This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Chairman Of Joint Chiefs Of Staff Says National Debt Is Biggest Threat To National Security
Not China, not Russia, not North Korea, not Iran, not terrorists...According to Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the "single biggest threat" to American national security is the US national debt, which is either $8.85 trillion (public debt), $13.4 trillion (total national debt), $20 trillion (total debt including GSE debt), or $124 trillion (total debt including unfunded obligations), depending on one's definition of the word "debt." And as Zero Hedge has long been warning, the imminent increase in interest rates (sooner or later), will eventually put the country in an untenable funding position. "Tax payers will be paying around $600 billion in interest on the
national debt by 2012, the chairman told students and local leaders in
Detroit." The Chairman (the real one, not his pale imitation over at Marriner Eccles) politely forgot to add that the successful rolling of nearly $600 billion in debt per month is likely an even greater threat to national security.
More from Mike Mullen, commenting on the upcoming annual interest payment forecast:
“That’s one year’s worth of defense budget,” he said, adding that the Pentagon needs to cut back on spending.
“We’re going to have to do that if it’s going to survive at all,” Mullen said, “and do it in a way that is predictable.”
He also called on the defense industry to hire veterans and become more robust in the future.
“I need the defense industry, in particular, to be robust,” he said. “My procurement budget is over $100 billion, [and] I need to be able to leverage that as much as possible with those [companies] who reach out [to veterans].”
And since debt is now the functional equivalent of a nuclear bomb, it behooves readers to know just who the biggest threats to US national security are:
We hope it is appreciated promptly enough, that the entity highlighted in red can just as easily become the biggest domestic threat to national security, should the interests it represents, both political and financial, not get their way.
h/t Robert
»
- 23287 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The big problem with what I'm hearing between you and Moneygrove here is that this is exactly what the shitbags running the show right now would prefer...Americans of all threads, divided by baseless prejudices and straw man arguments. Look at it this way...if we're busy fighting with each other, then all that they have to do is duck and wait until we've taken care of ourselves. After that, they can re-emerge, and the sickness will continue.
Shake hands with your neighbors, then bomb the Fed. THERE'S a strategy that might lead to a better future.
I agree on the Fed, Ive been on that bandwagon since I was a college kid 20 years ago. However this is an issue that transcends that- a large portion of the south doesnt want to be in the same nation as the northeast and left coast under the best of circumstances much less if things get even uglier. The American South bears the same relation to the USA as the Ukraine did to the USSR- alot would prefer to be their own nation. This has been the case since long before there even was a Federal Reserve. The US is now two, maybe even three nations bound together by force and the common love of "stuff", if the wheels come off the wagon economically that last tie dissolves and there is no real reason to continue the charade and I think everyone would be better off. Collectively we may be the US, but we are not an us.
True that.
The south will rise again,....bitches
The problem, as I see it, is that (1) politicians (and/or career bureaucrats) are, in the literal, clinical sense, laregly sociopathic, (2) the moneyed class can and does play them like a fiddle and (3) Joe Public just wants a nice union or gov't job and some Sunday football, to hell with the rest of that confusing nonsense about finance and politics that you nerds like to talk about so much. Truly a match made in hell. Seems to me just like the old days with nobles, their financiers, and the serfs. Not much has changed except the entertainment.
I realize that my first assertion seems bold, but if you think about it, who really WANTS a "job" where they sit around making rules to govern how other people live their lives and has the hubris (or utter lack of introspection) to actually convince themselves they can do it, or are even adding value in the process? Whack-jobs, that's who. It's like when Marcus Aurelius offered Maximus the crown in Gladiator:
Marcus Aurelius: Won’t you accept this great honor that I have offered you?
Maximus: With all my heart, no.
Marcus Aurelius: Maximus, that is why it must be you.
(Historical note: George Washington was our Maximus, which is why he was universally revered by his compatriots)
Instead, we get the guys who say "With all my heart, yes!" The dregs. Frankly, I would not shed a tear to see the American version of the ancien regime enjoy its own 1789. Dr. Paul excepted, of course.
Very interesting to note that the official in charge of the largest line item in the budget would suggest that the debt bomb is the single largest threat to the country.
I'd love to see their price sensitivity to oil calculation in their budget.
Of course it is the U.S. military which is the greatest threat to our national security.
"The trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both." -- Christopher Hitchens in the August, 2003 issue of Reason.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
It's better to live on your feet than die on your knees.
Chistopher Hitchens is pretty smart; he's about as smart as I am; but I'm gonna call bullshit on this one. the examples from history don't bear this out at all.
I'd be interested in those examples.
Uh, no. It's not.
All this snark at the US Military aside, what does it say about how f'ed up is our current Administration that the Chair of the JCS makes more sense on economic issues than does President Two Iron's economic masters, I mean advisors, and 90% of the elected CONgresscritters.
$600b in interest, hmmmm...
I have an idea - that's about what the military bureaucracy costs in a year.
Socialists in Greece say the same thing.
Papandreou went one step further. He speaks about redused soveireignty.
Prepare to hear the same in US
No prob: expand the military! That's always been the first step toward a crisper, more autocratic country. We simply hire all the millions of unemployed into the armed services, men and women, young and old, fit and fat.
Note this doesn't substantially differ from 1930s Depression-era public works projects: in both cases the government hires the unemployed to keep them off the street and pays for it through deficit spending. Only difference: public works projects built critical infrastructure that helped growth during economic recovery and most is still in active use today. Military spending tends to help other countries build infrastructure and mostly gets consumed for day to day operations.
I can only hope this means we get some cool new buildings in our national parks. And maybe they can pitch in and finish off the Crazy Horse monument in South Dakota. And start a new Reagan Memorial.
And maybe plant a few million more pine trees. The ones they planted last time have mostly been eaten by those nasty pine beetles.
Also, maybe we can replace a few of those WPA dams that got ripped out for environmental concerns.
Okay, it doesn't actually create wealth, but it keeps a lot of people working for a few years until we figure out another holding action.
Then again, there's still the Soylent Green solution to an unwanted, unemployable work force.
+1000
"I realize that my first assertion seems bold, but if you think about it, who really WANTS a "job" where they sit around making rules to govern how other people live their lives and has the hubris (or utter lack of introspection) to actually convince themselves they can do it, or are even adding value in the process? Whack-jobs, that's who. "
Odd that this question was never asked in any of my undergrad poly-sci, econ or sociology classes.
Throughout history people have always wanted power over others. It is only in the modern era that they have developed ways to acquire that power with no accountability for the results.
The national debt isn't threatening my security one bit. But then I don't have a big giant gang to pay.
...According to Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the "single biggest threat" to American national security is the US national debt…
Really Mike? How about skimming off the proceeds of the U.S. Army’s 500 billion dollar per year heroin operation in Afghanistan? Hell, throw in some cocaine dough that is being run into the U.S. by the CIA. That would just about balance the books wouldn’t it?
de-f'ing-junked, oh yes!
let's start telling truths.
Um, no, it might service the interest, but it wouldn't put a dent in the debt. Good stuff, though.
There seems to be a plethora of pinko peaceniks on this site.
How is it "pinko" to oppose military spending? The military is the height of communist groupthink: we tell you what haircut to have, where to live, what to wear, when to get up in the morning, we take care of your health, food, etc...
They're just government beurocrats who happen to have guns.
You said it, Spyker.
How can government demands that I pay for the murder of people who have done me no wrong be considered as anything other than the worst sort of Communism?
@Oswald
..and here I was thinking there has been an enormous proliferation of reactionary losers on this site who feel the need to say "fuck you" to everyone they meet. Enjoy trying to survive with attitude. This so-called peacenik will piss on your corpse in the streets.
You're fucking worthless. You have no analysis, no historical knowledge, and even less tact. You don't even have an opinion - you just repeat the same bullshit drivel that one can find on any extreme right wing website. You offer no solutions. Nuke the government you say... Well good for you -- who's going to lead afterward? you, dumbass? I think not.
You really haven't a clue as to how our economy actually works, the anatomy of corporations, or the relationship and methods of corporate governance. You just spout off your verbal diarrhea at every available opportunity. You want people to take you seriously? try using your brain - substantiate your goals. You want to destroy the government? Outline how, pray tell, how you are going to replace it. If you just want to see people suffer - stop being a wuss and just come out and say it! don't hide behind bullshit terms like 'tea party' or 'libertarian'. You hate people of color and jews? just fucking say it. You want anyone that opposes your views to be killed? Just come out and say it. Shit or get off the pot. Butthurt that someone here actually has the balls to call you out for what you are? a hateful and useless individual? Too bad. Go troll on fox.
You've been watching too much Kieth Olbermann. You certainly sound like him. Why so blue buttercup?
Maniac Researcher said: I was thinking there has been an enormous proliferation of reactionary losers on this site who feel the need to say "fuck you" to everyone they meet.
And then he said: You're fucking worthless...
@Oswald - you watch too much tv
@Crockett - thanks for appearing to illustrate my example. I stand by my extreme distaste of individuals with misplaced hate. Perhaps you should read some Rothbard so you can learn the difference between "Shove it" and "Shove off". Happy Sunday!
thanks for appearing to illustrate my example.
It was easy, just had to quote you.
Perhaps you should read some Rothbard
I'm reading Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty" now.
I'm sure you are. Well at least you know where your unrealistic worldview is coming from..Rothbard thinks that "war of all against all" is a good thing. Thanks to the current system, that is already happening - so you might as well put the book down. What do you think happens at the end of the story when military power is monopolized?
You might want to ground yourself with Randall G. Holcombe's "Is Government Invevitable?" - otherwise you'll follow Rothbard right to Jackson Hole and find yourself saying, "Ben? What are you doing in my anarchist paradise?"
Why did you misrepresent Rothbard? His view is precisely the opposite of what you stated.
right...and this so-called "peaceful" capital investment is in no way shape or form going to lead to consolidation of wealth. <sarcasm off>
Libertarians! You already have the world you are striving for..good luck out there.
Why did you misrepresent Rothard in your post? He said the opposite of what you said he said. I'd like to know if you are a liar or if you're just incompetent. One would think that a researcher would be able to understand plain English.
Answer the question.
Perhaps you should read it again. Although you have another choice -- you could continue to cherry pick your information - then you might not resemble the educated 'elites' you rail against.
You said that Rothbard favors "the war of all against all" but you provided no citation whatsoever.
I provided a direct quote from Rothbard saying that the free market is the opposite of the law of the jungle or "the war of all against all." You called this "cherry picking."
I hope that your position as a "researcher" is not a paid one, because if it is then somebody is getting ripped off big time. Your track record does not inspire confidence.
Are you ready to stop arguing a point in which you have been proven to be wrong? And are you ready to tell me if your "error" was a result of mere incompetence or was it a premeditated lie?
Answer the question.
You are cherry picking Rothbard. You want a citation? I'll give you two:
From Rothbard's "Power and Market: Government and the Economy," published in 1970 --
Here, Rothbard concedes that some sort of rule of law is needed in his model of a 'free market' society:
"Every legal system needs some sort of social-agreed upon cutoff point, a point at which judicial procedure stops and punishment against the convicted criminal begins." (5)
In a footnote reference to this sentence, Rothbard states, "The Law code of the purely free society would simply enshrine the libertarian axiom: prohibition of any violence against the person or property of another (except in the defence of someone's person or property)..and the implications of this axiom. The Code would then be applied to specific cases by free market judges, who would all pledge themselves to follow it." (197)
Free Market judges? This is an extremely naive assertion at best. The 'free market' is going to find the judge that best supports whatever judicial cause has the most capital supporting it - whether it is reasonable or not.
But perhaps H.E. Frech III put it best in his review of the "Public Choice Theory of Murray N. Rothbard, a Modern Anarchist" in the Public Choice journal in 1973 stating, "Rothbard's society is simply an unorganized group of individuals who threaten to use force against anyone who violates a widely held principle or interpretation. Further, this group has a monopoly in the sanctioning or use of force."
Sounds like war of all against all to me. Your cherry-picked quote, Crockett, was Rothbard's feeble attempt at justifying his unworkable plan for society.
Do you believe that Rothbard is lying? It's clear that you disagree with his conclusions but you go beyond that and state that he consciously supports something which he claims to oppose. Do you really believe that you have the ability to not only critique Rothbard's scholarship but you can also see into his soul? How can you so blithely declare that although Rothbard claims to be against the law of the jungle he is secretly in favor of it?
It's fascinating to me that you believe that quoting a man about his own beliefs is "cherry picking" while you consider a third party quote to be definitive. Once again we see your failure as a researcher in your elevation of derivative analysis over primary source material.
Perhaps you should look more deeply into your own soul and examine your own intentions. What truly motivates your hatred of folks like Rothbard, Mises and Rand? Do I detect an aroma of anti-semitism? Deny it if you wish, but by your own criteria any second or third party analysis of your intentions are definitive while any statement you make about your own beliefs is merely "cherry picking."
It's a good read, thanks for the essay.
I don't think it accurately represents human progress, though. For instance, it's absolutely true that humanity used to be mired in a "war of all against all". Does that mean it's human nature to constantly follow that path of non-productive in-fighting? Maybe to a degree, but I think that degree lessens with time. Humanity is gradually becoming more enlightened. So while we may have some form of "government" for the forseeable future, don't discount the idea that it might be a very different animal from what you're used to calling government today. The American revolution was important milestone in history because it planted the seed in our mind that "government serves the people". Our forebears' tolerance for government abuses may well shrink, especially if education is pryed from the hands of the State.
Oh look. It's someone who's spent decades on the planet who can't even think themselves out of 50's and 60's meme.
Sorry grandpa. Gotta 8 bit rick roll ya. You just aren't ready for the full thing yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1WWpKEPdT4
Yeah, and a lot of them would happily stab you in the gut and fuck the wound.
Peace and vigilance, brothers.
Yeah, when I was in Mogadishu, you could cut a girl right under her xiphoid bone, and slip your dick in to her pericardium. The most sensitive part on the back side of your dick would be slapped by her right atrium. Incredible feeling. If you played it right, you could make her go into afib- which felt like a whispering piece of silk holding you tight. If you closed the intake on your gasmask- at exactly the right moment - or blew some petrol into the valve- you got that David Carradine high working for you. It was like having goddamned Phuket right there in the African desert. An Oasis. If you fucked it up, you and the Mogadishu girl were both dead in the Bush. Good Times.
Maybe we should all be annihilated in a 2012 Mayan sunspot Armageddon.
I logged off last night after scrolling this far, to this post.
that only 2 of the "men" on here thought this is "junk" is sickening. . . away and discuss military hardware and killing machines.
war pornography, psycopathology, dying incrementally, daily.
Just so you are clear, I did not junk the post. But it did make me want to stop living for a minute.
Same here. And last I checked, I had a "handle"
Just don't bother junking posts...
fine. I stand corrected.
and I also stand by my pointing to the fact that many people here will "junk" a post for many reasons, and the obscenity above is apparently not one of those reasons.
and Hulk, you did not junk, nor did you offer any opinion, either way, until you responded to my post. . . my post, not the hate crime described.
I understand chicken vulture. But when you are in the middle of obsenity it's hard to express anything else. No one means you harm, people are coming a bit unhinged talking about pimp business startups after the crash. But hopefully people can stay focused on what is the real problem. A fraudulant economic system that takes resources from everyone and uses it to build war machines and forces everyone to live in a war zone if they happen to have something the war machine needs or they won't subjugate themselves to it. There are millons of people forcing thier will on billions of people and it's just out of hand. The world is run by the most extreme unhealthy individuals they just don't want the secret out. So the changes they make in the world always end up bad.
You said something like this earlier. I'm going to watch for it. I think you may be right. I'm thinking about things that are not in my nature, either.
The clashing is beginning. So the feeling function will die. So it will necessarily result in hatred towards women because people won't want to be receptive. I've been operating about 80 90 percent of the time in this full blown mode that they operate in. I now understand the womanizing that sociopaths go through and the brutality that psychopaths show towards women. It's just too damn bad that I made myself "electrically" complicated with buffers and firewalls and all sorts of tricks to filter and analyze.
Fuses will blow.
(annoyingly, my attempt at separate responses to your posts positions this one first. . . ahh well. . .)
Hephaestus, even from the few words you shared above, it is obvious that you have an awareness that is becoming increasingly rare. . .
a story: I used to manage a successful rock band. . .they would stand onstage, electric guitars vibrating their groins, interacting with each other onstage, and I watched their eye contact and saw how bonded they were - they would come offstage with hard-ons, and look for an immediate release in the form of a "girl fan" type, quick, no frills, so that they could get back to being with each other. . . the culture of rock bands doesn't really support "gay" so that was never an option, though they plainly cared & were attracted. . .
gender roles are pretty much artificial constructs to train the herd, whether it comes via "religion" or "nationstates" - bottom line is "men" are the default human, and women are the "sex class" - not human, but for use by human. . . only a century or so ago marriages were more like business alliances, the whole notion of "love" was not considered, women were for the production of heirs, and running the household, etc. . . the whole "50's housewife" thing was intentionally designed to get females out of the workforce for the returning soldiers - but! - also designed to domesticate those same soldiers who had witnessed unspeakable atrocities. . . keep the men pre-occupied with jobs, buying the little house, paying for the wife & kids, ect. - and train the women to desire goods, become consumers, to spend the wages. . . all to the benefit of the elites.
now,with perpetual wars, and porn culture, all bets are off. . .boys can hang out with each other, hate on their partners en masse, and now women can do it too. . . porn often has numerous males penetrating a single (young/asian/childlike/other'd) female, observing themselves and their buds while fucking - like a pack of dogs. . .gang rapes are common in war, and we are at war everywhere.
this to me is the "tell" - more than casino stock markets, venal gov't. drones - it's the breakdown of any type of civility en masse. . . "they" have stopped with the training mechanisms because "we" are toast, done, not of any use. . . and there will be mass cullings, through various methods, as time speeds up and collapse is encountered.
as you say, fuses will blow. . .
+ millions
Very perceptive.
BTW, in answer to your earlier question: There is no point in "junking" junk that was posted purely to attract a junk reaction ... it just feeds the beast. On the other hand, just ignoring it implies acceptance. I'm glad you guys went to the effort of responding.
I appreciate your taking the time to offer your view from where you stand Hephaestus, although I'm somewhat unclear as to what you mean here:
if you are referencing "wars" as an obscenity, I agree - I don't agree that it's difficult to keep oneself from committing the de-humanising act described above though. . . if indeed you meant the post was an obscenity making it difficult to express an opinion on it, then I might agree on some level. . . it was intended to shock, as psychopaths do, else why take the time to type it up for the crowd?
and I don't feel "harmed" - intentionally or otherwise. . . the above responses were entered into to as an act of distancing. . . they drew a line drawn in the sand, and took a step backwards is all - I was to be made aware that I was of a differing opinion, or type or whatever. . . "us" vs. "you"
it's a tactic I've witnessed endlessly - absolutely no harm done.
for what it's worth, I've done volunteer work with Somali asylum seekers, and my reaction above was filtered through those memories. . .
I didn't junk it. But in my defense I was really busy masturbating.
.
As I see it at current levels our military is enormous. Frankly we have waste so much money on weapons, which I believe is a strategic flaw and primary problem. Our F-22 cost less than the F-35 when the F-35 was supposed to be cheaper than the F-22. Now we have both.
Let's expand on this, we build drones that cost IDK a couple million. Each rocket attached cost nearly a million, so you have one unit of war that collectively costs 4-5 million. Every time is gets shot down or deploys all it's missiles there goes 4-5 million.
So how much does bullets and a soldier cost. 50k plus the bullets?
I am not advocating mass suicides of soldiers, but let's face it, our hopes are based in a technology that fundamentally has not come down in price because there is little competition and even further zero innovation. Does anyone realistically believe that the Stealth bomber and the F-22/35 are that different? They really aren't, they both are based in stealth that is still very expensive to produce. No one else has stealth capability yet. Probably wont either for another 10-20 years.
We are still stuck on this idea that we need a massive military and that we need the latest and greatest because well you know the Soviet Union might... After every war besides WW2 our military would shrink. Our Military industrial complex was purely birthed by the cold war so we needed a standing military. But now that our enemies are nonexistent what's the point in buying new stealth jets when our enemies are as technologically advanced as cavemen? Who here believes the Air Force is having dog fights with Taliban or Al Qaeda?
But we need it!!! China might!!!!11 How? China has one air craft carrier, we got 13?. They would have to be really stupid to fight us particularly a homegame. But they're army is hugeX0XRS. How do you transport a million strong effectively against a much better equipped navy and air force?
A lot of this is absurd.
The F-22 is supposed to provide air superiority. That is, it should be able to defeat all other fighters. It is super fast, agile and stealthy. I think it is the only figher aircraft capable of cruising at supersonic speeds. As I understand it, it has state-of-the art avionics and electronics.
The stealth fighter is a dog. It can't even fly supersonic. It relies wholy on stealth for effectiveness.
The F-35 is not only a fighter, but is designed to destroy a wide variety of targets. Also, it was designed to be politically untouchable. This was accomplished by spreading the pork around liberally to as many states as possible.
I'm not an expert on the topic, but this is how it was explained to me. And wikipedia seems to back it up.
My point is we have redundant vehicles that provide the same air superiority. We don't even need an air force really. We really don't. Y? Because when is the last time we used a large scale long range bomber attack? Iraq? Really? Our Navy with all it's carriers and jets on those carriers and helicopters provides the real air superiority. Our nukes and cyber security are all thats left in the air force. Nukes could be handled my DoD and so could cyber warfare.
The point of having an air superiority fighter like the F-22 is to handle the next generation fighters coming out, the F-35 wont do this. If either is redundant, its the 35. F-22's can eat any other fighter in the world at 4:1 odds, their usefulness has nothing to do with the current Middle East situations. Air superiority fighters aren't something you wait until a major war starts to build, if you dont have it at the start the game will be over very quickly.
The role of the F-35 and F-22 is that of air superiority. Even if the F-22 is so great why has it been canned this year? we are only purchasing F-35's from here on.
Why was it cancelled? Funding and political issues I suppose. However, it doesnt change the fact that the F-22 is a better air superiority plane and is the best in the world by a fair margin.. F-35 is a multi role "one size fits all" type fighter, unfortunately the history of such aircraft is a bit spotty and often wind up doing no one thing particularly well. Since any success on the battelfield comes from air superiority, I'd rather have the very best plane for that role and not the second best as we already have excellent ground attack aircraft.
*off-topic reply, my apologies*
Millennial, no offense to you or the quality of your posts - but every time I see your avatar, I imagine the dog within woofing out the words in your post. This mental image amuses me greatly.
Sorry, had to say it!
*now back to the topic!*
Google "Advice Dog Encyclopedia Dramatica" you'll undersatnd why I chose it.
Google "Advice Dog Encyclopedia Dramatica" you'll undersatnd why I chose it.
Google "Advice Dog Encyclopedia Dramatica" you'll undersatnd why I chose it.
Brillant. Now if only CNBC would run that during their market commentary...
USA can`t beat the taliban !!!!! How many F-22`s do they have !!!!!!!!!!!
They know what they're doing around the world is just plain fucking wrong, but they fancy (yeah I said, "fancy") themselves noble, or as if they're making some sort of personal moral sacrifice for the good of the nation as they operate the world economic protection racket to secure the country against this "threat".
Pathetic.
These generals are men of considerable intelligence, but they seem to completely lack the ability to see just how futile this selfish sacrifice is, or that the real threat is the institutions that perpetuate this system of leveraged debt. In the end, they will have died for nothing, the men they send into battle will have died for nothing, and everything they tried to protect will crumble. All for a lack of courage to do what is right instead of what was convenient in the name of some simple minded pragmatism.
Crummy,
They inherited a bag of shit like you and I did. They are us.
Hey, there's some pretty good shit in this bag. Where's my bong?
Really? Who's lap are you planning on your portion of the shit into? These are people in a position to set things right by giving the rest of us, their fellow inheritors, the right information with which to do so. Instead, they take it all upon themselves.
They aren't us, they are "them", the elite, the ones who think the rest of us have no right to bear their precious burden.
I thought you were referring to the military in your post and venting at them, not the elite. The military are us and did inherit a bag of shit like we did. We agree about the elite.
America needs a president that doesn't work for the banks. It's been 30 years since that was the case.
It's a pitty most American's will just vote for the next one that has the most funny commercial on television.
If the next president is also as corrupt as the current, and all those before, it will be pretty clear that American's are indeed idiotic morons.
We'll see in 2012 what we already know...
You have it backwards.
ANY candidate put before the electorate is already vetted for his sympathies or better yet, ONLY those who already 'get it' will even get a chance at going to work for the banks.
The Bobble head, figure head, front man for the circus has no power whatsoever that is not given to him by his shadows. 2012 will change nothing and nothing of substance will change until several high ranking congresspeople, cabinet officers, executive, judicial, legislative branch bureaucrats and electees are forcibly deprived of oxygen.
The tree of liberty will need to be nourished with blood once again.
the only way to get good leadership is to get rid of the lobying and putting the election costs on a fixed budget given by the state and not by corporate loan sharks that give out money mob style.
WHY does anybody think a company donates money to a candidate without expecting anything in return?
Look at BP, the sponsored the president and after destroying the golf and it's citizens they got off VERY easy.
Goldman, they now run the government
...
For every dollar they donate, it's costs America's taxpayers billions in return.
Nothing is for free and these moments prove it.
These last 5 presidents sold off America untill only the karkass remained.
Now it will be only to the dogs to fight for the bones.
In my point of vue, America is nothing more then Iran, Venezuela and all the other corrupt countries run by dictators.
I will keep saying it:
When somebody has taken the time and effort to collect sufficient nominating signatures, and has paid the fee required to compete as a qualified candidate, we must respect their wishes by taking them out behind the courthouse and hanging their greasy ass from the flagpole.
Bring in an electoral draft. Two years of compulsory service in government to the lottery "winners." Those who appear to be enjoying it too much will be forced to file nominating papers and pay a fee, then be taken out behind the courthouse...
John Paulson says no TARP with john MCcain !!!!!!! read his book !!!!!!!!! If you don`t like TARP tell john MCcain !!!!!!!!! aka John MCcreepy !!!!!!!!!
ANYBODY GOT A DIME?
http://williambanzai7.blogspot.com/2010/08/tea-party-round-up_5655.html
If the military wish to make plans for designed employment, it should be a criteria that the process of disbursment is wholly transparent.
You should give the Chinese and Japanese a haircut and totally stiff the Fed, the Hedgefunds, and the Arabs.
Mullen seems to understand the situation that he is being put into very well. The US will not follow the model set by the USSR. We will not voluntarily go bankrupt. The job of the military will be to support the US dollar to prevent a collapse of our economy and the resulting destruction of wealth for those that have it and "American Way of Life" for everyone else who doesn't. Supporting the dollar will require increasingly aggressive acts by the military to keep the current economic system in place and allow the Fed to continue to monetize debt. Mullen sees the coming economic cold war when America throws off the veneer of altruism and begins to actively promote its economic interests around the world.
Gee, I only hope this doesn't mean American troops will start to stream into places with lots of resources and start promoting its economic interests. That would be so UNAMERICAN.
Your right, that would be so UnAmerican, at least if you're using Iraq as an example. Regime change will probably be the order of the day. More 50s and 60s style without the highfalutin democracy BS.
The notion that "the National Debt", or 100X Leverage, or the Federal Reserve, or the Treasury Department, or the Bond Market, etc. ad nauseum can be reponsible for the National Security is ridiculous.
Real men and women, corrupt, inept, bought and paid for human beings are responsible for EVERTYTHING that happens. Allowing these creatures to hide under the rocks of entity names has got to stop. How about the General saying the names of people who created this monster instead of saying some fictional name caused this or that? Why don't those who have the opportunity to put questions to these men ask WHO instead of WHAT? And holding their feet to the fire until they put up or shut up?
http://www.nfb.ca/film/paperland/
.
is "national security" at odds with individual security?
community security? humanity?
.
The Gary Null Show - 08/27/10 August 27, 2010http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-gary-null-show-wnye/
.
part 2 is good too. imo
It's 5 minutes before 12.
If America fails to react in the best way possible, the glorydays will only be remembered by in the history books.
Obama doesn't have months left to think about it.
And if his election for a second therm is more important then to act and do what is needed, it will be over.
And like a movie you've seen already 5 times, you kind of know the outcome of this tragic commedy...
Boy are you an idealistic little kitten. Stop drinking the Kool-aid. It is already done with.
The shaft of the arrow had been feathered with one of the eagle's own plumes. We often give our enemies the means of our own destruction.
Aesop
Europe will be in flames before you see the United States fall to her knees.
You travel from state to state you keep finding Americans, look out your window,the countries that make up the EU have a very long history of not getting along that well,no?I would worry about the coming implosion of the "Euro" & the ensuing aftermath.
Some country will defaut within the EU, and when this happens it will bring down many large banks with Germany and France.
Have you noticed all the money leaving Europe over the last 3 months, thats the smart money.
I hear about these so-called "glory days" all the time, but I'm unsure exactly what period in US history is being referred to..specifics, please? I suppose if your family was well-off during one of these periods, then that would constitute a supposedly "good" period of time --
when was this? the 1950s? sure - many families in the US achieved slight mobility and job security - others, however, had to deal with systemic racism, fear, and a decidedly chilly political climate - not to mention the excelerating consolidation of the corporate/industrial/military complex.
the 1960s? More families benefited from rising incomes in this period as well, but along side this period of relative economic equity was extremely political turmoil, riots, and the chances of getting your ass blown off in Vietnam.
the 1970s? Malaise, rising prices, and even more political turmoil certainly makes this decade a dubious choice for the "good ole days"
the 1980s? the threat of nuclear war and more economic malaise? extreme corporate consolidation?
the 1990s? sure it was nice if you were a member of the wealthy side of the rapidly widening gap between the ultra rich and "working poor" of America..
I'm not even going to bother listing the last 10 years - unless you were very rich, most people lost ground here. Not to mention the war on terror dampening the parade..
When was it then? the 1940s? Economic turmoil and World War?
going back further? the interwar period was particularly dark - as was the economic havoc following the first World War. I suppose the turn of the 20th century was not particularly awful - that is if you weren't one of the millions of immigrants living in horrid slums and working in equally unsafe factories..
Glory days are all a matter of perspective..if they are mentioned without qualifiers, then I would say the source is highly unreliable.
Truly money does not buy happyness now does it. The times we are going through now put a real strain on all relationships. If your always trying to "keep up with the joneses" & now find yourself in debt, getting up and looking into that mirror is not that much fun.
When the crisis first broke most could not imagine things would be this bad. My brother & friends are starting to talk about receivables at 80-120 days and everyone is waiting on the next guy.
Buckle up, phase two of this crisis will make 2008 look like a walk in the park. But what happens outside our borders will define this train wreck.
You're trying to quantify qualitative things. The 50s and 60s were great times, much better than those of today.
Sure they were...
tell that to these people: http://www.crmvet.org/crmpics/sit-in.jpg
Biggest threat to national security are people like Mullen.
He obeys orders to go to War in the face of a CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE that Congress declare one.
+1000
We live in markedly different reality from the one where US Strategic interest were fiat-dollar backed.
The Amazing Story of the Hui Xing Gold Mine Ponzi Scheme in Inner Mongolia
http://israelfinancialexpert.blogspot.com/2010/08/chinas-shark-loan-ponzi-finance-amazing.html
Mullen is just pissed off because he got stuck lecturing in Detroit while the Fed got to party in Jackson Hole, WY!
ha, funny and most likely true
Mullen IS a soldier. He can take care of himself in Detroit!
Ya think. Mullen will deeply understand this song before it's all over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmbiji_uP6c&feature=related
We had a new big Bad 20 yr army guy at my job. Didn`t last 2 weeks !!!!!!!!!!!
Well, flipping burgers gets boring pretty fast.
Evil faust, bad primate, bad.
Maniac Researcher,
You are right.
On a long enough time line the survival rate is zero.
Burma shave.
The POTUS is nothing. He has no power that he can exercise until he is told what to do.
His appointments of the very same people who caused the financial global meltdown should be proof enough to anyone that he, the president of the united states is merely the winner of a popularity contest. Nothing more.
This country is run by a Shadow Elite who you never see, rarely hear about. (and only if you're paying very close attention with a wide scope of interest---imagine how little the average guy/gal knows about anything).
Very true.
F@ck the fascists!
Amazing.
Some of the cynicism here is just adolescent posing and angst, I get it.
But I wonder how much of it flows from middle-aged troll provocateurs and how much is the result of middle-aged bitterness at being a loser and how much is middle-aged rant stemming from major stupidity.
No matter how dark a reading of today's headlines you may take, a reasonable mind will be able to find the good in America and use it to temper harsh judgements.
Cynicism is gaudy, is elegant, is witty, is cunning; and it is nihilistic and ultimately destructive when irresponsible and unbalanced.
There is a stage in grief called acceptance. When you have stopped bargaining and denying, when you are done processing the anger and depression, there is acceptance. It is a "sacred demise." And the death of what I have to ask you? A myth. It was always being run by short sighted crooks. Locally is where any hope rests, if you insist on having hope. Hope is often a form of kool-aide that entices you to wait around for things to get better vs. cultivating a perspective that is realistic and allows you to move on with what must happen next. We have forgotten what is important. The death of the culture, the economy, and hell maybe the environment, might finally etch on the collective memory just what is important, if enough make it through.
You sound hopeful. Mature minds are. Or else they are defective.
Those are some incredibly broad brush strokes.
Don't forget to chaw down a little change with all that hope. It's good for the digestion.
You might have a bit of a point on some of the members but there are others who are well informed (open source intel collection and analysis is done even by intel agencies) comments are the norm not the exception here, I've found.
And yes, it will all burn even if you don't like that.
"Amazing.
Some of the cynicism here is just adolescent posing and angst, I get it." ...
.
and optimism is maturity. so you believe in heaven for those in death camps.?
or rumsfeld's "dead enders"?
just asking. could be, what could i know?
fill me in with the rare skinny.
the most dramatic posing i have witnessed is the pose of the corpse, all stiff
and froze in some particular expression with no particular explanation. not necessarily
adolescent though.
you see they are all losers and stupid and dead and many with no explanation and really
no history or life behind them and they are patently unreasonable, dead. no longer
able to love america? oh no.!!!!
and i bring this up just to feed my nihilistic and destructive tendencies as irresponsible
and unbalanced as they may be. just do not ask me to be responsible for the innocent dead.
now , can we make some fiat money? in peace.
" Cynicism is gaudy, is elegant, is witty, is cunning; and it is nihilistic and ultimately destructive when irresponsible and unbalanced."
but it is real.
Got blind so you could see...
what is really destructive is the military industrial war machine
that perverts diplomatic minds into money making whores bent on
stupidity and ignorance as a way of life to protect their ambitious
and craven social ploys to achieve excessive material wealth all
predicated on murdering innocent children who were unfortunately born
near some desirable piece of property or resource coveted by said
craven, ignorant, fraudulent "leader". speaking of gaudy and cunning.
that people see it and protest is not adolescent posing. it is a sign of
life, dreaded human life.
Hyperinflation will happen otherwise debt interest will cripple the economy.The elite will crap their pants when the military come knocking on the door for a whip round.
Prodded doubtless by forces above and behind the Oval Office, Obama has ousted General McChrystal in favor of General Petraeus, who now combines the post of CENTCOM theater commander with that of NATO commander in Afghanistan. This is a move deriving from the inherent fecklessness and incompetence of the Obama administration, especially from the imperialist point of view. Recent events have highlighted Obama’s total lack of executive ability, leaving him weakened as he faced the bizarre flap about some barrack-room gripes by McChrystal’s staff collected by a correspondent from Rolling Stone magazine. Because of Obama’s weakness, he felt obliged to react to the scuttlebutt peddled by Rolling Stone, when a stronger president could have dismissed it or ignored it. As Fletcher Pratt once wrote, Abraham Lincoln was capable of laughing an attempted coup d’état out of existence with an off-color joke. Obama is far too weak for that.
As for General McChrystal, he was critically weakened and made vulnerable to ouster by the total failure of his counterinsurgency strategy, with the Marja offensive faltering and the Kandahar offensive indefinitely delayed, even as NATO losses rise exponentially, President Karzai turns towards Tehran and Beijing, and many of the NATO coalition partners prepare to defect.
One effect of the sacking of McChrystal is likely to be the accelerated breakup of the US-led Afghan invasion coalition, which was already in bad shape before this incident. The Netherlands and Canada are leaving, the British and the Poles want to join them, and the Turks can hardly be enthusiastic. Who else will join them in the race for the exit door? NATO Secretary General Rasmussen, anticipating such a result, spoke out yesterday in favor of keeping McChrystal, who works for him as well as for Obama. More countries may now announce their departure even before the November NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal.
Another of McChrystal’s bosses, Afghan President Karzai, also made clear that he wanted McChrystal to stay. He will now use Obama’s flaunting of his wishes to accelerate his own playing of the China card in economic policy and the Iranian card in cultural and religious affairs. Afghanistan is likely to slip into the Chinese orbit.
Obama’s Feckless Blunder: Making the Neocon Petraeus GreatIn addition to all this, important results of the McChrystal ouster will probably be seen in US domestic politics. Obama has now committed the absolutely idiotic blunder of making General Petraeus far greater and far more important than he already was, despite the fact that General Petraeus is his most likely and credible Republican presidential challenger in 2012, and the one most capable of defeating Obama, as postings on this site have already made clear. As outlined here, Petraeus has clearly emerged as the preferred candidate of the entire neocon camp, including William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Max Boot, Frank Gaffney, the American Enterprise Institute, the Weekly Standard, and many others. Obama can usefully be compared to the earlier Democratic party Wall Street stooge and puppet, President Harry Truman, who destroyed what was left of his own popularity by firing General MacArthur in a dispute about the limited war policy in Korea in April of 1951. The beneficiary of the public revulsion against Truman was General Eisenhower, who became president in 1952 after Truman had dropped out of contention in despair over his abysmal poll numbers.
Petraeus Doomed To Fail Militarily, Will Turn to PoliticsObama has now chosen the tactic guaranteed to concentrate public attention on the ambitious and unprincipled Petraeus, who has all the character weaknesses of a Hindenburg. At the same time, Obama has given Petraeus the totally impossible assignment of winning victory in the Afghanistan quagmire, the graveyard of empires. Petraeus is doomed to fail on the purely military level, and the more he fails the more he will he impelled to pick a political quarrel with Obama about strategy and the conduct of the war as a way of shifting the opprobrium of defeat off his own four-star epaulets and onto the back of the feckless Obama. The most obvious issue to use for this purpose is Obama’s timetable, established in the West Point speech last December, of beginning the departure of US forces from Afghanistan in July of 2011, timed of course to coincide with the Iowa straw poll and the beginning of the 2012 presidential primary campaigns.
Petraeus’ obvious option will be to break with Obama during the late spring or early summer of 2011 over Obama’s intent to protect his own vulnerable left flank in the Democratic Party base by initiating an Afghan pullout, which Petraeus and his neocon backers have already branded as Obama’s cut and run policy. Petraeus will be able to wave the bloody shirt of the US Afghanistan dead, condemning Obama for making their sacrifices vain for his own self-serving political purposes. Petraeus will be able to claim that he is reluctantly leaving his military post because the appeaser and weakling Obama has tied his hands to the point that he has no other alternative but to take the issue to the voters in the primaries and in the presidential election itself. Ironically, the worse the military situation in Afghanistan becomes, the better this strategy would work.
Unless something changes very soon, we may soon witness here in the United States the classic process of the disintegration of a form of government which often occurs when a weak civilian regime decides to place a major bet on the ability of a charismatic military commander to save them politically by winning a foreign war in the way that the civilians and their previous military appointees had been unable to do. Historically speaking, the tendency is for the charismatic military commander to return home and seize power, ousting the civilians who had tried to benefit from his victories.
Napoleon Returns from Egypt for the Eighteenth Brumaire, November 9, 1799One obvious example is the career of Napoleon Bonaparte, who came back from Egypt to seize power in France just as Petraeus may figuratively come back from Afghanistan to seize power in Washington. Napoleon, who had already covered himself in glory with his Italian campaign (just as Petraeus is widely viewed as the victor of Iraq), lost most of his army in Egypt. But this did not prevent him from returning to France and staging his coup d’état of the Eighteenth Brumaire of the Year VIII of the revolution, corresponding to November 9, 1799. In taking power, Napoleon swept aside such civilian politicians of the weak and financially bankrupt Directory as Sieyès, Barras, and even the devious Talleyrand. Napoleon soon set up a new form of government, the Consulate, with himself as first Consul, and then first Consul for life. Later he proclaimed himself Emperor. When might Petraeus stage his own Eighteenth Brumaire, either by resigning and declaring himself a presidential candidate, or in some other way? Within the next 12 months or so, we would expect.
When Will Petraeus Cross the Rubicon?Another example comes from the death agony of the Roman Republic. With Rome being ruled by a three-man triumvirate, Julius Caesar was able to outclass his two rivals, Pompey and Crassus, by conquering Gaul. He soon felt strong enough to bring his victorious army back across the Alps to Rome. The point of no return in this bid for power occurred when his forces crossed the Rubicon River in Romagna on January 10 of 49 B.C. Soon Julius Caesar was exercising virtually total power in Rome. Petraeus is likely to cross the Rubicon in about a year or less, this time around.
Geo...
You make visiting this cesspool worthwhile.
I figured the reason we find it important to stay in Afghanistan was the strategic importance of the future gas and oil pipelines. I do not think that this war in Afghanistan can be won do you? And can pipelines be built in this environment?
Or am I missing something else, is it also its strategic location overall for something else?
I can tell you will have a good answer thank you in advance.
There are several strategic reasons for the occupation of Afghanistan besides the pipeline and minerals extraction. Perhaps most importantly, is its location adjacent to Iran. Along with our bases in Iraq, and our ownership of the Persian Gulf, we have Iran boxed in.
Boxed in? I don't think so. I wish the joos would start something and the US involve itself. I think the whole world is in for a surprise.
One word: ASBM.
Which is why they haven't started anything and Mullen went over there to tell the joos not to do anything.
Webster Tarpley anyone?
no, you're not.
do us all a favour and read the Zero Hedge manifesto.
.
I gather that you don't like Petraeus? I've never met the man, but he doesn't look too impressive to me. Surely, you realise that he is Just Another Puppet that has been sanctioned by TPTB?
Maybe McChrystal didn't bend over far enough when "approached"?
BTW, there is no way the military (US or NATO) will be allowed to leave Afghanistan any time soon. The opium/heroin is worth far too much to those who arranged to put them there in the first place. The military provides a free (ie. taxpayer funded) security force for their production and shipments to Europe and the US.
Problems caused by governments (and their rulers) will not be solved by yet more governments/juntas sanctioned and corrupted by the very same rulers. You need to work on a different solution next time!
Statism Is Dead ... We just need to wait for it to be buried!
My admiration for the first half of your posting was abruptly squashed when I got to the point comparing General Petreus to Napoleon and Caesar.
How can such competent analysis be wedded to such carreening nonsense?
We have a constitution. Petreus is wedded to this document. He is no philanderer. He has hundreds of collegues similarly married. They are not philanderers. You completely misapprehend the command structure of the US Armed Forces.
Go get some popcorn and rewatch 'Seven days in May' (with Kirk and Burt and - I forget the prez's name) or whatever and stay away from the keyboard a couple of days. That might get it out of your system.
Beyond belief....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5d3tBgYLQE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikFIivrun6s&feature=related
Close your eyes, and think about America in demise...
Biggest threat to our security - CONGRESS.
Overdose - The Next Financial Crisis 2/3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jlt9lHVS8E&feature=related
Overdose - The Next Financial Crisis 3/3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_17ck3Vti8A&NR=1
Geo-Hell, Bammy was always meant to be a one termer. Betray-us is the elite's choise. Thats the reason for Bammy's next emporor to be to go front and center. No coup problems this way.
You had one really magnificent shot of Foz de Iguacu. Not much for the music. I like my jazz with jazz, no chaser. Did like the play earlier of Herbie Hancocks Maiden Voyage though. Milestones
Just curious. What will happen if tomorrow the US governement says:
Look, F***k you. I don't pay you anything.
Foreign imports become very, very expensive. Commodities and manufactured goods skyrocket in price. International and local instability abounds.
But consequently, domestic industry picks up in a major way, government at all levels retracts, and a more stable form of international trade develops in response.
Jeez Bernanke's got a lot of those plates spinning on the ends of tall sticks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK4nh5I0jpE
Sorry, I mean government
By the looks of that bar graph they should probably be calling the re-make FED Dawn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6Ql5p0eO5U
Slightly off topic, but sooner or later Australia will listen to one of their own.
http://www.finnewsnetwork.com.au/archives/finance_news_network15376.html?utm_source=FNN+Investor&utm_campaign=86e0385b81-FNN_Investor05_08_2010&utm_medium=email
Duke for President!
Just sayin.....
Even the magicman Obama was almost instantly hobbled by the power elite. What makes you think that Duke could be different?
If you were a totalitarian state looking to stop the world's one superpower, with overwhelming military might, from constraining your actions, how would you go about it once you realised that the military option is unavailable in the nuclear age?
Step 1 would be suppress the living standards of your own people to make it cheap for your competitor's businesses to transplant their industry to your territory.
Step 2 would be to loan money to your competitor to maintain your artificially low currency so the transplant of the competitor's industrial base continues past the point where the weakening of their economy should have lowered their currency and made the cost advantage disappear and so they can continue to purchase the exports from their transplanted industrial base.
Step 3 once the competitor's industrial base has been severely weakened and your own economy is strong enough, pull the loans causing a collapse in the competitor's currency making them unable to maintain a global military
Step 4 use your own stronger currency to purchase materials on the world market and raise your own people's living standards.
et voila. Congratulations, you are now the world's major power with a strong currency, high standard of living, strong industrial and technological base, high levels of "soft power" globally as your success is in strong contrast to your competitor's decline and total freedom to act in your own region.
And all without a shot being fired and with your competitor having no causus belli at any point during the process. Indeed your competitor's people will rightly blame their own leaders and weaken them even further politically.
And the only cost was suppressing your own people's standard of living for a few decades. And that doesn't even hurt if your part of the leadership
central bank design. "we are the world, we are the children".
this from a recent thread.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/has-fed-defused-neutron-bomb#comment-551102
by bob resurrected
on Sat, 08/28/2010 - 16:18
#550543
fun for the whole family
Tony Robbins Economic Warning 1-2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_rShZA_IjE
flag as junk (0)
Ever see " Seven Days in May?"
I see thirty-one days in May on an annual basis.
Zaknick,
Do you imagine that you know something the US Navy doesn't?
Do you delude yourself that an aircraft carrier is a road apple?
There is more than one way to skin a viper.
When will the decoder rings you boys get from Al-Jasneera have a setting for 'whallop up side the head'?
I know, I know you'll believe it when you see it.
But you still won't believe it.
I know, I know you'll believe it when you see it.
But you still won't believe it.
And you will believe it when you don't see it. Iraqi WMDs anyone?
Handle with care:
Good analyis. But China has major problems. And her leaders know it. And they are essentially inward looking.
"Soft power"?
How many aircraft carriers does that command?
Hyperpower, sweetheart.
Is this a threat foreign or domestic? Do I smell a coupe?
Is that "coupe" with a chopped top?
Oh wait, is that a guillotine joke?