Where does one start in this saga? It is quite hard to grasp all the facts, simply because there are so many facts, and so many talking heads debating the facts. With the twenty-four hour news cycle, it is easy to react and debate the rumors, only to have to recant and face the truths, or rather half truths.
Obviously, over the past few weeks, we've seen calls for Assange to be tried for espionage, or even treason. The calls for the whistle blowing website to be shut down, permanently, have resonated from a multitude of Washington officials. We have even seen the CEO of WikiLeaks defended for his actions by people we wouldn't ordinarily consider as his supporters, including those whom often kill their political enemies with rare radioactive isotopes (speculative that is).
So, how is it that one of the most noted libertarians in the US as well as one of the most noted totalitarians in Russia can be in agreement on the same subject? Also, how is that foreign countries who were or are less free than the United States have leaders that sound more open towards freedom than our leaders? These are the questions that should be asked and answered, not the "how do we charge this guy" questions that are being asked.
Consider this; a brand new law made to be able to prosecute Assange for his dissemination of the cables, despite the legal precedent and tradition of the freedom of expression offered in the USA. Not to mention the fact that Assange is not a resident of the US nor has he stepped foot inside the country to commit any of his alleged crimes, there should be no over reach of sovereignty in this instance. Even if the man behind the leaks had been a state sponsored conspirator, countries don't simply hand over their spies in an effort to save the spied upon country's face. Not to mention that passing the SHIELD (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) Act and using it to charge Assange would be completely unconstitutional.
Not to worry, as it seems that law and justice are not something the US government bureaucrats are interested in any more. Have we gone the way of the Romans? An empire in such decline that we are witnessing the last gasp efforts to retain knowledge (which is power) in any and all efforts?
According to this guest post on Zero Hedge, that seems to be the way things are going. If you read no other link from this post, or this blog period, you should read the one by Charles Hugh Smith. His depth and brevity of the situation, and why there has been so much feigned outrage by the ruling elites, is
spot on in my opinion (emphasis added).
Showing posts with label Imperial USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Imperial USA. Show all posts
16 December 2010
10 November 2010
Obama's Deficit Council Plans to Piss on Troops and Military
I am sure that this headline shocks no one, but it has really just torqued me the wrong way. I know that we really can't afford a lot of new military hardware, but, if we are printing up 105 billion in new paper between today and December 9th, why not just use those funds to finish the programs pentagon planers have said we actually need? It would serve to put people to work rather than enrich the big banks, and while it will be directly inflationary right away instead of sitting in an pseudo-inflationary trap, it might just well be the kick in the pants that we need.
Ok, not really, but here is the point: We've heard it time and time again that the USA spends more on defense than any other nation in the world. True. When you have to protect your vassal states, you have to spend more than they spend combined. However, the main point is that the President's new "deficit plan" goes directly to cutting defense when the total of social security, medicare, medicaid, and other discretionary spending more than doubles the entire defense budget, which does happen to be Constitutional in nature.
So, there ya have it, typical leftist, war apologists/appeasists go right for the jugular on the defense budget, mainly because it's not lucrative enough to buy votes come election time.
Ok, not really, but here is the point: We've heard it time and time again that the USA spends more on defense than any other nation in the world. True. When you have to protect your vassal states, you have to spend more than they spend combined. However, the main point is that the President's new "deficit plan" goes directly to cutting defense when the total of social security, medicare, medicaid, and other discretionary spending more than doubles the entire defense budget, which does happen to be Constitutional in nature.
So, there ya have it, typical leftist, war apologists/appeasists go right for the jugular on the defense budget, mainly because it's not lucrative enough to buy votes come election time.
26 August 2010
Tax Dollars for Mosques
Along with the slap in the face less than 5 blocks from ground zero. Unbeknown to most, we have been funding the travels of the imam behind the NYC Mosque. Oh, and if that's not bad enough, we are also paying to refurbish several high profile Mosques over seas!
Excellent allocation of funds! We're in a recession, headed towards a depression, and we can fund Mosque refurbishments in other countries! Empire gone south we have become!
Excellent allocation of funds! We're in a recession, headed towards a depression, and we can fund Mosque refurbishments in other countries! Empire gone south we have become!
17 August 2010
Laughable Solutions to Major Debt Problems
Paul Craig Roberts, writing for Alex Jones' INFOwars has a hit piece out yesterday detailing that it's time for an American Revolution. Funny though that the piece never calls for a revolution until the final sentence, nor does it offer any realistic solutions to the debt problem that is ruling the USA. Roberts' article starts out well with stated facts that we have a huge budget and trade deficit that are crippling the country but that's about where the good part stops.
It seems that Roberts understands that we have been off shoring too many jobs and far too much debt, but he fails miserably to see that the USA has lost it's competitive manufacturing advantage. To bring those lost manufacturing jobs home, he advocates for a tiered tax structure that would make a value added tax on companies who produce goods outside of the USA. Unless Roberts has taken notice, almost everything sold on the store shelves of American retailers is made in some other country THAN the USA. Not only would this asinine idea increase costs to American consumers, but these "tarrifs" would effectively spark a trade war with China and other trade "partners." If Roberts believes continued deficit spending will ultimately spark a US dollar / debt purge by Treasury bond holders, there would be no better way than to do it by slapping a tax hike on imported goods.
If Roberts truly wants a competitive America, perhaps he should find a way to reduce the costs of business here in the USA. Labor costs are currently as cheap as they have been in the last decade, but the hurdlers of business to meet OSHA protocols, union thuggery and legislative manipulation of the markets is what is truly dooming our country. Failing to fix these things, along with a fair tax structure instead of the regressive and putative punishment of success, companies will flee to countries like China that have lower taxes, less restrictive zoning laws, no property taxes, less restrictive government oversight, and no labor lawyers and union bosses breathing down their necks. Further, without double taxation of capital gains, dividends, and absurd confiscation rates, the real economy could then be built on investment instead of debt as Roberts seems to advocate against.
Instead of those trade solutions and a serious reduction in social spending and pork bellies, the dimwit decides to loose all credibility and rail against the "neocon" and "military/security complex" of the country. Roberts wants to fix the budget deficit by a reduction of military spending. This seemingly "brilliant" idea discounts the fact that our biggest bond purchaser (besides the Fed), China, is in a full blown military arms race with the USA. Unfortunately, the defense budget isn't even the biggest contributor to the budget deficits! The winner of those titles can easily go to porkulious, TARP I & II, quantitative easing I (and hopefully not II), unemployment benefits, pay for teachers, medicare bailouts, health care, social security and pork barrel pet projects, pay for unions, and bailouts of the states!
While continuing in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't exactly the best use of federal budget, leaving Iraq while real progress has been made is not currently justifiable. I will conceded that Afghanistan is a lost cause. Simple isolation and mitigation of the Taliban / terrorist threat from that country would suffice our national security needs. However, when the defense budget of the US for Fiscal 2010 was 23% versus the 55% spent on social programs, we could have easily eliminated 2 trillion in waste that was simply vote buying for incumbents (source). If that had been done, we would have had about a 1 trillion budget surplus (tax receipts vs spending). True, Roberts is correct that US military budget "exceeds the budgets of all the serious military powers on earth combined," but that isn't what has made us bankrupt over the last 80 years.
Perhaps Roberts realizes that gutting the social programs is actually necessary to the survival of this country, even though it is not politically expedient. Unfortunately, I would not believe that anything the crew from INFOwars publishes, actually has any real credibility behind it, since the wackos run the asylum. I suppose though that we could toss Roberts a peanut for effort, even if it comes up a bit short sighted.
It seems that Roberts understands that we have been off shoring too many jobs and far too much debt, but he fails miserably to see that the USA has lost it's competitive manufacturing advantage. To bring those lost manufacturing jobs home, he advocates for a tiered tax structure that would make a value added tax on companies who produce goods outside of the USA. Unless Roberts has taken notice, almost everything sold on the store shelves of American retailers is made in some other country THAN the USA. Not only would this asinine idea increase costs to American consumers, but these "tarrifs" would effectively spark a trade war with China and other trade "partners." If Roberts believes continued deficit spending will ultimately spark a US dollar / debt purge by Treasury bond holders, there would be no better way than to do it by slapping a tax hike on imported goods.
If Roberts truly wants a competitive America, perhaps he should find a way to reduce the costs of business here in the USA. Labor costs are currently as cheap as they have been in the last decade, but the hurdlers of business to meet OSHA protocols, union thuggery and legislative manipulation of the markets is what is truly dooming our country. Failing to fix these things, along with a fair tax structure instead of the regressive and putative punishment of success, companies will flee to countries like China that have lower taxes, less restrictive zoning laws, no property taxes, less restrictive government oversight, and no labor lawyers and union bosses breathing down their necks. Further, without double taxation of capital gains, dividends, and absurd confiscation rates, the real economy could then be built on investment instead of debt as Roberts seems to advocate against.
Instead of those trade solutions and a serious reduction in social spending and pork bellies, the dimwit decides to loose all credibility and rail against the "neocon" and "military/security complex" of the country. Roberts wants to fix the budget deficit by a reduction of military spending. This seemingly "brilliant" idea discounts the fact that our biggest bond purchaser (besides the Fed), China, is in a full blown military arms race with the USA. Unfortunately, the defense budget isn't even the biggest contributor to the budget deficits! The winner of those titles can easily go to porkulious, TARP I & II, quantitative easing I (and hopefully not II), unemployment benefits, pay for teachers, medicare bailouts, health care, social security and pork barrel pet projects, pay for unions, and bailouts of the states!
While continuing in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't exactly the best use of federal budget, leaving Iraq while real progress has been made is not currently justifiable. I will conceded that Afghanistan is a lost cause. Simple isolation and mitigation of the Taliban / terrorist threat from that country would suffice our national security needs. However, when the defense budget of the US for Fiscal 2010 was 23% versus the 55% spent on social programs, we could have easily eliminated 2 trillion in waste that was simply vote buying for incumbents (source). If that had been done, we would have had about a 1 trillion budget surplus (tax receipts vs spending). True, Roberts is correct that US military budget "exceeds the budgets of all the serious military powers on earth combined," but that isn't what has made us bankrupt over the last 80 years.
Perhaps Roberts realizes that gutting the social programs is actually necessary to the survival of this country, even though it is not politically expedient. Unfortunately, I would not believe that anything the crew from INFOwars publishes, actually has any real credibility behind it, since the wackos run the asylum. I suppose though that we could toss Roberts a peanut for effort, even if it comes up a bit short sighted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)