Vetoing the 2012 NDAA would have held up the military budget and would not have stopped the detention clause. It was a lose/lose game of political chicken and Obama chose pragmatism over idealism.

Obama has greatly helped the country by creating a healthcare program, by passing stimulus, by using quantitative easing to keep the recession from going depression, by ramping down military operations in the middle east, by favoring diplomacy over sabre rattling in Iran.

As far as promises go, he has kept (or at least attempted to keep to the best of his ability) most of his big promises, like ending combat in Iraq, creating a health care system, ending the use of torture, putting needed financial regulations into place, restricting warrantless wiretaps, ending denial of health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and signing an executive order to shut down Gitmo. Congress blocked his order to shut down Gitmo, which means the timetable is dependent on getting Republicans out of congress this November. Contrary to popular belief the executive branch is not all powerful. I know you don't like Obama, but can you at least admit these are positive changes for the better that would not have happened under a McCain or Romney administration? What were the broken promises you were talking about?

I love intellectuals like Chomsky and Chris Hedges and respect their criticisms of Obama. I think it would be much more productive to be informed by intellectuals, rather than slumming it in the right libertarian gutter. This video is just as frivolous as the Jackson video, if not morso.

I wish Obama was could be more progressive too, but that isn't going to happen in a conservative country where big business and the military industrial complex wield as much power as they do. We need both idealism and pragmatism if we are going to make progress. The country is far from how I'd like it to be, but I am happy that Obama is moving us in the right direction.

@bobknight33 you're absolutely right about the debt issue. The only real solution is to end the 2 endless wars and cut military spending by 70%. Unfortunately military spending has never been part of the discussion, because neither side is willing to offend the military/industrial complex.

Imagine if we could increase the profit from the military industrial complex without ever having to end the war because of too many people dying.

In WWII we had to kill other first world nations, and it disrupted the economy in unsustainable ways... then we figured out we could just kill people in far away third world places, but now the bleeding heart liberal media keep making people feel guilty.

Creating corporate products with the sole purpose of finding and blowing up corporate products - justifying making more corporate products...

Drone v. Drone war : It's the perfect model!!

>> ^criticalthud:

This is one big reason:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan-holds-enormous-bounty-of-rare-earths
rare earth.


I knew they has some sort of exploitable resource,but didn't know what. Usually its Oil,but that is nearly as good: some neccessity for keeping industry going and profits up.If America wants to be the New Rome and spread Pax Americana across the world,then they should follow the Roman idea through and kick back some of those spoils of war back to the homeland where all the cannon fodder comes from. Who will buy all this crap we import from China if noone has jobs? Greed will be their downfall,that and an embaressing short sightedness that hopefully won't doom the rest of us along with them.

I imagine that's why this was the last episode of Freedom Watch. It's no coincidence I'm sure. They did the same thing to Glenn Beck.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I find it hilarious that this is on fox. The same network that supported the military industrial complex. The same network that championed the violation of privacy (hell it's owned by Murdoch, need I say more?).
If the republicans were still in charge there's no way in hell this would have aired.

I find it hilarious that this is on fox. The same network that supported the military industrial complex. The same network that championed the violation of privacy (hell it's owned by Murdoch, need I say more?).

If the republicans were still in charge there's no way in hell this would have aired.

i'm not convinced the NSA does more good than harm.

and, i believe the data backs up the idea that the vast majority of terrorist activities foiled are done so by local law enforcement (and, not to mention, as opposed to invading a country, is a cheaper way to do things).

and if such is the case, then why do we fund this grotesque behemoth? so they can spy on us?

and that's not even touching on the billions the US spends on private industry security firms.

the "security" industry is as out of hand as the financial industry, and the military industrial complex. imho

Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.



Private citizens are responsible for quite a number of things you've mentioned, and their success.

but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role



Agreed. Why did you say that? No one is arguing that point. Government revenue should be spent on these things. My argument is about who is making those decisions and if they can be better made by those who experience these things firsthand.

Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making?



Yep. Personal savings has been bad only for the past decade or so. Economic growth in the US is primarily driven by consumer demand.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.



Now you're just making gross generalizations. You've given good examples of how government funded programs in the last century helped lead to economic prosperity, but cited one poor example within the last 5 years of how a minority (yes. minority) of the population made bad financial decisions. By that logic, *my* money management is bad because of someone in Nevada bought a house and couldn't afford it.

I know you're upset at my tiny, detailless post, but I think it's you who needs to get perspective before so obviously jumping the gun.

Everyone, including the president, says that "we have to work together blah blah" but time and time again it does not happen. Then comes the proof that lobbyists pay congressmen to speak on their industry's behalf, completely undermining the voters who placed them in office in the first place.

As a result of narrow mindedness and rigidity, the US is performing average in reading and science, and below average in math. College tuition is rising much faster than home prices. Gas is higher. Food is less quantity but more expensive. Healthcare costs are exhorbitant. Social security is dying a slow death thanks to Reagan. Medicare is always on the chopping block because it's costs are absurd. Unions are losing their rights. Meanwhile, the military industrial complex is doing very well, and corporate entities have cleaned up their books and are in the best financial position in decades *but refuse to hire people*.

You can have your opinions on why things are the way they are; republicans do this, democrats do that. The president did this, Bush did that. None of that matters because NOW..NOW you're unemployed,and/or your house is in foreclosure, and/or your kids won't be able to goto college because it's too expensive. And those jobs that were lost during the crisis? They're gone. They are not coming back. It's a mathematical reality.

Let's do some numbers now.

US tax revenue: 2.3 trillion
Currently 535 people in position to control budgetting = 4.3 billion worth of financial leverage each.
130 million people = popular vote in 2008 election
So hypothetically, if voters controlled federal budgets, each voter would have ~17500$ worth of financial leverage.

Every year, each person elects where they think all US revenue should be allocated. This, in essence, gives each voting citizen of the united states direct control of the united states federal budget. Also, each state could give their population voting control of their state budgets. For those people who elect to not make their allocations, either congress and state congress will allocate for them as usual, or the leverage they had is transferred into the remaining pool.

Why do this?

1. Because the people, the majority, know best. Congress by nature of their numbers is incapable of providing the best decisions because this country is a huge melting pot of cultures. Each state has different problems and different benefits, and the local citizens deal with them firsthand everyday. The representative system of governance worked a century ago because the population was a fraction of what it is today.

2. The entire us lobbying institution would literally collapse overnight. Lobbyists exist to manipulate congress into moving money into their direction. Since the budgeting decision has been given to millions instead of a couple, money spent lobbying is rendered ineffective to produce their desired outcome.

3. No more blame game since you now have a piece of how the pie gets sliced. Do you support the military? Allocate money to military spending. Support stem cell research? Allocate money to science and R&D. Want to get off foreign oil? Allocate the money to alternative energy sources. Worried about social security? Allocate more to the fund. Worried about our country's ability to compete? Allocate the distribution to education. Worried about debt? Pay it down. People always hate the government because of the financial decisions they make. Not anymore.

4. The internet can be the primary vehicle of how people cast their tax allocation and educate themselves on this important decision. For those who do not have access, they can cast their allocation at designated locations such as their local library or post office.

5. There are times when emergency funds are needed for disasters; Economic, weather, unforeseen events. Congress shall have control over that as time is of the essence. But if the money exceeds a set amount, the voting power shall be delegated to the people (for example, bank bailouts).

Look, it's just an idea and it doesn't deserve to be insulted. But if you feel better, then GO FOR IT! I'd like constructive feedback though.

Good'ol military industrial complex... I think somebody important warned us about this.

So basically the argument is, the US president can't stop the US military industrial complex from engaging in torture and kidnappings. Even the murder of US citizens is outweighed by the pros of Obama's reign?

Wow. Glad I'm not a US citizen if voting there really means choosing between one killer or the other.

The whole littoral ship program has been one huge mess. Budget overruns, poor planing, etc. The military industrial complex at work. At least it's not as bad as the airborne laser or F/A-22 Raptor projects...

@NetRunner

I know "you're saying" there are still valid reasons to participate. You say that every disagreement.

I'm saying, the only thing you're doing is giving legitimacy to a broken, fucked up, backward ass system..
One that will NOT produce the desired outcome in the appropriate time scale.

If Dems won every Congressional & Presidential election for the next 40 years, how much progress do you think would be made?

Green energy, free college all, universal healthcare and the deconstruction on the Military Industrial Complex?

Stop deluding yourself, all the same laws that have allowed the corporate coup d'etat to occur will still be in place.

Those interests would continue to manipulate the system and it would be made all-the-more-easy now that they only have one party to focus on.

Dems have had majority control of Congress since 2006 and what do we get. Expansion of Iraq & Afghanistan conflicts.
Bailouts for Gazillionaires.
Healthcare mandates that funnel more money to shitty service providers.
[oh, thanks for letting me stay on parents insurance. Nevermind that the cheap ass insurance refuses to pays for a goddamn thing.]

To boot, Barack Obama current King of the Democrats murdered a citizen without a valid charge or cause of action.

That goes against all the supposed values of Democrats and you wholly ignored addressing this GLARING issue with your "Dems are better" argument.

So it's clear, QuantumNetrunner, that your not here to expand your horizons or any of that nonsense.

You're only here to make excuses for the continuation of broken system.

All cause you're to scared or indoctrinated to call Dems out for what the really are: Corporate sponsored slimeballs clinging to the coat tails of ACTUAL progressive individuals,movements and ideas.. for Public Relations purposes.

What's interesting about this is if this ever got any traction you would see the Military Industrial Complex flex it's muscle bigtime. I would totally love for this to happen just because you'd see an interesting fight in the upper echelons of this countries leadership and it would be really enlightening.

Think about it when Israel had China come to repair some planes or whatever piece of military equipment. America was furious and demanded they apologize which they did because they're completely reliant on us for their survival in the way they choose to survive. Everyone talks about how the Israel lobby in this country runs things but that case was enlightening because the Israel lobby completely shut up about it. They wouldn't lobby the government or try to deal at all, they knew what was going on and they should just shut up and take their lumps or they're gonna get bit...hard.

Related: http://videosift.com/video/Eisenhower-warns-of-the-military-industrial-complex

>> ^Skeeve:

How cute, you actually believe it was about oil.
For the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, America could have bought well over a billion barrels of oil at its current price.
Even better, for a minute fraction of the cost, America could have secured deals with oil producing countries to get their oil at lower prices in perpetuity.
Instead, America invaded two countries: one has no oil and the other's oil producing capability was reduced by the war itself. So, America made the price of oil go up, used more per year than ever before in their wars and lowered the amount of oil produced worldwide.
If the WTC attacks were about oil, it was planned by a team of retards.
>> ^Peroxide:
What matters is that the deaths of 3000 Americans was used to justify a war for OIL.



Well, it was about the military industrial complex forming an essential part of the make up of the U.S.'s GDP, and their political culture. But I just say oil for simplicity's sake.