Could the MIC continue without Tax Revenus to pay the bills.

[edited by mod] Don’t have a mortgage?

YOU are paying NOW. It’s called INTEREST. This money could be used for other things other than paying the rich, who lent the US Bilions of dollars.

Running the US Gov on debt is a wealth transfer. From Poor to Rich.

[Mod Note; Please do not insult other commenters. Thank you.]

And very apropos to this thread.

(More on the “Distance Between Influence and Integrity” here):
http://newsprism.wordpress.com/

As for the cost of Iraq, we’re not bothering to count the Iraqi casualties, much less our own spending. But every US troop death is highlighted by we anti-war types as well as by the jingoists. What a shame.

And I read that the total cost could pass $1 TRILLION by the time all the veterens wend their ways through the health care system. All so DUHbya could get it up, I’m afraid…

The world does not love us, it hates us and it makes perfect sense.

McCain, who voted to go into Iraq and said it was “important” to do so, does not seem to have noticed that the price tag for it and Afghanistan is rapidly rising to $3 trillion to $5 trillion over the long term, or $10,000 for each man, woman and child in America. For a family of four, that is $40,000 or a whole year’s salary that George W. Bush has stolen from us and given to his friends at Halliburton, Hunt Oil, Exxon Mobile, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Electric, etc., etc., etc. (See Tom Engelhardt on this and other morsels in Bush’s Mulligatawny Soup of a war). Not to mention the nearly 4,000 killed in action and the thousands seriously wounded, with brain trauma, spinal injuries, confined to wheel chairs or forever impaired, who will need to be taken care of the rest of their lives (and guess to which address the bill will come– not Crawford, Texas.) Is the war really unrelated to the growing bad times in the US economy?

Bush’s loathsome toadies actually come out and say that all this spending of our blood and treasure is the price of security. But Iraq did not attack the US and was no danger to the US, and the Iraq War is actually actively producing a terrorist danger to our security, according to veteran CIA official and now security analyst Marc Sageman. All this is not to mention the invidious way the Bush administration has framed the terrorism issue, as Noam Chomsky points out at Tomdispatch.

http://www.juancole.com/

I recommend this article @ Tom Dispatch:

“Terror” is a particularly good example of this. “Terror” is something that, by (recent) definition, is committed by free-floating groups or movements against innocent civilians and is utterly reprehensible (unless the group turns out to be the CIA running car bombs into Baghdad or car and camel bombs into Afghanistan, in which case it’s not a topic that’s either much discussed, or condemned in our world). On the other hand, that weapon of terror, air power, which is at the heart of the American way of war, simply doesn’t qualify under the category of “terror” at all — no matter how terrifying it may be to innocent civilians who find themselves underneath the missiles and bombs.

and this from Noam Chomsky:

The terminology is accurate enough, according to the rules of Anglo-American discourse, which defines “the world” as the political class in Washington and London (and whoever happens to agree with them on specific matters). It is common, for example, to read that “the world” fully supported George Bush when he ordered the bombing of Afghanistan. That may be true of “the world,” but hardly of the world, as revealed in an international Gallup Poll after the bombing was announced. Global support was slight. In Latin America, which has some experience with U.S. behavior, support ranged from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama, and that support was conditional upon the culprits being identified (they still weren’t eight months later, the FBI reported), and civilian targets being spared (they were attacked at once). There was an overwhelming preference in the world for diplomatic/judicial measures, rejected out of hand by “the world.”

http://tomdispatch.com/post/17…..world_over