Interesting.
Thanks.
All Americans are being cheated by diversion
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Thanks. The United States Probably Has More Foreign Military Bases Than Any Other People, Nation, or Empire in History
And it’s doing us more harm than good.
By David Vine
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
With the US military having withdrawn many of its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, most Americans would be forgiven for being unaware that hundreds of US bases and hundreds of thousands of US troops still encircle the globe. Although few know it, the United States garrisons the planet unlike any country in history, and the evidence is on view from Honduras to Oman, Japan to Germany, Singapore to Djibouti.
TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com.
Like most Americans, for most of my life, I rarely thought about military bases. Scholar and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson described me well when he wrote in 2004, “As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize—or do not want to recognize—that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet.”
To the extent that Americans think about these bases at all, we generally assume they’re essential to national security and global peace. Our leaders have claimed as much since most of them were established during World War II and the early days of the Cold War. As a result, we consider the situation normal and accept that US military installations exist in staggering numbers in other countries, on other peoples’ land. On the other hand, the idea that there would be foreign bases on US soil is unthinkable.
While there are no freestanding foreign bases permanently located in the United States, there are now around 800 US bases in foreign countries. Seventy years after World War II and 62 years after the Korean War, there are still 174 US “base sites” in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea, according to the Pentagon. Hundreds more dot the planet in around 80 countries, including Aruba and Australia, Bahrain and Bulgaria, Colombia, Kenya, and Qatar, among many other places. Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.
Oddly enough, however, the mainstream media rarely report or comment on the issue. For years, during debates over the closure of the prison at the base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, nary a pundit or politician wondered why the United States has a base on Cuban territory in the first place or questioned whether we should have one there at all. Rarely does anyone ask if we need hundreds of bases overseas or if, at an estimated annual cost of perhaps $156 billion or more, the United States can afford them. Rarely does anyone wonder how we would feel if China, Russia, or Iran built even a single base anywhere near our borders, let alone in the United States....
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-probably-has-more-foreign-military-bases-than-any-other-people-nation-or-empire-in-history/
And it’s doing us more harm than good.
By David Vine
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
With the US military having withdrawn many of its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, most Americans would be forgiven for being unaware that hundreds of US bases and hundreds of thousands of US troops still encircle the globe. Although few know it, the United States garrisons the planet unlike any country in history, and the evidence is on view from Honduras to Oman, Japan to Germany, Singapore to Djibouti.
TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com.
Like most Americans, for most of my life, I rarely thought about military bases. Scholar and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson described me well when he wrote in 2004, “As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize—or do not want to recognize—that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet.”
To the extent that Americans think about these bases at all, we generally assume they’re essential to national security and global peace. Our leaders have claimed as much since most of them were established during World War II and the early days of the Cold War. As a result, we consider the situation normal and accept that US military installations exist in staggering numbers in other countries, on other peoples’ land. On the other hand, the idea that there would be foreign bases on US soil is unthinkable.
While there are no freestanding foreign bases permanently located in the United States, there are now around 800 US bases in foreign countries. Seventy years after World War II and 62 years after the Korean War, there are still 174 US “base sites” in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea, according to the Pentagon. Hundreds more dot the planet in around 80 countries, including Aruba and Australia, Bahrain and Bulgaria, Colombia, Kenya, and Qatar, among many other places. Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.
Oddly enough, however, the mainstream media rarely report or comment on the issue. For years, during debates over the closure of the prison at the base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, nary a pundit or politician wondered why the United States has a base on Cuban territory in the first place or questioned whether we should have one there at all. Rarely does anyone ask if we need hundreds of bases overseas or if, at an estimated annual cost of perhaps $156 billion or more, the United States can afford them. Rarely does anyone wonder how we would feel if China, Russia, or Iran built even a single base anywhere near our borders, let alone in the United States....
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-probably-has-more-foreign-military-bases-than-any-other-people-nation-or-empire-in-history/
I am realising that the real point of elections is for the public to face the facts.
And may be wll the quarelling is all about as you describe well "diversion".
"Astonishing. Racket nor Cartel aren't even close enough to the truth. One TRILLION$/year."
I hope for you Americans that cartels that have realized are not looking to get in!
And may be wll the quarelling is all about as you describe well "diversion".
"Astonishing. Racket nor Cartel aren't even close enough to the truth. One TRILLION$/year."
I hope for you Americans that cartels that have realized are not looking to get in!
Big differences between Clinton's and Trump's health plans
11 / 21
CNBC
Dan Mangan3 hrs ago
You can measure the difference between Hillary Clinton's and Donald Trump'shealth plans in the millions -- millions of people insured. Or uninsured, that is.
QUOTES IN THE ARTICLE
Rand Capital Corp
RAND
▲
3.44
+0.01
+0.29%
A new analysis finds that the number of people with health insurance could increase sharply -- up by as much as 9.6 million -- if Clinton is elected president and the Democrat gets her health plan implemented.
But if the Trump is elected and has his own health plan adopted, an even bigger number of people -- more than 25 million -- would actually end up losing their coverage by 2018, according to the analysis, released Friday by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund.
At the same time, people who buy insurance on the individual market, as opposed to getting coverage through an employer, on average would see their annual out-of-pocket expenses grow significantly under Trump's plan, the report said. It said Clinton's plan would tend to lower out-of-pocket costs.
The analysis, conducted by researchers at the Rand Corp., was based on proposals made by both campaigns this year.
Clinton's plan calls for building on and tweaking President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. Trump wants to gut that law, known as Obamacare, and replace it with a tax deduction that would allow people with individual insurance coverage to deduct the cost of their premiums from their taxes, as well as several other measures.
The report found that GOP nominee's health proposals are apt to have a much more dramatic effect — as well as an opposite one — on the nation's uninsured rate than Clinton's. At the same time, the real estate mogul's health-care package would cost the federal government less money than Clinton's, according to the analysis.
If Trump wins the White House and most of his health plan becomes law, 25.1 million people would lose their insurance by 2018 as a result of both a full repeal of the ACA, and a move to award Medicaid funding in block grants to states, the analysis found.
That number is about 5 million people more than the number who have gained coverage as a result of the ACA since 2010.
Even on the low end, the report found, Trump's proposals would significantly increase the number of uninsured.
About 15.6 million people would lose coverage even if Trump only succeeds in repealing the ACA and implementing a tax deduction for people who purchase health insurance, according to the analysis. Just repealing Obamacare and implementing no other Trump health-care proposal would eliminate insurance for nearly 20 million people, it said.
Despite increasing the total number of uninsured people, two Trump policies could actually boost the number of higher-income people with health insurance, according to the report.
About 2.7 million such people, defined as members of families of four earning more than $60,750 annually, would gain coverage if Trump's insurance tax deduction were adopted. And 1.4 million such people would gain coverage if his proposal to allow insurance sales across state lines were adopted, researchers found.
At the same time, Trump's proposal would increase out-of-pocket costs for customers on the individual insurance market by $300 to $2,500 above the current average of $3,200.
The researchers said the fewest number of people who would gain coverage under Clinton's plan would be 400,000 by 2018. That would be the case if just her proposal to allow a government-backed insurance plan on Obamacare marketplaces became law.
The analysis also found that Clinton's proposals would tend to help low- and moderate-income people the most in reducing their out-of-pocket health-care costs by an average of 33 percent.
At the same time the Commonwealth Fund released the analysis, it also unveiled an online tool that allows people to compare Trump's and Clinton's health-care proposals, and to see the impact each plan would have on the uninsured rate, the deficit and out-of-pocket costs.
The Trump campaign rejected the analysis by the fund and Rand as fiction...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/heal...and-trumps-health-plans/ar-BBwwa6j?li=BBnb7Kz
11 / 21
CNBC
Dan Mangan3 hrs ago
You can measure the difference between Hillary Clinton's and Donald Trump'shealth plans in the millions -- millions of people insured. Or uninsured, that is.
QUOTES IN THE ARTICLE
Rand Capital Corp
RAND
▲
3.44
+0.01
+0.29%
A new analysis finds that the number of people with health insurance could increase sharply -- up by as much as 9.6 million -- if Clinton is elected president and the Democrat gets her health plan implemented.
But if the Trump is elected and has his own health plan adopted, an even bigger number of people -- more than 25 million -- would actually end up losing their coverage by 2018, according to the analysis, released Friday by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund.
At the same time, people who buy insurance on the individual market, as opposed to getting coverage through an employer, on average would see their annual out-of-pocket expenses grow significantly under Trump's plan, the report said. It said Clinton's plan would tend to lower out-of-pocket costs.
The analysis, conducted by researchers at the Rand Corp., was based on proposals made by both campaigns this year.
Clinton's plan calls for building on and tweaking President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. Trump wants to gut that law, known as Obamacare, and replace it with a tax deduction that would allow people with individual insurance coverage to deduct the cost of their premiums from their taxes, as well as several other measures.
The report found that GOP nominee's health proposals are apt to have a much more dramatic effect — as well as an opposite one — on the nation's uninsured rate than Clinton's. At the same time, the real estate mogul's health-care package would cost the federal government less money than Clinton's, according to the analysis.
If Trump wins the White House and most of his health plan becomes law, 25.1 million people would lose their insurance by 2018 as a result of both a full repeal of the ACA, and a move to award Medicaid funding in block grants to states, the analysis found.
That number is about 5 million people more than the number who have gained coverage as a result of the ACA since 2010.
Even on the low end, the report found, Trump's proposals would significantly increase the number of uninsured.
About 15.6 million people would lose coverage even if Trump only succeeds in repealing the ACA and implementing a tax deduction for people who purchase health insurance, according to the analysis. Just repealing Obamacare and implementing no other Trump health-care proposal would eliminate insurance for nearly 20 million people, it said.
Despite increasing the total number of uninsured people, two Trump policies could actually boost the number of higher-income people with health insurance, according to the report.
About 2.7 million such people, defined as members of families of four earning more than $60,750 annually, would gain coverage if Trump's insurance tax deduction were adopted. And 1.4 million such people would gain coverage if his proposal to allow insurance sales across state lines were adopted, researchers found.
At the same time, Trump's proposal would increase out-of-pocket costs for customers on the individual insurance market by $300 to $2,500 above the current average of $3,200.
The researchers said the fewest number of people who would gain coverage under Clinton's plan would be 400,000 by 2018. That would be the case if just her proposal to allow a government-backed insurance plan on Obamacare marketplaces became law.
The analysis also found that Clinton's proposals would tend to help low- and moderate-income people the most in reducing their out-of-pocket health-care costs by an average of 33 percent.
At the same time the Commonwealth Fund released the analysis, it also unveiled an online tool that allows people to compare Trump's and Clinton's health-care proposals, and to see the impact each plan would have on the uninsured rate, the deficit and out-of-pocket costs.
The Trump campaign rejected the analysis by the fund and Rand as fiction...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/heal...and-trumps-health-plans/ar-BBwwa6j?li=BBnb7Kz
It took me a while to realize that talking about taxing corporations and almost everything else is a diversion. Worse, it is framing to keep the debate going about the system as if the system is viable. Obfuscate. Talk about "New Deals". All wrong.
The real solution is standing in front of our face. Soon, real soon, the structural barriers in people's brain will begin to break down and reformulate from the ground up through reason.
The real solution is standing in front of our face. Soon, real soon, the structural barriers in people's brain will begin to break down and reformulate from the ground up through reason.
Y
You are acting like a bot that is malfunctioning.
Another roach that needs to be added to the ignore list.
AT WHAT COST?