Good enough for government work?

The government likes to argue that it doesn't spend your income tax dollars on military, but is that true?

U.S. military spending is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined.Our spending accounts for 47 percent of the world’s total military spending, and our share of the world's GDP is about 21 percent. Of the top 15 military spenders, 12 are US allies. We outspend Iran and North Korea by a ratio of 72 to one.

US is losing track of it's weapons in Afghanistan

They're likely going to the Taliban

That means the defense industry is going to have sell the government more weapons not only to replace the ones being lost but to fight the Taliban's increased weapon capacity. Is it any wonder we spend so much on defense companies? There are defense companies in all 50 states. Is it any wonder politicians never oversee these contracts? What do we think about the fact that most defense contracts are "cost plus", meaning taxpayers pay more and defense companies make more when projects go overbudget. Ever heard the phrase, "good enough for government work?"

Originated in World War II. When something was "good enough for Government work" it meant it could pass the most rigorous of standards. Over the years it took on an ironic meaning that is now the primary sense, referring to poorly executed work.

"Government work" is also a term for the manufacture of something on company time for personal use. For example, a custom trailer hitch made at a welding shop for the welder himself on the afternoon shift with no supervisors around is government work. Commonly heard in Ontario, Canada and northeast U.S.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/good_enough_for_government_work

The biggest spending programs of recent years were the Iraq occupation, the counter-productive War on Terror and now the Bush/Obama bank robberies.

"I am frustrated beyond belief. We're talking to ourselves and you're pretending to be here. I really don't understand what's going on. Previous witness said that you guys as an agency act like you're deaf, dumb and blind...You've told us nothing and I figured that's your intention." (Rep Gary Ackerman to SEC officials)

Is the SEC like a legal agency hired to protect the criminals? Watch this:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1021551579

So....Bernie Madoff ran the largest ponzi scheme ever for foreign organized crime, Wall Street engineered the sub-prime crisis for profit and the SEC is an expensive front for all of this?

http://thefirst100.blogspot.com/2009/02/us-taxpayers-organized-crime-and.html
http://thefirst100.blogspot.com/2009/02/know-bosses.html

Republican politicians are more upset about the spending on US health, education and infrastructure.

Does the president run the government or does the government run the president?

Regarding that run on the banks that took place last year, written about in yesterday's blog. Mike Rivero has a theory:

"At 2:20 the big ugly secret comes out. Within an hour, some $550 billion was electronically withdrawn from the money market accounts. The claim is that had the government not blocked further withdrawals and stared poffering guarantees, the US and World economies would have been collapsed?

Maybe. Obviously there are theories all around as to what happened, and mine is very simple.

Wall Street knew they were in trouble. The American people were no longer asking for new loans that could create new money that would be used to pay the interest on old loans. Collapse was imminent, and worse, the American people rightly blamed the financial shysters for their poverty. People were starting to sue the mortgage lenders and the mortgage-back securities fraudsters.

So the investment banks and brokerages and loan companies pulled off a scam. Working through overseas "cut-outs" they yanked $500 billion dollars to put a scare into the US Government, then turned around and warned that if the bailout was not passed, they would collapse the US economy itself and shift the blame onto the government.

This theory explains the absolute total panic we saw in Congress as they ramrodded through the first bailout despite overwhelming taxpayer opposition.

And the problem is that is this theory is correct, and the Wall Street "Bernies" are blackmailing the US Government with their own financial doomsday weapon, then the bailouts will continue, as blackmailers never stop on their own.

This may be why, even as Congress passes this most recent bailout, word is already coming from the White House that yet another trillion and a half bailout is already being planned."

Is Los Alamos better than Pakistan's ISI as a source of black market nuclear intelligence? This time they are missing 69 computers.

You read about the US and Russian satellites that crashed? Wayne Madsen and perhaps the Czech government believe this yet another one of those covert activities the public never fully understands the details of.

Detainees were tortured to death

This kind of information is being hidden from Obama

We seem to always overlook in our nation that only a small portion of the government changes from administration to administration. Barack Obama is one man with a sword fighting a tidal wave.

People who report on abuses by government are still not welcome in government. Is Barack Obama one man with a sword fighting a tidal wave?

Almost 40% want Bush administration's abuses investigated.

Judges took $2.6M to put kids in jail.

It's Rahm Emmanuel's Stimulus

Rahm Emmanuel is why Howard Dean isn't in Obama's administration.

Support for the stimulus is increasing:

But not support for the bank bailouts. Is the public really able to distinguish the two? Good news if so.

"As I've said to a couple of the bankers, 'Here's this problem: People really hate you, and they're starting to hate us because we're hanging out with you.'" (Barney Frank - D)

Most people oppose nationalizing the banks, but one reader, Josh Keiler, asks if nationalization of the banks is the only possible solution:

Nationalization is likely the only true way out of this mess. 75% of people don't know what that really means, and are just scared of the word "Socialism". Especially if it is screamed day after day by the likes of Rush-O'Rielly-Hannity-Beck.

It may be getting to the point that the system becomes unsalvageable. Of course, if we reach that point, Obama will get the blame rather than Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/21/business/sweden.4-412796.php

What's the republican plan on banking? Politially attack Obama and Do Nothing?

Air ads in 30 states opposing the stimulus plan to imrove health, edicuation and infrastucture.But the bank bailouts? No problem.

Oh, and blame FDR for the depression!

Another reader, Paul Brown, points out using the unemployment stats, just how wrong the republicans are on this:

Of course FDR didn't cause the depression, but there has been a consistent and still popular debate as to whether he actually ended it. Even after 6 years of the new deal the unemployment rate in 1938 was still almost 20%. This stat (most often quoted by Republican talking heads is based on stats that don't take into account the jobs that govt creates. This tactic is alive well today as it was back in the 1930s. Republicans don't consider government created jobs as jobs but rather as temporary work. Tell that to the KBR no-bid contractors who have been soaking up those temporary work gigs for the last 8 years.

Real stats are hard to argue when it comes to who actually puts Americans to work and creates jobs. Jobs defined as people earning a pay check whether through govt created intervention or through private enterprise.

Check out these numbers. FDR orchestrated the biggest drop in unemployment in history. Trend analysis: Republicans generally make the number of unemployed go up and Democrats make the numbers go down.

ROOSEVELT PRE-WWII NEW DEAL
1932 Unemployment Rate: 23.6% (12.8 million total unemployed)
1940 Unemployment Rate: 14.6% (8.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -9.0
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.7%

ROOSEVELT WWII
1941 Unemployment Rate: 9.9% (5.5 million total unemployed)
1944 Unemployment Rate: 1.2% (670,000 total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -8.7
Total unemployment percentage change: -87.9%

TRUMAN
1945 Unemployment Rate: 1.9% (1.0 million total unemployed)
1952 Unemployment Rate: 3.0% (1.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +1.1
Total unemployment percentage change: +81.0%

EISENHOWER
1953 Unemployment Rate: 2.9% (1.8 million total unemployed)
1960 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (3.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: +110.03%

KENNEDY
1961 Unemployment Rate: 6.7% (4.7 million total unemployed)
1963 Unemployment Rate: 5.7% (4.0 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.0%
Total unemployment percentage change: -13.6%

JOHNSON
1964 Unemployment Rate: 5.2% (3.7 million total unemployed)
1968 Unemployment Rate: 3.6% (2.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: -25.6%

NIXON
1969 Unemployment Rate: 3.5% (2.8 million total unemployed)
1974 Unemployment Rate: 5.6% (5.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: +82.0%

FORD
1975 Unemployment Rate: 8.5% (7.9 million total unemployed)
1976 Unemployment Rate: 7.7% (7.4 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -0.8%
Total unemployment percentage change: -6.6%

CARTER
1977 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (6.9 million total unemployed)
1980 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (7.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: 0.0
Total unemployment percentage change: +9.24%

REAGAN
1981 Unemployment Rate: 7.6% (8.2 million total unemployed)
1988 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (6.7 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: -19.0%

BUSH I
1989 Unemployment Rate: 5.3% (6.5 million total unemployed)
1992 Unemployment Rate: 7.5% (9.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.2
Total unemployment percentage change: +47.2%

CLINTON
1993 Unemployment Rate: 6.9% (8.9 million total unemployed)
2000 Unemployment Rate: 4.0% (5.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change -2.9
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.3%

Of course that isn't to say the democrats are inherently right. They have a stimulus plan, but you can't read it.

Your Job:
Tell someone about this blog. That's pretty easy to do , isn't it? Thanks for reading it. That's enough motivation alone for me to write it. Some of you have written me e-mails of support and I really do appreciate them. If you would, please help me increase readership by e-mailing the link to a few folks. Thanks kindly! Happy Thursday nation! :)