How "OUR" tax money is spent

[Terry]

California is borrowing $40 million a day from the federal government to pay unemployment benefits.

That means California is borrowing $40 million a day from you and me to pay unemployment benefits.

The Los Angeles Times reports the state will have a $362 million bill for interest alone due on a total debt of $10 billion next fall.

Thanks to the recession and poor management, California is an economic disaster zone, with one in every eight workers unemployed. More than 1.2 million Californians have lost their jobs since the start of the recession, and they're staying out of work for longer periods of time.

Plus in 2001, state lawmakers nearly doubled unemployment benefit levels without raising taxes. That was smart.

The result of all this is that if California keeps borrowing from the federal government, employers could face a steep hike in their unemployment taxes.

California is not alone here. 32 states in total have been borrowing from the federal government to pay unemployment benefits. The total is $41 billion. Some of these states are asking the feds for a deferral on repaying the loan until the economy improves.
** also see 'Politics' on Pelosi's extravagence!

[Terry]

Something else 'i'bet "U" didn't know:

Operation Nickel Grass
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search



Operation Nickel Grass was an overt strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The Military Airlift Command of the U.S. Air Force shipped 22,325 tons of tanks, artillery, ammunition, and supplies in C-141 Starlifter and C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft between October 14 and November 14, 1973.

This rapid re-supply mission was critical to the Israeli military's ability to thwart the armed Egyptian and Syrian action to regain their sovereign territory; it had been captured and occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six Day War. The overall re-supply effort soon had additional far-reaching effects beyond the immediate combatants. Following a further massive U.S. pledge of support on October 19, the oil-exporting Arab states within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) held to their previously declared warnings to use oil as a "weapon" and declared a complete oil embargo on the United States, and restrictions on other countries. This, and the contemporaneous failure of major pricing and production negotiations between the exporters and the major oil companies both led to the 1973 oil crisis.

Israel, as well as the US and most of the world,[1] were largely caught by surprise on October 6, 1973, when Egypt and Syria attacked the Sinai and the Golan Heights respectively, both territories Israel had captured during the Six Day War in 1967. Arab armies moved forward rapidly in the first few days; the Israel Defense Forces did not manage to stabilize the situation, as was generally expected, and it became clear that Israel was under considerable stress and would need supplies. Anticipating Israeli requests, Henry Kissinger, the United States Secretary of State and President Richard Nixon's National Security Adviser, made arrangements for El Al to pick up some items, including ammunition, "high technology products" and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles at a US naval base in Virginia on October 7, and was later presented with a list of priority arms; a modest effort soon began, but Kissinger still hoped to keep any visible involvement at a minimum.[2] On October 8, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized the assembly of thirteen 20-kiloton nuclear warheads on Jericho missiles and F-4s, which were prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets;[3] their preparation was made easily detectable, likely as a signal to the United States.[4] Kissinger learned of this threatening nuclear escalation on the morning of 9 October. On that same day, Meir issued a personal appeal for military assistance, which European nations declined. U.S. President Richard Nixon, however, ordered the commencement of Operation Nickel Grass, to replace all of Israel's materiel losses.[5] The decision was taken the same day the Soviets began their own resupply operation of Arab forces by sea.[6] Anecdotal evidence suggests that Kissinger had told Sadat that the reason for the U.S. airlift was that the Israelis were close to "going nuclear."[3]

[edit] Operation
Initially, only the Israeli national airline, El Al, provided transport, and supplies began to arrive in Israel on October 10, the same day the first Soviet resupply by air arrived in Damascus. Nonetheless, it was soon clear that El Al's limited supply of ill-configured passenger aircraft were insufficient. Still wanting to avoid direct US involvement, starting October 10, the use of commercial carriers was explored to provide 10-20 flights a day.[7] None of these were willing to accept the job for fear of being refused entry to Arab nations after the war.[citation needed] On October 12, Nixon decided that no more delays could be allowed, and ordered the Air Force to "send everything that can fly." Within nine hours, C-141s and C-5s were en-route to Israel.[8] The political maneuvering was not immediately solved by the Air Force's participation however: traditional European allies refused to allow re-supply aircraft to land for refueling or even overfly their territory. Portugal seemed willing to help though, so aircraft were dispatched to Lajes Field in the Azores Islands. After a few hours in the air, word came through that Portugal would permit them to land, and Lajes became a key staging point for the rest of the airlift. To comply with the demands of other European nations, even U.S. supplies already stationed in Europe were routed through Lajes, and soon over 30 aircraft per day were moving through Lajes. To accommodate this, the base instantly grew to house an extra 1,300 people who were billeted in improvised housing and hastily reactivated World War II barracks.[citation needed]

Between Portugal and Israel, the aircraft had to follow an extremely precise route. Flying exactly along the airspace border between hostile Arab nations to the south and European nations to the north, the transport craft flew down the middle of the Mediterranean Sea to Israel.[8] Fighter escort was deemed necessary for this leg of the journey, so American fighters from the U.S. 6th Fleet escorted the transports to within 150 miles of Israel, where Israeli Air Force Phantoms and Mirages escorted them into Ben Gurion International Airport. Along the Mediterranean route, American ships were stationed every 300 miles, and an aircraft carrier every 600 miles. These precautions appeared justified when unidentified Arab fighters made threats over the radio, but no conflict ensued. Upon arrival, the transports were unloaded by U.S. and Israeli servicemen before they returned home and supplies were expedited to the front where they arrived within a few hours. The first C-5 transport airplane arrived at Lod airport on October 14, 6:30 PM local time.[9] By then, however, Israel was already winning the war.[10]

Airlifted supplies were not all that was delivered under Nickel Grass. In the opening days of the war, Arab forces destroyed significant numbers[citation needed] of Israeli Air Force aircraft, surprising the Israelis with aggressive use of the new Soviet SA-6 Gainful Surface-to-air missile. Consequently, 40 F-4 Phantom II fighters were sent to Israel under Nickel Grass. They were flown to Lod, where American pilots were swapped for their Israeli counterparts. After the replacement of USAF insignia with IAF insignia if needed, the planes were refueled and ordered to the front, often taking to the air within hours of having arrived. Interestingly, some aircraft came directly from the USAFE fleet and operated in USAF camouflage,[11] but with Israeli insignia. Nine days after the initial attack, Israel launched counterattacks. C-5 Galaxies also delivered 36 A-4 Skyhawks from U.S. stocks, including some loaded off the flightline at Forrest Sherman Field, NAS Pensacola, Florida.

When the third cease-fire resolution was finally implemented on October 24, the airlift immediately slowed. Further flights were made to rebuild Israeli forces to their pre-war strength, and Operation Nickel Grass was ended on November 14. In the end, the military airlift shipped 22,325 tons of materiel to Israel. Additionally, the United States conducted its own seaborne re-supply operation, delivering 33,210 tons to Israel by October 30.[12] During the same general time, the Soviets airlifted 12,500–15,000 tons of supplies, more than half of which went to Syria; they also supplied another 63,000 tons mainly to Syria by means of a sealift.[13][14]

[edit] Effects
Operation Nickel Grass had immediate and far-reaching effects. Arab members of OPEC had declared they would limit or stop oil shipments to the United States and other countries if they supported Israel in the conflict. Holding to their threats, the Arab states declared a complete oil embargo on the United States. Oil prices skyrocketed, fuel became scarce, and the United States was soon embroiled in the 1973 oil crisis.[citation needed]

Nickel Grass also revealed a severe deficiency in American airlift capabilities: the need for staging bases overseas. Without Portugal's assistance, the airlift might not even have been possible. As a result, the U.S. greatly expanded its aerial refueling capabilities and made long-distance flight operations the standard rather than the exception.[8]

A GAO study of the operation discussed the shortcomings of the C-141A. As a result, the C-141B was conceived. The A models were sent back to Georgia where they were cut fore and aft of the wing, extended in length by three pallet positions, and refitted for in-flight refueling.[citation needed]

Nickel Grass vindicated the Air Force decision to purchase the C-5 Galaxy. Since its introduction in 1970, the C-5 had been plagued by problems. The Air Force claimed to have rectified the problems, but the C-5 was still viewed by the press as an expensive failure. During Nickel Grass, C-5s carried 48% of the total cargo in only 145 of the 567 total missions. The C-5 also carried "outsize" cargo such as M60 Patton tanks, M109 howitzers, ground radar systems, mobile tractor units, CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters, and A-4 Skyhawk components; cargo that could not fit in smaller aircraft. This performance justified the C-5's existence.[8]

Another effect of the operation was the near-resignation of then United States chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) General George Brown. Brown was reportedly livid that American weapons and munitions were being sent to a foreign country at the same time that the American command in Vietnam was protesting a lack of supplies in its theater of operations.[15]

[Terry]

US arms shipment reaches Israel, president Obama urged to halt further exports
Posted: 02 April 2009
The new delivery to Israel of a massive consignment of US munitions, revealed by Amnesty International today, throws into question whether President Obama will act to prevent the US fuelling further Israeli attacks against civilians that may amount to war crimes, as was perpetrated in Gaza.

According to new information received by Amnesty International, the Wehr Elbe, a German cargo ship which had been chartered and controlled by US Military Sealift Command, docked and unloaded its cargo of reportedly over 300 containers at the Israeli port of Ashdod, just 40 km north of Gaza by road. The German ship left the USA for Israel on 20 December, one week before the start of Israeli attacks on Gaza, carrying 989 containers of munitions, each of them 20 feet long with a total estimated net weight of 14,000 tons.

Brian Wood, Amnesty International's arms control campaign manager, said:

'Legally and morally, this US arms shipment should have been halted by the Obama administration, given the extent of the evidence showing how military equipment and munitions of this kind were recently used by the Israeli forces for war crimes.

"Arms supplies in these circumstances are contrary to provisions in US law."

Asked about the the Wehr Elb, a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed to Amnesty International that "the unloading of the entire US munitions shipment was successfully completed at Ashdod [Israel] on 22 March'. The spokeperson said that the shipment was destined for a US pre-positioned ammunition stockpile in Israel. Under a US-Israel agreement, munitions from this stockpile may be transferred for Israeli use if necessary. Another US official told Amnesty International that they are reviewing Israel's use of U.S. weapons during the Gaza conflict to see if Israel complied with U.S. law, but no conclusion has yet been reached." 

Brian Wood said:

'There is a great risk that the new munitions may be used by the Israeli military to commit further violations of international law, like the ones committed during the war in Gaza.

'We are urging all governments to impose an immediate and comprehensive suspension of arms to Israel and to all Palestinian armed groups, until there is no longer a substantial risk of serious human rights violations.'

The US was by far the largest supplier of weapons to Israel between 2004 and 2008. The US government is also due to provide $30 billion in military aid to Israel, despite the blatant misuse of weaponry and munitions in Gaza and Lebanon by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF).

According to one US official, President Obama has no plans to cut the billions of dollars in military aid promised to Israel under a new 10-year contract agreed in 2007 by the Bush administration. This new contract is a 25 per cent increase compared to the last contract agreed by the previous US administration.

Amnesty International has reported in detail on suspected war crimes committed by the IDF and by Palestinian armed groups in Gaza. On 15 January, Amnesty International called on all governments to immediately suspend arms transfers to all parties to the Gaza conflict to prevent further violations being committed using munitions and other military equipment.

Background
The Wehr Elbe sailed from the US state of North Carolina on 20 December after collecting its large cargo of US munitions, initially bound for the port of Navipe-Astakos port on the west coast of Greece. Its transponder signal disappeared on 12 January when the vessel was sailing near Astakos and when the ship was unable to dock due to a protest by the Greek Stop the War Coalition. The vessel was then tracked as it passed through the port of Augusta, on the Italian island of Sicily, and then near Gibraltar in mid-February, before reappearing on 23 March en route from Ashdod to the Black Sea port of Odessa where it docked on 26 March in berth 7. Amnesty International is now aware that the vessel docked in Ashdod on 22 March and reportedly offloaded over 300 containers.

Amnesty International first drew attention to this arms ship's voyage on 15 January. The ship's charter, authorised by the Bush administration a week before the IDF launched their attack on Gaza, was to carry 989 shipping containers of 'containerized ammunition and other containerised ammunition supplies' from Sunny Point Military Ocean Terminal, North Carolina to Ashdod, as listed in the contract. US Military Sealift Command charters for a further two US munitions shipments from Navipe-Astakos (Greece) to Ashdod, which explicitly included white phosphorus munitions, were announced on 31 December during the Gaza conflict and then cancelled on 9 January, but a US military spokesperson subsequently confirmed that the Pentagon was still seeking a way to also deliver those munitions.

Section 502B of the US Foreign Assistance Act stipulates that "no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights'. Section 4 of the Arms Export Control Act authorises the supply of US military equipment and training only for lawful purposes of internal security, "legitimate self-defence," or participation in United Nations peacekeeping operations or other operations consistent with the UN Charter. However, under the US Export Administration Act, security assistance may be provided if the President certifies that 'extraordinary circumstances' exist, so Section 502B is circumvented.  The Leahy Law prohibits the USA from providing most forms of security assistance to any military or police unit when there is "credible evidence" that members of the unit are committing gross human rights violations.

[Terry]

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion



HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED

urrent military" includes Dept. of Defense ($653 billion), the military portion from other departments ($150 billion), and an additional $162 billion to supplement the Budget's misleading and vast underestimate of only $38 billion for the "war on terror." "Past military" represents veterans' benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*

The Government Deception

The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (top).



Source: Congressional Budget Office for FY2008

These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the "Analytical Perspectives" book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don't pay) by April 15, 2008, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated.

[Terry]

Federal pie-chart



'i' don't think 'i'll find what % of the military budget is spent suppling other countries with weapons, ammunition, & military equipment, but 'i'm looking   ::O:

[Terry]

 
The United States military budget -- the threat to China
Submitted by NicolasDavies on Fri, 2010-10-29 23:18 Military Industrial Complex

Last January, Carl Conetta of the Commonwealth Institute's Project for Defense Alternatives wrote a paper titled "An Undisciplined Defense: Understanding the $2 Trillion Surge in US Defense Spending." (http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1001PDABR20.pdf) Conetta looked at the doubling of U.S. military spending since 1998, and concluded that only about half of the increase was linked to the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or to terrorism. Remarkably, this left over $1 trillion of extra U.S. military spending over the past 12 years unaccounted for -- not justified by any policy or strategy that U.S. political leaders have explained to the American public or to the rest of the world.

Equally disturbing, Conetta explained that the surge in military spending between 1999 and 2010 differed qualitatively from the 43 percent spending surge of the 1960s (Vietnam) and the 57 percent surge in the 1980s (Reagan) in that this was not just a peak in a fluctuating historical cycle but rather an unprecedented new baseline for U.S. military spending. From 1951 to 2002, U.S. military spending averaged $425 billion per year (in 2010 dollars) and never fluctuated more than 25 percent above or below that figure. Now it's 63 percent above it and rising, and the government has no plans to scale back to the "normal" level established during the previous 50 years of U.S. military dominance.

This dramatic increase in military spending contrasts sharply with what the taxpayers who are funding it say they want. A PIPA poll in 2005, when the US military budget was "only" $521 billion per year, found that the average American would choose to cut it by $163 billion. This would have brought the total military budget down to $358 billion, close to the 1998 level when adjusted for inflation, and well within the previous "normal" range. (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/DefenseSpending/FedBudget_Mar05/FedBud...) But of course that's not what happened. Instead, military spending grew another 35 percent over the next 5 years to give the public double the military budget it said it wanted.

Conetta explained the spending splurge in terms of the conflicting dividends of the end of the Cold War: the peace dividend and the power dividend. Even as bases were closed and the numbers of personnel in the U.S. armed forces were reduced in the 1990s, U.S. leaders were at the same time determined to capitalize on the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to expand American power around the world. As we now know, our leaders squandered the peace dividend and their pursuit of the power dividend led us into unwinnable wars and unsustainable hostile military occupations, but the disastrous results of their megalomania have yet to lead to a more rational policy or a genuine recommitment to peace.

Other factors driving the "splurge" were the desire to obtain new weapons and technology without giving up "legacy" systems from the Cold War; and underlying confusion regarding overall U.S. goals and global resistance to them. These factors combined to result in "cover your ass" planning for virtually unlimited contingencies.

The title of Conetta's paper, "An Undisciplined Defense," emphasized his view of this whole problem as a huge waste of resources driven by powerful institutional interests and the failure of anyone in government to impose choices, priorities or discipline. In Conetta's narrative, U.S. taxpayers are the victims, and the greatest risk is that unsustainable runaway military spending and the further militarization of the U.S. economy will turn the United States into something like the "suicide state" that Osama Bin Laden promised it would in 2001.

But even if Conetta and Bin Laden are entirely right, this huge military build-up is justified in the minds of senior officials by the ways they can use the unprecedented military forces they now have at their disposal. It is no consolation to the victims of American aggression in Iraq or Afghanistan that the killing of their loved ones and the devastation of their countries was driven by vested interests and undisciplined budget priorities. On the contrary, it adds insult to injury.

So, lack of discipline and institutional interests aside, we must still ask: what has the U.S. Department of Defense spent an extra trillion dollars on since 1998, how does it plan to spend trillions more as it further bankrupts our country, and how and where is it likely to use those forces and weapons in the future?

Conetta's analysis of the increase in U.S. military spending provided some useful data on where the extra money has gone. Of the missing trillion, $580 billion was categorized as non-war-related "modernization" or "procurement, research and development." That's right, our government has spent an extra $580 billion on weapons and equipment that are not related to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or to terrorism. Incredibly for a country engaged in two wars, this was more than double the $264 billion that was spent on extra weapons and equipment for those wars or to replace equipment destroyed in them. And remember that all these expenses are in addition to the "normal" 1998 baseline expense of $105 billion per year for weapons and equipment, which did not count as "extra" spending at all in Conetta's analysis.

More incredibly still, the Air Force and the Navy have taken greater shares of the "modernization" spending boom than the Army and the Marines despite their leading role in two ground wars. Air Force procurement dominated in the first period (1999-2002), while procurement for the Navy has come to the fore since 2007. The non-war-related splurge was only temporarily eclipsed by actual war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan during the middle period (2003-2006), and war-fighting may once again be competing with ship-building during the new escalation in Afghanistan.

Conetta attributed the Navy's extra procurement spending mainly to "discordant modernization" or the reluctance to sacrifice Cold War ships and weapons to free up money for new ones, leaving the taxpayers saddled with the combined expenses of both.

Since 1999, the Navy has added two new "big-deck" aircraft carriers to the nine it already had, and it has three more in the pipeline to replace one older one that will be taken out of service in 2013. It also has four smaller "amphibious assault ships" in the works to replace two older ones, for a total of twelve of these smaller helicopter carriers. It has launched 32 new destroyers since 1998, and has started building a whole new class of Zumwalt "land-attack" destroyers, an unabashedly offensive weapons platform, and a new class of shallow-draught "littoral combat ships" to operate in shallow water close to foreign shores.

Utterly irrelevant to America's current wars, the Navy has introduced two new classes of attack submarine since 1997, with 8 built and 13 more planned at a rate of two per year. It has also converted 4 of its ballistic missile submarines to carry conventional guided missiles. It still has 14 nuclear-armed submarines prowling the world's oceans with 24 Trident missiles and 192 nuclear warheads each (of up to 475 kilotons). Together they pack about 100,000 times the destructive force and poisonous radiation unleashed on Hiroshima, or about half of the U.S. nuclear "deterrent."

The build-up of U.S. naval forces suggests that America's leaders are preparing for a very different kind of warfare than the guerilla wars against lightly-armed resistance forces that they face in Afghanistan or Iraq. However, as a result of its arms build-up, the U.S. share of global military spending has increased from 28 percent during the Cold War to about 50 percent today, making the notion of any other country posing a conventional military threat to the United States seem absurd. The rest of the world put together barely matches U.S. military expenditures, so this is essentially a one-sided arms race.

On the other hand, after a century of economic dominance, the United States is for the first time facing the reality that it will soon be overtaken by China as the largest economy in the world. This has serious implications for the competitive advantage that the United States has enjoyed in many sectors of the global economy for generations. It need not by any means signal the end of America's prosperity any more than its own rise meant the end of prosperity for Britain, France or Germany, but it will mean the end of the central political and strategic role that the United States has become accustomed to playing in world affairs. The United States will have to carve out a new role in a world that it can no longer dominate as it has for the past 70 years.

So where does the U.S. military build-up fit into this picture? Why is the United States pouring money into new weapons and naval forces at precisely the moment that it desperately needs to invest in next-generation energy technology; to educate a highly skilled work force to compete on a more level global playing-field; to develop more balanced relationships with people and governments in the emerging global South instead of threatening them; and to ensure social protections for our most vulnerable citizens during an inevitably challenging transitional period?

When we examine the economic rise of China, two crucial things stand out. The first is that it is following essentially the same path to economic development as other successful countries in the past. Alexander Hamilton based the United States' early industrial policy on protecting its "infant industries" from competitive British imports. Germany, Japan, South Korea and the BRIC countries today have followed similar paths to development, using state power to protect and invest in key sectors while selectively embracing "free trade" policies and rhetoric to open up export markets and gain access to foreign resources. Other governments in the global South, particularly in Latin America, are belatedly applying the same principles to their economies, reforming previously subservient client relationships with the United States.

The United States will either develop new trade and economic patterns and more balanced relations with other countries or it will fall back on the threat of force that underpinned those relationships in the past to try to restore the kind of regimes and relations that have been so favorable to U.S. interests. This is a critical and fundamental choice: a crossroads in the conduct of U.S. foreign relations. As we continue to deplete many of the world's natural resources at an alarming rate, will the allocation of scarce resources in the 21st century be determined by peaceful negotiation and cooperation, or by military competition and the threat and use of force?

The real significance of the escalation of U.S. military spending is the implication that America's leaders have so far chosen the latter. Even in military terms, this can be only a futile and tragic course. If the United States puts China in a position where it has to respond militarily, its wealth and economic strength will enable it to do so, as surely as the United States was able to convert its growing economic power into military power in the 20th century. An arms race would bankrupt the United States, not China, and war between the United States and China with 21st century weapons could kill hundreds of millions of people or even destroy human society as we know it.

Rather than directly threatening China, the United States is expanding its naval presence on the world's oceans to control the trade routes on which China's economic growth depends. It has placed China's second largest foreign oil supplier, Iran, squarely in the sights of its war machine. And it is escalating a war over critical pipeline and overland trade routes through Afghanistan and Central Asia that could link China more securely to many of its import and export markets.

This brings us to the second critical factor in the rise of China. The global economic growth of the past two centuries has been based on the development and use of fossil fuels. Even though China is already investing far more than the United States in next-generation sustainable energy technology, its current growth is being fueled by coal and oil. Like the U.S. and tragically for our world's climate, China is self-sufficient in coal and it faces no critical shortage of natural gas, but the supply of oil for its transportation sector is more vulnerable.

Like the United States, China has substantial but dwindling oil reserves. And, like the United States, it already imports about 60 percent of the oil it consumes. China's sources of imported oil are quite diversified. Its largest suppliers are Saudi Arabia (21 percent), Iran (15 percent), Angola (13 percent), Russia (8 percent) and Oman (8 percent). Half its imported oil comes from the Middle East and 30 percent from Africa, and this is all transported by sea. China is expanding energy cooperation with Russia and building pipelines from Russia and Central Asia that will be more secure than the shipping lanes through the Malacca Straits and the Indian Ocean. The 1,400-mile Kazakhstan-China Pipeline is already carrying oil to China from the Caspian Sea.

But even as China develops trade links with its continental neighbors and shifts investment to its domestic economy, it will still be heavily dependent on ocean transport for exports and imports. It has therefore been investing in a chain of port facilities and potential future naval bases along what U.S. military analysts have dubbed the "string of pearls," stretching from China to the coast of Africa. China has built or expanded ports at Port Sudan (Sudan), Gwadar (Pakistan), Chittagong (Bangladesh), Sittwe (Myanmar), Lamu (Kenya) and the largest and most strategic port in South Asia at Hambantuta on the southern coast of Sri Lanka. China has also offered to build a canal across the Isthmus of Kra in Thailand, which is only 28 miles wide at its narrowest point, to provide a safer and more direct route to and from the Indian Ocean.

On the military front, China has been careful to give the United States no pretext to treat its rise as a military threat. It has concentrated on economic development and lived by the "24 character" strategy laid out by former Premier Deng Xiaoping: "Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership." U.S. analysts have zeroed in on "hide our capacities and bide our time" as a stealthy strategy to eventually challenge U.S. dominance, while Chinese commentators emphasize "never claim leadership" as a commitment to multilateralism and a renunciation of any future bid for hegemony.

But China has quietly been developing some critical defensive capabilities. It has been studying aircraft carrier designs and seems to be planning to build small carriers to protect its tankers and cargo ships along the "string of pearls" and other trade routes. Its extensive ballistic missile program has developed the Dong Feng 21D, a land-based anti-ship ballistic missile that could possibly sink a U.S. aircraft carrier at a range of 900 miles. The Dong Feng 21D is a powerful deterrent to the aggressive deployment of U.S. naval power anywhere near China's coast, which is already patrolled by 52 attack submarines, 77 destroyers and frigates and hundreds of smaller missile- and torpedo-armed patrol boats.

China seems to be taking effective steps to counter threats from the United States, and at a fraction of the cost of the American "splurge." It remains to be seen whether this will be effective in the long run. If the United States is determined to use military force to control access to the world's dwindling natural resources in the 21st century, it will take even more skillful management on the Chinese side and unprecedented international diplomacy to avoid a serious military confrontation or a debilitating arms race.

The best possible outcome would be for the United States to back away from its policy of military threats and aggression and renew its commitment to the United Nations Charter and international law. Current U.S. policy explicitly threatens the use of unilateral force in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter. The 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review formalized this illegitimate position as official policy wherever U.S. "vital interests" are at stake and defined those interests to include "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources."

Subsequent U.S. policy statements have reiterated this position, and the invasion of Iraq demonstrated the seriousness of U.S. threats. The 2010 U.S. National Security Strategy repeated that, "The United States must reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend our nation and our interests, yet we will also seek to adhere to standards that govern the use of force." The United States Constitution defines international treaties as a binding part of the "Supreme Law of the Land," not merely as "standards" or "norms" that U.S. leaders must pay lip service to as they violate them.

The U.N. Charter prohibits the threat as well as the use of force precisely because the one leads so insidiously to the other. Saying that "all options are on the table," including illegal threats of aggression, poisons negotiations and undermines accommodation by either side. The side making the threats will always be inclined to ratchet up its threats rather than give ground, especially when it is emboldened by the illusion of military superiority, and the threatened party will be equally reluctant to give ground because no political leader can afford to be seen giving in to threats. Current U.S. military policy is therefore not just illegal and unconstitutional but a recipe for endless war and a potential threat to people everywhere.

American power has endured one military calamity after another for 60 years, from Korea to Afghanistan, but it has survived until now because of the strength and size of the U.S. economy, not because its aggressive use of military power has ever been successful. No slight intended to Grenada or Panama, but invading tiny nearby neo-colonies does not provide a blueprint for "full spectrum dominance" of the Earth. As its relative economic position declines and it has to find a new place in a multipolar world, the United States will find that reinvestment in a new productive peacetime economy and international cooperation will serve its interests far better than an arms race it can't win and a debilitating state of endless war and global occupation.

But how much more war will it take to bring our leaders to their senses and how many more innocents must die on the altar of their nightmares? We must find a way to restore sanity to U.S. policy before our deluded leaders squander what is left of our nation's wealth on an unwinnable arms race, or, even worse, make the fatal mistake of unleashing their war machine against a country that can actually fight back. Demanding the enforcement of our own laws against aggression, torture and other war crimes would be a good place to start, along with immediate and substantial cuts in all offensive weapons programs in the U.S. military budget.

[Terry]

I realize all the above is a lot of reading, but it certainly shows part of (how) & (why) we're in debt way-over-"OUR" heads.  If "WE" don't stop Government waste of "OUR" money the road to nowhere will look good to what "WE" have to look forward too.

[Y]

California is borrowing $40 million a day from the federal government to pay unemployment benefits.

That means California is borrowing $40 million a day from you and me to pay unemployment benefits...

Are you saying you have a problem with that?  If so, what is your problem?

You can't really be that dense to not see that in this economy it's in our (America's) best interest to assure those UE benefits?

[Y]

Federal pie-chart



'i' don't think 'i'll find what % of the military budget is spent suppling other countries with weapons, ammunition, & military equipment, but 'i'm looking   ::O:

Our (America's) military spending is obscene.

[Terry]

Our (America's) military spending is obscene.

   Definition of OBSCENE

2a : abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity
...didn't 'we' already know that  :confused: " "  ::D:

[Terry]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  MY PROBLEM ~~~~~~~~~

Posted by: Y
« on: November 19, 2010, 12:27:16 PM » Insert Quote

Quote from: Terry on November 13, 2010, 07:27:50 PM
California is borrowing $40 million a day from the federal government to pay unemployment benefits.

That means California is borrowing $40 million a day from you and {{me}}  [the government spending money it doesn't have is going to end up puting me, my kids, & grandkids in the poor house- when "WE" end up there who's going to pay the taxes that keeps "OUR" government runing to pay the unemployment & welfareto pay unemployment benefits...
Are you saying you have a problem with that?  If so, what is your "MY" problem? is:  When the gov starts paying for all the peoples problems ( which [they're doing] because they feel like they caused them in the first place *which they did* the people that don't have problems soon do have.That's my problem!

You can't really be that dense to not see that in this economy it's in our (America's) best interest to assure those UE benefits?  ? for 2 years or more? & "U" call me dense

besides, word is California is suppose to slide off into the ocean in a few years anyway - why grease the path?  ::D:  ::D:  ::D

[Terry]

Your paycheck is about to shrink By Blake Ellis, staff reporterNovember 24, 2010: 1:01 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Are you ready to give up $30 a month?

That's what may come out of your paycheck if -- as expected -- the Making Work Pay tax credit expires at the end of the year.

The credit was enacted last year as part of the Recovery Act to put more cash in people's pockets. For the past two years, it has boosted paychecks by up to $400 for single filers and $800 for joint filers by reducing the tax withheld and giving a credit for that amount. That's $33 or $67 a month.

Single taxpayers who make $75,000 or less and couples earning under $150,000 are eligible for the full credit, while higher earners can receive partial credit. More than 90% of working Americans have been helped by the tax break.

Now they will feel the pain when the credit goes away.

A Senate Finance Committee aide said panel chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, is working on a proposal to extend a number of expiring tax breaks when Congress returns next week.

Obama proposed an extension months ago, but it's unclear if the administration will fight for it now.

Tax cut stew for Christmas
And with only weeks remaining in the lame-duck Congress, the credit is likely on its way out, said Clint Stretch, managing principal of tax policy at Deloitte Tax.

"I haven't seen any serious effort to extend Making Work Pay," Stretch said. "For this to get passed, somebody in Congress would have to be saying this is a priority, and we just haven't seen that happening."

Instead, most of the buzz is about the Bush tax cuts, which are also slated to expire at the end of the year.

Republicans are fighting to extend the Bush cuts for everyone -- including higher income Americans. But Obama, who has promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, is pushing to preserve the cuts only for family income up to $250,000.

"The most curious aspect of the tax debate is the obsession with taxes at the high end," said Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "But when almost every middle and lower class American is going to face higher taxes, nobody's talking about it."


Cutting through the tax haze
The big issue with keeping Making Work Pay around is its cost -- about $60 billion to extend it one year.

"Stimulus is a bad word now, so anything labeled stimulus will not get traction," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

But if the extension isn't passed, the 110 million families that received higher paychecks in 2009 and 2010 will owe more taxes than they did during those two years.

"Most people may have no idea they received it and no idea that it's going away," said Marr. "But what you can be certain of is that they'll have less money and they'll spend less -- and this is a terrible time for the economy to lose $60 billion of spending."