Daily now we are bombarded with the faux angst surrounding the Democratic/Republican self-imposed cluster fuck over the debt ceiling. This debate is so pointless that it makes every politician involved look foolish, including Ron Paul. This is not about taxes or even fiscal responsibility - the government already borrows almost half its annual budget ! Basic math indicates not one dime of debt will ever get paid back. There is no point whatsoever in defaulting on any spending obligation when interest rates on U.S. debt are at 3% (i.e. ridiculously low by historical standards). No one involved in this, including the Tea Party hypocrites is willing to give up the smallest amount of spending or contribute any additional taxes, let alone give up 10% of GDP or touch Social Security, Medicare or Defence.
Meanwhile, two totally unrelated articles appeared this week in the Economist, illustrating the stark dichotomy facing various constituents in the have/have not economy. These two scenarios are so bizarrely incongruous, that one can hardly believe these two scenarios pertain to the same country:
The one article focused on the ongoing fiasco of the most expensive military project in world history.
Key facts:
1) This fighter was intended to be low cost
2) The project is 6 years late
3) The U.S. is planning to buy 2,443 at a cost of $382 billion i.e. $156 million apiece
4) The long-term cost of supporting the aircraft will be $1 trillion
5) The plane may well be technologically obsolete only a few years after entering service !
6) It only carries 2 missiles and does not have adequate range to allow carriers to standoff at safe distance from latest generation Chinese surface-to-surface missiles
I have no doubt that there are many ageing Cold Warriors who believe that having the latest and greatest fighter jet is a sign of strength and military prowess. Unfortunately, it's not, it's a sign of weakness - one that America's de facto and potential enemies will not overlook. It's weak financially, that's obvious - half of strength in warfare is strength and sustainability of resources. It's also weak with respect to the complexity and limited capabilities of the platform and it crowds out other more basic and cost effective technologies, something pointed out in the article.
Juxtapose that article with another regarding the rising use of food stamps in the same country:
1) The program costs $65 billion a year, which is less than 10% of the annual defence budget
2) It feeds 45m people per month, half of whom are children
3) Average "benefit" is $133/month
4) Many of the people on the program have exhausted their unemployment benefits and can't find a job
- There are currently 14 million "officially" unemployed (many more in reality), of which 6 million have already lost their unemployment benefits and by the end of the year a staggering 4 million more will lose their benefits.
- There are currently 14 million "officially" unemployed (many more in reality), of which 6 million have already lost their unemployment benefits and by the end of the year a staggering 4 million more will lose their benefits.
Of course, Godless Republicans posing as Christians, want to cut the program, because it's "unsustainable", unlike a fucking Joint Strike Fighter costing $156 million/per aircraft that can be shot down with a well placed .50 caliber bullet, costing $10.
As usual, it's a false dilemma, debated by elitist fools, because there is no long-term option to not feed the poor and impoverished. History dictates that you either give them what they need, or they rise up and take what they want.
Batten down the hatches.
As usual, it's a false dilemma, debated by elitist fools, because there is no long-term option to not feed the poor and impoverished. History dictates that you either give them what they need, or they rise up and take what they want.
Batten down the hatches.
