Community | April 08, 2009 | 40 comments

Obama's military budget

source: http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3543...

Vierotchka
While media plays up program cuts, Obama's total defense budget surpasses Bush's by $20 billion.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said before presenting his FY2010 budget that the event was special due to the "scope and significance of the changes". Change was expected, given the arrival of a new administration and the fiscal pressures applied by the economic crisis, but what specifically has changed? Military analyst Miriam Pemberton tells the Real News that while some major steps have been taken to cut back expensive Cold War era weapons systems, the department's overall budget is $20 B higher than it ever was under President Bush.

Miriam Pemberton is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. She heads a group that produces the annual “Unified Security Budget for the United States" and she is a former Director of the National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament. She is co-editor, with William Hartung, of "Lessons from Iraq: Avoiding the Next War".
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics
  2. tags:
    News,  Politics,  Economy,  Barack Obama,  7 more
  3.     
    |

40 comments // Obama's military budget // Video

  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  

    • I guess we are back to square one... Empire building 101 & its consequences abroad & at home...

      Same old, same old....

      "[The plutocrats believe there are some things worse than war]: the confiscation of special privileges; the abolition of unearned income; the overthrow of the economic parasitism; the establishment of industrial democracy. The plutocrats would welcome a war that promised salvation from any such calamities; they would also welcome a war that promised greater foreign markets, the destruction of foreign competition, more security for property rights and a longer lease on life for plutocratic despotism." - Scott Nearing — 1917

      Application

      The Doctrine of Blatancy works something like this: First identify our (USA’s corporations) area of benefit (where can we maximize our power and wealth?) Next look for locals who will collaborate with us to help achieve our ends. Of course there are always scraps from the table to be thrown to them. And most dogs are satisfied with that.

      Fait Accompli ;)

      "The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, the judges. And they own all the big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear. They spend billions every year lobbying to get what they want. Well we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everyone else. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed, well educated people. That's against their interests. They want obedient workers." - George Carlin

    • 3 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  

    • SAME AS IT EVER WAS...

      Because blind faith in your leaders will get you killed.

      Will Democrats Stand Up to Obama’s Bloated Military Budget? http://original.antiwar.com/scahill/2009/04/09/will-democrats-stand-up-to-obamas....

      Here is an undeniable fact: Obama is substantially increasing US military spending, by at least $21 billion from Bush-era levels, including a significant ratcheting up of Afghanistan war spending, as well as more money for unmanned attack drones, which are increasingly being used in attacks on Pakistan. (David Swanson over at AfterDowningStreet.org does a great job of breaking down some of the media coverage of this issue across the political spectrum).

      Obama’s budget of $534 billion to the Department of Defense "represents roughly a 4-percent increase over the $513 billion allocated to the Pentagon in FY2009 under the Bush administration, and $6.7 billion more than the outgoing administration’s projections for FY 2010," bragged Lawrence Korb, author of the Center for American Progress‘ report supporting Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan, in an article called, "Obama’s Defense Budget Is on Target."

      Is Gates channeling Cheney on Iraq with 'last gasp' remark?
      http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/65919.html

      “When will the American people actually vote to give to the world more than bombs and missiles, sweatshops, dubious science, frankenfood, poverty and misery?” - Cynthia McKinney

      Everything in war is barbaric... But the worst barbarity of war is that it forces men collectively to commit acts against which individually they would revolt with their whole being. - Ellen Key

      PEACE !
      http://antiwar.com

    • 3 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
  • diabolical44
    • 0
      diabolical44  

    • here's a new idea for the military budget, end the overseas American empire. close down these bases that we have all over the globe and bring our boys to home soil.

    • 3 years ago
  • montesooma
  • diabolical44
    • 0
      diabolical44  
    • diabolical44:

      okay tough guy. beating your chest really does a lot of good in the world. we can see where the Dick Cheney foreign policy and the project for the new american century ideals got us. the proof is in the pudding. less stable. less safe than ever.

    • 3 years ago
  • diabolical44
    • 0
      diabolical44  

    • the right wing is going batshit over these "huge military spending cuts" when in reality the budget is 4% larger than Bush's military budget. fucking hypocrites.

      i am beginning to realize that it is the right wing that truly has the "messiah" complex . i notice this because when a republican leader takes power, they fall completely in line and support him regardless of what he does, even if it goes completely against their supposed "core principles".

    • 3 years ago
  • montesooma
  • montesooma
  • diabolical44
    • 0
      diabolical44  
    • diabolical44:

      they certainly are falling in line a little bit. but not nearly as much as the republican party does. i'll admit, the republicans close ranks and circle the wagons much better than the dems. they are a better team. too bad they seem to look out for their own team more than the overall well being of the nation.

      there is something about liberalness that is just more rebellious and harder to whip into line i think.

    • 3 years ago
  • nursediesel
    • 0
      nursediesel  

    • regjoeschmo, apparantly not too many did. The media was discouraged to do so and thus directed everything away from his actual voting record and political backround.
      It was easy to just feel good about voting for Mr. Obama, without knowing much of anything about his political history.
      We should know better than to believe what politicians tell us when running for office, but we don't. We only hear what we want to hear.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Does this include militarizing space? I read more satellites are being purchased. Oh, BTW, what's the peace budget? Oh that's right, we don't have one.

    • 3 years ago
  • montesooma
    • 0
      montesooma  
    • JanforGore:

      peace comes thru kicking the shit out of anyone who challenges you. thats the way the world is and no amount of sissy apeasement will change it.
      SORRY it's called reality.
      so the peace budget would be the same amount allotted for preparing to confront those who will challenge your way of life

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • JanforGore:

      Obviously peace doesn't come from "kicking the shit out of anyone who challenges you" (which is kind of vague) because we still don't have it. And who challenged us in Vietnam? That was an illegal war for resources just as Iraq is. Our defense budget is obscene and has nothing to do with seeking peace. And I was actually being fasicious. This country will never have a peace budget because war is too profitable to the military industrial complex and that is what this is all about, just like it always is. Making enemies is lucrative, peace isn't.

    • 3 years ago
  • frady
    • 0
      frady  

    • That's because Bush always funded his war in Iraq with supplemental spending bills instead of including them in his Pentagon requests. Not that Obama isn't spending us into oblivion in other ways.

    • 3 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  

    • "It is easier to find a score of men wise enough to discover the truth than to find one intrepid enough, in the face of opposition to stand up for it:" A. A. Hodge

    • 3 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  

    • While this item is from September 2008, the system, nooks & crannies are the same...

      PENTAGON SCORES A BIGGER RIP-OFF THAN BAILOUT
      http://current.com/items/89342370/pentagon_scores_a_bigger_rip_off_than_bailout....

      "It does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchal society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. The war is waged by the ruling group against its subjects, and its object is not victory, but to keep the very structure of society in tact." - George Orwell, from 1984

      WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY & IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

      http://antiwar.com

    • 3 years ago
  • montesooma
  • asherp
  • Robroy1
    • 0
      Robroy1  

    • I don't feel great about this, but i have not seen what changes have been made and why it is higher than that of Bush. But this kind of change America does not need.

    • 3 years ago
  • pjacobs51
  • Sexirobot
  • pjacobs51
  • regjoeschmo
  • asherp
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • regjoeschmo:

      Yes, and just as with Bush, I'm wondering when all the thousands of young people who came to his rock star rallies are going to line up at their recruiting stations to go fight for him for all of their love for him. I saw this coming. The war is illegal under Bush, but perfectly OK under Obama and of course, vice versa. And I voted Nader too this last time out and I don't regret it. These wars need to end not continue. All they are doing is continuing to fan the flames of terrorism, which in case some haven't noticed can't be bombed out of the world.

    • 3 years ago
  • asherp
  • pjacobs51
  • Dmitri_Molotov
    • 0
      Dmitri_Molotov  

    • The first thing they should do is to shelve the Raptor and Joint Strike Fighter. Air superiority fighters have no place in a counter-guerilla war. Instead, work should be done on IED-proofing existing HMMVS and creating practical MRAPs, not to mention outfitting squads and vehicles with sniper detection systems and the like. Miniaturizing and practicalizing the Land Warrior/Objective Force Warrior system would be good too, to reduce civilian casualties, acquire targets, and reduce friendly fire incidents.

    • 3 years ago
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  
    • Dmitri_Molotov:

      yea but there's no real threat to america itself from guerilla warfare. if we get behind in air superiority than we lose our place in the world, end of story. air superiority establishes dominance, period.

    • 3 years ago
  • Smothmoth
    • 0
      Smothmoth  
    • Dmitri_Molotov:

      The Joint Strike Fighter should be shelved as it is still under development and we don't really need a new multirole fighter. As jh64487 said we do however need an advanced air superiority fighter, and the F-22 is the best there is. Our counter-guerilla warfare tactics and equipment do need an overhaul though.

    • 3 years ago
  • Dmitri_Molotov
    • 0
      Dmitri_Molotov  
    • Dmitri_Molotov:

      America sucks at counter-guerilla warfare plain and simple. Establishing dominance isn't important right now, because if the budget is stretched too thin by fighter craft there won't be enough for useful things like Strykers and LW/OFW.

    • 3 years ago
  • Smothmoth
  • vladbox
    • 0
      vladbox  

    • Well maybe they are making the conversion to devalued Dollars by 20% or more (which explains the increase).

      Are they trying to tell us something? Enjoy the last five years of open and true freedom.

    • 3 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  

    • It’s Obama’s War Now
      http://current.com/items/89858972/it_s_obama_s_war_now.htm

      THE WAR ECONOMY
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_economy

      Permanent war economy
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_arms_economy

      HALLIBURTON / KBR STEALING US BLIND !
      http://current.com/items/89801957/halliburton_kbr_stealing_us_blind.htm

      The responsibility for wars falls solely upon the shoulders of these same masses of people, for they have all the necessary means to avert war in their own hands. In part by their apathy, in part by their passivity, and in part actively, these same masses of people make possible the catastrophes under which they themselves suffer more than anyone else. To stress this guilt on the part of the masses of people, to hold them solely responsible, means to take them seriously. On the other hand, to commiserate masses of people as victims, means to treat them as small, helpless children. The former is the attitude held by genuine freedom fighters; the latter that attitude held by power-thirsty politicians." : Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism


      "It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear." : General Douglas MacArthur, Speech, May 15, 1951

      "For in every city these two opposite parties [people vs aristocracy] are to be found, arising from the desire of the populace to avoid oppression of the great, and the desire of the great to command and oppress the people....For when the nobility see that they are unable to resist the people, they unite in exalting one of their number and creating him prince, so as to be able to carry out their own designs under the shadow of his authority." (Machiavelli, The Prince, ch. IX)

    • 3 years ago
  • nursediesel
    • 0
      nursediesel  
    • WhiteNoise:

      The Machiavellian quote sounds like what Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barnett Franks and the congressional majority did. They pushed Mr. Obama so they could get someone they could pass the bills they wanted without any objection.

    • 3 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  
    • WhiteNoise:

      May I suggest the prince has been installed by higher powers that be than the measly US congress :)

      These so called representative are but willing bottom feeders compared to our real masters...

      "How to get people to vote against their interests and to really think against their interests is very clever. It's the cleverest ruling class that I have ever come across in history. It's been 200 years at it. It's superb." - Gore Vidal

      "Our only political party has two right wings, one called Republican, the other Democratic. But Henry Adams figured all that out back in the 1890s. 'We have a single system,' he wrote, and 'in that system the only question is the price at which the proletariat is to be bought and sold, the bread and circuses.'" : Gore Vidal - The Decline and Fall of the American Empire

      "The only difference between the GOP & DEMs is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock at the door." - Ralph Nader

    • 3 years ago
  • nursediesel
    • 0
      nursediesel  
    • WhiteNoise:

      The masses have trouble picking a leader from more than two parties. And, yes, the quote from Vidal is so true. Most politicians assume the position very quickly once their in and find out they are surrounded by 'yes men' (no sexual connotation intended).
      By congress I meant how everyone threw their hats into Obama's ring to get him elected. Hillary was too much of a threat, she'd gone too far to the center on so many issues. Besides he's a newby and would be so busy catching up on what was happening worldwide and the political machinations, she's a vet in politics!

    • 3 years ago
  • jh64487
more from Community:
from the community

top videos