost up to three years from their life expectancy, largely because they no longer had access to affordable health care.
Does Bill really want to cut the social insurance floor out from under them to save the military industrial complex and defense contractors? These besieged Boomers – above all- NEED those “entitlements”!
Hence, if Bill had been even remotely with it, instead of Neoliberal grand standing, he’d have been able to offer a REAL solution: i.e. that closing 50% of all the overseas military bases, installations, would save $500 BILLION a year! (DoD estimates put the cost of sustaining all the bases at $1 trillion a year). THAT money would then be more than enough to help all the under 18 segment of the population, as opposed to pissing more good money after bad on useless bases – many of which are in WWII former opponent nations, like Japan and Germany.
Now, as for Sam Harris, while his “means testing” proposal sounds rational and reasonable at first blush, it also shows a disarming lapse in grasping political dynamics. The fact is that when social programs are means-tested, they instantly become altered to WELFARE in political perceptions. And we have already seen what happened to welfare in the 1996 ‘Welfare to Work’ act. Think it couldn’t happen with Social Security? Think again!
Think of this now: when all economic demographics pay in and can also obtain benefits, they will be more likely to see the program as worth preserving. On the other hand, when some of these, especially in the upper tiers, have their benefits cut off by a means –test, they will be less likely to offer further political support. After all, they’re not benefiting, so why should they? To them, Social Security becomes just another "welfare" program to be cut!
When enough economically powerful demographics or quintiles are sliced off, the voting interests also mutate and this will include the directions of money contributions. These political campaign contributions will then pitch toward those enclaves favoring “entitlement cuts” or maybe even balancing access to Social Security with work (The same way my own state of Colo. requires indigent seniors to work in exchange for receiving breaks on their property taxes. For example, if you get a $1500 break on your property taxes you can expect to work for 500 hrs. at $3.00 /hr)
The conclusion is that Sam Harris is just as wrong with his means testing proposal as Bill Maher is with his entitlement cuts to loosen funds for the under-18 year old set.
Hopefully both these guys will move away from their unwarranted Neoliberal enchantment in the near future.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Corker's Correct on ONE Thing: Left & Right Underestimate Cost of Government
I will be upfront and honest that, as a Socialist, I don't have much truck for any Republican of the modern -day extreme Right breed. They are all nutso, and - apologies to the Demo blogs & media (who compare those of us on the unrepentant, vocal Left to 'Teabaggers' using the pejorative 'Firedog-baggers') you've got your analogies all screwed up. For those not in the know, 'Firedoglake' is a hard Democratic Left blog that argues for Democratically elected reps to grow a spine for once, and support what the voters indicated they wanted on Nov. 6. Meanwhile, what I call the 'wussie' -Corporate Democrats, say "Oh no! We must not do that- we must COMPROMISE! We must display bipartisanship"
Yes, in the long held tradition of Grover Norquist, who used the term "date rape" for reaching bipartisanship with Dems. By the looks of some Dem Corporate blogs, a lot of them must love being "date raped" by the likes of Norquist and his Republican followers.
Anyway, I digress a bit. Bob Corker (R-TN) was on CBS this morning and went on a longish rant (which they had to cut short) on the upcoming "fiscal cliff" and the need for Americans to prepare. I tuned out most of his jabber but he did hit one note correct: Both the Left and the Right in this country underestimate the full cost of government. (Though, truthfully, I will say a LOT of this is because of politicos, presidents not being honest with them! For example, Bush Jr. telling Americans to go out shopping after 9/11 and then starting two lengthy occupations and not asking them to sacrifice by paying higher taxes for them.)
Anyway, Corker noted that even with people like me on Medicare, 40% of the total benefits which accrue to us - whether in the form of treatments (say like for my prostate cancer) or preventive items like colonoscopies - are unpaid for. This means debt accumulates as a result.
Corker then went off on his high horse using the above to assert there hasn't been enough attention to spending cuts, especially on "entitlements".
Not one elaborating word came that his Right wing bunch, including Teabaggers, are also oblivious to the true cost of their pet projects, namely military -defense spending! This means that Corker regards - or seems to - those costs as 'freebies' that the rest of us must pay, but he's deluded. This has never been done before and as my late dad used to point out to me, during WWII sacrifices not only had to be made on the home front with rationing but higher taxes too.
Flash forward to the year 2012 and what do we see? The United States currently maintains 702 military 'installations' in 63 foreign countries (it has 4,471 bases altogether), according to the Defense Department's annual budget statement. These figures don't include bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. The total cost for all this support, including what has been consumed in Iraq and Afghanistan is upward of $4.5 trillion. This dwarfs what's been taken in from Social Security payroll taxes over the past eleven or so years (about $1.8 trillion) but no mention is made that most of that money taken in by S.S. has been used to support those "wars" and defense.
Note here, as I said before - a number of times - Social Security is prohibited by law from adding to any deficit. More to the point, Social Security itself can't go "bankrupt" because it has no external creditors who can impose "collections". Other domains of government, however, DO have monetary obligations to Social Security - on account of using that money, which now must be paid back. (Oh yes, it must - and don't let anyone tell you any different. It is the total of these paybacks that the Neolib press has referred to as "unfunded liabilities")
So what the hell is Corker yelping about? Well, mainly that the Left doesn't understand how much it's getting for "free"- especially in terms of Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps etc. but again, no word on the Right not understanding: a) how much military stuff and "wars" they've gotten for free (including Iraq and Afghanistan, neither paid for by higher taxes), and b) how much they've raided from the top "entitlement" they hate - Social security - and have had a major boner to kill since the 1930s.
In this sense, Corker's complaints against "entitlements" can't be taken seriously and come across merely as a convenient smokescreen to gut those social benefits. But truthfully, military spending on all the bases and military installations I noted above, is what really needs cutting! They now consume an ungodly 58 cents of every current federal dollar and this is what's driving us to borrow ever more from China, Japan, etc.
So yes, both Left and Right underestimate the costs of their pet projects - but at least Social security is being paid for via payroll taxes - which btw, ought to be increased after the past two- year "payroll tax holiday" people enjoyed. The reason is that if you're not willing to pay those payroll taxes then you will have to look for congress each year approving a S.S. budget! Do you really want that? I don't!
The bottom line in all this is that Americans, given what they demand - whether in terms of social insurance benefits or military defense- are definitely paying way too little in taxes. "Spending cuts", meanwhile, is a Mcguffin created by the likes of nincompoop Repubs and Grover boy, but make no sense for a modern industrial nation that owes its citizens not only the 'promotion of the GENERAL WELFARE" (see the Preamble to the Constitution) but adequate defense in the modern world.
Thus, spending cuts for a nation this large - with over 300 million people, and with social as well as defense standards to meet, is simply a non-starter. I do admit that spending could be cut on nonsense and fat (say like 2,300 F-35s at $0.3b each) , and we should always do what we can to extract the most from each dollar. But to apply sweeping spending cuts, say to "entitlements" the way the pinhead Neolibs and Reepos wish to do, while letting our gargantuan military budget basically sit untouched, is both foolish and self-serving. Nations that do that usually don't last very long.
It's now time that people, especially our elected officials, use some common sense and understand that any "cliff" solution that is to be meaningful, HAS to have higher taxes and yes ...on BOTH the middle class and upper classes! Middle class people can't continue to be pampered like the politicos are wont to do, say with extending the Bush (now Obama) tax cuts. They need to understand they have 'skin' in the game too, with their future benefits. Do they want those future Medicare benefits? Or would they rather pay $42, 700 for a prostate cancer treatment- like I would have had to do without Medicare?
I believe any right-thinking middle class person will suck it up in terms of higher taxes, and demand his reps vote for them, rather than be faced with draconian cuts or even god-awful Paul Ryan style vouchers down the road.
On that note, it's time we all grow up for once and understand we only get the government we pay for. If we choose to pay only chump change, then get set to live in a third world America!
Yes, in the long held tradition of Grover Norquist, who used the term "date rape" for reaching bipartisanship with Dems. By the looks of some Dem Corporate blogs, a lot of them must love being "date raped" by the likes of Norquist and his Republican followers.
Anyway, I digress a bit. Bob Corker (R-TN) was on CBS this morning and went on a longish rant (which they had to cut short) on the upcoming "fiscal cliff" and the need for Americans to prepare. I tuned out most of his jabber but he did hit one note correct: Both the Left and the Right in this country underestimate the full cost of government. (Though, truthfully, I will say a LOT of this is because of politicos, presidents not being honest with them! For example, Bush Jr. telling Americans to go out shopping after 9/11 and then starting two lengthy occupations and not asking them to sacrifice by paying higher taxes for them.)
Anyway, Corker noted that even with people like me on Medicare, 40% of the total benefits which accrue to us - whether in the form of treatments (say like for my prostate cancer) or preventive items like colonoscopies - are unpaid for. This means debt accumulates as a result.
Corker then went off on his high horse using the above to assert there hasn't been enough attention to spending cuts, especially on "entitlements".
Not one elaborating word came that his Right wing bunch, including Teabaggers, are also oblivious to the true cost of their pet projects, namely military -defense spending! This means that Corker regards - or seems to - those costs as 'freebies' that the rest of us must pay, but he's deluded. This has never been done before and as my late dad used to point out to me, during WWII sacrifices not only had to be made on the home front with rationing but higher taxes too.
Flash forward to the year 2012 and what do we see? The United States currently maintains 702 military 'installations' in 63 foreign countries (it has 4,471 bases altogether), according to the Defense Department's annual budget statement. These figures don't include bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. The total cost for all this support, including what has been consumed in Iraq and Afghanistan is upward of $4.5 trillion. This dwarfs what's been taken in from Social Security payroll taxes over the past eleven or so years (about $1.8 trillion) but no mention is made that most of that money taken in by S.S. has been used to support those "wars" and defense.
Note here, as I said before - a number of times - Social Security is prohibited by law from adding to any deficit. More to the point, Social Security itself can't go "bankrupt" because it has no external creditors who can impose "collections". Other domains of government, however, DO have monetary obligations to Social Security - on account of using that money, which now must be paid back. (Oh yes, it must - and don't let anyone tell you any different. It is the total of these paybacks that the Neolib press has referred to as "unfunded liabilities")
So what the hell is Corker yelping about? Well, mainly that the Left doesn't understand how much it's getting for "free"- especially in terms of Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps etc. but again, no word on the Right not understanding: a) how much military stuff and "wars" they've gotten for free (including Iraq and Afghanistan, neither paid for by higher taxes), and b) how much they've raided from the top "entitlement" they hate - Social security - and have had a major boner to kill since the 1930s.
In this sense, Corker's complaints against "entitlements" can't be taken seriously and come across merely as a convenient smokescreen to gut those social benefits. But truthfully, military spending on all the bases and military installations I noted above, is what really needs cutting! They now consume an ungodly 58 cents of every current federal dollar and this is what's driving us to borrow ever more from China, Japan, etc.
So yes, both Left and Right underestimate the costs of their pet projects - but at least Social security is being paid for via payroll taxes - which btw, ought to be increased after the past two- year "payroll tax holiday" people enjoyed. The reason is that if you're not willing to pay those payroll taxes then you will have to look for congress each year approving a S.S. budget! Do you really want that? I don't!
The bottom line in all this is that Americans, given what they demand - whether in terms of social insurance benefits or military defense- are definitely paying way too little in taxes. "Spending cuts", meanwhile, is a Mcguffin created by the likes of nincompoop Repubs and Grover boy, but make no sense for a modern industrial nation that owes its citizens not only the 'promotion of the GENERAL WELFARE" (see the Preamble to the Constitution) but adequate defense in the modern world.
Thus, spending cuts for a nation this large - with over 300 million people, and with social as well as defense standards to meet, is simply a non-starter. I do admit that spending could be cut on nonsense and fat (say like 2,300 F-35s at $0.3b each) , and we should always do what we can to extract the most from each dollar. But to apply sweeping spending cuts, say to "entitlements" the way the pinhead Neolibs and Reepos wish to do, while letting our gargantuan military budget basically sit untouched, is both foolish and self-serving. Nations that do that usually don't last very long.
It's now time that people, especially our elected officials, use some common sense and understand that any "cliff" solution that is to be meaningful, HAS to have higher taxes and yes ...on BOTH the middle class and upper classes! Middle class people can't continue to be pampered like the politicos are wont to do, say with extending the Bush (now Obama) tax cuts. They need to understand they have 'skin' in the game too, with their future benefits. Do they want those future Medicare benefits? Or would they rather pay $42, 700 for a prostate cancer treatment- like I would have had to do without Medicare?
I believe any right-thinking middle class person will suck it up in terms of higher taxes, and demand his reps vote for them, rather than be faced with draconian cuts or even god-awful Paul Ryan style vouchers down the road.
On that note, it's time we all grow up for once and understand we only get the government we pay for. If we choose to pay only chump change, then get set to live in a third world America!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)