Home | About | Donate

Pentagon Spending Set to Hit Near-Record Levels, But 'Establishment Says We Can't Afford' Progressive Policies

#1

Pentagon Spending Set to Hit Near-Record Levels, But 'Establishment Says We Can't Afford' Progressive Policies

Jake Johnson, staff writer

Pentagon spending is on track to grow significantly for the fifth consecutive year, but "very few in Congress are questioning" how the U.S. can afford it.

4 Likes
#2

Pentagon Spending Set to Hit Near-Record Levels, But ‘Establishment Says We Can’t Afford’ Progressive Policies

Well fed, well educated young folk don’t tend to “volunteer” to serve as cannon fodder now, do they?

27 Likes
#3

No surprise to me, the Amerikan, Congress with very few exceptions are made up of nothing but stooges for the MIC. Example: when Senator, Diane F***** when asked by young kids why she could not get behind the Green New Deal, her answer was: " we cannot afford it"!

23 Likes
#4

Anyone know exactly how much Sen. Diane Feinstein makes in profits from
the Military Industrial Complex?

12 Likes
#5

Sen. Diane Feinstein is almost 84 years old and she has been a stooge for the MIC for a long,long, time and I do not know what she has made in profits from the MIC but being a cheerleader for the MIC, tells me her blood, profits have been… and are substantial.

15 Likes
#6

This issue has descended into farce.

As such, it represents another illustration of the fact that pretty much any purported differences between our 2 parties amount to comedy of the absurd.

I place little hope in Bernie, Tulsi, or Mike Gravel getting much traction in the d-party debates when they point out the bullshit of spending without limits on the military while simultaneously claiming we can’r afford health insurance for all.

Why so little hope? Because this same situation has prevailed since I was born decades ago.

25 Likes
#7

The concept of the federal government “not affording” something is ignorant. The government can spend on anything it wants. It’s a stupid framing, as if there is a finite amount of money and if we spend money here, the state can’t spend it there. No, there are natural resource and productive constraints, so if too much money is created relative to what can be produced, you could have inflation. And, of course, all spending is not equal. We could spend money to provide healthcare and money to fend off societal collapse thanks to the environmental crisis, or we can spend money on war and things that destroy the environment. The question isn’t whether or not we can “afford” something, it is what we are and aren’t spending on, and why, that is the issue.

But, if you were to work within a confines that the elites have created, that there is some finite amount of money we can spend, and one dollar here means a dollar has to be taken form somewhere else, yeah, it is obscene that we would spend as we do on war but not so many other things. But, again, that isn’t the reality. In reality, we are just choosing to enrich war profiteers and those in power are choosing to not spend on uplifting our society, working people, the poor, helping us to at least mitigate the environmental crisis, fixing crumbling infrastructure, etc.

The editor of the Financial Times admitted that, “of course” MMT’s insights on how money is created, deficits and what is called public debt is true, but he said that if we ditched the fantasy then bad things could happen. So, we have to pretend that the government is limited on what we can spend on and we have to pretend that the government borrows a currency only it can create, because letting go of the fantasy would be disastrous. Yeah, horrible, as opposed to tens of thousands dying because they lack healthcare and the environmental crisis. That stuff isn’t disastrous.

30 Likes
#8

This is not specific to this topic, but just watch her ad prior to the actual clip. She is is only one directly addressing this issue and the actual clip indirectly addresses the same. Amazing lady!

20 Likes
#9

Soooo true! I remember one debate I watched awhile ago when Mike Gravel was on the debate, stage, and the moderator mostly ignored Mike. I still remember his response when he was finally called upon and I am paraphrasing but it went something like this: " I might as well be a potted plant on this stage as you people have completely ignored me"!

22 Likes
#10

Dear Mr. Johnson -
Actual (in)security spending by the US in close to $ 1.2 trillion per year.
It always irks me when progressives buy in to the DOD/MIC kool-aid

10 Likes
#11

The parties of the Duopoly, you know, the ones 95 to 97% of you who vote for each and every election, well, they are the ones that continue to con you all into supporting them. They are the ones who fund the Military. Stop supporting them.

I too was a fool for them.

Never again.

13 Likes
#12

I would like to see just one politician say N korea is not a threat to the US, the US is a threat to N. Korea and every other country ,especially small defenseless ones.

19 Likes
#13

No kidding. The article states the whole tangled web is an intentional unaudited mess, then " low balls " the true and real cost by $300-400 Billion annually.
This is akin to a skit from (?) called Shady Tree Used Cars where the Mgr. tells the new salesman they just made $3500 from a truck they owned for $1500. And, the best news of course; the green pea gets $350 bucks, for not knowing his ass from a hole in the ground and for parroting everything the lying Mgr said, to calm any hesitancy the customer may have.
It’s worked like a charm for 100 years.

4 Likes
#14

Progressive people say “We can’t afford 1 percent of the population owning 90 % of everything”.

8 Likes
#17

Don’t know about profits from MIC, but:

California’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s estimated $94 million net worth makes her the second-wealthiest serving senator.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/041516/who-are-americas-7richest-senators.asp#sen-dianne-feinstein-d

6 Likes
#18

Hi Shantiananda: We need some changes in discovering what politicians are really doing. I would like EARLY information on what stock politicians had, and perhaps knowing that we would know WHY they voted in peculiar ways.
I think that every year people running for election must show what they own in stocks or in money, or in corporate donations.------money should not be mingled with votes— Maybe they would be recalled if we knew what they were actually doing.
It’s not enough to just know what Trump owns —everyone in government needs to
put all their investments on the table; it would be so much easier to see who works for the country and the People and who doesn’t. yes TRANSPARENCY is lacking everywhere and we are all tired of being blinded by the BLIGHT!

10 Likes
#19

Amazing success for conservative’s fear mongering and their war economy.

On the one hand, it seems sure to kill off the human plague. Then it will be like Chernobyl and Bikini Atoll, full of radioactive wildlife were humans dare not go. Score one for species diversity…

#20

It’s time we had a real criminal investigation into how much Pentagon budget was used to fund the events of 9/11.

10 Likes
#21

Spending all that money, and they still can’t defeat the Taliban, a bunch of guys with AK-47s and IEDs.

6 Likes
#22

I think it could solve a lot of problems if we the 99% of the American, people… could ever figure a way to take the trillion $$$ profits out of U.S. wars as well as eliminating the $$$ out of politics.

7 Likes