What Obama Did While You Were Watching Elections

Pass the popcorn! Wait till I tweet this! Did you see the look on his face?

Ain’t elections exciting? We just can’t get enough of them, which could be why we’ve stretched them out to a couple of years each, even though a small crowd of Super Delegates and a couple of state officials with computer skills could quite conceivably decide the whole thing anyway.

Through the course of this marvelous election thus far I’ve been trying to get any human being to ask any candidate to provide just the most very basic outline of the sort of budget they would propose if president, or at least some hint at the single item in the budget that takes up more than half of it. Do they think military spending should go up, go down, or stay right where it is?

Who knows! Aren’t elections wonderful?

I’d even settle for the stupid “gotcha” question in which we find out if any of the candidates knows, even roughly, what percentage of the budget military spending is now.

Why is this topic, although seemingly central, scrupulously avoided?

  • The candidates all, more or less, agree.
  • None of the candidates brings it up.
  • Nobody in Congress, not even the “progressive” caucus, brings it up.
  • Nobody in the corporate media brings it up.
  • The corporate media outlets see war profiteers as customers who buy ads.
  • The corporate media outlets see war profiteers in the mirror as parts of their corporate families.
  • The fact that the military costs money conflicts with the basic premise of U.S. politics which is that one party wants to spend money on socialistic nonsense while the other party wants to stop spending money and build a bigger military.

Those seem like the obvious answers, but here’s another. While you’re being entertained by the election, President Obama is proposing a bigger military than ever. Not only is U.S. military spending extremely high by historical standards, but looking at the biggest piece of military spending, which is the budget of the Department of so-called Defense, that department’s annual “Green Book” makes clear that it has seen higher spending under President Barack Obama than ever before in history.

Check out the new budget proposal from the President who distracted millions of people from horrendous Bush-Cheney actions with his “peace” talk as a candidate eight years ago. He wants to increase the base Do”D” budget, both the discretionary and the mandatory parts. He wants to increase the extra slush fund of unaccountable money for the Do”D” on top of that. This pot used to be named for wars, but wars have gotten so numerous and embarrassing that it’s now called “Overseas Contingency Operations.”

When it comes to nuclear weapons, Obama wants to increase spending, but when it comes to other miscellaneous extras for the military, he also wants to increase that. Military retirement spending, on the other hand, he’d like to see go up, while the Veterans Administration spending he proposes to raise. Money for fueling ISIS by fighting it, Obama wants raised by 50%. On increasing hostility with Russia through a military buildup on its border, Obama wants a 400% spending boost. In one analysis, military spending would jump from $997.2 billion this year to $1.04 trillion next year under this proposal.

That’s a bit awkward, considering the shade it throws on any piddly little project that does make it into election debates and reporting. The smallest fraction of military spending could pay for the major projects that Senator Bernie Sanders will be endlessly attacked for proposing to raise taxes for.

It’s also awkward for the whole Republican/Hillary discussion of how to become more militarized, unlike that pacifist in the White House.

And, of course, it’s always awkward to point out that events just go on happening in the world rather than pausing out of respect for some inanity just uttered by Marco Rubio.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Also include what most never view as well! Feb 10, 2016 Out-of-state voters and non-residents offered ballots in New Hampshire presidential primary

    Four years ago, James O’Keefe released a video which showed how easy it would be for people to vote in New Hampshire using the names of deceased people. As a result of that video, New Hampshire changed its voter ID laws. Project Veritas Action revisited New Hampshire during Tuesday’s presidential primary election and again showed how easy it is to cast fraudulent votes with the new law fully in place. In this new video, multiple election officials and Bernie Sanders presidential campaign staffers offered advice to journalists using hidden cameras about how to circumvent the law.

    https://youtu.be/DlDgOIdD3BY

    • wunsacon

      Greetings Professor,

      I normally agree with what you write. But, before I spend my time watching this video (the follow-up action), please assure me it’s not a fraudulent presentation.

      It seems to me that several notable prior wing-nut video attacks (against ACORN, Planned Parenthood, Shirley Sherrod and one more I can’t recall) were knowing frauds. Therefore, I’m reluctant to watch anything else from these people.

      In this case, I wouldn’t be surprised if the video is legitimate, because the subject is less controversial and because the issue is one which I can see people and legislators “getting wrong”. Nevertheless, given the O’Keefe & Co track record, I have to ask you.

      • Howdy, I never tell folks what to think or believe. I trust everybody to decide for themselves with the information I share. Call it my best practices. This is how I have rolled while blogging for well over 15 years. Also when it comes to Politicians I ‘NEVER’ cheer or campaign on line for them and will always just reveal them mostly in their own words themselves. Do you still believe there is actually two separate parties? If so please list what exactly has changed since W left D.C., and Nancy and crew have done since that is distinctively different!

        • wunsacon

          No problemo, Professor. I generally like what you share and wasn’t criticizing you. It’s just that I’ve given the O’Keefe crew enough of my time before and have since written them off as dishonest. For a moment, I was considering watching it simply because *you* posted it. But, then I changed my mind cuz, again, I’ve “had it” with the O’Keefe crew specifically and Murdoch-wing spin machine generally.

          >> Do you still believe there is actually two separate parties?

          Yes, the oligarchs and everyone else. 😉

  • diogenes

    In a republic fundamental issues of the res publica are subject to public discussion and decision. In an oligarchy they aren’t; often they are hidden, and even when not hidden, they are ‘take for granted.’

    If you want to know where the center of power is, look in the dark.

    If you want to know who rules, consider who you are not allowed to criticize.

    • It is even more simplistic than that, “Who controls the issuance of money controls the government!” Nathan Meyer Rothschild

  • cstahnke

    The Deep State achieves it’s dominance through the use of force or the threat of force. If anyone starts to seriously question the fundamentals of this power they will be either politically destroyed or killed. In case you haven’t noticed the military is the most popular institution in the country and is untouchable so strong is the propaganda and backed up by not just the mainstream media but the entertainment industry. So it is very hard to swim against the current of militarism that seems to be essential to America’s image of itself.

    Sanders knows that if he questions key military and FP sacred cows he’s finished so he is wise to avoid the subject.