If the U.S. government's spending isn't fiscal lunacy, I don't know what is.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

Posted with permission from The U.S. Is Going Broke! http://saneramblings.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=139
<snip>
Dear Reader,

The U.S. Senate just approved a $410 billion spending bill, packed with earmarks, just to get the U.S. government through the remainder of the year. It won't. Their latest actions alone will cost you, and every other American man, woman and child about $1,100.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031002653.html

This is in addition to the bailouts and stimulus bills which are coming hot and heavy. And the Iraq war continues, as the Afghanistan war escalates and hugely expensive new jet fighters and other powerful weapons role off the production line at your and my expense. Costs we cannot afford. Charities, education, medical care, unemployment benefits and other vital programs will just have to face stiff cutbacks.

If the U.S. government's spending isn't fiscal lunacy, I don't know what is.

Please, in the name of compassion for mankind and in the name of sanity, raise your voice. Even if you can't change this disastrous direction, you will have at least made a serious attempt as you acted in good conscience.
<snip>

<snip>
Instead of making the "hard choices" he spoke of, President Obama is submitting to Congress a financial disaster of a spending plan for the coming year. I won't use the word "budget," for there is none.

What there is is massive spending on practically everything. Please see for yourself: "Obama sending Congress 'hard choices' budget: Deficit total is roughly equivalent to $12,000 for every U.S. taxpayer."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29392964/?GT1=43001

And Mr. Obama makes it clear that this is just the first of these blockbuster budget breaking spending plans. And Congress, very much under the control of lobbyists, as we saw in the last several years is well known for spending vast sums we don't have.

First Congressmen and women make self-serving statements of financial discipline and then they jockey in the media to position as watch dogs of the publics money. Then out of the public eye, this is followed by reckless spending in which each member grabs taxpayer dollars for his or her district or state or uses it to pay off obligations to lobbyists. It's a giant feeding frenzy of taxpayer dollars.

The U.S. government doesn't dare tax you enough to pay for this, for there would be a taxpayer revolt. Yet the money is still being spent. It can no longer borrow enough money, so it is now printing it. Your financial security is being seriously jeopardized, and it grows worse by the day.

In the name of fiscal sanity, please raise your voice for your voice matters. As you have seen, if you don't get involved, no-one else will either and the system will perpetuate itself until America is broke. You may not succeed in changing the course of events but at least you will know you did everything you could to stop this catastrophe from happening.
<snip>

More thoughts at http://www.saneramblings.com
---------------------
Even if you don't agree with Mr. Kazan's columns, he thanks you for your comments, and your additions to the discussion.

JB

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. The GOP loves to spend on their pet projects and their lobbyists!

[babylonsister]

2. No offense to this anonymous blogger,

but I tend to read and listen to people I'm familiar with and respect. And the majority of people
I've read on the budget plan think it's brilliant. So...

Here's one...

Robert Reich: President Obama: Forget the deficit (keep spending!)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=428185


Hendrik Hertzberg: "We finally have a plan, and a President"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=429396

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

8. I wouldn't call someone who has been writing under his own name for years, anonymous..

Hi BabSis,

I know Mr. Kazan hopes that President Obama can pull this country out from the mess it is in, but he still has deep concerns about our military spending, and how, without a drastic change (end wars and close bases), our country is financially doomed.

As far as respect, Mr. Kazan wrote in November or 2007, of the impending financial disaster.
<snip>
Nov 2007
"Are you prepared for the coming financial crisis?

We Americans haven't seen one like this since The Great Depression, as the dollar's value will get cut in half, real estate will lose 1/3 of its value and millions of people will lose their jobs.

As a veteran businessman and long term investor, I offer you suggestions to help protect you and your family and as many other people as you and I can reach.

Soon, everything you buy in dollars will cost more. The price of gas is just the start, and that price will fluctuate up and down, but the long term trend will be up.

And with it, so will the cost of groceries and other products you buy because the rising fuel prices make it more expensive to deliver them to the markets.

Those businesses not in a strong enough position to pass along price hikes will either fail, or have to slash expenses such as by laying off employees.
more at http://saneramblings.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=75

<snip>
A little more accurate than CNBC, perhaps.

Peace,
JB

[babylonsister]

13. Sorry, anonymous to me.

And he does seem prescient in 2007, I agree. I also agree about the price of war and what is it good for anyway.

But the option not to spend at this point in our economic history is nuts, too. He sounds like the congresscritters who are 'demanding' a spending freeze. That's not going to help anyone and, from what I'm hearing, would be an absolute disaster for us and the rest of the world.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

15. He's got the causes of the Great Depression wrong.

He blames the New Deal for not pulling us out of it...he neglects to mention that it was spending freezes that, as Rachel said, made the Great Depression "Great".

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

18. Hey BabSis, The author responds to your comments....

Mr. Kazan wrote:

It was interesting to read the comments. "Babylon Sister," for example, made a very good point. I agree with her.

Why should she believe in an anonymous blogger when financial people of stature have made such supportive comments of what President Obama and Congress are doing with all this spending on bailouts and stimulus plans.

It will somehow lift us from our collapsing economy but no-one has told us how. Nor have they addressed the hideous results thus far. Their only response is to throw vaster sums of money at it.

Of course no-one has told us how we will pay for this spending nor discussed the fact the U.S. government can no longer borrow enough money to pay for it and since September, according to Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, has started printing some of the money.

These financial experts aren't discussing the vast military spending on wars and weapons, nor that the spending is rapidly escalating. I guess there are no dire financial or moral consequences to massive open ended spending on wars.

But "Babylon Sister," is right. She should skeptically question my predictions. But I encourage her to read the original article "The U.S. Is Going Broke!" ( http://saneramblings.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=139 ) and take actions such as those I outlined, to protect herself, just in case these people of financial stature are wrong.

Thank you all for your comments.

Dick

----------------------

OK, there ya go.

[babylonsister]

19. Mr. Kazan, thank you for your courtesy. And thanks,

DUplicitous DUpe! :toast:

[stillcool]

3. I have raised my voice..

for what matters..and changing the disastrous direction this country was going..that's why I voted for Obama. I just love how people are sooooo concerned with the deficit now. Before? Not at all.

[AndyA]

4. I heard this was basically Bush's budget, or something to that effect.

Obama didn't have the time to do a complete budget from scratch, so he had to heavily modify what the Bush Administration had already started. I'm not sure if there's any truth to this, but I did see something on MSNBC about it a few weeks back.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Less than 2% is not "packed" with earmarks.

It's budget dust.

[4lbs]

7. Especially when the majority of that less than 2% budget dust was put in there by the Republicans.

It's hilarious the hypocrisy they show when they complain about earmarks when they put most of them in there.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. Even without that, it's hypocrisy

The budget deficits grew out of control on their own watch. Earmarks wouldn't have played any role either way in that. For them to harp on today's budget requires a word much stronger than "hypocrisy".

[Greyhound]

6. There is no other option at this point. What he says would be true in normal circumstances

but what he has apparently not taken into consideration is that the whole economy is broken and there is nobody but the government that can re-start it.

We will have to pay for this later, but we will pay for it through further devaluation of our currency. Our politicians have really screwed us and America may not survive it in the form we know, but for now we have to eat.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

12. Thank you for your comments, Greyhound...

I think you and Mr. Kazan mostly agree when you say, "the whole economy is broken and there is nobody but the government that can re-start it."

But the continuing wars, and the huge amount of money spent on military Bases and weaponry is the part of President Obama's plans, that must be addressed, and dramatically, if we are going to make this country work again for the good of the people.

Thanks again for your comments. ;-)

[Greyhound]

17. You're welcome, and this is another issue we agree on.

We simply have to get a grip on the DoD and the inconceivable corporate giveaways financed through them.

Thom Hartmann was pointing out just today how much we subsidize the energy/oil industry through our military. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are both all about oil and natural gas.

The boondoggle weapons system are huge wastes as well and GE, Lockheed, etc. live on them. We've lost our airplane industry because "defense" sucked all the money up and left those that didn't get their contracts could no longer survive, and we can extend that to ship building and most of our heavy industries as well.

If people could just see how detrimental all of this military spending is to us, and military personnel as well, I believe we might see some real change here, but time is quickly running out and we are so thoroughly indoctrinated in our national paranoia, I don't see how we can do it in time.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

22. Excellent points! Your remarks should be posted as its own thread...

It would be on the greatest page, in a heartbeat.

[Terran]

9. Sorry, he lost me before the 1st sentence was done.

This bill was notable for its LACK of earmarks. I should listen to this twerp?

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

16. It's not the earmarks, it's the wars and military budget, that is the real problem..

..in the country's spending, according to the author.

Thank you for adding to the discussion. No need to call anyone names.

The "Twerp" to whom you refer, has been actively protesting the war in Iraq, with a weekly candlelight vigil at a busy intersection in L.A., every week, for YEARS. Just thought I'd let you know who you were using insulting language toward.

Maybe you would like to read last weeks candlelight vigil summary, his 159 vigil...:
http://saneramblings.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=153
<snip>
"I can't tell you how much it means to me to see you out here," said a 20ish woman from her car. "I have two friends who are soldiers over there.

"Do you have anybody over there," she asked. "I do," I replied. "I have everyone who is there." "Ohhhh," she responded warmly. And then added, "Thank you for doing this."

Meanwhile, last Friday at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, President Obama announced, "by August 31, 2010, our combat mission will end."

But as he spoke further, it turned out he will leave up to 50,000 troops there indefinitely, and they will be conducting combat missions long after August 31st to "protect U.S. interests." Mr. Obama did not say how many of the 180,000 U.S. mercenaries will also remain or for how long.
<snip>
<snip>
Under the SOFA agreement with Iraq, the U.S. military is supposed to leave no later than December 31, 2011. But already, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is speaking of "a modest U.S. presence" thereafter.

That is possible depending on how the U.S. military defines its soldiers. It could call them "advisors," "envoys," or "training personnel," although I believe with the collapse of the economy, the U.S. is likely to run out of money long before then.

What do Iraqis think of this war and of the U.S. presence? We don't know. The U.S. media doesn't ask them and the U.S. military continues to censor the film and pictures taken there.

But it is commonly believed over a million Iraqis have been killed, although no-one knows how many are widowed or orphaned. We know 4,255 U.S. troops have died there (4,116 since "Mission Accomplished") and 318 U.S. allied troops have also been killed. Well over 30,000 U.S troops have been wounded.

According to the United Nations, more than 2 million Iraqis have fled their country and 2 million more have fled within their country. This out of a pre-U.S. invasion population of 25 million.

Their economy is in shambles. The unemployment rate is over 40%, compared to 25% in America at the peak of the Great Depression. Iraqis have only sporadic electricity, little clean water or medical care, limited garbage pickup or sewage treatment and most of their public schools are closed. Their doors can be kicked in at any time by the U.S. military and they must submit to U.S. military control. This is what "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has brought them.
<snip>

[Terran]

23. That's all well and good.

I agree with anyone who opposes the US occupation in Iraq and what it's done. But it doesn't help convince people by distorting the facts, and that's what he did in reference to the earmarks in the bill.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

10. This guy believes the New Deal did not help ease the Great Depression.

How do you even argue with someone like that?

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

20. The author, Mr. Kazan of www.saneramblings.com responds....

In answer to some of the other blogger comments, the massive government spending in the 1930's didn't make the Great Depression worse, but it didn't solve it either. However it did put people to work, which was wonderful.

The difference from then and now is that then, we were in far better financial condition. Now we have buried ourselves in record level debt and are dependent on borrowing, or our government can't pay its bills. That's how bad the situation now is.

As for the post that said I was wrong about the earmarks, he or she should click on the attached Washington Post article.

As for the post that said we have to spend like crazy now and worry about it later, that would be fine if spending was the answer. It's not.

This is our day of reckoning and no amount of reckless spending and avoidance of sacrifice will get us out of it. We must appeal to our creditors to show them we have a new and enlightened direction, not a bigger version of the old one. One can't escape a crisis caused by wild borrowing and spending by doing far more of it.

We need to tell our creditors we will stop spending their money on wars and weapons and on a lavish lifestyle they know we can't afford anymore. We must show them how if they continue to loan to us, we will for example, retrain our military industrial complex to develop clean and plentiful energy in which everyone will benefit.

Our old ways of doing things are about to end and we are witnessing the power structure doing everything it can to stay in control. For example, they tell us these huge bailouts of corporate giants are to save us but that is as valid as calling a military occupation, "Operation Iraqi Freedom." It's a sales presentation with no substance to it.

----------------------

Thank you for your comments.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

21. What does he belive solved the Great Depression?

[Greyhound]

25. I think we have the beginning of actual dialog here. I'm shocked.

I think I may be "the post(er) that said we have to spend like crazy now and worry about it later (not really what I said, but close enough for bar talk), that would be fine if spending was the answer. It's not.", and I'd like to clarify that statement. I would add (should have included in the first place, but longer posts are rarely read), as long as we refuse to look at how our economic and political systems are fundamentally, and fatally, flawed.

As for our creditors, I think that identification is misleading. They are creditors only insofar we have expended vast amounts of our own real wealth to put them, almost without exception, into the positions they now hold enabling them to loan anything to anyone.

Who are our creditors? I'm not up to the minute, but for decades the largest have generally been Saudi Arabia, Japan, Great Britain, and China. Britain created Saudi Arabia, but we made it. Great Britain of course owes it's modern existence to us. We destroyed and rebuilt Japan and most Japanese, certainly their government, have grown to appreciate it. And finally, 21st century China should be required to display the "Made in America" label on their national flag.

All of these nations have one thing in common, none of their economies exist without our market to sell into. This will not be true forever, Great Britain and Japan could probably survive, if not today, soon, without us, but Saudi Arabia would not last 24 hours without our military support (a diplomatic and tactical blunder of epic proportion, on our part, which causes us so much more trouble than it is worth) and China would collapse in a couple of months without sending their crap here. Creditors number one and two.

There is no avoiding this crisis, it has happened. All we can do now, in the context of being stuck in the system we've built and refusing to acknowledge it's un-sustainability, is to spend wildly to keep people working and to turn back toward producing things which are both required to maintain the structure of an economy. It is a poor solution to an untenable position, but it is all we have at this time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. They're like a bunch of drunk doctors applying band-aids willy-nilly to stop a heart attack.

Not to mention that all the band aids are borrowed.

All their efforts are aimed to ease the pain and appear to be "doing something". The best we can hope for is that some of the pain will be eased, and their efforts won't lead to an even bigger catastrophe.

[Bobcat]

24. 4lbs. Gets It

Sorry- but earmarks totalling 1.9% does not equate to "packed with earmarks". Do the math!