Why is that an outrage? You have presented three facts, then made a conclusion. Where is the analysis? How do those three facts support your conclusion?
Sua
You may also want to explain why only discretionary spending counts when deciding where a government’s priorities lie.
One might argue that what we consider not subject to discretion to be more vital to us. So, since spending on things like health care and Social Security much exceeds spending on the military, you could argue that our preference for social spending greatly outweighs our alleged bloodthirstiness.
Of course, this would conflict with your assumption that the US government is at the root of all evil, so be careful to confine yourself to what you heard at the last Party conference.
Regards,
Shodan
**ElJeffe **: “Tagos, Chumpsky made the mistaken assumption - and you seem to agree with him - that because the government does not serve his interests, it does not serve the national interests. It’s a classical “I am the world” fallacy.”
That is false. I pointed out that the military does not serve my interests, and that the military does not serve the interests of the majority.
msmith537: “Like it or not, your interests are directly tied to those of oil companies.”
Completely false. In fact, my interests are directly at odds with the interests of oil companies. It is in the interests of oil companies to sell as much oil as possible for as high as price as possible. Furthermore, it is in the interests of the ruling class to control the world’s energy supplies. That is not my interest, nor is it the interests of the majority of Americans.
This is true for a variety of reasons. For one thing, the control of energy supplies is simply one more aspect of the world-wide imperialist system maintained by the western ruling classes. The more power they have the worse off the rest of us are. Concentration of power is always bad. In this case, it is catastrophic. The destruction of the environment it entails, and the enslavement of most of humanity are the inevitable consequences, and that is not in my interest, nor is it in the interest of the majority of Americans. It certainly was not in the interests of the 3,000 people who were killed on 9-11-01, nor in the interests of the future victims of terrorist attacks that will be caused by U.S. foreign policy, which is designed to enhance the power of this elite.
Secondly, it is not in my interests for the obscene amount of oil that is burnt every day to be burnt. Our reliance on fossil fuels not only destroys the environment, which is not in my interests nor the interests of the majority of Americans, but the intstitutional structures that are created to keep us reliant on fossil fuels severely hampers the creativity of those who could create alternative forms of energy.
Of course, the main thing is that it is not in my interests, nor the interests of the majority of Americans, to smash the world up, to devastate ecologies and leave future generations in a much impoverished world. This serves only the interests of hyper-greedy fatcats who run the country.
Since you have not bothered to define you interests, nor have you actually made and argument. You have posted rants. You have not, however, produced anything other than the most basic and flawed evidence to support it.
I can’t speak for Rougy, but I will give a few reasons why it is an outrage. First, how about a quote from Dwight D. Eisenhower:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists and the hopes of its children.”
The truly outrageous sums of money we spend on useless military junk could be used for purposes that actually help people who need it. Instead, it is used to enrich the rich and oppress the poor. For example, Raytheon gets $12.7 billion in taxpayer money, Boeing gets $11.6 billion, and so on. cite This is a way for the rich to rob from the poor. For example, to see what the fatcats at Raytheon earn, check out their proxy statement One of the pieces of shit, Daniel Burnham, earns about $3-$8 million per year. And for what? For producing military junk that nobody can use. It is not that they are producing things that people want, it is just feeding off of the public tit. The mansions, boats, cars and whores that these bastards get from robbing the public is obtained not only at the cost of sucking resources away from people who really need it, but also for building machines that are used to kill the poor around the world.
Eisenhower warned of undue influence of the military-industrial complex. Apparently, the exact opposite advice was heeded, to the point where the military-industrial complex virtually runs the country. For example, Boeing, TRW, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have spent $35 million on lobbying since 1997.
The U.S. military is used to maintain the power of the powerful, and nothing more. So, the $400 billion that is wasted on the military so that Daniel Burnham and the rest of the cronies can have luxurious lifestyles is simple theft.
You have it backward. You simply asserted that the military does serve my interests, without explaining how.
I have, on the other hand, explained that the military is used in ways that are directly at odds with my interests, such as (i) serving the powerful, (ii) aiding the destruction of the environment, (iii) wasting valuable resources, (iv) making the world more dangerous, and (v) creating hatred for Americans.
I think if you’ll do some checking you’ll find that the United States has some of the lowest gasoline prices in the world. Present evidence otherwise or recouncil your statement with this fact. I also think if you’ll do some checking you will find that, in most states of the U.S., and for all I know most countries, a significant part of the price at the pump is comprised of various taxes imposed on the product.
“Secondly, it is not in my interests for the obscene amount of oil that is burnt every day to be burnt. Our reliance on fossil fuels not only destroys the environment, which is not in my interests nor the interests of the majority of Americans, but the intstitutional structures that are created to keep us reliant on fossil fuels severely hampers the creativity of those who could create alternative forms of energy.”
Please explain how the present system hampers those would create alternative forms of energy. There’s not one fucking thing that prevents some genius from developing an alternative source and finding entrepreneurs to help her market it. Barbara Streisand & other Hollywood liberals would accomplish more good by taking their money and giving it to such people rather than spending it on a bunch of clueless Democrats.
I suspect, Chumpsky, that you are one of these people who are unwilling to admit that wind and solar power may not be all that they are cracked up to be.
If you want to end our reliance on fossil fuels, do you support the peaceful use of nuclear power?
Furthermore, if you are really sincere in this, why don’t you and those who believe as you do live like the Amish? Ah, but, of course, you won’t be able to use electricity to listen to your newest CDs, you can’t drive your little car from the country into your nice, cushy city job, you won’t be able to dry your clothes in a dryer rather than using a clothesline (the horrors of this!! someone might think you’re poor), and you might actually have to endure a Southern or Midwestern summer without air conditioning.
Oh, I don’t think it’s useless. It seemed to work quite well in Afghanistan.
Does it ever occur to you that some of that money does find its way into the pockets of the middle class workers at those plants? And when they spend it, it helps those poor workers who labor at places like restaurants, gas stations, and department stores? Burnham may be overpaid, but I don’t find his salary any more ridiculous than that of other CEO’s. Got news for you, running a big corporation is a helluva lot more involved than blocking traffic and chanting “2-4-6-8, Organize to smash the state.”
“It is not that they are producing things that people want, it is just feeding off of the public tit.”
Pure bullshit. Many people want these things. There are many of us who agree with Vegetius.
Thank you, Shodan, but one may as well believe in pixies and kindly dwarves that mend our shoes as we sleep.
The USA budget for fiscal 2003 is around $736 bil.
The military part of that budget is about $360 bil.
Get real.
How does health care and SS compete with numbers that obvious?
Go to Georgie-porgies site, www.whitehouse.gov and see for yourself.
I gotta know: why are people like you defending Bush and his pirate administration?
What a grotesquery of reasoning.
I could say, “Since you walked through my neighborhood and you were robbed, can’t you see how much that robbery will help the local economy?”
Those workers at those plants are being screwed over more and more decisively with each passing year of “democracy” which is little better a word that “heaven” or “the lottery” since the corporate stranglehold on our government is obvious and apparently inescapable barring some serious revisions to our whole system.
Why, why, why defend the powerful as they kick the powerless in the teeth?
Can’t you see that?
If you want U.S. propaganda, a good place to get it is from an official propaganda outlet, like the CIA. (Trying to think of an organization with less credibility than the CIA…nope, can’t think of one…)
The CIA figure is calculated by only considering the budget for the Department of Defense (nice Orwellian name). However, U.S. spending on war far exceeds the DoD budget. For instance, the nuclear weapons stockpile and research is done through the Department of Energy, which designs ever more efficient killing machines. Other departments are also tied in to defense, such as NASA, FEMA, the CIA, etc. Furthermore, we pay enormous sums each year for past expenditures on war. For instance, it is estimated that 80% of the interest on the national debt goes toward past war expenditures. Most of this was accumulated during Raygun’s wacked administration. Another furthermore, the creation of the new Homeland Security Department (you can almost hear the Sieg Hiel’s when you say that) will be a vast new trough of government largesse, public financing for private profit.
All told, the U.S. spends upwards of $750 billion per year on war, about 7% of GDP, far more than the rest of the world combined.
Regarding military spending of other countries: Some of the top military spenders, like Israel and Saudi Arabia, spend their money in the U.S., as a quid pro quo for being U.S. client states. For example, Saudi Arabia’s military spending is almost entirely a gift to U.S. military contractors, as they spend large sums on weapons they cannot use. For instance, Saudi Arabia has fleets of F-15’s, but no pilots to fly them. They just sit in hangars.
In general, the world’s spending on death and destruction is insane. The U.S. is more insane than the rest put together, and has acted consistently to promote the spread of weapons throughout the world. Again, this is in the interests of those who run the state, but it is not the interests of those who, oh, would like to continue living.
Eh? What the heck are you talking about? The US budget for 2003 is around 2 trillion dollars.
Porn for the Pentagon:
You might be wrong.
This was my source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/bud34.html
I think you might mean the projected 2003 - 2007 estimated budget.
Probably an honest mistake on your part.
For the current fiscal year, Mr. Bush asked Congress for about $750 billion for discretionary government programs — all the programs for which there is an annual appropriation. About $360 billion of this is for military programs. What the president and Congress are haggling over is the remaining $390 billion, and they were about $10 billion apart when negotiations ended for the year.
No, I’m right. Looking at your site, we have total outlays for 2003 coming to $2,128,000,000.00. Or a little over two trillion.
You are correct in stating that discretionary income is the programs for which there is an annual appropriation. However, also included in the budget are figures for mandatory spending, such as on Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. These are not listed under discretionary spending. Spending on these three programs is more than the spending for defense.
Frankly, no.
Really?
Then open wide…
Tch-Tch-Tch. You have it backwards: I didn’t say what your interests were. Moreover, like I said before, you have not actually demonstrated anythign of what you said.
Hoestly, Rougy and Chumpsky, your post here has amounted to little mroe than a PIT Rant. You have been insulting, exasperating, and have simply ignored any evidence contrary to your views. This is disgusting, and amounts to the worst form of argument.
The first stop for a man without any real evidence or defense: attack, attack, attack.
Thank you, Neurotik, for doing my answer for me.
And what smiling bandit says. Let’s see some evidence for anything claimed in the OP or by its defenders.
And repetition doesn’t count.
Regards,
Shodan
On earlier pages I tried to explain:
**USA should stay whithin it’s own borders as much as possible.**No offence, but if You can’t see that if every country begins to “defend our interests” with their army, the humanity will go backwards. The first thing on stakes is the westenern civilisation.
Or should we give this right to USA exclusively? Or maybe China, Russia, England and France too?
If we think in a mode 30 years back and 30 years forward:
- USA is hated by many.
- The thousends of dead in the terrorist attacks was assumed to happen as a result of the “The Strongest Rules - the rest of the world can just watch”-policy. It was quite obvious for the Europeans that has fought terrorism for decades.
I naturally condemn these strikes, but unfortunately terrorism works like this. - If US does activates the war-machinery on grounds like in the Iraq-case, the hate will just grow.
What ever is the last grounds/motives and explanations of the war. They seem to change weekly and monthly: Atta - Mass destruction weapons - defending the people in Iraq - what-ever is in “our” interest - etc., ad infinitum. - Seeing this happen, it will be obvious that the hate grows and broadens against (and even to) the whole western civilisation.
- The war against terrorism can not be won by “sending signals”, by attacking the Iraqian people, who has nothing to do with the terrorism.
Naturally it is not called “attack on Iraqian people”, but go there and try to explain that to them when the bombs are falling.
The result will be an very Orwellian war, where the today allies will be the enemy tomorrow. And the war will not end with that there is only losers.
No, it will not end, but there will be only losers.
The biggest loss will be within the westenern civilisation.
So please, fight the war against terrorism, together with the rest of the world.
Now US is just as accountable as Hussein. Except that Hussein does not likely begin a war.
If You think USA is predictable, please tell me where will the next war begin: Libya, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan or where?
Put Your list here so that we all will know about it.
I am also seriously interested in with which countries USA has a defense-pact with and which countries “fell out of the list” in the last decade or two? And which countries was added?
Predectable?
Which of these countries can’t defend themselves until USA can run to their help, if help is a part of a “defence-contract”?
So please, defend Your borders, spend on the military any amount of money You like, and stay inside Your borders.
Especially if You can’t agree with the rest of the world what You should bomb.
Just a note: It took the whole world to prevent a USA-war against Iraq, before all the diplomatic efforts had been made.
(Even if US declared that it can begin its war whenever it (or nowadays the President) decides there is a reason.)
Fortunately the US warlords seem to understand that USA need allies.
But to “in defending [our] interest”, beginning wars, for the prices at a gas-pump, is like the terrorist would claim that they begin a new wave of strikes just to put some of the shares in the stock-market sky-rocketing and thus secure their income.
Sorry, I am sick of the very egoistic way of thinking.
Now You acn begin to shout, if You like to, but please also answer my questions, if it is not too much asked?