HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What the mainstream media...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 06:51 AM

 

What the mainstream media and the politicians are NOT telling you about military spending

Last edited Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:54 PM - Edit history (6)

The neocon GOP and MIC propaganda is all pervasive.
(MIC is the Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address in 1961. Here is the clip
Please watch it, if you haven't already done so. It's only 2 minutes long.)

This arms company propaganda appears on ALL TV channels and ALL the main papers.

Not quite so much on MSNBC but how much anti military spending do you see even on there?
How many people on here know that when they tune into NBC, they are watching General Electric's TV channel? Comcast took over NBC in 2011, but General Electric still retain a 49% stake.

The politicians outright lie about military spending every day.
Boehner : "the military cuts (in the fiscal cliff sequestration) will have a drastic effect on our National Defense."
Total garbage - they could find the $24bn in the fiscal cliff from petty cash.
But nobody - not from the GOP or the Dems or the mainstream media calls him out about it.

You won't see any analysis of military spending from any mainstream media outlet or any politician.

This is a great one on here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022048300
Military spending is 60% of discretionary spending.
Education gets 6%.
DHS gets over half what America spends on public Education (3.5% of discretionary spending).


Switzerland spends $700 per person per year on civil and national defense.
America spends over $4,000.
If America spent the equivalent per person as Switzerland it would spend $220bn a year - not $1,219bn.
There is ALL of America's budget deficit right there. (91% of it)

I don't advocate going as low as Switzerland - but $400 to $450bn would be about right. That would be about 5 times what China is currently spending (China spends about $91bn).
I advocate immediate military spending cuts of $500bn+ - it's easy to see how.

$105bn a year is being spent on 7,000 "contractors" in Iraq. Presumably most of these are Blackwater type people.

$170bn a year is being spent on building and supplying foreign military bases. Close half the bases and bring back the 138,000 military currently stationed in Germany, Japan, South Korea, UK and Italy.
A new large base is currently being built in Italy. I don't know what good the military think this will do. The Italians didn't allow America to even use their Italian bases when Libya kicked off. America used aircraft carriers and UK bases for Libya.

The 2013 budget for the Afghan war is $88bn. End it - NOW.

America is developing the new F35 stealth plane at an estimated cost of $1,450bn.
America hasn't had a plane shot down since the first Gulf War in 1992.
We all know what happens to the estimated costs of large military projects - they usually go up multiple times.

America is developing the next generation ballistic missile submarine. Goodness knows how much that is costing.

There are a LOT of other wasteful procurement contracts.
EVERY single contract should be up for review.

$10.8bn of new procurement contracts were signed just on 12/28. More get signed every day. Whatever the politicians say - there is still plenty of money available to feed the arms industry.
http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4946

More details of military spending are available here.
http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/it-is-very-easy-to-cut-1tn-from-federal.html

The arms industry currently enjoys major tax breaks. They are also making record profits. Take the tax breaks away.

America has got it's priorities all wrong.
And nobody in the mainstream even discusses it.

The fiscal cliff as it stood.


N.B. The defense industry constantly say that cuts to defense spending will mean job cuts.
But this is extremely disingenuous.

Yes, there would be some job losses in the defense industry if real cuts were made - I am talking $500bn+ of annual cuts. (Not the tiny $24bn in the fiscal cliff as it stood.)

You could cut the current Pentagon budget of $105bn a year for 7,000 "contractors" still in Iraq.
That works out at $15 million per job.
I wouldn't be adverse to losing those 7,000 jobs. Not if it means saving most of that $105bn. They are probably blackwater type mercenaries.
In fact cut ALL the mercenaries currently being used - use troops instead. It is a method of hiding the true facts about military activity and spending - at a vastly increased price to using US troops. People are leaving the military to join companies like Blackwater because they get paid multiple amounts more.

You could massively cut the $170bn currently spent on building and supplying foreign bases.
The building of foreign bases employs a lot of foreign native workers - not Americans.
If you brought the 138,000 military currently stationed in Germany, Japan, South Korea, UK and Italy home - your supply costs would go down significantly.

Similarly stopping the war in Afghanistan would save $88bn a year. It wouldn't mean job losses (well a tiny amount maybe - you wouldn't buy so many bullets and you wouldn't need so many Predator drones costing $36m a pop. How much of that $36m is labor costs? Not much I'll bet - China is building similar drones for $1m each. How much profit is being made on each drone? Cut the price.).

Cuts to the US defense budget do not affect exports.

America had 79% of the global arms trade in 2011.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175592/engelhardt_monopolizing_war

The defense industry currently receive major special tax breaks. They are also making record profits. You could cut the Corporate Tax breaks - that wouldn't cost jobs.

Also labor costs for the arms industry are about the lowest proportionally of just about any industry and the LEAST productive economic activity.

E.G. You create three times as many jobs for every dollar you put into education compared to every dollar put into the arms industry.

If you want to create jobs - you don't spend your money on the arms industry.

Appendix

The media and politicians are also lying about the true costs of Bush's wars.
$1.3tn is often quoted - this is just the Pentagon's base budget and does not even include Congress appropriations for war operations.
The true costs of Bush's wars are $5tn plus, perhaps $7tn, and the costs are still mounting.

http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/real-cost-of-afghan-and-iraq-wars.html

51 replies, 4685 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Reply What the mainstream media and the politicians are NOT telling you about military spending (Original post)
Ian62 Jan 2013 OP
postulater Jan 2013 #1
ProfessorGAC Jan 2013 #2
Ian62 Jan 2013 #3
NewJeffCT Jan 2013 #10
Ian62 Jan 2013 #15
NewJeffCT Jan 2013 #21
Ian62 Jan 2013 #25
NewJeffCT Jan 2013 #34
ProfessorGAC Jan 2013 #28
Kolesar Jan 2013 #5
NewJeffCT Jan 2013 #20
ProfessorGAC Jan 2013 #29
ProfessorGAC Jan 2013 #38
ProfessorGAC Jan 2013 #40
another_liberal Jan 2013 #6
ProfessorGAC Jan 2013 #30
Scuba Jan 2013 #7
ProfessorGAC Jan 2013 #31
NewJeffCT Jan 2013 #13
Ian62 Jan 2013 #18
ProfessorGAC Jan 2013 #32
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #42
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #41
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #51
another_liberal Jan 2013 #4
Ian62 Jan 2013 #22
another_liberal Jan 2013 #49
HiPointDem Jan 2013 #8
Ian62 Jan 2013 #16
reteachinwi Jan 2013 #9
drynberg Jan 2013 #11
Initech Jan 2013 #47
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #50
obamamyprez Jan 2013 #12
PeaceNikki Jan 2013 #26
obamamyprez Jan 2013 #27
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #43
Initech Jan 2013 #48
zbdent Jan 2013 #14
dotymed Jan 2013 #17
Volaris Jan 2013 #19
Ian62 Jan 2013 #23
Ian62 Jan 2013 #24
Volaris Jan 2013 #45
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #33
Ian62 Jan 2013 #35
Ian62 Jan 2013 #36
grahamhgreen Jan 2013 #37
ProfessorGAC Jan 2013 #39
niyad Jan 2013 #44
hay rick Jan 2013 #46

Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 06:57 AM

1. Stop military entitlements!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 06:59 AM

2. Too Entrenched as Part of GDP

The cascade effects on the economy are now too profound for any meaningful cuts in defense.

Too many "regular" people making their income from those dollars.

Too many cities dependent upon those expenditures because they provide extra goods and services to the companies and the employees that live there.

Cuts of substance (and you better believe that i agree we spend WAY too much) will actually also show a drop in GDP because GS is already nearly 30% of it. This becomes a political trap.

That's what the MIC wanted the whole time. I don't think Eisenhower was that far ahead of the curve, but he smelled something funny. And he was right. They have become intrinsically linked to the overall economy and it's nearly impossible to do anything meaningful without harming people who did nothing wrong.
GAC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 07:05 AM

3. Did you read the bottom of my piece?

 

I highlighted the areas of cuts that would hardly affect jobs at all.

They added up to over $350bn a year.

The arms company propaganda is all pervasive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:01 AM

10. well, you cite predator drones in China being built for $1 million

each, while they're $36 million in the US. So, you're advocating paying workers in the US $1/hour like the Chinese workers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:09 AM

15. No I am not advocating that

 

Labor costs are a relatively small proportion of the costs of building a drone.

I am wondering just how much the arms companies are making on each drone. $10m, $20m ??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:30 AM

21. defense contracts have costs for labor, parts, etc

built into them. You can probably look at least some of them up online. They also have built in profit margins, but the margin is not huge for defense work - corporations like military contracts because the government is a reliable payer and the work is almost guaranteed to be seen through to the end... unlike with private corporations where a contract can be canceled midway through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:56 AM

25. Have you seen the total profits the "defense" industry is making?

 

I included a graphic under lobbying in another comment on here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:07 PM

34. the graphic shows the relation of lobbying expenses

to total corporate profits. The defense industry also spends a relatively low amount of money lobbying compared to other industries.

Plus, big defense contractors like GE, Boeing and United Technologies make most of their profit in other lines of business, and by selling to overseas customers. For UTC, their biggest money-maker with the highest profit margins is Otis Elevator. Sikorsky, their biggest defense contractor, has the lowest profit margin, though Carrier (the A/C makers) was lower previously because of the real estate crash from 2006-2009. And, their other defense related lines of business also make most of their profits in commercial business. Pratt & Whitney makes engines for commercial jets, as well as many in our air force - but, their biggest profit maker is making engines for small corporate jets.

GE's primary source of profit is its financial services business, GE Capital, and GE Energy, which account for a good 70% of its profit. They had $4.3 billion in defense contracts in 2010 (less than 3% of their overall revenue), but had about $12.0 billion in overall profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:44 AM

28. I Read It. I Don't Agree With It

No job cuts with $350 billion in savings? And you believe that? The stockholders and power people in those industries are going to absorb the losses in revenue and demand, and nobody is going to lose their job.

I'm not listening to ANY propoganda. I'm just not Pollyanna. You, obviously, are willing to be.
GAC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:16 AM

5. I would expect you to answer from the perspective of the weapons industry

And your answer is bullshit. We radically cut military spending when old Bush was president and during the Clinton administration and the economy only got stronger.

I hate hearing Pentagon lobbyists advocating for useless spending as a jobs program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:24 AM

20. Defense spending decreased slightly under from 1992-96 - $33 billion in total

but, then increased under the last 5 years of Clinton. (92 and 93 are Bush budgets, since the federal fiscal year doesn't start until 10/1)

In 1992, the defense budget was $349 billion. By 1996, it had decreased to $316 billion. However, by 2001, it was back up to $367 billion.

It was under Bush that defense spending really increased radically from that $367 billion to $795 billion. (under Reagan, defense spending went from $194 billion to $343 billion. A huge increase, but not nearly as much percentage-wise as under Bush.)

These are the actual budgeted numbers, and we know Bush had a lot of the Iraq/Afghanistan war "off the books" and funded as emergency supplemental spending.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:46 AM

29. You Expect Me To Do What?

Find one other posts out of my 20,000 plus where i took the side of the weapon industry.

You'll be looking forever, because i never have.

And my point, which you've missed by several light years, is that the system is rigged.

I'm not approving of it. I wish it weren't so. But, rigged is rigged. If you want to join the OP in the Pollyanna brigade, be my guest.
GAC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:30 PM

38. So, No Reply?

Of course, par for the course for the folks who post first and think later.
GAC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:49 PM

40. Besides Your Inaccuracy

We didn't cut defense spending RACIALLY under anybody.

My whole point was that we can't cut spending in a MEANINGFUL or SIGNIFICANT way.

If those two words are too hard for you, that's your fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:16 AM

6. Couldn't we use that funding . . .

Couldn't we use all of that funding to build other industries, the kind of industries which create worthwhile products and not just more killing machines? To start with, I hear there are a bunch of bridges and highways which need repair and replacement. A few billions of former defense spending might come in handy there, hmmmm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:47 AM

30. That Works For Me

I'm just saying i think the system is rigged. I like your idea, i just don't see it happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:22 AM

7. Bullshit. Dollars paid to nurses and teachers go straight back into the economy, while dollars ....

... paid to the corporate investors in the MIC (some of whom are foreign) go straight into their already fat Swiss bank accounts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:50 AM

31. I'm OK With That

I don't need a pedantic explanation of macroeconomics, slick.

I'm not saying there aren't more productive uses of the money. I'm saying it is extraordinarily unlikely to happen because the system is entrenched.

The total volume of legislation to reallocate those monies would take years.

Ok by me if we do spend years doing it.

You folks are being willfully obtuse. Nowhere in my post did i approve of the excessive spending on defense.

My point was not that we SHOULD leave it alone. My point, which should have been abundantly clear to anyone leaving emotion at the door, was that i don't see it happening because of how thoroughly the system is rigged.
GAC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:07 AM

13. I think there are a lot of opportunities to make military cuts, though

especially in all of our military personnel overseas - we don't need dozens of overseas bases. However, we do need some bases.

However, it was a huge bipartisan battle just to cut a spare engine from the F-35 joint strike fighter, even though the Pentagon didn't want or need the spare engine. So, I don't think we can realistically make cuts at home in the near future, other than maybe slowing the rate of growth in the Pentagon budget on the domestic side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:22 AM

18. The United States currently has over 1,100 military bases in over 130 countries

 

Of course we could make dramatic cuts in military spending.

No politicians want to do it - the arms lobby is too powerful and bribes the politicians with too much money.

Lobbying



http://ivn.us/infographics/2012/12/30/what-lobbying-costs-you/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:52 AM

32. Remember What I Wrote

I was stating that meaningful, high impact reductions won't happen.

And, apparently there are plenty here who are so ready for a fight (they should work for the defense industry) that they aren't getting that I DON'T APPROVE OF THE DEFENSE BUDGET! One poster accused me of supporting the defense industry. I challenged him/her to find one post anywhere on this site where i did that.

I want it cut. I just don't see it happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:33 PM

42. Which is why going over the fiscal bluff is so attractive - it's the best way to really cut big war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:31 PM

41. So, we make wid farms instead of bombs. The wind farms generate economic benefits for a generation,

but the bombs have only a one time hit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:10 PM

51. That is indeed part of the problem.

But we will have to do it sooner or later. I see upwards of a 10% GDP hit if done willy nilly.

If done with some planning, 2-3%

The difference between a depression and a recession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:09 AM

4. Great Work!

Thanks for taking the trouble to graph that out and explain the break-down of our military's out-of-control spending addiction. The numbers are truly disgraceful (not to mention frightening).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:30 AM

22. You have to thank Grahamhgreen for the first chart in the op-ed

 

I included the link to his article in the header
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022048300

It's a powerful piece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:05 PM

49. Thanks.

I will check it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:31 AM

8. kr. i read something a while back about this also -- i can't remember the details but the gist

 

of it was that the 'cuts' being talked about were more or less fake -- there was a good explanation but i can't remember the details -- it may have been something like funding had been increased in advance so that it could later be cut -- something along those lines. but don't quote me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:16 AM

16. The fiscal cliff as it stood only cut military spending by a tiny amount in 2013.

 

Military spending plans increase spending significantly in EVERY future year.

Military spending is currently planned to be FAR FAR higher in 2016 than 2012.

Fiscal cliff or not.

You have to be careful when politicians talk about "cuts".
90%+ of the time they are talking a small reduction in the rate of planned INCREASE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:31 AM

9. Marketing and P.R.

 

According to the Department of Defense's budget materials on their website, the combined military recruitment and advertising budget is $1,407,100,000 ($1.4 billion). Here is a break down by branch of the military:
ARMY $854,146,000
NAVY $297,141,000
MARINE CORPS $123,465,000
AIR FORCE $132,349,000
http://radicalreference.info/node/1111

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:04 AM

11. HOW ABOUT A $BILLION/YR FOR MILITARY GOLF COURSES?

Surely there are many "non defensively weakening places" in which to CUT the HELL OUTTA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drynberg (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:50 PM

47. Golf courses? Wha??????

Yeah they need to cut that shit out!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drynberg (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:07 PM

50. It always shows.

In a trillions + budget a billion is chum change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:07 AM

12. It has creeped into every aspect of our culture.

 

One scary part is the military propaganda in our TV and movies. Look who financed all three Transformers movies it was the Defense Department. That's just one example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamamyprez (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:06 AM

26. Um... I think they consulted, but show me evidence that DoD FINANCED Transformers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:37 AM

27. When they allow Micheal Bay to use aircraft carriers at virtually no cost

 

That is financing. With out direct access to military hardware that movie could not have been made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamamyprez (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:34 PM

43. so more like 'subsidized', which I guess is a form of financing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamamyprez (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:52 PM

48. The US DOD financed the Transformers movie? Where?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/companycredits

Not a single one of the companies on that list is the US DOD - and IMDB would know. I'd suggest taking off the tin foil hat there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:08 AM

14. the uproar about the "massive, unpatriotic, dangerous military cuts" would be well served

if the media would point out that the right-wingers' arguments about "entitlement cuts" is the same with the military cuts ...

that the "massive cut" is actually a cut in the INCREASE in spending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:21 AM

17. They "misplace" more than $24 bn a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:24 AM

19. America is developing the next generation ballistic missile submarine. Goodness knows how much that

the low-ball is about 5Billion PER BOAT, x10 boats (for the whole replacement fleet). And that's fucking ridiculous.
Link on Congressional Report is here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41129.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:42 AM

23. TYVM for this info

 

It does not seem to include the research and development costs - just the circa $5.6 bn to build each boat.

I'll bet anyone if it actually goes through to fruition in 2021 the total cost will have been $200bn or more - not circa $50bn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:51 AM

24. 1 more piece of the puzzle

 

I have got all my best info on military spending from ordinary Dems.

Got some bits from my own research on the net and stuck the pieces together.

I got absolutely nothing from any mainstream media sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 12:11 AM

45. I found that online with a Google search lol.

Yeah, more and more, it seems it's about what the Media ISN'T telling us, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:05 PM

33. Couple of quick points....

1. In 2011, the Federal Communications Commission approved Comcast’s takeover of a majority share of NBCUniversal from General Electric. Comcast now controls: NBCUniversal; twenty-four television stations and the NBC television network; Telemundo; USA Network; SyFy; CNBC; MSNBC; Bravo; Oxygen; Chiller; CNBC World; E!; the Golf Channel; Sleuth; mun2; Universal HD; VERSUS; Style; G4; Comcast SportsNet (Philadelphia), Comcast SportsNet Mid-Atlantic (Baltimore/Washington, D.C.), Cable Sports Southeast, Comcast SportsNet Chicago, MountainWest Sports Network, Comcast SportsNet California (Sacramento), Comcast SportsNet New England (Boston), Comcast SportsNet Northwest (Portland, Ore.), Comcast Sports Southwest (Houston), Comcast SportsNet Bay Area (San Francisco), New England Cable News (Boston), Comcast Network Philadelphia, Comcast Network Mid-Atlantic (Baltimore/Washington, D.C.); the Weather Channel (25 percent stake); A&E (16 percent stake); the History Channel (16 percent stake); the Biography Channel (16 percent stake); Lifetime (16 percent stake); the Crime and Investigation Channel (16 percent stake); Pittsburgh Cable News Channel (30 percent stake); FEARnet (31 percent stake); PBS KIDS Sprout (40 percent stake); TV One (34 percent stake); Houston Regional Sports Network (23 percent stake); SportsNet New York (8 percent stake).

2. In your appendix, you stated that $1.3bn is often quoted as the cost of Bush's wars. You may have made a typo because the number I've seen is closer to $1.3 trillion. Logically, $1.3 trillion would have to be close to the stated number based on a STATED expenditure rate of $10-11 billion per month for 120 months. But, I believe the actual burn rate per month is much closer to $30 billion per month for 120 months, or about $3.6 trillion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:48 PM

35. yes 1.3 tn - TY I will correct it :)

 

I am out of date with Comcast taking over NBC from General Electric.

I will correct that as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:10 PM

36. It seems that GE still retain a 49% stake in NBC

 

is that your understanding too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:14 PM

37. We could reduce our military spendign by 50% for just one year alone and get ALL the savings in

the recent Senate budget deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:36 PM

39. Lots of Cowards On This Thread

They kneejerk because they don't read for comprehension.

Then they run away because they know they have got it wrong.

I expect that on Facebook. I expect that on Hotmail. I expect that on Comcast.

But, there it's because they're conservative morons! I don't expect people here to not be able to read for comprehension.

OK, you're all better liberals than me, even though i canvassed against Nixon and i come from a Teamster family from the 50's and 60's.

I guess i'm not real liberal.

Whatever you guys say! No matter how wrong you are, you're right.
GAC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 05:58 PM

44. thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian62 (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 09:59 PM

46. I like Ike.

K&R.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread