ANOTHER 200bn$???

(AuGmENTor: Ok, I am once again confused. I know I read that congress had approved 200 bn$ for the war. We all bashed it. Is he honestly, tyuly looking for it AGAIN? And: Are they going to give it to him??? (Subpart a is rhetorical)
Bush asks skeptical Congress for more war funds

Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:26pm EDT

By Susan Cornwell and Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush asked Congress on Monday for $189.3 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, another huge request that faced deep skepticism from lawmakers opposed to prolonging the Iraq conflict.

Bush's request covers ongoing military operations for fiscal 2008, which began on October 1, the White House said. It is in addition to about $600 billion already approved for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

House of Representatives appropriators said earlier this month they would not even consider the new war funding request until early 2008, and that they wanted to link it to a plan to bring U.S. combat troops home.

But they left open the possibility of paying for the war through an interim measure called a "bridge fund."

In announcing the latest war request, Bush prodded Congress to approve the request swiftly and without conditions.

"They should pass a good, clean bill as soon as possible," Bush told reporters at an event where he was flanked by veterans and family members of fallen soldiers. Lawmakers who say they support the troops should "show it," he said.

"Congress should not go home for the holidays while our troops are still waiting for the funds they need," Bush added.

"Isn't this getting to be a little old?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democratic war opponent from Nevada, asked on the Senate floor after Bush spoke.
Reid noted Bush had recently vetoed a bill to expand a popular children's health program. "We've been fighting for America's priorities while the president continues investing only in his failed war strategy," he said.

Congress would not simply "rubber stamp" the request after more than five years of war, Reid warned. "In the coming weeks we'll hold it up to the light of day and fight for the change in strategy and redeployment of troops that is long overdue."

In addition to the money for the Pentagon, Bush asked for $6.9 billion for the State Department to support diplomacy and development in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $200 million for other agencies, bringing the total request to $196.4 billion.

The request included $724 million to support the new United Nations peacekeeping mission in Darfur, and $500 million to help Mexico combat the narcotics trade.

The Pentagon had asked for $141.7 billion for the Iraq and Afghan wars earlier this year, submitting it at the same time that Bush submitted the rest of the budget. In July the Pentagon sought $5.3 billion more to procure additional vehicles with V-shaped hulls to disperse the impact of bombs.

The documents sent to Congress on Monday asked for another $42.3 billion, bringing the Pentagon total to $189.3 billion.

At the Pentagon, a senior defense official said Congress should act soon as possible, otherwise, "we are going to be in some very difficult position in terms of cash flowing."

Without the money, there could be problems "very early in the year, particularly with the operating accounts for the Army," the senior defense official told reporters.

"The 142 (billion dollars) that was originally submitted to the Congress, we think they can certainly act on that," the official added.

(Additional reporting by Andrew Gray)
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...52200020071022

The entire process is so completely insane, I'm beginning to believe Ruppert and his idea that it might be in the elite's best interests to crash the economy.

There's no way these expenditures have a reasonable "rate of return," through occupation or privatization of Iraqi oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simuvac

The entire process is so completely insane, I'm beginning to believe Ruppert and his idea that it might be in the elite's best interests to crash the economy.

There's no way these expenditures have a reasonable "rate of return," through occupation or privatization of Iraqi oil.

---

Can you explain that, I've never really understood it.

I will first, and then Tim will fill in the blanks (or outright correct me, wich is more likely.) I think the basic premis is that with a crashed economy, food will be unobtainable, as will most basic human services. (How would you pay your rent? Or your utility bill? Or your car insurance?) Most of the sheep, having no other viable options will line up to get into the FEMA camps. Back to you Tim...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius

Can you explain that, I've never really understood it.

---

Ruppert likes to cite Russian writer Dimitri Orlov on this point. Here's Orlov's three part series at From the Wilderness:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre..._lessons.shtml

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...ns_part2.shtml

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...ns_part3.shtml

Ruppert sees lessons for everyone in the Soviet experience of peak oil.

Here is Orlov's presentation: http://energybulletin.net/23259.html

First, there is this part on how economic collapse in America will not resemble the collapse of the Soviet Union:

"A spontaneous soft landing is unlikely in the U.S., where a large company can decide to shut its doors by executive decision, laying off personnel and auctioning off capital equipment and inventory. Since in many cases the equipment is leased and the inventory is just-in-time and therefore very thin, a business can be made to evaporate virtually overnight. Since many executives may decide to cut their losses all at once, seeing the same economic projections and interpreting them similarly, the effect on communities can be utterly devastating. Most people in the U.S. cannot survive very long without an income. This may sound curious to some people — how can anyone, anywhere survive without an income? Well, in post-collapse Russia, if you didn't pay rent or utilities — because no-one else was paying them either — and if you grew or gathered a bit of your own food, and you had some friends and relatives to help you out, then an income was not a prerequisite for survival. Most people got by, somehow.

But most people in the U.S., once their savings are depleted, would in due course be forced to live in their car, or in some secluded stretch of woods, in a tent, or under a tarp. There is currently no mechanism by which landlords can be made not to evict deadbeat tenants, or banks be prevailed upon not to foreclose on nonperforming loans. A wholesale reintroduction of rent control seems politically unlikely. Once enough residential and commercial real estate becomes vacant, and law enforcement becomes lax or nonexistent, squatting becomes a real possibility. Squatters usually find it hard to get mail and other services, but this is a very minor issue. More importantly, they can be easily dislodged again and again."

On cultural differences:

"The ability to stop and smell the roses — to let it all go, to refuse to harbor regrets or nurture grievances, to confine one's serious attention only to that which is immediately necessary, and not to worry too much about the rest — is perhaps the one most critical to post-collapse survival. The most psychologically devastated are usually the middle-aged breadwinners, who, once they are no longer gainfully employed, feel completely lost. Detachment and indifference can be most healing, provided they do not become morbid. It is good to take your sentimental nostalgia for what once was, is, and will soon no longer be, up front, and get it over with."

On normalcy:

"If there is a difference between the Soviet and the American approaches to maintaining a sense of normalcy, it is this: the Soviets tried to maintain it by force, while the Americans' superior approach is to maintain theirs through fear. You tend to feel more normal if you fear falling off your perch, and cling to it for dear life, than if somebody nails your feet to it. More to the point: in a consumer society, anything that puts people off their shopping is dangerously disruptive, and all consumers sense this. Any expression of the truth about our lack of prospects for continued existence as a highly developed, prosperous industrial society is disruptive to the consumerist collective unconscious. There is a herd instinct to reject it, and therefore it fails, not through any overt action, but by failing to turn a profit, because it is unpopular."


I have been looking for an hour for the quote Ruppert referenes, the one that says it may be in the interest of the monied folks to accelerate the peak oil crash. I'll keep looking.... sorry...

OK, I found it!

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/mem...kets_react.php

"Oil Industry expert Jean Laherrère says the plateau will be a bumpy, volatile ride as the peak in global oil production is delayed by “economic constraints”.17 Laherrère predicts the onset of this could be economic depression. As multiple reports break everyday that the housing bubble is popping and the economy may be at the brink, it is critical for everyone to remember the most frightening quote ever published at FTW from Dutch economist Maarten Van Mourik in 2003: “It may not be profitable to slow decline.”18

In other words, a collapse may prove to be more profitable than intentionally slowing the decline of oil production. Collapse could be very profitable for the military-industrial complex, banks and the oil industry as prices skyrocket. With the economy in bruised shape right now, it would not be difficult for The Powers That Be to induce a recession leading into a depression. It must be assumed this option is on the table.

However, there is a new wind blowing from the global elite, and it appears they have abandoned the neo-cons and their failed plans to commandeer the world’s last remaining hydrocarbon reserves by brute and barbaric (hi-tech) force. Signs are everywhere that there will soon be a swing in power to the neo-liberal left, and unfortunately, it appears that Daniel Yergin’s mythological energy theories are poised to play a critical hypnotic role in that elite agenda.19"

Quote:

---

But most people in the U.S., once their savings are depleted, would in due course be forced to live in their car, or in some secluded stretch of woods, in a tent, or under a tarp.

---

IMO these are the lucky ones. Living under a tarp is one thing, eating is another entirely. A common cold or minor injury, without regular heating/ medicine, can be a deadly situation under those circumstances.

Quote:

---

The most psychologically devastated are usually the middle-aged breadwinners, who, once they are no longer gainfully employed, feel completely lost. Detachment and indifference can be most healing, provided they do not become morbid. It is good to take your sentimental nostalgia for what once was, is, and will soon no longer be, up front, and get it over with."

---

I think I would be okay with all of it, as long as I knew it wasn't just me, nor anything I had done directly that lead to destitute status.

It's ok man, you did fine with that. I have yet to find anything about Mr. Ruppert that I don't like.

Quote:

---

Collapse could be very profitable for the military-industrial complex, banks and the oil industry as prices skyrocket.

---

In what way could it profit them? That part I don't get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuGmENTor

In what way could it profit them? That part I don't get.

---

I'm assuming the profit comes from high gas prices (check), dramatic increase in military spending (check), and the quick fix profits from both (check).

That is, I think the idea is to make profits on high gas prices in the short term rather than diminish demand for oil and take moderate profits from a gradual decline in production.

The alternative might save millions of lives, by investing in alternative energy sources and conservation. But less profit is to be made from that, especially for the MIC.

But ultimately to what end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuGmENTor

But ultimately to what end?

---

I guess it's a question of how the elites want this cash cow to die.

Slow and profitably, or fast and more profitably?

Remember, according to peak oil theory there is no empire after this one. Once the oil is depleted (but not gone), there's no going back to the way things were.

Quote:

---

Remember, according to peak oil theory there is no empire after this one. Once the oil is depleted (but not gone), there's no going back to the way things were.

---

I know that is the basic contention. What I am asking is once it is gone (in theory) how do they benefit after? No oil, basic human services in the shitter. What money is there to be had then? And by that point, what good does money do you anyway? If it is a total economic collapse, and if peak oil is right (and as they say, there is no coming back) then what is the point?
Sidebar: I see lots of alternate energy technology coming to the front right now. And while I know thet the years it would take to switch everything off of oil, it could be done. Blech, nevermind, my head hurts now..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuGmENTor

I know that is the basic contention. What I am asking is once it is gone (in theory) how do they benefit after? No oil, basic human services in the shitter. What money is there to be had then? And by that point, what good does money do you anyway? If it is a total economic collapse, and if peak oil is right (and as they say, there is no coming back) then what is the point?
Sidebar: I see lots of alternate energy technology coming to the front right now. And while I know thet the years it would take to switch everything off of oil, it could be done. Blech, nevermind, my head hurts now..

---

Sure. I hear what you're saying. It sounds like a completely nihilistic proposition.

Personally, I think the reason it will collapse faster rather than slower is because of structural pressures. The MIC is not going to disband overnight, and as the need to control the remaining oil becomes more contested we will probably see the various competitors ramp up their armed forces (thus accelerating decline rather than investing in its delay).

I hope a magic bullet technology exists. But if you look at all of human history as your timeline, the current moment of oil-based expansion of the species really is just a blip, not the norm.

Either that or all the end-of-the-world doomsayers are right. Magine that.

great info