A few years ago, somebody handed me a pen at a community event that had a little handle on the side that you could pull out, revealing two charts that unfurled to around 5 x 7, large enough to make their points. (current versions below)

US FEDERAL SPENDING PIE CHART 2009

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion



Thinking about the current debate over the utility of bank bailouts  vs. universal healthcare I was reminded of them. - I keep wondering, IF 60-70% of Americans want universal healthcare, WHY are our (bad?) political actors saying that its off the table?
What is tying their hands? Perhaps the charts help explain one of the many reasons why. We are spendng more money on our military than the whole rest of the world, combined, is spending on theirs!

US DEFENSE SPENDING COMPARED WITH REST OF WORLDS DEFENSE SPENDING
(US on left, rest of world on right)

Source for 2009 pie chart figures:"The pie chart figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the "Analytical Perspectives" book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds -- such as Social Security -- that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don't pay) by April 15, 2008, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller. "
Thats it.  The above quoted text and images come from this site.

There's more...

The times they are a changin!

The New York Times and Washington Post are crying foul on the Obama camp's seeming willingness to cave on all-important campaign promises.

"Health-Care Dialogue Alarms Obama's Allies: As Congress returns to begin an intense debate over reshaping the nation's $2.2 trillion health-care system, prominent left-leaning organizations and liberal House members are issuing a warning to their Democratic allies: Don't cave on us."

NYT, reporting on the Democratic leadership's ominous post-bailout predictions of tight money in Washington for healthcare reform in the article "Obama's Revenue Plans Hit Resistance in Congress"says: "Administration officials say there is a tremendous amount of money to be found in savings gained through changes in health care delivery and information technology, and such savings will reduce the revenue Congress must find. "By combining Medicare and Medicaid savings and these game-changing efficiency improvements with some additional revenue," said Mr. Orszag, the president's budget chief, "I think a deficit-neutral health care reform is eminently doable."

That sounds like a broken promise to me.

Is Obama's a Bait and Switch Presidency?

Is anybody really surprised that now, after Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama's 800 Billion dollar bailout for bankers, money for healthcare reform seems to have (surprise) dried up? (It almost seems as if it was planned out in advance, doesn't it?)

According to the New York Times, the Obama regime, with Democrat cooperation, seems to be giving up on meaningful healthcare changes. (surpriiisseee!) In their place, we will receive the things the healthcare cartel has been asking for. Especially health IT, which will simplify the pricing process for insurance - its a huge gift for insurers.

This country is like an abusive family, in which the kids don't even know that things could be better. It is frustrating to hear again and again these endless stories of people trying to obtain health insurance, when it is provided as a public service for all in other countries.

There's more...

Why are the real rulers of America pushing so hard for the US government to assume the banks private gambling debts?

Experts agree that the banks real losses dwarf any estimates seen so far, and that the eventual bill will be huge.

But, most Americans didn't create those debts! WHY should we pay? Because the looting of America demands it! Because the bankers have so much power, thats why! The obvious endgame is that after assuming so much debt, not only would all social programs be put on hold indefinitely, eventually the US would eventually default on the deficit, forcing the US into IMF austerity programs.

Programs like Social Security and Medicare typically are eliminated in these national default situations.

Is the goal to force the US into the same kinds of IMF austerity programs that have caused riots in so many other nations?

Certainly, the US, which has been at the lead in pushing for these measures elsewhere, would not be able to escape having its own medicine applied to it.

Inquiring minds want to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity

"In economics, austerity is when a national government reduces its spending in order to pay back creditors. Austerity is usually required when a government's fiscal deficit spending is felt to be unsustainable.

Development projects, welfare programs and other social spending are common areas of spending for cuts. In many countries, austerity measures have been associated with short-term standard of living declines until economic conditions improved once fiscal balance was achieved (such as in the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher, Canada under Jean Chrétien, and Spain under González).

Private banks, or institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), may require that a country pursues an 'austerity policy' if it wants to re-finance loans that are about to come due. The government may be asked to stop issuing subsidies or to otherwise reduce public spending. When the IMF requires such a policy, the terms are known as 'IMF conditionalities'.

Austerity programs are frequently controversial, as they impact the poorest segments of the population and often lead to a wider separation between the rich and poor. In many situations, austerity programs are imposed on countries that were previously under dictatorial regimes, leading to criticism that populations are forced to repay the debts of their oppressors.[1][2][3]"

There's more...

Well, one thing you have to give the Obama non-lobbyists, (or so they say) they are very good at spin. One would have to read between the lines to see that they are STILL FORCING taxpayers to buy in to the big Ponzi scheme even as the suave master salesman Obama himself admitted (on Jay Leno) that the bailouts are not working!

No teleprompters, huh?

The banks are taking the money and not issuing loans, instead, padding their balance books (hopefully with the aim of selling their stock?)

Its a basic of fraud that those who are holding the bag at the end of a Ponzi scheme are the BIG LOSERS.

We all knew (even we non-insiders knew) that many of the mortgage loans, especially the many of those no-income no asset loans were never going to get repaid at face value. That is WHY they charged the folks who responded to those quintillions of robo-calls extra points! They went looking for people with no credit or bad credit too. The banks already got their profits in the extra points. They gambled and lost. They knew this years ago. Why resurrect the dead? let sleeping dogs lie.

What business is that that expects the taxpayer to wipe their butt for them? American banking, that is what business. Its also an exercise in showing the American public who is really the boss.

Why have the government assume this debt? So the government can pay and pay and eventually, default on it, saddling the taxpayers with IMF austerity measures like devaluation of bank accounts and giving up pensions and privatizing utilities like water and perhaps, eventually, clean air?

The real owners of American politicians-

SO, Obama seems determined to make the taxpayers the losers.

Crafty how he includes the auction idea but the devil in the details shows that the auction is not significant in reducing the exposure of the taxpayer.

Kind of like Obama's healthcare plan, in that devil in the details aspect.

There's more...

Wow..

So, we just flushed that billions of dollars in money, (enough for six universal healthcares, if I read it correctly) down the drain so that the execs could cash out of the Ponzi scheme in style leaving the taxpayer covering their gambling losses???

Obama on Jay Leno:

"LENO: Well, when will the money -- this money was given out to the banks. I would have thought by this time it would have sort of trickled down to Main Street, to people wanting to get loans -- I mean, it all went out there months and months ago. Where is it?

OBAMA: Well, what's happening is a lot of these banks are keeping it in the bank because their balance sheets had gotten so bad that they decided, you know what, for us to stay solvent we need to maintain certain capital ratios; we've got to have a certain amount of capital in the bank -- and they haven't started lending it yet. And that's why what we've got to do -- right now what we're doing is essentially doing a diagnostic test -- trying to use some auto language here so you -- (laughter) -- we're doing a diagnostic on each of the banks, figuring out what are their capital levels? Can they sustain lending? And then I think we're going to separate out -- those banks that are in good shape, we're going to say to them, all right, you're on your own; go start lending again. Those banks that still have problems, we'll do a little more intervention to try to clean some of those toxic assets off their books.

But I actually have confidence that we'll get that done. In the meantime, we're taking a lot of steps to, for example, opening up -- open up separate credit lines <u>outside of banks</u> for small businesses so that they can get credit -- because there are a lot of small businesses out here who are just barely hanging on. Their credit lines are starting to be cut. We're trying to set up a securitized market for student loans and auto loans <u>outside of the banking system</u>. So there are other ways of getting credit flowing again. "

There's more...