Thanks for making my day/not!
It is what it is, though, and has been coming for a long time.
We’ve heard a lot more about traffic in New Jersey than about the 1 billion in taxpayer dollars to Russia for purchase of helicopters for Afghanistan!
Russian Helicopters for sale...
Does anyone remember Barack Obama’s great promise of the campaign of 2012? He did not make a promise to America nor to Americans. He did not make a promise to fellow politicians. Unlike so many of his promises, he is keeping this one. His promise was to Vladimir Putin of Russia. What is Obama doing to keep his promise to Putin? Everyone remembers the hot mike incident in 2012 when Barack Obama pleaded with Russian President Dmitri Medvedyev to give him time until the election. After the election, he promised Vladimir Putin, through Medvedyev, he would be more “flexible.”
Now we have seen this flexibility.
Barack Obama is going to spend almost $700 million dollars of taxpayer money to buy Russian helicopters for the Afghan Air Force. But wait. Just like those TV commercials, this gets better. When Congress passed the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, it had an interesting provision. Congress included, as a part of that law a prohibition on the United States buying helicopters from Rosoboronexport, the Russian manufacturer of the Mi-17 helicopter.
Unfortunately as always happens, when such laws are passed, Congress always gives the Regime an escape hatch. The law stated that Obama could buy from Rosoboronexport if the Secretary of Defense certified it was in the interest of National Security. And of course, the Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel , a man committed to destroying the US military immediately signed off on that certification. Where do we even start with this one?
Congress is outraged over this with Senators and Representatives from both parties writing letters about this. Of course, this is Congress’ fault for allowing a law to be written with such an escape hatch. More importantly, Americans need to be asking just what the hell the Obama Regime is doing.
Why are we spending $700 million dollars with a Russian arms manufacturer? Why are we even giving the Afghans these helicopters?
If we are going to give them helicopters, which we really shouldn’t, then why not give them American made helicopters and put Americans to work?
if we are going to give the Afghans Russian helicopters, the ones we are giving them are an old Cold War design. There are hundreds of used MI-17 helicopters floating around the world. Why are we paying to give the Afghans brand new helicopters?
In the era of the Sequester, isn’t there something better we can do with $700 million? American Medicare cancer patients are being turned away from hospitals and are being denied life saving treatment because of budget cuts. The American military is being gutted to the point of ineffectiveness because of budget cuts.
Or consider this. The United States Air Force is grounding 17 squadrons because of $591 million dollars in budget cuts. Our Air Force is not able to do its mission because it lacks the money to fly but we have the money to give Afghanistan $700 million dollars in Russian helicopters.
And this is where Barack Obama thinks we should spend our money?
Bring back American manufacturing.
Now.
The Federal Reserve is propping up the entire U.S. economy by buying 61 percent of the government debt issued by the Treasury Department
*********
In effect, the government is buying the government’s debt. What could possibly go wrong with this scheme? /sarc
Things that cannot happen, don't. The public debt cannot be paid, so it will be repudiated.
It's what comes next that's interesting.
BFL
This gathering of quotes is powerfully persuavsive that something needs to change, and quickly.
Trying, trying, trying to be positive about what can I do to help my beloved country.
Well, a Ronald Reagan quote comes to mind: “Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.”
When they decide the crash is imminent and unavoidable, they will let a Republican win the Pres election, and time the crash for shortly after he takes office. They will then blame him for the Depression, Democrat rampant socialists will sweep into office the next election, and they will maintain control for decades afterward.
The scenario I describe above is what happened when Herbert Hoover took office in 1929.
Ping
bkmk
bttt
Interesting summary. Nothing like “in-your-face” commentary. But the masses (and our leaders) are stupid.
US Bond rates are collapsing, despite manipulations such as ‘jobs data’ (to say nothing of GDP). Bond sales are consistently netting less than 50% of that tendered for sale. Stating the obvious here: Bond sales fund deficit-spending.
Once interest rates start ticking up (despite Fed market manipulations), the Budget goes to hell-in-a-handbasket, as Interest on US Debt will consume the Federal Budget.
I can’t believe they’ve been able to continue this game for so long.
It really is quite a simple question: Take the pain now, or take greater & longer pain later?
Remember that at mid-terms: I motion to “vote non-incumbent” across the board (same mantra I’ve had since pre-2008).
Oh, and by the way: Didja hear the Housing Market is ‘Recovering’? You know, that Home Prices are “Rebounding”?
Ya know...that ‘bubble’ we had before?
Refilling, it is.
Taxes and regulations have ended manufacturing in this country and unions didn’t help.
A lot of younger people resent that and I would, too. Mrs. RWA and I are moving into that age range and we are NOT happy with the $1+ million we will get (yeah, right) from the "gummint" (younger people). Had we been able to put that into private accounts, we would have a much larger amount to draw from. And our children and grandchildren wouldn't have to pay for part of OUR retirement through their taxes and the nursing home when our funds run out. Unless obama's offspring manage to kill us off earlier.
Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year.
BTTT!