Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: How much can we cut the defense budget without creating massive layoffs?

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 2, 2012, 10:21 a.m. EST by VQkag2 (16478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://truth-out.org/news/item/11870-time-for-major-cuts-in-defense-spending

Time for Major Cuts in Defense Spending Monday, 01 October 2012 11:10 By Melvin A Goodman, The Baltimore Sun | Op-Ed

Over the past decade, the United States has engaged in the most significant increase in defense spending since the Korean War. Trillions of dollars have been allocated for the Pentagon, with little congressional monitoring or internal oversight. The defense budget for 2012 exceeds $600 billion, nearly equaling the combined defense spending of the rest of world. Every U.S. taxpayer spends twice as much for the cost of national defense as each British citizen; five times as much as each German; and six times as much as each Japanese. Recent U.S. military expenditures include more than $2.5 trillion to wage unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have failed to enhance American security.

The current economic crisis and tepid economic recovery during President Barack Obama's first term have created the imperative to reduce defense spending and the size of the U.S. military. More than 46 million Americans live in poverty; unemployment rates have remained at unacceptably high levels; and the economic concerns of the middle class have not abated. The income gap between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of the country continues to grow sharply. Millions of American have learned that their primary assets — their homes — have become a liability.

President Dwight Eisenhower warned that military demands for U.S. defense spending would become a "cross of iron" that would limit spending on domestic needs. It is time to act on that warning by making significant cuts in defense spending and applying the savings to health care, education, infrastructure and the environment.

The Budget Control Act of 2010 was a good first step, mandating cuts in defense spending of $485 billion over the next 10 years and allowing reductions in the size of the Army and the Marines that would still leave ground forces larger than pre-Sept. 11 levels. Excessive spending on the Air Force, which faces no challenge, is the most wasteful of all military expenditures. We could save $15 billion to $20 billion annually by reducing the F-35 fighter fleet to 1,000, far more than is needed for any conceivable threat. The cost of each F-35 has nearly doubled over the past 10 years, making it the Pentagon's most expensive program.

As the Air Force is dominant in the skies, the Navy has, in the words of Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughhead, a "degree of overmatch [with any adversary] that is extraordinary." Reducing the number of ships in the U.S. Navy would save $60 billion over 10 years. The commitment to sustain 11 aircraft carrier battle groups is particularly questionable. Meanwhile, the Marines have not conducted an amphibious landing since the Korean War but remain committed to the V-22 Osprey, a problematic vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, as well as a new landing vehicle, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

Fewer intercontinental ballistic missiles could save $80 billion over the next 10 years, and eliminating nuclear weapons from our strategic bombers would bring additional savings of $40 billion.

President Barack Obama has stated his commitment to a smaller military and less defense spending, although his position on reducing specific weapons systems has not been clarified. Mitt Romney, however, is committed to greater investment in a bloated military that has been given a virtual blank check for the past decade. His program would make a bad situation worse.

Mr. Romney is opposed to the bipartisan agreement to cut defense spending over the next 10 years, known as "sequestration." On the contrary, he favors increased spending on defense that would amount to nearly $1 trillion over a decade. Mr. Romney has pledged to spend at least 4 percent of gross domestic product on defense, a bizarre way to plan for national defense. His strident statements on foreign policy interests that involve Russia, China, Iran and the Middle East suggest that he would pursue aggressive policies that could lead to greater military deployments overseas.

Unlike Mr. Obama, who has pledged to reduce U.S. troop levels by 100,000 over the next five years, Mr. Romney wants to increase troop levels by 100,000; such an increase would cost $200 billion over the next 10 years. Mr. Romney also wants to increase naval shipbuilding to 15 vessels a year, while Mr. Obama favors limiting shipbuilding to the current pace of nine ships a year. Mr. Romney even favors reopening the production line for the F-22 fighter plane, which has already cost the United States nearly $80 billion. His plan would cost an additional $120 billion over the next 10 years.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates argued that a "smaller military will be able to go to fewer places and do fewer things," one of the best arguments for reduced defense spending. An equally strong argument is that, by reorienting government spending away from the military and toward our domestic problems, we can strengthen the security of our nation.

Melvin A. Goodman is a former CIA analyst and the author of the forthcoming "National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism" (City Lights Publishing, January 2013). His email is goody789@verizon.net"> goody789@verizon.net.

276 Comments

276 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

We spend at least twice as much for military services as they would cost if we drove pigs from the public trough.

I worked for army contractors in Sierra Vista in the 80s and 90s. I was a Senior Electronics Engineer. Such as I were paid about $60k per year. At the high point of the contract there were about 150 employees. Perhaps 20 engineers and computer scientists did the critical work. Another 20 or 30 , technicians and systems people had feet on the ground. At my grade, while being paid around $30/hr, the cost plus operation charged, I was told, at least $150 / hr for the professional services I provided.

Many of the upper management were retired military officers, Colonels and Lt. Colonels. There were a smaller percentage of retired civil servants. They and the board, two retired Generals, one Admiral and an ex head of NASA, got the big bucks. And then there are the investors, who got most of the remaining $120 dollars per hour of profit from my work. Remember. Cost plus!

So how do we save 50% and get the same quality and quantity of military services? Get rid of the useless pigs at the trough. Fire the contractors. Whether they represent 80% or only as little as 20% of grafted overhead, get rid of the superfluous management and investors. Hire the engineers and the rest of the real workers directly and carry on. The professionals and technicians who do the work know the jobs and what must be done better than the pompous fools they work for. Where I worked, managers did nothing but take the credit for what they asked me how to do, and which I did, and then robbed me of the greatest part of the rewards too.

This scenario is generally true. All that we want and need in common should be done in common on a non profit basis. Deprivatise and save! Drive the rich to Galtopia with confiscatory taxes. Keep the capital we worked to build and that they have always owned and used to subjugate us.

Yeah, that fantasy's not likely. The certain truth is: the only way we'll ever have a dependable economy that can support our lives is to take wealth/capital back that the rich have hoarded. Non profit production, of, by and for the people may not be politically tenable yet. But eventually the fools must either wake up or starve.

Read “How Does That Work” https://www.createspace.com/3852916

[-] 4 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

agkaiser, I just love reading that kind of thing, blowing the whistle on the wastefull spending. Half, eh? I believe it. And that adds up to about $7 Trillion over the years.

There are also Rigged contracts, contracts as favours, contracts for stuff nobody needs - read about the City of Montreal rigged contracts, an organised crime family would decide which contractor got the next job, all the others would put in really high bids... The hearings are happening now

I remember a time when government would hire their own workers, and procure the materials needed, then it all go PRIVATISED - is OWS against that? I think we should be

[-] 3 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Yep! That little anecdote just scratched the surface. The MIC Eisenhower warned of is rife with incestuous relationships between the generals and contractors. Hell, they moved a retiring Lt. Colonel, who was tasked with evaluating contractors for the awards the general would hand out, from the Electronic Proving Ground at Ft. Huachuca into the general managers slot above me on the day he changed out of his uniform. We had the EPG contract.

If they don't go to the contractor they fed when they retire, the top brass start new scams. The congress that allocates the money for all gets big campaign donations from the 'entrepreneurs' they support.

I don't know if OWS is specifically against privatization. But I sure am!

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Well thats the rub isn't it - kickbacks to election spending. It just gaurantees more of the same for the next 4 years.

I am not sure what the solution to ending that is, but it would help to limit election spending somehow. This goes to the "corporate personhood free speech rights" - another evil bit of legistlation that Obama signed off on I think, eh?

There are nations that have tight election spending controls, and their lead could be followed.

[-] 5 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

It'll be more of the same no matter who we elect. We can put the fear of God in the politicians only by putting it into their masters first. What does Wall St fear? Class consciousness. A one day general strike might get the ball rolling.

Forget the election. Obama will be a little better but never can be good enough if he wants to get elected. A majority of Americans are fools and that's why the Wall St rulers aren't worried about that general strike.

No god or hero will save us. If we wanna be saved we'll have to save ourselves. Wake up your neighbor. Don't worry too much about who gets elected. Until a critical mass of us get good and mad about the Wall St plutocrats, the politicians won't pay attention to us anyway.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Hmmm, this idea keep cropping up, it has legs!! - We have to do it ourselves, bypass the corporations and save ourselves. Ya, people need to be convinced but if things get any worse they will start to see the light.

We can gradually start using an alternative economy, and over the years it will grow until , thinking wishfull, Wall Street has no more of our money to play with.

We can produce a lot of what we need locally, food for sure, we can install rooftop solar to produce our own energy, and electric cars can be had by getting the local garages to convert the cars we have now [there is a guy around here who does that], and even manufactured goods.

As for Obama, I keep having this fantasy that maybe he is waiting for his 2nd term to go for it and do what he knows is right. More wishfull thinking I suppose.... I had such high hopes in 2008, silly me being hopefull again.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

We launched alternative economy in the sixties. It's actually grown a lot in the forty four years since NIxon was elected and started the reaction against common sense and decency. But that reaction has grown into the Tea Party at the same time. The trolls are much more visible than the good guys.

There's still a lot more activity needed. Withdrawal into an alternative is much too passive to win the peace. But it's a good place to hedge the longshot bets. A desert or mountain retreat is my longtime fantasy.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

have the strike on the election

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Excellent. I absolutely believe this description of current state of affairs in the use of private sector contractors. I would love to see your solutions implemented, but agree that it is unlikely. Some efforts to address the mgmt/worker inequity at these corps might be acheivable.

Cutting the defense budget will be critical.

There is no other option.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the real work is in the killing and concurring

[-] 4 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

" Defense" spending is one thing but the majority of jobs in the military complex are a huge waste. I live in an area surrounded by several military bases and know so many people that do nothing all day except send dirty jokes via email to each other and actually contribute very little, if anything, to their department. They vote Republican of course. I'd like to share a personal experience that I had with a gov't contract on a military base. They hired me to design a very elaborate landscape for 3 of their base complexes. The cost of the entire project was in the triple digits. When I submitted my proposal, they barely looked at it, handed it back and asked me to add another 50 thousand to it by the end of the day. They didn't care how I did and handed me a credit card and asked me to pay myself a rather large sum by the end of the week. Red flag! 5 months later, after the job was complete and I had just about all but died from all the labor intensive work and oversight, etc.., they hired a huge contractor to come in and destroy ALL of my work - including digging up an entire parking lot that we had just finished that week and had someone else submit a new bid for the following year. It was very clear to me that I had been used to justify their wasteful budget for the following year. They didn't care one bit about that job that I had taken so much pride in doing. The chief architect was shocked that I had done all that work with my small company and said, ' I can't believe you even showed up to do the job!". When I told them that, as a tax payer, I was offended and very angry that they used me to waste Americans tax dollars, they immediately had all of their lawyers and OSI officers invite me to a meeting and they kept saying, ' We hope you haven't lost faith in your government, please tell us that you haven't". When I told them that I was going to my local TV news station to report this waste, they got really upset, begged me not to mention their names and offered me another 1500 dollars to keep my mouth closed. I was told that anytime a new Colonel or General is appointed that they change everything ( inside and outside) for them. That probably isn't the whole truth but even if it was, that's still wasteful and very unnecessary spending. Does a General really need blue upholstery vs brown in order to do his job well? Folks we are talking about several millions of dollars thrown in the toilet on every single military base several times a year. If a particular department was only allowed 5 million in their budget this year, then they will find a way to increase that budget by Sept 30 by hiring someone like myself to essentially do nothing. I was not a seasoned gov't contractor at the time that I did my job so I was naive and actually showed up but apparently, many contractors don't even show or they do a really crappy job and don't even care because they know the game. Is it any wonder that many bases are in shambles with run down buildings, etc...? Many military families live in homes that resemble ghettos- lead paint, asbestos included. Oh and I should also mention that I hired two soldiers to work with me part time and I had to fire both of them due to excessive alcohol use, drug use and sheer laziness/sleeping on the job. Apparently, they only drug test when they enter the military and not after they are in...so I was told.
Homeland security is a farce. I've met more folks who work for them who make a LOT of money and do hardly anything at all. I was thinking the other night, while listening to Romney that when a Republican says they are going to create jobs, they must mean military jobs because that's really the only way to create them in a country where most everything is outsourced. They never do say what kind of jobs do they? Even if they built a Romney Dam, how many currently unemployed Americans are skilled and willing to work construction?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Sounds pretty depressing.

thx

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

How much can we cut the education budget before we cause massive layoffs?

Huh? Oh, too late? Never mind.

Cops? No? Firefighters? Oops?

Do a search on "lilypad bases"

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I support expanding investments in education, 1st responders, Epa, food, infrastructure, And so forth.

Lily pad bases I suppose is our current strategy to engage militarily. I want military reduction and I can't say if this new approach will facilitate that.

Seems unlikely but anything is possible. What do you think.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Well, it is all being added ON TOP OF the old stuff. We seem to be trying to manage the world by having these little subversive enterprises around the globe to export our own version of terrorism, destabilization and other mischief.

Apparently we have been creating these and hiding them from the public for some time. They don't seem to begin and end with any mission that can be defended to the public.

Military never shrinks itself. Gates seemed to be suggesting a major reduction in order to strengthen our economy. We should have been investing half of the Defence budget in infrastructure because we are well behind several other countries and losing ground. The irony is that in the past, our investment in infrastructure has correlated exactly with GDP growth until back fraud became our leading industry. Might want to try that instead.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The 2 parties benefit from the MIC but I believe that it is more likely that the dems will follow through with the reduction of def spending than the repubs.

I would also submit that the larger more costly deployments should be eliminated 1st and the lily pad strategy may be the plan to do just that.

Get the new smaller deployments in place and then use their existence as a reason to eliminate the larger more costly bases.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I agree with your first comment but I see little basis for your optimism in the latter part. Would that it were so. We will only see when a significant cut happens. I expect both parties to sell out prior to going "off the cliff". I favor going off it and THEN negotiating with input from the people of the proposals to replace the sequester. I am afraid that the sequester itself may look good in the rear view mirror.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I wish there was somne way to have input from the people.

Perhaps massive protests might facilitate that, but seems unlikely.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

My suggestion (months ago) was carefully targeted flash mobs across the country. Hit quick with a short heads-up to the press. Give them their story and videos and split before a confrontation with police. Nobody gets hurt, but the message is a stream of incidents in the press? Sometimes serially, sometimes several places with the same issue at the same time, sometimes in a pattern. There are endless possibilities. Unfriend black bloc types or other trouble makers so they aren't invited to the party.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Great idea. Surprised it didn't get support.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

That's why Mitt says I deserve the big bucks. I create unpaid internships for demonstrators.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah.

[-] -1 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

Police and fire are largely LOCAL or STATE control, dipschit.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

There are block grants e.g. COPS program etc. "Crossover votes from moderate Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe have allowed some legislation to pass. In August 2010, the two were the only Republicans to vote with Democrats on a bill to give $10 billion to prevent layoffs of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and others."

"One of the biggest weaknesses has been state and local governments, which have laid off 450,000 Americans. These are teachers and cops and firefighters. Congress should pass a bill putting them back to work right now, giving help to the states so that those layoffs are not occurring,"

EPI: Loss Of Government Jobs In Current Recovery Contrasts Sharply With Other Recent Recoveries. The Economic Policy Institute stated that if public sector employment had increased the way it did in previous recoveries, "there would be 1.2 million more public-sector jobs in the U.S. economy today" and "these extra public-sector jobs would have helped preserve about 500,000 private-sector jobs":

Average 2011 GDP growth of states which elected GOP governors in 2010: 0.84% Average 2011 GDP growth of states which elected Dem governors in 2010: 1.65%

[-] -3 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

Stop posting your leftist tripe here. The whole reason we have problems is because we send massive tax dollars to Washington, they take half of it for "administration" of programs (aka wine and cheese parties) and then send the rest back to states with strings attached. Everything the federal gubment manages turns to schit. If you haven't figured that out for yourself yet, you have an IQ lower than an imbecile.

The EPI is a bunch of f'n commies who couldn't find their butts with two mirrors and a flashlight. Just look at the idiots who run it starting with that idiot Trumka: http://www.epi.org/about/board/

I couldn't give two schits what the EPI says. They're hacks. PERIOD. You want to compare states by color? Kalifornya, Illinois, Michigan and New York are all f'd up beyond control and they've been donkey blue for decades. Your solution to every problem is to print more money and debase our currency because you're economically illiterate.

Now, kindly GFY in the eyeball and STFU.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Since your alias just showed up in the last 15 minutes, relatively speaking, you get out. If you would use a single moniker so you had any reputation at all maybe someone would listen to you. I certainly don't.

[-] 1 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

Are you high (again)?

Uneasy: Joined Aug. 26, 2012

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Why are you so nasty & disrespectful. Is your arguments so weak you can't discuss using civil, respectful facts.?

[-] 2 points by Clicheisking (-210) 1 year ago

The military is obsolete. It's time is past. How can we work for world peace if we have a huge military?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

not easy. but we should work for world peace whatever size our military is. but again I support big military cuts!

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

build infrastructure
add teachers
yes - some of those $150,000/year enginerring jobs will become $50,000/year
not good news, but necessary
another idea-
for every $100 not going to defense,
subsidize the shifted workers by $25
AND of course tax the 1%

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'll buy that approach.

Thanks.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

im confuse by the $150,000 engineering jobs to $50,000 what jobs are you talking about

[-] 0 points by shooz (26673) 1 year ago

We have this to consider too, if we are to survive.

http://www.ted.com/talks/vicki_arroyo_let_s_prepare_for_our_new_climate.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TEDTalks_video+%28TEDTalks+Main+%28SD%29+-+Site%29

We are not planning for a future of global warming, and the time to get started is getting late.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Probably hundres of billions....but without sacrificing anything...and just doing what the army is telling the government...guaranteed 3 billion. This is the ridiculousness of the military industrial complex right now:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/?hpt=hp_c1

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I've seen lot's of this kinda congressional waste.

Gonna be tough to stop this.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

I hear ya.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

Even if they do create layoffs it should be done. the point of these jobs should be to provide a service that improves the quality of life. If they're creating wasteful jobs they should eliminate them and replace them with productive jobs with retraining if necessary.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ok. I can get behind that.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Perhaps we should just recommission the troops to the board rooms of Wall Street and Big Biz.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Troops are lessof a problem than the defense industry workers.

We will cut troop levels as we just did (slightly) and through attrition we will have fewer troops and lower costs.

The corps that make weapons systems will threaten to lay people off and do so as revenge, so those workers must be considered.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago
[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well done W! Clearly even some repubs have to admit the truth that the repub party puts their own interests above the country.

And the vote of military servicemen/women has been moving towards Dems since 2004.

There is hope.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The vote from military has NOT been moving towards Dems at all. Where did you get this? All the military people you know who are voting for BO, which most of them realize is a vote for more war.

Most will vote R simply because they dont like Dems, and the ones that dont will be voting for Ron Paul because he was the only person in the primaries that wants to end the wars.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I got it from some news source that analyzed the 2004/2008 returns by district.

Most military people know repubs start wars and have no regard for the troops. They remember the lack of body armor (that fams had to buy) They remember low protection hummer armor, they remember the filibuster of veterans jobs bill, They remember repubs extending tour of duties to 15 months.

And our service people know that Pres Obama has resisted the republican right wing wacko war mongers pressure to invade Iran.

So that is why the military vote will continue to move to dems.

Among other reasons.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Stating you heard it somewhere makes you as bad as bad as FOX an MS. Where's the link?

PS- you have never been in the service, have you?

I can assure you no on is voting for the guy who turned the USA into a battlefield.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Attempting to get my personal info is inappropriate.

You don't have to accept my contention. You never have. Why start now.?

I gave you real reasons why the service members would support dems, I would also add the regular dem policies that benefit the 99% of course benefits those servicemembers. They know repubs serve the 1%

How has Pres Obama turned the country into a battlefield? How IS the country a battlefield.?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I understand what you are saying, Im simply saying the military doesnt see things your way.

You may want to speak from experience, or at least post a link, if you are going to make statements about other people's views.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I have an opinion. In this case based on analysis I've seen in written news.

I can express it (even without a link). You don't have to accept it, (you don't/won't anyway)

I believe I offered good facts as to why the vote is moving towards the dems.

I should say that the military vote may not reach 50% for dems this time (nor did it reach 50% in the last 2 cycles) The point is there was a time not too long ago that dems got around 10 - 20% if they were lucky.

So please do not think I am saying the dems will WIN the military vote. I only suggest it is moving towards the dems.

To clarify.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I doubt Obama gets more than 10%, I dont know a single person in the military who would vote for him, and I know quite a few.

And consideration was killed with his NDAA bullshit.

It doesnt matter to me who they vote for, Im simply tired of people making baseless claims that arent backed up with links or any kind of personal experience.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I offered real facts that military servicemembers would consider (like the filibuster of vet jobs bill by repubs)

You offered you limited experience with a few service members. I don't think it is surprising that an anti Obama partisan republican (YOU) would know only anti dem partisan servicemembers.

This Pres has not used the indef det authority! This Pres has eliminated more than half the indef det cases (in gitmo) that your boy Bush created.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

So you are still clinging to the "not used it" card.

Thats awesome. You're a real agent for change.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No your repubs who created the policy in 2002, used it ever since, wrote the law 2010, are playing politics.

Pres Obama has NOT violated our rights (like your repubs) because Pres Obama has not used the repub created authority.

If Pres Obama vetos the def budget, or doesn't appeal the indef det case he would be doing what the repubs want. Handing them a campaign issue. Instead he protects our rights and beats therepubs at their own game.

So If Pres Obama is to be successful at defeating the repub political game and repeal the violation of our rights he must get re elected.

IMHO

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

At this point Im disgusted with myself for wasting so much time doing this.

Have a nice day.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think the appeal was probably politics. In this scared shit right wing country you can't look weak on terrorism if you wanna be reelected and repeal ndaa as well as eliminate all nuclear weapons.

Right?

What marine held for 10 days are you talkin about?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

So the president is playing politics with our most basic rights?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

What am I lying about.?

Libya was not an invasion like the right wing war mongers still want.

Indef det. He HASN'T used it. He is ending all cases. Opinion:He will end the law.

Turkey, what are you right about. That we will invade?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

How can you possibly have the opinion that he would end it, when a judge already ended it, and they fuckin appealed it?

It was ended. Gone. Done. HE brought it back.

Why are you so fuckin dense on this? What are you so afraid of?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Indef det: Already addressed , refer to my previous response.

Libya: All over. We avoided another repub 1/2 million troop invasion that would have lasted 10 years and slaughter a million Libyans.

Turkey: No prob. We're gonna let themdeal with Syria. No major invasion. No major US military killing like repubs war mongers are pressuring for.

Iran: We have successfully resisted the right wing war mongers (here & Isreal) pressure to invade before the election. Sancyions have been part of that resistance. I assume Iran(Russia, China) will not let them hurt the Iranian people.

Gitmo: is almost done. It has taken much longer but Pres Obama is clearly eliminating the remaining cases Bush left over. It would have been sooner if repubs had not obstructed and withheld the money to do so.

Ok?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Indef Detention: You lie.

Libya: saying it wasnt an invasion is a cop out. It was an attack. It was an act of war. You lie.

Turkey; Time will tell. No way to tell who is right or not, but if we look at history, chances are I will be.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well using it is a big part my objection and a big part of the problem. And the fact that this Pres is ending those cases that Bush created is also important to me.

This Pres will end this crime by continuing to eliminate the cases left over by Bush, and this Pres will not create new ones.

In addition this Pres WILL eliminate the republican written law!

Repubs would (and have) do the exact opposite.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Actually it was already eliminated, and Obama made sure to appeal it. So you are wrong. Again.

Obama turned Libya into another neoliberal paradise. So you are wrong on that too.

And we are sending troops to Turkey to help them with their new bombing campaign against Syria. So thats another new development in the neolib/con world they live in.

Sanctioning Iran to the point where they will have to fight back is another classic neocon trick that he's using.

Gitmo is far from done, one executive order to close it is all it needs. We have exec orders for war, but not for peace.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

That makes 2 of us. You partisanship is most disgusting and your clearly not willing to listen to logic & reason.

Peace, Good luck in all you good efforts.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I remember, I was cheering too, & I was disapointed when they appealed.

Doesn't change the realities I mentioned, Heain't used it, & he is ended Bushes leftovers.

And it doesn't change my opinion that he will get it repealed.

Sorry. we disagree.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

You are totally blinded by your loyalty to this man. What would you consider kidnapping that Marine and holding him for 10 days?

IT WAS ALREADY REPEALED.

So then, if you think like this, what was the reasoning by Obama admin for appealing it?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I have no fear. I believe that the indef det can be brought back every tear even if the case was not appealed.

I believe Pres Obama will repeal the law because his actions show he does not support it. He ain't used the authority, and is ending all the cases Bush left over.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

His actions show he DOES support it, even wants it. A judge struck it down. You dont remember the cheering on this site, and occupy pages all over?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

I take no credit, 90% of the things I post I heard on Randi Rhodes, and the rest on others.

http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html

http://normangoldman.com/listen/

http://www.ringoffireradio.com/

http://www.gottavote.org/en/?choose-state=true

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

True. But you can take credit for posting it here.

Good job.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Awe, shucks...

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

LOL. Alright, don't let it get to your head.

It's just a post.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Solar, wind, hydrogen, green tech!

Made in AMERICA!

Phones and computers made in AMERICA!

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Excellent ideas. These ARE gonna be the industries of the future, and the place for displaced defense workers.

Other areas as well, including starting small businesses. Healthcare, education, and maybe even manufacturing.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Hell yeah! Bring it back!

Union Made in AMERICA!

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"There is power in the union"!

"waitin' for the great leap forward"! BB

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

"There is power in the union"! Just ask a Corp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orlE6bVKzE0

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah that one is deep & classic.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Music is transcendental.

That's why they killed punk.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah. & because they didn't like the profit potential as you eluded to earlier.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Because punk was angry, direct, and looking up at the 1%!

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Exactly. Questioned the powers that be like no one before, or since.

That's why I loved it.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

punk was junk. killed by a uninterested public. "they" didnt kill it, the free market did by choosing not to buy or listen to it.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

You probably have no idea what you're blabbering about, but I do.

Staid, boring, unimaginative, unexciting, and rip-off rock was the problem. And fat, lazy, rich and greedy record companies were too.

Punk shook them up and they had the money and fear to sandbag it.

Nevertheless, Punk's influences could not be resisted, and has crept into all current music.

So, suck on that, punk!

[-] -2 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

it was ( is ) monica that does the sucking, just ask bill, or hillary.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

"it's was"?

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

COSTA MESA, Calif has their own idea about what to do with the Veterans but not everyone agrees; personally I think they should stop sending them to wars based on lies in the first place and let them go into more productive fields before they even join the military; which they could do if they had a more rational economic system.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/advocates-cities-passing-rules-targeting-homeless-071036325.html

[-] 0 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

He's right about Mitt being good for nothing when it comes to taking care of the troops and it is unusual and good to see a Republican break ranks and endorse a Democrat but Obama ain't no damn good either.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think Mitt considers servicemembers (who don't pay taxes) and veterans (who get fed benefits) as part of the 47% that do not want to take responsibility for themselves.

They are "takers": as Ryan called them.

I think think Dems are always better for the working class. Repubs are great for the corp 1% military defense contractors.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

The Democrats seem better for the working class but they gradually become more like Republicans when it comes to catering to the corporations that finance campaigns for both parties which is why we need more alternative media investigating and more parties and boycott candidates propped up by corporate propaganda.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Agreed. I support breaking up the media conglomerates, and more use of independent, citizens journalists (internet facilitates this)

I support election/campaign reform that would allow for real 3rd party access.

The dems profound failure is drifting right for 30 years (like the country) & caving in to support conservative policies that hurt the 99% & serve the 1%.

Still the dems are our best hope at reform & slowing the right wing wacko 1% conservative policies.

It is up to us to pressure all pols to pass laws that serve the 99% and perhaps lay the ground work for 3rd party access, or the new system we hear so much about.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

I used to think that but every time I have supported a Democrat in the past they become more like the Republicans and have come to the conclusion that we need to support third party candidates no matter what. This isn't the only thing that needs to be done but it is part of it. If there is a strong showing they will at least try to do a better job giving us token reform which won't be enough so additional follow up will be necessary and instant run-off elections and more ballot issues should be pushed etc. Fortunately the people in the right agree and may be supporting Gary Johnson who I'm not fond of but he is better than the establishment.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Just saw Johnson on cable. I think anyone who likes his agenda should vote for him.

And I agree about how the Dems have caved in to support conservative policies.

The difference has to be (& maybe is these days) is us. WE must create a growing, robust movement supporting policies that benefit the 99%. If we pressure all pols for reform we can make the difference.

That is what has been missing in recent history.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

Agreed we need to do what we can to inform as many people on the issues and wake up many of the complacent people. the "Expand the Debate" segments being done on Democracy Now could help this a lot by showing how it could be done although they could be improved on by adding additional issues as well instead of limiting to the copy of the existing debates but it is one of many steps in the right direction that can be taken.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'll check it out.

thx

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Wrong!

No Teddy Bear for you!

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 1 year ago

Lay them off, we'll all be better off. Proceed with:

The Demobilization

A hundred thousand men, costing the taxpayers a hundred million francs, live as well and provide as good a living for their suppliers as a hundred million francs will allow: that is what is seen.

But a hundred million francs, coming from the pockets of the taxpayers, ceases to provide a living for these taxpayers and their suppliers, to the extent of a hundred million francs: that is what is not seen. Calculate, figure, and tell me where there is any profit for the mass of the people.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=956&chapter=35428&layout=html&Itemid=27#a_1409321

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I prefer minimizing layoffs. But I know there will some. Everyone will find work though so layoffs should not be a deterent.

Whats with the francs? Isn't that a defunct currency? Are you an elderly Frenchman?

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 1 year ago

LOL No, Bastiat was. He wrote that around 1850

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Aaah. Very intelligent of you. It is certainly an appropriate bit.

Thanx

[-] 1 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

Layoff as many bureaucrats as possible. We need less paper, policy and bureaucracy. The Dept of Energy produces no energy. Dept of Agriculture produces no food. They all just get in the way of everyone those bureaucrats in the beltway don't live in the real world. Most of DC needs to go back into the private sector instead of bothering everyone. Those freakin congressional staffers, executive branch officials, politicians, paper pushers and GS-15's are USELESS.

Swiss Francs maybe.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I support oversight of food production, energy production, and I know my govt is the only authority able to do it.

I certainly support eliminating waste in govt. But I do not support letting business run wild without accountability and oversight by the people (using our govt)

Otherwise food will wind up poisoned and energy production would mean massive pollution in the name of profit.

[-] 1 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

Oversight means getting yer ass out there and inspecting it. Not having 15 admin assistants and powerpoint chart makers for every guy in the field.

There isn't accountability. The gubment is too busy creating "positions" for uneducated hacks and paper pushers that can't make it in private industry. The gubment buzzwords today are all about "process and policy", not technical details.

The bureaucracy is threatening democracy. Civil servants (silly servants) sleep in their cubes and collect a paycheck.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I support cutting waste/fraud/& abuse, but bureaucracy does not threaten democracy, the domination of 1% plutocrats does.

Insults against decent, hard working, American, public sector workers is meaningless and misplaced blame.

Blame the corp Oligarchs & the conservative policies they push for the problems we deal with.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Reports of military spending in South America shows that Brazil and Columbia INCREASED their military budgets in 2009, and they are the most closely aligned with the USA.

Venezuela, on the other hand, reduced its military budget by 25% in 2009.

Therefore, the USA-alignment is causing increased military spending worldwide; Resisting the US hedgemony results in less military spending

Links - 2009 Venezuela , Brazil Columbia military spending: http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5411

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) : http://www.sipri.org/

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I don't doubt that. It is an unfortunate fact. We must step back from then fear mongering that has been used since we exploited the 9/11 attacks.

We must then change our approach at foreign policy. We must cut the defense budget. Eliminate all nuclear weapons.

So much to do.

1st change the posture of fear and war mongering.

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Yes, that is the right thing to do.

However, I have to point out that it isn't going to happen until we get the Elites and the cabal of corporate powers out of power.... after all, THEY are the ones who are pushing this kind of militarism. They have plans to continue, and expand it, far into the future.

OWS first has to raise awareness and when enough people agree with us then we MIGHT be able to change the leadership with voting... it isn't going to happen this year. We have a lot of work to do by 2016.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Agreed. We should be aiming for 2014. There are leaders in congress who can make a difference.

Replace pro 1% conservatives w/ pro 99% progressives & protest for the change that will benefit the 99%

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

I am overstepping my national boundaries, sorry about that! I forgot that the USA has a different election cycles - 2014 is the Congressional elections?

I was also assuming that the only candidates on this years election ballots would be either Reps or Dems, but there are others on the lead up votes in the individual states and so on if I am getting it right. It is a complex system!!

I will read up on it a bit.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

There is always some election near. You definitely have the right idea. We must attempt change with every election. This cycle will bring little change.

But that means we must make an extra, larger effort at massive protests to pressure all pols to pass laws that benefit the 99%.

[-] 0 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

Things may be looking up friend since Romney has surged quite high in the polls from the first debate

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Sarc time is it?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No sir. I mean that to the bottom of my heart.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Thanks, your positive energy spreads. - I replied to the wrong post - I was referring to WeThePeop's comment - sounds like any talk of "Obama/Romney same thing" gets Reps elected... which is worse by far.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Wethepeop annoys me but good luck to him in all his good efforts.

I think of course he has no good efforts so......

Whatever.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

You can instruct DOD not to layoff. They can just cut weapons system programs. Clearly the biggest part of the budget to grow in DOD is the braod range of weapons systems and contractors.

I'm guessing it would be good to cut 50% of the Defense COntractors that are doing service work as just assorted office workers, program support, analyst, computer guys, logistics, and etc. To me there is a big bubble in defense work where a lot of guys are pulling in a lot of dough from uncle sam just to take advantage and because they haven't worked in other industries. Anyway I think there is a lot of guys contracted to the government that are coasting. And the contracts are twice as espensive as in house government jobs. And retiring military people set themselve up as contractors in effect inventing their future, creating income, because of their contacts.

This post is a big can of worms.

If you track the federal budget going to DOD and Defense Contractors... DOD has gone up 200% in 12 years, COntract Payments have gone up 300%. Plus how many countries are we in? Who is in favor of more covert actions to destroy foreign governments? Who wants to try to control the world by killing it's people?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think we have stop overthrowing govts that we don't like. I think we are actually doing that less than we used to.

But in terms of def budget I agree with you on the waste/fraud/abuse you suggest.

A lot of money can be saved.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

From your post -- "The defense budget for 2012 exceeds $600 billion, nearly equaling the combined defense spending of the rest of world."

That's the only sentence that you need to know about the MIC. Dollars for Death. War is Big Business. And what's good for Big Business is good for America, right?

What if the DoD budget were cut back to a reasonable amount of, say, half (10% of Fed budget instead of current 20%)? Those warbucks could be used to do a lot of good things instead of funding stupid MIC wars and US military presence around the globe that results in our being almost universally hated and despised.

But crapitalism is a hungry baby that needs feeding, so what's a few sidewinder bazookas and misanthropic fearmongers here or there gonna hurt, right?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It is a desperate situation we have created.

We MUST cut the budget. We must change our outlook, approach, posture, focus, priorities.

It is overwhelming and goes to the core of who we are. We MUST reject the aggressive "I gotta be better then you and everyone else" The Fear of "If I don't do it someone else will" mentality has to end.

It's profound and difficult. We'll see if we can do it before we blow the planet up.

Peace

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Something Obama talked about in 2008 was creating jobs by building up the renewable energy infrastructure, including modernising the electricity grid.

If there is some unemployment due to defence spending cuts, a little bit of that former military money could be used for startup money for green energy , and that would create a lot of jobs. In other words, shift defence spending to green energy - the difference would be electricity rather than killing, which sounds civilised to me.

It has been shown that green energy produces 10 times the number of jobs "per unit of energy produced" as compared to the fossil fuel industry.

By the way, about Obama's one green energy initiative - he was blindsided with the Solyndra debacle, which failed for "reasons other than the viability of green energy" such as previous debt, etc. If the facts got out about that I bet you would see big oil interferance behind the scenes

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The Dem stimulus (that repubs watered down, & cut in half) included maybe $90 Billion for green tech. It was used for about 3 dozen different companies. 2 or 3 of those went bankrupt. But the others (and related indutries) created more than 1 million jobs.

That was with a watered down green tech investment effort.

You have the right idea. Defense companies will probably get involved with green tech as well. So yes I support transferring defense workers to green jobs.

Excellent.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

1 million jobs eh? Wow, and on what was basically a failed effort.

Again, that money was all handed over to private corporations and it ended up being a very inefficient exersize, probably due to "pigs at the trough" [see first post here by agkaiser].

I realise this is going to sound very "socialist" but if the government had hired their own engineers and set up solar and wind power installations on government land holdings using workers hired directly, like the Roosevelt projects did, that $90 Billion would be producing a whole lot of clean wattage right now, and for at least the next 25 years!!

I would limit the private enterprise involvement to the production of the equipment - they can compete to see who can produce it cheapest, but we have to watch them like a hawk to make sure they are not bribing those who decide on who gets the contracts.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

ok. I can see your point. I think there is real value in what you are saying.

And I agree the govt can do things better than the private sector sometimes.

New tech being one of them.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Well, I admit, I was just tossing private enterprise a bone there about equipment. Maybe new tech is exactly what government should be doing.

In fact, I was thinking of point to the old USSR as an example of where government can leading edge science and technology as well or better than private enterprise but I thought maybe Americans would take it as an insult... I am a Cautious Canadian eh. :)

I love this forum b/c I never found a good way to discuss issues like these directly with Americans before, its been great

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I don't think thee defunct USSR is the best example.

But big tech jobs have been done well by govt (space, computers, etc..)

So we can allow govt to start then hand off to business (if we get private business to commit to good American jobs.)

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Yes, I would agree with both points - the USSR did collapse and its really not worth examining why, and it is true that govt can get things started and then the private sector should have a kick at the can to see how efficiently they are able to do it.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

As long we make sure the workers share the big profits not just the execs!

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Consider the profit factor - when private corporations do the jobs there is that profit factor that goes to the company but if government does the job directly then that amount of money is not spent the taxpayers ;

Put another way, the cost of a govt run project is basically materials + labor but the cost of contracting it out is materials + labor + profit for the private company, and that profit adds, typically, 40% to the cost of doing the job.

{Edit later - oops, sorry, I got going and completely ignored your point - hopefully the laborers are paid well in either case

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I agree with you regarding profit adding large costs, & I would submit much of the profit goes to obscenely high exec compensation/lobbying/advertising & such. Certainly not workers.

Govt might pay workers better & lobbying, advertising, & exec compensation is not out out of control, but we do have to watch govt closely for waste/fraud/abuse & corruption.

It's a balance & an effort to spend our money wisely.

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Yes it is - government has a duty to spend tax dollars wisely, but they don't, they siphon it off to their friends who can help get them elected and so on.

It has a lot to do with "who controls our government" and I have to keep pointing out Iceland where they kicked their govt. out and put average people in - Government should REPRESENT the peoplel

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It is amazing what Iceland accomplished. Would if we could do that!.

Best thing is to watch govt closely, keep people informed, & involved (mandatory voting for all)

That is our best hope of having the best govt serving the 99%

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

"Informed and involved" instead of keeping secrets and spying on citizens and telling us what will be. One thing that drives "bully governments" is when they are doing things they know we don't like, and when they are corrupt and paying off their friends, and when gov.t agencies are colluding with corporations, and election tampering. [oops, thats 4 things[

Venezuela had a federal election yesterday and 80% of the people voted. I think it shows that the people are involved - and it might have a lot do to with Chavez giving weekly radio broadcasts, telling the public everything they are doing. The elections are not complex insider-driven party centric.

Both the Reps and the Dems have been doing "corporate government" - by, for and of the corporations - for several decades now. In America it is near impossible to get a popular choice for President elected - the parties control everything. The people feel they have no say; voting is"indirect" [electoral college] and sometimes Florida judges declare a stop to the vote count!!

In Venezuela they post the actual number of voters who voted for each Pres. candidate.

The Dems and Reps are two sides of the same coin, they are both corporate controlled governments - and so people do not vote.

Sorry VQ, but I think anything that is MANDITORY speaks to more bullying - "give us a real choice where at least one choice is SOMETHING WE WANT.! [sorry for shouting, I got excited, lol]

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We certainly need Pres Obama to stick it to the right wing. Of course I submit that it is up to us to provide pressure through protest.

We can't expect Pres Obama or any one pol/party to do everything for us.

It's up to us.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Independents, & 3rd party candidates would be the best progressives. Oursystem is so screwed up it is difficult to get them elected. but we must try.

Dems have serious probs, mostly their 30 year rightward drift and caving in to support conservative policies. But any decent progressive in congress is dem or caucuses w. dems. So of the existing pols it is the dems that must be dragged fr the right and made to serve the 99%

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Well it is very true, the best hope right now is with Dems. And I still hold out hope that Obama's 2nd term, being "lame duck", with stick it to the conservative elements within.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

replace pro 1% conservatives w/ pro 99% progressives, & protest for change that benefits the 99%.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Here Here!! Government for, by and of the 99%

For sure it is the conservative types that do the most harm... I am just not so sure that Dems are much different than Republicans - where do you find the progressive candidates? Independants, third party...?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yes we disagree. But there is no reason to settle our differences. We are allowed to disagree.

It is likely mandatory voting will never happen. The 1% plutocrats do not want it. It is their highest priority. Just look at them trying to suppress millions of votes this cycle.

Good luck to you in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Thank you, thats very thoughtfull, same to you.

We don't have to agree on the process, on how to get there, but it is important for OWS as a group to agree on the things we want, such as getting that 1% out of power so we the people can have the government we deserve, one that does what is best for the 99% and that is guided by the morality the 99% believes in.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh yes definitely, there must be a "none of the above" option. And an option to write in. & to not pick anyone in a given office.

No prob. I know that most peoplewill votefor someone. And even with mandatory voting there will still be people who don't go to the polls.

But we will get upwards of 90% turnout. And that is what we need.

Peace

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

I just have to post yesterday's federal election results from Venezuela:

Turnout was one the highest in Venezuela’s history, with 80.94% of the 19,119,809 registered voters in Venezuela participating in the election; Chavez received a total of 7,444,082 votes to 6,151,154 for his right-wing rival.

Venezuela is therefore a model for "how to encourage large voter turnout".

There is nothing wrong with us disagreeing, it is how differences are settled that is important! [I feel queezy about anything manditory]

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Mandatory voting does not have to be bullying. We have laws telling us to do all kinds of things nothing wrong with mandatory voting.

It's what the corp 1% fear the most.

I submit Chavez is so popular and has 80% turnout because he has made real progress helping the 99% in Venezuela. He has stood up to corps and won battles against them. I wouldremindyou those corps were part of our corps.

We need a new system, from the ground up, horizontal, with real direct democracy. I support that and that can address the corp 1% domination, the low turnout and the inadequate service of the 99%.

I believe there are smart people working on that right now. In the meantime, the in between we must pressure the existing pols in power for change that will benefit the 99% and perhaps lay the groundwork for the coming new system.

We should grow this movement & protest to create support for the new system and agitate for pro 99% policies. We should at the very least replace pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives.

"It's the only way to be sure"

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 1 year ago

Well I also am frustrated by my friends who refuse to vote...they seem to have "lazy excuses", but I just think that it is better to attract people to the polls than to drag them over and put a pencil in their hand. Maybe I am a bit idealistic.

If there were a LEAST a place on the ballot to say "I refuse to vote for either/ any of these choices because my views are not being represented" - and then the number who marked that would be posted along with election results - then it would take away those non-voting types excuse about "why should I vote nothing changes". It would embarrass govt into creating a system that embraces democracy.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1170) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

The current economic crisis is not a reason to reduce defense spending. Anyone with common sense can see that we spend far more than we need to.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The current economic/unemployment crises should incent us to mitigate any layoffs! But I support major defense cuts in order to incest in job creation/education/health care and so on.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

We could cut it by 75 to 100 %.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

If you say so. 100% may be tough but I'll go along with your effort.

No more war.! jobs not bombs!

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1170) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

The defense industry works with what you give them. Hopefully any job cuts in that industry results in job creation outside of it. What concerns me is how many resources we will be putting into places involved in the TTP trade agreement. I like the roster of countries involved but I don't like all the deregulation that comes with it. We've been down this road before. Our reduced presence in the Mid-east will be followed with a renewed presence in the pacific.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We are most definitely growing our presence and interests in the very populous pacific.

The TTP sounds like a deeply flawed trade deal. I'm not very educated on all the details but since it has negotiated in secret for 5 years I suppose that is understandable.

I support trade, I support exporting American benchmarks for worker rights/pay, as well as strong environmental protection related to all business activity. I also support less shipping around the planet and more local production models.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Wouldn't it make sense to cut the defense expenditures as needed and to pay these people their going rate to do other work tht is actually useful and productive? If the military is to be a jobs program then there are better ways to assure tht "defense" workers keep working.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ok. I'll go with that.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

It's interesting to see Occupiers celebrating the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Tea Party's biggest accomplishment.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Tea party has accomplished nothing. The Bud cntrl act will never be implemented. All they did was behave like spoiled, entitled, children who damaged the full faith & credit of the govt with their taking hostage of the US during the debt ceiling debate.

They succeeded in forcing the tea party downgrade. that is about all.

Are we gonna get a lot of new tea party candidates elected this cycle?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

No, there will be massive layoffs to DoD. That's OK. It needs to happen.

But there also need to be massive layoffs in the Environmental Protection Agency, National Labor Relations Board, USDA, Treasury, NIH, Housing and Urban Development, Fannie, Freddie, Department of Energy, Department of Education, National Endowment for the Arts, etc., etc., etc., and huge cuts to all the entitlement programs (medicare, medicaid, Obamacare, and federal pensions). Everyone needs to take their lumps.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I disagee!

We must expand education, epa, food safety, Nih, housing, energy because they are investments and will create jobsthat we will need to absorb the defense cuts.

Entitlements? nah. These are "earned benefits that Americans paid into! So no we do not cut the programs that help the 99%. We have already taken our lumps! but I everyone should take lumps as the 99% already has. So......

We can cut the corp welfare, and tax deductions, loopholes, shelters for the 1%. They need to take some serious lumps ince they created the current economic crash.

[-] 0 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

Nope. Retirees get paid more on average than they paid into the program over their working lives. That math doesn't work on a ponzi scheme like social insecurity which earns no interest. It's mathematically unsustainable.

Don't know what 1% you are talking about. They are in the process of moving overseas.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Let 'em go! There is no better place to do business than the USA!. We ought to penalize them, ban them from coming back, or doing business here.

Retirees still paid in. Nothing wrong with getting more out. That's why we must encourage more immigration! More jobs/workers as well as eliminating the payroll cap for SS/medicare deductions will resolve any shortfall.

And let's means test the disbursement. No reason to give wealthy peopleSS/medicare is there.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

First you want to ban some business from here, then want more immigration. That is a formula for more unemployment and lower wages. Why would you desire additional labor force growth without first having jobs for those already living here? The SS program is for everyone, rich or poor as long as you pay into it. I am ok with removing the limits, but not in denial of payments to those who paid into the program. Maybe a cap on payment amounts based on income after a certain age. Paying more out than you take in will bankrupt the program .

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The ban of business should not be necessary 'cause business will submit to the worker demands we make. More jobs are of course needed for the additional immigrants who come. But that has always been the case. And this is one reason why immigrants frequently are business starters. They also frequently take any job possible to support themselves and a family. They are usually the hardest working people we have.

Don't be afraid. We will get the added immigrants working.

Open the borders. Let the workers in!!

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

We disagree there. I am not against immigration, but am against open border, uncontrolled immigration. It would be chaos. While true that a lot of immigrants are good workers and fill low paying jobs, but having open immigration swells the labor ranks and forces down wages, while keeping unemployment high. We need to lower the unemployment here first. The people already here need help. Jobs are the number one issue in this country.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well there are lotsa corps with massive amounts of money they can use to hire. (trillions)

They haven't because demand is low. So if we give working/middle class people a tax/debt cut we will see demand rise, & hiring begin. We should also create a living wage with COLA.

There is more we can do to increase hiring and I don't really wanna open the border. Yet! (one day all borders will be meaningless, hopefully)

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Your expecting businesses to hire without demand for product. Does not work that way. When a company hires people, there is a specific need within the company for a specific task. What would they do with these newly hired people if there is no tasks for them to do? If businesses have "certainty" (there's that word again), they will take on risk and build inventory in anticipation of demand. That would create jobs.

Consumers must have a reason to buy (for example: consumer confidence) which then drives hirings. Just making a business hire people does not create demand for their products. I am all for putting people back to work, so i would suggest incentives or tax breaks for hiring full time people, etc.

As for COLA, there has not been much of an increase due to low inflation. So would not use that as an index. That worked fine back in the 70s and early 80s when inflation was an impact to wages.

There will always be borders, property, personal rights, etc.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I do not "expect businesses to hire without demand"! Didn't say it. That's you making things up. Twisting my words. Applying false beliefs to me.

I clearly stated demand is low and must be addressed. I even specified how.

As far as COLA's, Sure the inflation is low now. The concept is for when inflation ain't low. You can't figure that out?

LOL

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

LOL, sounds like you "aint figuring it out". So why even mention COLA? There is no inflation and most economists do not expect any in the foreseeable future. Tax relief is fine, but what kind of debt relief are you talking about. Housing assistance is fine, but no one should be helped out of credit card debt. That is their own mismanagement and we (taxpayers) should not be on the hook for that. Besides, that would create more hardship than you realize, it would hurt most of the population, not just investors or banks. Pensions (public, private, union) and all kinds of things would be impacted. Chill a little, VQ.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Including COLA's is necessary because inflation WILL return! With a vengence and soon!.

Credit card/student loan debt must be reduced if we are going to create the demand we all know must happen if we're gonna have a recovery.

I think whatever reduction/refinance/forgiveness occurs can come out of banksters pockets since they perpetrated the loan shark level credit to certain groups. And those sane banksters created the world economic crash, so that seems fair enough.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Do you have crystal ball that no one else has. Since you seem to know, Where will this inflation come from and when.? Refinance I would support, not forgiveness. That is unfair to all those who have paid their debts. We are not talking about housing, but are talking about personal consumption. So everyone that bought too many things, should just have their credit bills forgiven, ? And then keep everything they received? That is just wrong. People may have been given credit cards with high rates, but to be totally irresponsible in spending is no fault but their own, and not the taxpayers. As for student loans, why not attack the rising cost of schools instead of the debt. If you can not pay for it, then don't go. If you go and make bad choices (art history, etc.) and expect to find a job which will pay you enough to pay your loan, then one is very delusional. Taxpayers should not be burdened with poor personal choices.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I like the homeowner guidelines you listed. We agree!

Credit card issues are more difficult but I start out by saying the current state of cr card laws allows loan shark level interest, unfair interest increases, excessive fines, unreasonable fine print, & therefore much taking advantage of people who do not know better.

It happens! And when it does we know for sure that someone DOES know better. The banks.

So since banks deserve punishment for all the financial irresponsibility in general we should force them to subtract fees, penalties the interest related to that, they should subtract the high interest rate costs to the cr card bills for all working class Americans,

Many Americans have already paid the equivalent of the original principle they charged. Because of the high interest rates banks have made the principle back and are just taking in profit. For those Americans especially they should have the high interest payments applied retroactively to the principle, thereby cutting the principle. The remaining principle should be refinanced at an ultra low interest rate (5-6%)

That's a start.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Maybe a national grace period where one pays against principle only. Average card debt is $5000. Maybe limit the allowable number of cards. Maybe a limit for the total sum dollar limit on all the cards one has, not per card limits. Overspend on one would limit spending on others. We have both seen the customer at the checkout line going through 10-15 cars to find one to charge on. That's just nuts.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm glad in fact we agreed on a good deal. I am here to support the 99%. So I will challenge all comments/users who express support for the banks position. I say again I did not put you in the bankers box but rather your comment that the irresponsible borrowers shouldn't be helped put yourself there.

People do have many cards but banks can't hide behind that. They can see everything and lend only what a person can afford. I think also we should allow personal bankruptcy thesame debt wipe out as corp bankruptcy enjoys.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You have listed decent ideas to limit individuals. I could probably agree. It seems to me cr card companies already determine how much cr to allow. That is where the responsibility lies. They should tighten that up.

But I would be more interested in creating limits on the amount of interest that can be charged. 10% seems high enough. fees and penalties also should be cut and limited.

I also believe any middle class borrower who has payed high interest should have that amount deducted from the principle and have the interest lowered.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

The limits are per card. If you have a lot of cards, that's where people get into difficulty. Some people just have to buy. Some where there needs to be a balance. We face a problem with the way our economy is structured: based on debt. If we limit credit too much, then we have recessions. Now I have a follow up question: after this discussion, do you feel the same way? Do you believe that I am advocating for banks? Please Try not to be so quick to open the divide between us in the begining of a conversation. Also, Sometimes you should try taking an alternate position to generate conversation, even if it is not exactly where you personally stand. It can help to stand in another's shoes to understand the view one sees from there. At the end of our conversation, we actually agreed on quite a few things.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well I think it is important to engage with people who differ in opinion. I thought we were.

I support helping the decent American workers victimized by the irresponsible, criminal banks.

I believe you seem more concerned with using the old chestnut, repub talking point of blaming the victim. You seemed to focus on the "irresponsible borrower". I think that what puts you on the banker side.

In so far as determining which borrower was victimized: I would lean in favor of the borrower in order to help as many people as possible.

What guidelines would you recommend.?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

I would also tend to lean to the person, not the bank. One guideline I would use is second home. Anyone that bought second house in the market and lost, it is what it is. Anyone buying a house to flip or rent to others ( not primary residence ), same thing. But the homeowner who is working, or lost job, then they would qualify, I would support a program that would keep the homeowner in the house ( has to be a set number of years so they just don't leave and make another abandon property) by subsidizing the interest portion of the mortgage, similar to student loan program. As for credit card holders, that is a little more difficult to determine who is just trying to live, and who is a bit out of whack in trying to live a life style they should not be. The housing market needs help. Allowing homeowners to walk away is wrong even when under water. The point of a home is to live in, the investment part is secondary. When people walk, they destroy the rest of the neighborhood, depressing prices and demand further. How's that?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I never said every American buried in debt or under water w/ bad mtg has been victimized.

I am saying we should force banks to address those that are victims.

I never brought up "irresponsible borrowers"! I ain't gonna discuss them. You brought them up, and because the banksters bring them up as well you are towing the line for the banks, carrying their water, and therefore you put yourself in the bankers box, & you position yourself as the banksters advocate.

It is what it is. Lets help our fellow Americans who have been victimized be irresponsible bankers.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Okay. So how would decide who is a victim and who was irresponsible? What would be your guidelines to decide who would be eligible?

Also. Just because one is discussing pros and cons or presenting opinion does not mean they are advocating for a particular side. You do not have to "take sides". If both of us fully agreed, there would be no conversation, just a bunch of bobbing heads.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

If my position supports the people over the banks (people victimized by irresponsible bankers) then I am among the group that supports the 99%.

If your position is that the people have been irresponsible with credit (which is what the bankers claim) then aren't you amongst the banker group.?

Should I pretend you support the people when you are attacking them as irresponsible with credit.?

Should I pretend you don't give the bankers a pass when you ignore their irresponsibility?

I don't put you in a group. You put yourself there. I suppose it is divisive. Does that bother you?. Disagreeing means we are divided by our opinions/positions on a given issue.

Whats the problem.? You don't like the group you have chosen to advocate for. No prob. You can change sides any time you like. Just embrace the concept that the bankers were the ones who have been irresponsible. The people were the victims, and the solution is to make the banks pay down the principle, eliminate the fees/penalties, & cut the rate.

Peace

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Is it my understanding that your position is that all the people who have debt problems are victims of the banks? I am not excusing the bank for their bad practices or policies, rather only the people that were irresponsible with credit. That excludes quite a few people who were responsible but were victimized by the events of the past 3-4 years. Again, just because I am in some disagreement with you does not mean I am advocating for the banks. Not sure where you get that.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well I'm not talking about "their responsible people" You and the banksters are.

"If the wingtips fit" You gotta wear them

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

A question for you: we have had lots of discussions, sometimes we agree in part, a lot of times we disagree. But we hopefully get something out of it. Why is it that if one disagrees with you, they are automatically associated with some group (such as "bankers" in you previous reply? Just wondering, as it seems divisive. When ever I discuss politics, economics, or similar tough subjects with friends, we disagree plenty, but never associate the opinion to a particular group. Just curious, why the labeling?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We are talkin about something different. I started the discussion about the criminal, immoral, unethical lending practices that decent Americans got caught up in. I'm saying we must help our fellow citizens who have been victimized by banks.

I made that point and you changed the subject to some nonsense about people who have been irresponsible. Whaaaaaat? I ain't talkin about that. It's not relevant. I'm talkin about the irresponsible banksters.

So you didn't express agreement with my contention & instead tried to deflect to some fantasy of your fellow Americans who have been irresponsible.

I stand against the banks, You stand against the people.

No biggie. we disagree.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

I guess we are both guilty of digressing from the original post. But you are wrong that I do not stand with the people.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Y have no comprehension problem. You resort to that insult because your arguments are too weak to remain civil, respectful and factbased!

Art history can certainly provide a decent paying job. You just gotta think about it a bit. Not as many jobs as comp programmer but still.

Cr card debt: Many people have been victimized by illegal, immoral, unethical lending practices. At least these decent hard working honest Americans can have banks be forced to forgive the cr card/student loan debt. No effect to you. And just correcting poor banking lending practices.

Why would you be against justice for your fellow americans who have been cheated & taken advantage of.?

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Sometimes i believe we must be discussing different subjects. It is not an insult to suggest you are not comprehending what I am talking about. You seem to react rather than debate. That is a critique, not an insult. You are also missing the points made. I did NOT say that bank predatory practices are not to blame for some of the things wrong. But my point is that irresponsible credit card usage is a big problem, and that is no ones fault but the card holder. Do you at least agree with that?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No one is suggesting taxpayers be burdened with the the debt cutting plan. Banksters would burdened. Is that who you are advocating for?

I think we should definitely force schools to cut tuition. Without a doubt. But cutting the debt (student/cr card) is not about you or the people not in debt. It's about creating demand by getting money into peoples hands.

You seem more concerned about your self and how helping others is unfair to you, rather than how we get those buried by unfair credit card bank practices out from under.

We should be standing with the decent hard working Americans, not with the bankers who hold so many of our fellow citizens in credit enslavement.

Too often I hear people blame the victims of the banks unfair lending practices. Just because you didn't get caught doesn't make those who were caught any more to blame.

The banks are to blame. Helping our fellow citizens out would help all of us because we would be helping the economy we share.

You got a problem with Art History too?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

I have no problem with art history, rather just used it as an example of wrong choice for a good paying job. You do not see a a lot of jobs listed for art history majors with good pay. You still seem to have comprehension troubles.

I was not taking blame away from bank and predatory practices but rather saying it takes two to tango. Let me ask you something. Do you use credit cards with high rates? Do you live on credit with a credit card and thus get buried in debt by making the minimum payment? Probably not. So what do we do with all those who just have no responsibility or accountability. I say give them some better options in payments, etc, but you can not just forgive and forget, and they keep all they purchased. Otherwise everyone would do that and no one would be responsible. You have to have accountability for your actions. That is the point. I'm speaking about both consumers and fraudulent bankers. Do not assume I am just against what you stated. Get the legislature to tighten credit card availability and place lower limits on cards. Limit number of cards a person can have. Require higher credit scores for cards. There is a lot that can be done. But you can not legislate responsibility. And I am not advocating for banks. Sometimes I wonder if you ever read and comprehend instead of react and write.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Anyone that talks Inflation has to be careful. Tuition is Up. medicine and Medical Costs go up like 20% every year over the last 30 years. ATM Fees went up, banking fees are up. Steak and Beef are up. Fish is like $10 lb where I live (up). Pants and shirts at kohls are up.

But you are right the massive inflation from the Growth of Total US Dollars in circulation has not yet appeared. Someone said that Stock Prices and Gas prices are going up because of the printing of US Dollars... and this make sense. If the dollar value goes down, petro prices and stock prices should go up based on valuation.

But never trust the government CPI, basket of goods. I don't need beef anymore, but I'm a little older now. Ramen is good food.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1170) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Why?

[-] 0 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

Cuz we have a government debt equal to $51,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Try to keep up- http://www.davemanuel.com/us-national-debt-clock.php

It's over $53,000 now :)

[-] 1 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

I admit, it's difficult to keep up with how Obama is ruining the country.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/at-white-house-request-lockheed-martin-drops-plan-to-issue-layoff-notices/

Seems like the President doesn't want all those defense contract employees to get their "pink slips" prior to the election...the WARN program was designed to give people who's jobs were going to be cut 60 days notice of their job being terminated or them being laid off. Now the President wants defense contractors to ignore the WARN law until after the election. Niiiiiiiiiiiiice.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We should let the workers be laid off by this corrupt 1% MIC plutocrat corp!?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Aren't you the ones that wanted to cut the defense budget?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yes. Without layoffs! So what?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Were you that specific? Was Obama?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I want to cut the def budget with as little layoffs as possible. I'm sure Pres Obama would prefer as little layoffs as possible.

The only one who wants layoffs is the corps. They claim they must to stay profitable.

I say do not believe them! They lie & lay people off just as an attack on the policy not because they must to maintain profits.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

What happens to companies that don't stay profitable? In general? Usually? Normally? They FAIL. Unless the government determines that they are "too big" to be allowed to fail and then they give them more money.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well I've watched corps make more and more profit without hiring more employees, & even somethat lay people off while profitable.

I've also watched as corps threaten layoffs unrelated to profits but in response to policy suggestion they might not like.

I don't trust them, don't believe them, & do not buy their reasoning.

You believe them? Why?

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

It's not a matter of my belief or not. It's that corps can do whatever they want to and nothing about that is illegal. If you want to start legislating what is moral and what is not, you're opening a can of worms you aren't prepared to deal with.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We can have laws that state they can't fire people when they have obscene level exec compensation! Or if they spend too much on lobbying. Or if they are still profitable, Or if they are outsourcing. We can do all kinda things to control corps.

The corps need to be reminded that it is a priviledge to do business here in the greatest middle class consumer market on the planet. They will treat the American worker properly or they will be banned from doing business here.

We need to grow a bigger pair and tell these greedy selfish plutocrats the people are to be served.

You with me?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

There is a big difference between the middle class consumer market and the labor market. Most middle class consumers can't afford to pay middle class laborers to make their stuff. That is why they buy socks made in Bangladesh at Target.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Whatever. That must change. It's time we stopped manufacturing everything on the other side of the planet and shipping it.

If products are made with inferior worker conditions, or poor environmental conditions slap a tax! I they are shipped a long way there should be an additional tax.

We must punish outsourcing, & reward insourcing. In fact we must tell corps ifyou want to sell here yuo MUST hire here.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

I agree with you to an extent. To do so though would increase the cost of goods that Americans have been getting very cheaply for a very long time. If you tax those goods, it will undoubtedly be a hardship for lower and middle income Americans.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

My preference is manufacturing in America. If we must accept products manufactured outside of the country I prefer it be close!

Certainly not half way around the world because that is inefficient, and pollution heavy.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You cannot compete if you are defeatist and negative. We must force the 3rd world to raise their workers conditions/pay/benefits as well as environmental protection. And we must increase tax/costs based on the distance a product must travel. Here we must keep product costs down by reducing obscene exec salaries.

The difference between Bangladesh & Ecuador is thousands of miles. What are you joking.?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

But why would you buy from one but not the other? What does it matter if it is a few thousand miles closer? They are still jobs being exported.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We should dominate future industries of course. But I surrender NO industries to the Chinese. Nothing sold in America should come from half way around the world. NOTHING!

Maybe South America. That's as far as I would accept.

However, I believe we can manufacture anything here at a competitive price. So I don't have to tell any mother anything.

It CAN be done. I reject the fear being pushed that it can't be done without huge price increases.

I disagree!

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Honestly, what can possibility be the difference to us as Americans if we buy something from Ecuador or from Bangladesh?

And you can't compete with a company that pays someone 35 cents an hour.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You offer good reasons not to do it. I say damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead.

Don't be afraid. You know they want us to be afraid. Fight the fear. We WILL work out the high prices and all other obstacles.

The workers of America demand that we take back our jobs.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Ok. Tell that to the single mom with a few kids that now has to pay a tax on her kids socks or get American made ones that cost a lot more. Just look her right in the eye and say "you WILL work it out."

Unfortunately, things are not so simple to fix. I wish they were. Easy answers are tough to come by.

I think we need get some more tax from the super rich and use that money to make us a leader in future technologies. Let China be the leader in making our socks and underwear. Most Americans would agree that getting some things made on the cheap overseas is not completely bad.

We are much better off conceding some jobs to 3rd world countries but instead become much larger in other tech-rich industries creating things we can easily export. Green energy is one good example, but we need much more than that.

You are right that America has the best workers in the world. That is why we should easily be able to dominate in the industries of the future. That will lead to real growth.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It will create an incentive to manufacture here! Ifprices are too high, corps will be forced to find a way to cut costs/prices iftheywant customers.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Again, I agree to an extent. There is no way prices will not rise substantially though. If John gets $13 an hour to make socks in Indiana and Jing gets 35 cents an hour in China the consumer is going to pay a difference in price. Minimizing corporate greed, which undoubtedly places a huge role, can only help so much when the cost of producing goods will become so much higher.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Don't be afraid! Don't believe the hype. That's a lot of BS corps want you to believe so we just roll over.

We manufacture here just fine. Some corps outsource cause they are just so goddamn greedy they want to increase profit at the expense of people.

It can be done.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

You just said that you would place a tax on goods made outside of the US. That will most certainly raise the price of those goods and lower and middle income Americans buy those goods. That will be very tough on them.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

And when they say "Kiss my ass" and close up shop because all the regulations and restraints placed on them making running a business NOT something they wish to do anymore...how many people do you think will lose their jobs then?

They don't HAVE to do business here. And the harder the government makes it to DO business the way they WANT to, the less companies there will be.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They DO have to do business here.!! There is no place compares with the US middle class consumer market. NONE!!

Don't let them bully you. "It's our world, they're just a squirrel tryin' to get a nut!" JN

I ain't afraid. Why are you.?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The easier government makes it for foreign competition or outsourced products to enter our market - the harder it will be for a completely domestic company/business to get started and remain in business.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I'm not afraid. I'm just stating the obvious. You can deny it all you want.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Defense cuts have been postponed until after the election.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Actually the cuts will still come on time, the pink slips just will not be issued until AFTER the election. Why is that?

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Well, it would have been nice if he had extended the same courtesy to NASA's employees; they were laid off immediately.

[Removed]

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Do you have any actual data to back that claim up?

I don't see how you can cut spending by 50% and not have massive layoffs.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No. I have no plan. I only have the goal! I expect my representatives to do something.

!st attack waste,fraud & abuse. Then eliminate big ticket, expensive useless, military hardware. We gotta move to a small, agile force.

Cut all positions of those people retiring, encourage early retirement.

See where that gets us. Then start again.

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Lol MIC that term makes you soundalike a sad 60's communist propaganda minister. The verbiage you are using doesn't seem to be working to we'll.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"communist"? knee jerk, desperate, name calling! I guess you have no more substance. Using that term (eisenhower warned us) is not the measure of a communist.

If you have no intelligent arguments to make just be an adult, admit defeat, refrain from the childish insults, and give up.

[-] -3 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

20% defense, 54% entitlements (SS, Medicare/Medicare, safety net programs), 6% interest on debt. And you rail about def. budget? There are lots if useless places to get money being wasted.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

From corp welfare, and cutting tax deduction, loopholes & shelters of the 1%. (and definitely cut defense budget)

Let's start their since the 99% already made sacrifices, everyone SHOULD make sacrifices, and it WAS the wealthy that created this world economic crash.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you are fucking insane. You want to spend 20% of the entire U.S. budget on defense? 2.627 trillion in total revenue for 2012?

That's 525.4 billion dollars.

I'm sure we can manage just fine if we cut that figure in half - and we'll still be outspending the Chinese.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

On half no way but a 6 or 10% cut I think we could easily do. I say to to you are you fucking crazy spending 80% of the budget on the stupid shit this gov does? You can find tons of waste on the non defense side of the budget.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Do you know what a recession is?

Do you understand that the way we crawled out of the Depression was massive government spending?

Just because we spent money on war efforts back then doesn't mean we need to follow the same prescription now. We could fix bridges and stuff.

really.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

we got out of the depression because massive build ups of private machining weapons, ships,plans and other supplies for both sides of the war. Also we were selling oil iron and coal. It was this with massive shortages of men who were all enlisting into the army that allowed for everyone to actually be put back to work.

We cant have that today too much destruction like you said we could build new bridges and roads but that is a favor to one group no we need a multitude of jobs something that hits all demographics.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Our railroad infrastructure is in sore need of repair since it was dismantled in the 60's. Railway is the most efficient way to ship cargo, not trucking. The amount of fuel saved would be enormous and contribute both to environmental goals as well as energy independence goals.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

you're exactly right but that again goes under infrastructure which will put more people to work but only in one area. America needs more than just brute force jobs it. But i will agree its better than the service economy we were running on.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Your flaw is asumeing something worked (questionably at best) 70 yrs ago will work now. You can't have massive gov spending of that gov has no money, we've been borrowing more than we spend for some time if your vision was right we wouldn't even be in this position.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

we did have massive government spending - and war bond drives, borrowing from the public to pay for the war effort.

certainly it worked. WTF?

are you stupid?

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Ok moron I'll say it again there are no war bonds being bought nothing is the same and only a retard would assume you will get the same outcome

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

ahh, I see. With your version of English spelling, grammar, and abbreviation, I thought you meant to indicate that there was dispute whether the policies of FDR were effective or not.

True - there are no War Bonds. But with sufficient investment in infrastructure I am confident that the economy will turn around. In fact, the President's policies have already brought a halt to jobs loss, and jobs are in fact increasing - and . . . .

Isn't that good news?

[-] 1 points by JackTG (-194) 1 year ago

If you don't believe in Occupy why are you here?

I mean, OWS states that the system is broken and that it is full of corruption on Wall Street. You seem to think the only thing missing is for Obama to step in and save the day by injecting money in the system. Where does your unshakable faith in Obama and friends come from?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

If you don't believe in Occupy why are you here?

I seem to encounter that question from two directions:

  1. a few genuine OWS supporters whose commitment to genuine consensus is limited to those who accept anarchy as a social organizing principle

  2. and those from the right who intend to use OWS as a means of diluting popular support for sweeping reform with disinformation

I favor sweeping reform. I don't think we can achieve sweeping reform without OWS in the streets agitating, regardless of their position regarding anarchy.

Without sweeping reform we will not address Global Warming - the single greatest threat to humanity or to civilization since . . . rocks ceased to be our principle tool for producing food.

If we look back in history, we can see that FDR had to get a little bit Machiavellian to maintain the economic recovery:

The Roosevelt Administration reacted by launching a rhetorical campaign against monopoly power, which was cast as the cause of the depression, and appointing Thurman Arnold in the anti-trust division of the U.S. Department of Justice to act, but Arnold was not effective. In February 1938, Congress passed a new AAA bill which authorized crop loans, crop insurance against natural disasters, and large subsidies to farmers who cut back production. On April 2, Roosevelt sent a new large-scale spending program to Congress, and received $3.75 billion which was split among PWA, WPA, and various relief agencies.[3] Other appropriations raised the total to $5 billion in the spring of 1938, after which the economy recovered.

.

I think it is clear that the rhetorical campaign was principally designed to curb that legislative resistance to reforms that had been working.

I think the President today faces an even bigger challenge - given the array of interests committed to policy that is not good for the economy or the country as a whole.

Most folks don't quite get that.

So . . . . which are you? Are you an anarchist? Because if not, then it's likely you are just another carl with a K operative and liar

and honestly, I'd like to drown the lot of 'em in that renquist bath tub.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Damn nice post! Way to clarify in anger!

Looks like the attack will be focused on "Both Same" and "Voter Futility."

The Antidote: http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_voter_registration.html?source=rtv.com-homegraphic

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

the fukin retards do tend to chafe my butt

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

That was good.

Don't boo, Vote!

Don't get angry, Vote!

Don't be suppressed: http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_voter_registration.html?source=rtv.com-homegraphic

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I have every intention of voting. I also plan to give them a healthy dose of their own medicine.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

I know. There are other readers.

[-] 1 points by JackTG (-194) 1 year ago

Occupy was started because of the corruption on Wall Street which messed up our economy. In the previous comment, you state that the economy has had no problems since 2010, one year earlier than the start of Occupy. Why do you believe Occupy began?

I'm a soft anarchist, but I'm wondering if your labeling system really means much at all.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

who cares what you wonder? you wonder you. Why don't you go wander somewhere else in your state of wonder . . .

Did I say the corruption on Wall Street was over?

Can you discern the difference between what is and what is not, sarcasm

  • in short, do you have a clue? Any clue, at all?
[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Do you even READ your own links? - (FROM YOUR LINK:) "When did it end?' "On April 12th that committee announced that it was not able to set an official end-date for the American recession."

"By Mr Gordon's calculations, much of the data point to June 2009 as the likely recession end-date."

(Seems like Obama inherited an economy that was almost OUT of the recession when he entered office in Feb 2009)

But here's the REALLY good news!-

"At today's lunch gathering Krugman explained that he calls our current economic circumstances a "depression" rather than a "recession." A recession is a temporary downturn. We have had a recession. A depression is an ongoing bad economy, with high unemployment, and no sign of how we will get out of it. Krugman says this is essentially the same kind of situation that John Maynard Keynes described in the 1930s: “a chronic condition of subnormal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or towards complete collapse.”

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012052121/krugman-today-and-take-back-american-dream-conference-next-month

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
  • Seems like Obama inherited an economy that was almost OUT of the recession when he entered office in Feb 2009

.

Do you even have a clue?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Just saying....you'll quote Krugman if he says something you like, and then ignore him when he says something you don't. My point was the irony that there is no way in hell Obama OR ANYONE could have pulled us out of a recession in 4 months-so IF the recession ended four months after he took office-he shouldn't get all, or even a whole lot of, the credit in all fairness.

Krugman says we're now in a depression. So much for "good news".

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

do you have any idea what sarcasm is?

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

All your posts are filled with contempt....no distinguishable difference.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Contempt? really?

.

These are just some of my issues with . . . conse(R)vatives -

.

and all you can say about Global Warming is . . . that in 60 million years the temp has fluctuated wildly . . .

.

we've got some very serious problems to be dealt with - and you fuckers can't even boil water

But You can throw people in jail -

.

Don Siegelman should be a star in the Democratic Party. Instead, he's a former elected official sentenced to prison by a right-wing judge in Alabama.

Siegelman had the temerity to be a popular Alabama Democrat who'd won every statewide office by 1998, when he first became governor. With Jewish and Catholic roots, and empathic appeal to minorities, he threatened the GOP "southern strategy" for a dominant one-party Republican nation. To the GOP, Siegelman was potentially Another Clinton -- as repellent to them as Another Cuba.

U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, a friend of Karl Rove's, incited Siegelman's prosecution for bribery, destroying his political career and hurting his family. Read this letter signed by 113 former attorneys general and other national leaders, both Democrat and Republican. They assert that the prosecuted "bribe" wasn't one, and that, if this conviction stands, it threatens every public official and contributor at every level of government. Such routine transactions, if prosecuted, would choke our courts.

.

conservative scumbags make me sick

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I can't wait to hear what you think of the TRUTH that is being revealed about Libya....turns out that the White House has been spewing crap since the attack to cover their asses and their dealings behind the scenes in Benghazi....

AP news-http://news.yahoo.com/state-dept-reveals-details-benghazi-attack-062900114.html

http://news.yahoo.com/state-dept-reveals-details-benghazi-attack-062900114.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/9/state-department-changes-account-benghazi-attack/?page=all#pagebreak

There WAS NOT EVEN A PROTEST GOING ON THERE THAT DAY!

The President, and his media news reporting LAPDOGS, have been LYING to the American people and the world for the past 30 days. I can't wait to see if your disgust for LIARS and MANIPULATORS is real enough to be applied to your precious Democrats who are up to their eyeballs in this shit!

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

stil stuck on stupid? fdr's alphabet soup porgrams did nthing but waste money. his programs kept the depression going.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

talk about stuck on stupid

it's your only channel.

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

another snappy come back from the puppy.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

only an idiot would argue that providing jobs that keep people fed is . . . what did you say?

did nthing but waste money

fukU

stuck on stupid

that's you

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

after years of fdr's schemes the unempoyment rate in 1939 ws at 17%. fetch, roll over and heel, do what a good puppy does.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you are so full of shit - why don't you put it in its proper context? O wait - let me guess - if the sum of the facts won't fit your world view you just cleave off the ones that don't fit -

there is a term for that - it's called lying

do you know what that is?

here:

.

1933 www.timesizing.com/1933.htm The Depression's unemployment rates (& sequel) were

1929:3.2%,

1930:8.7,

1931:15.9,

1932:23.6,

1933: 24.9% (=Depression high),

1934:21.7,

1935:20.1, ...

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

dont forget the Recession of 1937–1938

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I didn't -

19.0% in 1938

it was the result of bad policy - cutting government spending while raising taxes.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

then ill just reference back to my other comment to explain why we got out of that recession

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Yes it is brilliant i doubt we will see anything like that again. it was with out a doubt a good thing a was going to possibly lead to a end of the depression

here is what i put

we got out of the depression because massive build ups of private machining weapons, ships,plans and other supplies for both sides of the war. Also we were selling oil iron and coal. It was this with massive shortages of men who were all enlisting into the army that allowed for everyone to actually be put back to work.

We cant have that today too much destruction like you said we could build new bridges and roads but that is a favor to one group no we need a multitude of jobs something that hits all demographics.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

all of fdr's programs were bad policy.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

sure - from the perspective that we all live in a test tube

but in terms of getting the economy back on track - it was the only thing to do.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

you're a well trained puppy. an obama pavlovian dog.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

We can make as many cuts to military spending as will allow us to still defend ourselves ( DEFEND not Aggress ) - The manufacturing facilities - machine shops whatever can retool and start supplying the parts and equipment needed to upgrade our infrastructure - heavy on the manufacturing of clean energy components.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Great approach! I agree. Good to see you up and about DK

You feelin ok?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thx. Better then yesterday.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

That's a little progress. And a welcome change I'm sure.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Just another twist and/or turn on the ride.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You hang in there dude. You're always missed when you take a break here.

Peace.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thx. But knock it off or I will not be able to walk through unaltered doorways.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

yessir!