EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
$1.2 Trillion: The National Security Figure No One Wants You To See
What if you went to a restaurant and found it rather pricey? Still, you ordered your meal and, when done, picked up the check only to discover that it was almost twice the menu price.
Welcome to the world of the real U.S. national security budget. Normally, in media accounts, you hear about the Pentagon budget and the war-fighting supplementary funds passed by Congress for our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That already gets you into a startling price range -- close to $700 billion for 2012 -- but that’s barely more than half of it. If Americans were ever presented with the real bill for the total U.S. national security budget, it would actually add up to more than $1.2 trillion a year.
Take that in for a moment. It’s true; you won’t find that figure in your daily newspaper or on your nightly newscast, but it’s no misprint. It may even be an underestimate. In any case, it’s the real thing when it comes to your tax dollars. The simplest way to grasp just how Americans could pay such a staggering amount annually for “security” is to go through what we know about the U.S. national security budget, step by step, and add it all up.
So, here we go. Buckle your seat belt: it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Fortunately for us, on February 14th the Obama administration officially released its Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget request. Of course, it hasn’t been passed by Congress -- even the 2011 budget hasn’t made it through that august body yet -- but at least we have the most recent figures available for our calculations.
For 2012, the White House has requested $558 billion for the Pentagon’s annual “base” budget, plus an additional $118 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At $676 billion, that’s already nothing to sneeze at, but it’s just the barest of beginnings when it comes to what American taxpayers will actually spend on national security. Think of it as the gigantic tip of a humongous iceberg.
To get closer to a real figure, it’s necessary to start peeking at other parts of the federal budget where so many other pots of security spending are squirreled away.
Missing from the Pentagon’s budget request, for example, is an additional $19.3 billion for nuclear-weapons-related activities like making sure our current stockpile of warheads will work as expected and cleaning up the waste created by seven decades of developing and producing them. That money, however, officially falls in the province of the Department of Energy. And then, don’t forget an additional $7.8 billion that the Pentagon lumps into a “miscellaneous” category -- a kind of department of chump change -- that is included in neither its base budget nor those war-fighting funds.
So, even though we’re barely started, we’ve already hit a total official FY 2012 Pentagon budget request of:
$703.1 billion dollars.
Not usually included in national security spending are hundreds of billions of dollars that American taxpayers are asked to spend to pay for past wars, and to support our current and future national security strategy.
For starters, that $117.8 billion war-funding request for the Department of Defense doesn’t include certain actual “war-related fighting” costs. Take, for instance, the counterterrorism activities of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. For the first time, just as with the Pentagon budget, the FY 2012 request divides what’s called "International Affairs" in two: that is, into an annual "base" budget as well as funding for "Overseas Contingency Operations" related to Iraq and Afghanistan. (In the Bush years, these used to be called the Global War on Terror.) The State Department’s contribution? $8.7 billion. That brings the grand but very partial total so far to:
$711.8 billion.
The White House has also requested $71.6 billion for a post-2001 category called “homeland security” -- of which $18.1 billion is funded through the Department of Defense. The remaining $53.5 billion goes through various other federal accounts, including the Department of Homeland Security ($37 billion), the Department of Health and Human Services ($4.6 billion), and the Department of Justice ($4.6 billion). All of it is, however, national security funding which brings our total to:
$765.3 billion.
The U.S. intelligence budget was technically classified prior to 2007, although at roughly $40 billion annually, it was considered one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington. Since then, as a result of recommendations by the 9/11 Commission, Congress has required that the government reveal the total amount spent on intelligence work related to the National Intelligence Program (NIP).
This work done by federal agencies like the CIA and the National Security Agency consists of keeping an eye on and trying to understand what other nations are doing and thinking, as well as a broad range of “covert operations” such as those being conducted in Pakistan. In this area, we won’t have figures until FY 2012 ends. The latest NIP funding figure we do have is $53.1 billion for FY 2010. There’s little question that the FY 2012 figure will be higher, but let’s be safe and stick with what we know. (Keep in mind that the government spends plenty more on “intelligence.” Additional funds for the Military Intelligence Program (MIP), however, are already included in the Pentagon’s 2012 base budget and war-fighting supplemental, though we don’t know what they are. The FY 2010 funding for MIP, again the latest figure available, was $27 billion.) In any case, add that $53.1 billion and we’re at:
$818.4 billion.
Veterans programs are an important part of the national security budget with the projected funding figure for 2012 being $129.3 billion. Of this, $59 billion is for veterans’ hospital and medical care, $70.3 billion for disability pensions and education programs. This category of national security funding has been growing rapidly in recent years because of the soaring medical-care needs of veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars. According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, by 2020 total funding for health-care services for veterans will have risen another 45%-75%. In the meantime, for 2012 we’ve reached:
$947.7 billion.
If you include the part of the foreign affairs budget not directly related to U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other counterterrorism operations, you have an additional $18 billion in direct security spending. Of this, $6.6 billion is for military aid to foreign countries, while almost $2 billion goes for “international peacekeeping” operations. A further $709 million has been designated for countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, combating terrorism, and clearing landmines planted in regional conflicts around the globe. This leaves us at:
$965.7 billion.
As with all federal retirees, U.S. military retirees and former civilian Department of Defense employees receive pension benefits from the government. The 2012 figure is $48.5 billion for military personnel, $20 billion for those civilian employees, which means we’ve now hit:
$1,034.2 billion. (Yes, that’s $1.03 trillion!)
When the federal government lacks sufficient funds to pay all of its obligations, it borrows. Each year, it must pay the interest on this debt which, for FY 2012, is projected at $474.1 billion. The National Priorities Project calculates that 39% of that, or $185 billion, comes from borrowing related to past Pentagon spending.
Add it all together and the grand total for the known national security budget of the United States is:
$1,219.2 billion. (That’s more than $1.2 trillion.)
A country with a gross domestic product of $1.2 trillion would have the 15th largest economy in the world, ranking between Canada and Indonesia, and ahead of Australia, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and Saudi Arabia. Still, don’t for a second think that $1.2 trillion is the actual grand total for what the U.S. government spends on national security. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once famously spoke of the world’s “known unknowns.” Explaining the phrase this way: “That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know.” It’s a concept that couldn’t apply better to the budget he once oversaw. When it comes to U.S. national security spending, there are some relevant numbers we know are out there, even if we simply can’t calculate them.
To take one example, how much of NASA’s proposed $18.7 billion budget falls under national security spending? We know that the agency works closely with the Pentagon. NASA satellite launches often occur from the Air Force’s facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The Air Force has its own satellite launch capability, but how much of that comes as a result of NASA technology and support? In dollars terms, we just don’t know.
Other “known unknowns” would include portions of the State Department budget. One assumes that at least some of its diplomatic initiatives promote our security interests. Similarly, we have no figure for the pensions of non-Pentagon federal retirees who worked on security issues for the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, or the Departments of Justice and Treasury. Nor do we have figures for the interest on moneys borrowed to fund veterans’ benefits, among other national security-related matters. The bill for such known unknowns could easily run into the tens of billions of dollars annually, putting the full national security budget over the $1.3 trillion mark or even higher.
There’s a simple principle here. American taxpayers should know just what they are paying for. In a restaurant, a customer would be outraged to receive a check almost twice as high as the menu promised. We have no idea whether the same would be true in the world of national security spending, because Americans are never told what national security actually means at the cash register.
To listen to Timothy MacBain’s latest TomCast audio interview in which Hellman explains how he arrived at his staggering numbers, click here, or download it to your iPod here.
[Note on Sources: The press release from the Office of The Director of National Intelligence disclosing the Fiscal Year 2010 $53 billion intelligence budget consists of 138 words and no details, other than that the office will disclose no details. It can be found by clicking here (.pdf file). An October 2010 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office entitled "Potential Costs of Veterans' Health Care" projects rapid cost growth for Veterans Administration services over the next decade as a result of spiraling health care costs. To read the full report, click here (.pdf file). To see all the federal agencies that contribute to homeland security funding, click here (.pdf file)]
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




51 Comments so far
Show AllThat's basically 10% of the Entire USA economy- down a black hole creating Death, Destruction and Misery on an absurd level.....
True.
But then it amounts to much more than 10% as there is a multiplier in industry, consumption, governance, training, even holidays and entertainment, to mention some, that in support of this USA yields very little more than destruction in return: we could say yields profits from death. This multiplier would otherwise be productive: we could say yields profits from life.
The USA is dragging the world down in search of short term benefit for a rapidly diminishing number of its leaders. It is terribly simple really: what is the sense of trillion dollars if there is no one to share it with?
Saddam Hussein and others have been right: The USA is a Prime Evil, a Great Satan, all that is bad in humanity and this is no joking matter.
The War Resisters League puts the total for 2011 at $1.4 trillion (48% of all federal income taxes paid). So, we have two independent organizations arriving at close to the same figure.
See details here:
http://www.warresisters.org/files/FY2011piechart.pdf
I feel safer now.
Articles like this literally make me feel sick. Words cannot even describe how insane this all is. I dont know what to say.....
MIC security = National Insecurity
what would national healthcare cost??
It's been reported by PNHP.org that switching to a single-payer plan (like Canada and almost all other western countries have) would save $400 billion/year, and that would be enough to cover everyone who is currently without insurance.
But, Obama told Congress (in his address to the joint session) that he didn't want single-payer, because he had "friends and neighbors" in the insurance business. Then he saw to it that doctors and nurses who tried to speak about single-payer to congressional committees were arrested!
Backlash to Obamacare cost the Democrats the Congress in the the 2010 midterm election. It also cost Democrats the governorships and legislatures of states like Wisconsin.
Now we have the spectacle of Wisconsin's Gov. Walker saying the state is too "broke" to allow public employees collective bargaining, and saying he needs dictatorial power to privatize the state's public utilities and eliminate healthcare programs for the needy and elderly, while Obama leaves the people of Wisconsin flapping in the wind.
Meanwhile Obama continues spending $1.2 - $1.4 trillion/year on the military, and half of that on stupid, unwinnable, illegal and immoral military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Who do I blame? I blame Obama and the people who voted for him. I also blame certain so-called "progressive" media Obama sycophants and apologists (who even now are making excuses for him) like The Nation magazine and MSNBC's TV pundits!
"It's been reported by PNHP.org that switching to a single-payer plan (like Canada and almost all other western countries have) would save $400 billion/year, and that would be enough to cover everyone who is currently without insurance."
Actually, using Canadian stats (approx USD3600/capita) we get 1.2 trillion/yr for the US. Medicare and Medicaid currently are in the vicinity of 750 billion. So it would cost the gov 500 billion more per yr to pay for everyone's healthcare.
I trust the PNHP.org numbers. See info here:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq#costs_down
So, let's compare the U.S. and Canada if that's what you prefer.
In 2007, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), "Total health expenditure per capita, at "purchasing power parity" (i.e. in U.S. dollars):
U.S.: $6,719
Canada: $3,673
In 2007 Canada spent 45% less per person than the U.S. and covered everyone. The U.S. left 17% uncovered (2009 estimate).
If the U.S. had a single-payer system like Canada's in 2007, we would have saved $3,046 per capita. Doing the math, $3,046 X 302.2 million (2007 U.S. population) = $920.5 billion.
That number comes from, as you say, "adding up govt as well as private payments to providers" (for both Canada and the U.S.).
Doing a direct comparison between actual expenditures in the U.S. and Canada results in a $920.5 billion savings for the U.S. (in 2007), which is more than double the PNHP estimate of $400 billion.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_%28PPP%29_per_capita
It sure does cost a lot to lose wars these days.
The American Citizen can no longer afford this Military Machine
or the Corporate Congress it rode in on.
Congress have been whores since its inception. Always doing the corporations bidding. Now the whore in chief has shown blatently who his masters are. Why do corporations get huge tax breaks and then pay no taxes? Because the rule the world. Look how BP is sliming out of paying for the death and destruction it caused. I want off this rock.
fear costs alot,
Wow.... good read!
$1,2 trillion / 308,745,538 Americans = $3,887 per American, per year, for government-organized "security".
Yet they are still living in fear of "terrorism" & they are despised everywhere around the world (except perhaps in Georgia, the Republic.)
now that puts it in terms even an ordinary american ought to be able to understand.
$3,887 per man woman and child per year. staggering
Yes, but you should only be counting people in the workforce as they are the only ones able to pay. And that means the unemployed should be excluded too.
This the data I was able to find with a quick search:
The civilian labor force, was at 154.9 million (which includes unemployed workers too) as of August 2008.
So the real number would be more like $8,000 per American, per year, for government-organized "security".
I was thinking about all the minimum wage earners who are under employed and get it all back at the end of the year.
Hey rich folks! Your funding this war and it's costing you a fortune!
Your tea party folks run around taking more money away from poor folks so they can't help with your wars. This will lead to our demise.
OSAMA BL, won!
We will go the way of the Soviet Union; except our government goes broke trying to win the "Terror War". Which is really a war thought up by the Project for the New American Century, to destabilize governments.
I wonder if they still do have a handle on the ME, or is this Blow-Back they are not ready for?
War feeds the rich,
and starves America.
Every one of the progressive 'resistance' sites always makes sure to point out that they want 'nonviolent' change. Well guys, I hate to break this to you, but it's gonna have to be violent. We are up against sociopaths. Only sociopaths would create a system whereby 'to provide for the common defense' after 230+ years turns into this bloody behemoth.
Take a look at how meek the British Royalty became after the guillotines were put to good use in France and how we never hear from the Russian Royalty anymore after the Czar and his family were rounded up and disposed of.
You want to fix this? Well, you can stop by not paying taxes/obeyance to the Internal Revenue Service that funds this evil idiocy and blatant misappropriation of funds. And you can get out some rope and start stringing these sociopaths up, from the Banksters on Wall Street to the Generals at the Pentagon (who, strangely enough, couldn't seem to 'protect' anyone even when their own building was under attack, with an hour's notice on 9-11....)
[Take a look at how meek the British Royalty became after the guillotines were put to good use in France and how we never hear from the Russian Royalty anymore after the Czar and his family were rounded up and disposed of.]
Actually, that's not quite true at all. The British Royal who was I/C during the French Rev was named George III; yes, that one, the one who you like to claim that you revolted against. In reality you revolted against the British Parliament, they were the ones who imposed the stamp tax and other taxes as the British monarchy lost the claim of taxation when Charles II had his head cut off by parliament after the king was condemned for treason against the crown (himself). The death of that king led to the deaths of thousands of people in England and forced a bunch of refugees to sail on a ship named the Mayflower, we all know - or think we do - what happened to those folks.
Anyhow, George likely didn't notice the death of Louis. The rest of the aristocracy of England did notice and they got all bothered about it, that was part of the reason the Napoleonic wars started about that time... The Brits (and the Prussians and Austrians and the Spaniards, etc...) were out to avenge the deaths - not of the king and queen of France - but of the nobility who was killed at the time. The deaths of the Capets led to the deaths of millions of Europeans from 1789-1815
The reason you don't hear about the Russian Royal Family is that the Commies did indeed get them all. The Brit royal family was willing to accept them as refugees, but Parliament told them not to think about it. The death of the Tsar and his family was followed by the deaths of millions in Russia from 1917 - 1923 (Russia's civil war, not counting the number of dead caused by Stalin)
tl;dr version, violence doesn't always work. It doesn't bring about the end that you wish for. Indeed there are good arguments to the effect that violence will make a bad situation worse. Now, if you're just talking about taxing the dogs who stole the money in the first place by funding those rich wing 'think' tanks, I'm with you one hundred percent.
Really Good post Sat,
Thanks for that.
But, Twenty two year old King George III was not a very sharp cookie (sort of like George Bush the Inferior). It was rumored he did not learn to read at all until age 11. He had a terrible grasp of geography and didn't even really know where the new lands were. Before the trouble started, he sacked his very capable Prime Minister who advocated conciliation with the colonists, and put in the iron steam roller Lord North (sort of like letting Dick Cheney run the country).
Lord North held sway with a majority over Parliament and enforced (later revoked) a chitload of unreasonable legislation on the colonies following the stamp act, the sugar act, and the writs of assistance, kicking down everybody's doors looking for parchment to tax so King George could pay for the French and Indian War (which spread into the first world war called: The Seven Years War.) But then he declared the Boston Tea Party a criminal act and closed the port and the charter of Massachusetts was altered so that the upper house of the legislature was appointed by the Crown instead of elected by the lower house.
So it was King George's man Lord North who decided to force a monopoly on all the colonists (sort of like an expensive Wal Mart) for all imported manufactured products from clothing dye to shirt buttons, by enforcing the hitherto, unenforced "Navigation Acts", which said all products must first be sold in London Markets by one company: The British East India Company (their no-bid Haliburton as interpreted by The House of Lords).
Why, I wonder, must we always look at the extremes and perceive only a binary choice? Either violence or submission? What about the middle ground: Our Constitutionally protected right to protest peacefully and accidentally monkeywrench traffic, normal business attendance, etc, in an effort to get the gov to "redress grievances" like they're supposed to?
If it turns into pulling down the houses of tax collectors who collect for the wars, hey, chit happens. Boston Tea Parties and other actions that lead to disruption of commerce are unfortunate, but VERY AMERICAN.
Cheers,
TJ
Many millions of people around the country are on the receiving end of those war dollar pipelines. Whole communities are dependent on the indefinite extension and expansion of the "programs" highlighted by the author. This is, of course, completely deliberate. The Pentagon likes to have one or two projects in every Congressional district. These are an extremely effective form of blackmail, if war contractor campaign contributions do not produce the necessary pro-war votes. That's why there was no "peace dividend" at the end of the "Cold War". For instance $$billions have been poured down the utterly futile, technically impossible "Star Wars" or space-based defense program with exactly zero result or benefit to anybody - except, as I say, in war contractor profits and employee salaries. The F22 jet program spent billions before being partially de-funded, having never seen combat. The "Osprey", an unworkable combo helicopter and fighter bomber spent 30 years in production, killed over 30 personnel in test flights and went $billions over-budget, which didn't stop the contractors, the Pentagon and Congress from coming back to the trough year after year. The current model, still not ready for combat, is completely unfit for the original design mission. All the people who started the project have retired. Nobody even knows why they hell they are still doing it but they are.
Meanwhile, everyone from Scott Walker to Andrew Cuomo to Barack Obama wants us to think the public employee pension plans are the problem with the economy. This would be hilarious if it wasn't so deadly.
The military are public employees, as well as Congress, so yes, they are right, the public employees pension plans are the problem! Oh.. you meant teachers, police and firefighters. Yeah, funny how we haven't heard squat about the real public pension problem.
Once again, a graphic summary: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
Also: a million is a thousand thousand; a billion is a thousand million; a trillion is a thousand billion.
Ponder that, in my humble opinion, and wonder where America's priorities are, and who is running the show.
I ran it through the calculator and if a raffle were held in every state it would create
26,000 millionaires in each. I would pay to move to a less populated state for better odds... North Dakota here I come.
This might just stimulate the economy a wee bit and we could even have spin off TV drama's about what crazy things people would do with the new found money. Just think about all the "hippy organic communes" that would sprout up around the nation just in time to save space ship titanic earth from hitting the iceberg, going over the falls and into the jaws of the giant fire-breathing dragon jackal.
Thanks for the surreal post, and that's a compliment.
In your scenario, methinks a revisiting of the concept of "free love" would be in order, and super huge paisleys.
I wish to report a burglary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L57-vQvo34E&feature=related
A trillion is a round trip to the sun, measured in feet.
No one but an expert such as Hellman can say where the money goes, and even he can't make it completely transparent. He just doesn't know and in the case of "black budgets", he is forbidden by law to reveal anything even if he did know.
We speak of the Wall Street elite sucking up the people's money, and we deplore that, but we don't often think of the military and intelligence elite in the same way. It's a terrific boondoggle. You can spend your life doing nothing of any real value and retire with a generous pension and pat yourself on the back for your great "service" to your country.
The corruption of our political values since the passage of the 1947 National Security Act is almost total. You can tell because no one notices. We have gone beyond disappointment into cynicism.
Yes, an undisclosed part of the military/intelligence budget is "black" or covert. Most members of Congress are prohibited from seeing the figures. Of course, that's altogether un-Constitutional. Nevertheless, that's the established practice. Bush was right when he said the Constitution is just a god-damned piece of paper.
I've always found it odd that Republican voters are so "pro-defense" spending and so anti-social welfare spending. They get nothing out of wasteful military spending, which is just overkill. The United States spends about as much as the rest of the world combined on military "defense."
Certainly, some people, like California Senator Diane Feinstein, just get filthy rich from all of this military spending, and that's understandable. Meanwhile, even middle-class Republicans just get bilked and they cheer it on. Of course, Dem Congressional representatives also are military Keynesianists. Even Congressional rep Barbara Lee voted for Afghanistan war funding, which is quite shocking as she was the lone holdout against the Iraq war.
Really, all of this is beyond obscene. Third party anyone?
Nader 2012.
gee we could buy everyone on the planet solar panels and a years worth of food with that much money. So much "for the good of the people"
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. ... A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
This was written by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, United States Marine Corps
Pretty damn smart for a military guy...must've been a friend of Ike.
No irony that the men who held the highest offices in military were the ones most opposed to unnecessary conflict. The generals today must either have extremely low iq's or be bought off to not know what they are complacent to.
Those figures don't include the compound interest on all that money spent, does it? Remember, much of this expenditure is done through borrowing. Can we double this amount? Isn't that how compound interest works.
Not only that, Struggle,
It does not include any "Black" programs like the former B-2 Bomber which cost two billion dollars a plane and was not admitted in existence until years later. The "Black" space budget (Black Space Shuttles and Star Wars) may be another 100 billion; nobody knows. But sooner or later we have to pay for it.)
War makes you poor.
Invasion makes you a slave.
TJ
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretense of defending, have enslaved the people." - James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, June 29, 1787
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
- JAMES MADISON
"Political Observations"
April 20, 1795
Astounding article. If only most Americans could actually read an article this long...!
That money must be worth a fortune.
Almost all so clever, so smart, so silly.
'Americans' need to starve to death in order to recognise humour is not being clever.
It is an insane state to be in.
Your hatred of Americans is palpable, but I wish you would realize that not all Americans support the corporate-driven policies and deadly actions of the American government. There are many of us who try to find peaceful ways to change the system, and yes, it is becoming more clear that the average American is powerless. I believe that we are past the point of legislating change -- there is too much corruption in our government. We need to have a peaceful revolution, a la Egypt. But, believe it or not, I don't think most Americans are at the breaking point -- yet. But those of us who ARE at the breaking point HATE what this country is doing in our names. Believe me, most of these articles make me sick with anger and shame. And in reply to your comment, sometimes the only thing that can keep a person from going insane is a sense of humor. It doesn't mean that we think the horrors of this world are "funny."
IF, read IF, nineleven was an inside job, a lot of people would have had to be bought off to keep quiet. What better way to do it than to set them up in HS positions/shell corps during the post-event frenzy? A self-policing, topsecret cleared, internally funded coverup. Plus a black budget license to cover tracks internationally.
Paranoia? Evil genius? The predictable spawn of a war-based system of Greed Inc.? Or an uncannily successful surprise attack of a small group of fanatics wielding box cutters collapsing three skyscrapers with two airplanes, and knocking out the Pentagon office housing an investigation into a missing $T?
Or....
Isn't it sad the the "greatest country" feels so very, very insecure that it must use so much of its precious resources, even sacrificing its children, so we can feel safe. And yet, we're still told to be afraid, because in our mad rush to be safe, we have created thousands of new enemies by killing their fathers, brothers, wives and sons and mothers in far off lands. If anyone on this planet has a right to hate, it would be the survivor of a drone attack. But who are they to hate? The private who operated the drone? the maker of the drone? The president who condones the use of drones? or me, who sits by and watches it unfold, doing no more than commenting on blogs.
Yes, and there are the rewards for serving in the military, i.e. collect full pension after 20 years, and if you are a upper rank like general or major, chances are you'll get a sweet consulting job, while collecting your full pension. And we want teachers and other public employees to pay more for their pensions and health care. Who do you think works harder to serve the public, your local school teacher, or general who spent his years in the country clubs we call foreign bases in Japan, Italy, and Germany, etc.