Indeed Philo, and guess whos decision that was! OBAMA.
The NDAA act of 2013 is ALL his plans. The Defense budget is ALSO his and does include plans for Iran. Dont even TRY to blame it on any one else.
It IS obvious that the current admin is much the same as the past. He will also have us involved in Syria - just wait and see.
Reducing or streamlining the military spending, IN ANY WAY, would be a huge step in solving some of our money problems.
Need I remind anyone AGAIN, what Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex? Exactly how much money do they have and how much power do these corporations have over our national policy?
Please watch it, my fellow supertopians. It's only 2:30 out of your posting life. I'm a strong supporter of the military, being a military man myself, but not limitless unending money, power and influence for these people.
Civilian control of the military is vitally important. I'd say that Dwight Eisenhower knew more about the subject than any of us, wouldn't you?
"We must not fail to grasp its GRAVE implications."
"The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."
Ron, for an "independent" you sure do take out an unbalanced portion of your displeasure on democrats.
BS Survival, i took a very dim view of BUSH the second term as well.
But BUSH ISNT AN ISSUE ANYMORE> Obama is on his second four. The 2013 Defense budget- all Obamas.
Im critical of our govt in GENERAL. Youve seen me bashing Heller recently havent you?
edit: Survival, i concur 100% with the Vid you posted. Thats exaclty why i continue to inform about the NDAA 2013. thats exaclty why i mention the ME so much- and the future plans thereof.
I do NOT agree with the current tactics we engage in. I do NOT agree to giving aid to those who are our enemies. I do NOT agree with illegal wars and occupations by our troops.
I do believe in the rights of the USA to protect its citizenry and properties and i do believe in going to WAR when its warranted . I DO believe we will always need a strong military- we set that precedent long ago.
uhhmmmm whos been in charge the last couple of years ?? And WHY would ANYONE harp about BUSH in regards to the defense budget for 2013 is simply beyond me.
Bush was a dipstick. Obama is one too. And "aint nuthin changed" . Not here, not in the ME, unless you count getting WORSE...
What amazes me is you guys excusing Obama for doing the exact same things as Bush did.
uhhmmmm whos been in charge the last couple of years ?? And WHY would ANYONE harp about BUSH in regards to the defense budget for 2013 is simply beyond me.
The NDAA and the defense budget are beyond Dem or GOP polarities. They belong to the elite power and money that rule both parties
And WHY would ANYONE harp about BUSH in regards to the defense budget for 2013 is simply beyond me.
Who said that? I certainly didn't. But there are certainly things which are BEYOND all of us on most levels. I'm saying that it's the giant sacred cow 800 pound gorilla that none in the government dare speak against. Not Obama, not Bush, not Boehner, not Pelosi, none of them are willing to squeek a little about it.
An operectumy is the connection of your optic nerve to your rectum giving you a shitty outlook on life. Quite prevalent among adherents of right wing media.
I agree Survival..Theres a crapfest behind the scenes. How do we combat that? I do not know.
OTHER THAN impeachment what tool is there? NONE would be the answer. We havent invented that yet, and when i say we , i mean you , I and the other guy around the corner.
IF we had any brains and balls at all, we would call for impeachments and firings right now. We would let them know that we will no longer tolerate the musical chairs game being played with countries across the globe. we would tell them in NO WAY will monies leave here destined any where else until we have solved our home based troubles.
Facts are- we are all too busy worrying about things like food , shelter, and jobs. Things like benghazi have been sluffed under the table and we all just go along with it while listening to the propaganda being poured out for us to consume. We now have to travel back channels to find ANYTHING about recent goings on. Why is that? Same reason they include several cyber sections in the NDAA 2013 bill.
Do you agree with Obama in NOT supporting hamas? Do you agree with Obama in supporting the Syrina rebels against russias desires? Do you support Obama in supporting Afghanistan and Pakistan? Do you support Obama in his support of the MUSLIM brother hood?? Do you support his support of the new RULER of Egypt, because the people there do not. Has Libya gone well? Hell no. Not even his own actions are making ANY sense there these days.
He throws support to Israel over Hamas- calling them a terrorist state, yet supports the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD in places like Lybia, Egypt and others.
Tell me how that makes any sense to you!??
Oh they ALL VOTED for it.. Thats why ive been ripping Heller et al a new one...My disgust is not limited to one party..
Heller voted for it due to his Vet chapters being in there. He does not care about anything else but that gold star for his resume. Much like all the other senators. They traded off the liberties of each and every one of us for some trinkets of success so they can say they have done something. Too bad the BAD out weighs the Good.
Your Buckley-esque lament is nothing more than a more eloquent, coded version of "free stuff". Not really a reality and, hey, the deficits are undeniably a direct result of republican military adventurism, tax breaks to the wealth, and successive cuts in the corporate tax rate. It ain't rocket science. And the dem senate rejected house budgets because they were explicitly designed, by republicans, to be rejected.
Joe, I based that on the results of a poll published in yesterday's Fresno Bee, a liberal paper. "Soaking the rich" would take care of, at most, a few days of deficit spending. There is no public support, according to the poll, for any other action that would reduce the deficit, either in the form of spending cuts or revenue increases. That's reality.
I do agree that Republican spending on middle east wars and on an under-funded prescription drug benefit has much to do with the current spending binge, but it is hardly all, or even most, of the problem. And I agree with survival that streamlining the military and reducing military involvement would decrease our budget woes, but the biggest spending issues remain Medicare, Social Security and the increased costs inherent in the ACA. The actuarial deficit from these, particularly the medical and pharmaceutical costs, swamps all military spending.
Despite this fiscal reality, the public does not support means testing for Social Security or Medicare benefits, nor does it support cuts in benefits, increases in the eligibility age or higher levies on income. Without some combination of these, both Medicare and Social Security run out of money before my life expectancy ends. What are we supposed to do?
I suspect disbelief in the actuarial insolvency of the programs explains much of this attitude, and for that disbelief, I blame the politicians of both parties somewhat, and the media quite a bit. Then there's the "It's not part of the general federal budget, so it doesn't count" argument, as if only general budgeted items affect governmental cash flow.
In summary, if I'm criticizing a perceived attitude that we have allowed us to be addicted to "free stuff," I have rather a great deal of empirical and polling evidence on my side. If we only do what is popular, we won't tackle the problem, and it will prove onerous and intractable soon. For that reason, if you and Karl see this as complaining about "free stuff," I don't apologize. I don't make these observations as a rationalization for why the Democrats did well in the last election. I make this observation because we're heading toward an iceberg with a shortage of lifeboats, and most of the people around me are only concerned about what's on the menu for tomorrow morning's breakfast.
John
Edit: If the Republican House-passed budgets were designed to be rejected, what conclusion should we make of Obama's budgets, that garnered zero votes in both the House and Senate?
The amount of deficit created by the Bush tax cuts was HUGE (this includes tax cuts for all, not just the rich and the cuts in Capital gains, estate, and dividend taxes) We got along fine for decades before these cuts, which were supposed to be temporary and all of a sudden we're told they are essential forever? BS!
and those two wars cost TRILLIONS, and the military was bloated before that!
Cut the military and return to Clinton era tax levels and some simple efficiencies in entitlements (like allowing the government to negotiate prescription drug prices) and we're good
This is all about the GOP creating a public perception that taxes are unacceptable and wanting to kill the government through starvation
Cut the military and return to Clinton era tax levels and some simple efficiencies in entitlements (like allowing the government to negotiate prescription drug prices) and we're good
While we agree that the 2001 tax cuts affected far more than the highest bracket, we disagree otherwise. The Clinton-era tax levels won't yield Clinton-era revenue without a Clinton-era dot.com bubble equivalent.
Medicare and Social Security need much, much more than just "some simple efficiencies in entitlements" to obtain actuarial solvency. Reducing payments to providers will help the bottom line in the short run, but it will affect the quantity and quality of goods and services provided, which is why the ever-helpful AARP fights it so. We need more than tweaks, and we need much more than just "the rich" participating in the changes we need to solve those problems.
I realize most American adults disagree with this assessment, but when it comes to disproving it, all I hear are unsubstantiated claims. The actuarial insolvency is real -- at least that's what the Trustees of Medicare and Social Security say. The magnitude of the deficit is enormous, and the consequences when interest rates rise will be devastating. I don't know what it takes to convince us that this is reality, but it would sure help if the media would give us straight talk about the problems and solutions, rather than distortions concentrating on which party can work current events to its political advantage.
It would help if the parties did that too, but politicians will act in their perceived self-interest, so I don't hold out much hope there. The news-consuming public, however, should demand better from those that provide us with what they purport to be news.
Social Security has tons of money. The government has just been borrowing from it and needs to pay it back. We've been sold this myth by the GOP that taxes would kill the economy but taxes have been much higher during most of modern US history when we had much of our best growth. Now the GOP tells us corporate taxes are too high but many profitable fortune 500 companies pay none. And megamillionaire Mit Romny had to TRY order to pay 14% just so he didn't look bad. We can get a lot more from these scum
The trustees indicated that the program has made it through the worst economic downturn in its life span essentially unscathed. In fact, by at least one measure it's fiscally stronger than a year ago: Its projected actuarial deficit over the next 75 years (a measurement required by law) is smaller now than a year ago.
The old age and disability trust funds, which hold the system's surplus, grew in 2009 by $122 billion, to $2.5 trillion. The program paid out $675 billion to 53 million beneficiaries — men, women and children — with administrative costs of 0.9% of expenditures. For all you privatization advocates out there, you'd be lucky to find a retirement and insurance plan of this complexity with an administrative fee less than five or 10 times that ratio.
This year and next, the program's costs will exceed its take from the payroll tax and income tax on benefits. That's an artifact of the recession, and it's expected to reverse from 2012 through 2014. The difference is covered by the program's other income source — interest on the Treasury bonds in the Social Security trust fund.
That brings us back to this supposed $41-billion "shortfall," which exists only if you decide not to count interest due of about $118 billion.
And that, in turn, leads us to the convoluted subject of the trust fund, which for some two decades has been the prime target of the crowd trying to bamboozle Americans into thinking Social Security is insolvent, bankrupt, broke — pick any term you wish, because they're all wrong. The trust fund is the mechanism by which baby boomers have pre-funded their own (OK, our own) retirements. When tax receipts fall short, its bonds are redeemed by the government to cover the gap.
Despite what Social Security's enemies love to claim, the trust fund is not a myth, it's not mere paper. It's real money, and it represents the savings of every worker paying into the system today. So I'm going to train a microscope on it.
What trips up many people about the trust fund is the notion that redeeming the bonds in the fund to produce cash for Social Security is the equivalent of "the government" paying money to "the government." Superficially, this resembles transferring a dollar from your brown pants to your gray pants — you're no more or less flush than you were before changing pants.
But that assumes every one of us contributes equally to "the government," and by equal methods — you, me and the chairman of Goldman Sachs.
The truth is that there are two separate tax programs at work here — the payroll tax and the income tax — and they affect Americans in different ways. The first pays for Social Security and the second for the rest of the federal budget.
Most Americans pay more payroll tax than income tax. Not until you pull in $200,000 or more, which puts you among roughly the top 5% of income-earners, are you likely to pay more in income tax than payroll tax. One reason is that the income taxed for Social Security is capped — this year, at $106,800. (My payroll and income tax figures come from the Brookings Institution, and the income distribution statistics come from the U.S. Census Bureau.)
Since 1983, the money from all payroll taxpayers has been building up the Social Security surplus, swelling the trust fund. What's happened to the money? It's been borrowed by the federal government and spent on federal programs — housing, stimulus, war and a big income tax cut for the richest Americans, enacted under President George W. Bush in 2001.
In other words, money from the taxpayers at the lower end of the income scale has been spent to help out those at the higher end. That transfer — that loan, to characterize it accurately — is represented by the Treasury bonds held by the trust fund.
The interest on those bonds, and the eventual redemption of the principal, should have to be paid for by income taxpayers, who reaped the direct benefits from borrowing the money.
Let us know!