Annual Military Spending 2019

        Annual Military Spending 2019                 

             

Rank	Country	Annual Spending in US $
1	United States	$732,000,000,000.00
2	China	$261,000,000,000.00
3	India	$71,100,000,000.00
4	Russian Federation	$65,100,000,000.00
5	Saudi Arabia	$61,900,000,000.00
6	France	$50,100,000,000.00
7	Germany	$49,300,000,000.00
8	United Kingdom	$48,700,000,000.00
9	Japan	$47,600,000,000.00
10	South Korea	$43,900,000,000.00
11	Australia	$27,500,000,000.00
Total of #2-11	(The Next 10 Nations)	$726,200,000,000.00

   These are the latest figures from SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) on annual military spending for 2019. They were flashed on the screen by Fareed Zakaria on his CNN show this last weekend. Our nation spends more on our military annually than the next ten nations combined spend on theirs. We exceed their total expenditure by nearly six billion dollars. I found that hard to believe, so I researched it. These numbers don't include North Korea because North Korea doesn't open its accounting to the folks in Stockholm, but if they did, the chart would look about the same because North Korea is a small industrial nation that according to US State Department estimates spent between $3.7 billion and $4.2 billion in 2017. Italy spends over 5 times that much on their military and they didn't make the Top 11 List.

So what do the nations on this chart have in common? Well, all but The United States and Saudi Arabia offer their citizens universal health care. The largest industrial nation in the world “can't afford it” and the Saudis, who brought you 9/11, could care less about their citizens. Care is for the Crown.

Would you expect US to win more often, seeing the above figures? I would, but I may not be giving enough weight to the fact that our Army is always playing an away game. Perhaps it doesn't matter if we win or lose. It may only be important that we spend the money. Spending money on the military is a bipartisan endeavor. “Have gun will travel” reads the card of our nation. As the chart shows, the industrial military lobbyists are more powerful than anyone you elect. They slop over in to civilian arms sales as well. Perhaps that is why gun safety legislation, with 70% popular support never makes it into legislation. So many wonderful things (and people) money can buy.

Look to the above list for the reason the most powerful industrial nation in the world doesn't have free K-16 quality education, universal free health care, improved infrastructure, a reliable renewable energy grid and intelligent gun legislation. Every time we spend another billion on our military, another cigar butt is thrown from a yacht into the Mediterranean and a thousand human beings die.

Cheers, Old Buz 3/25/2021                                                         iambloggerbuz.blogspot.com

Patriotism is Willful Ignorance

You may see the title of this blog post as despicable. I simply see it as true. To be a patriot, you would have a point of view that favors the place of your birth. By being willfully ignorant, you take notice of that which favors your point of view, while ignoring that which does not. Do you see a problem with my conclusion? To me, the two concepts are synonyms. So call me names. I'm OK with that.

I'll try to offer some obvious support to my quote. If you were a Japanese Citizen in the late 1930s, you saw the United States Navy place a blockade on your small island nation because the US sided with China in a centuries old battle. Your country then attacked a US Naval base that supported the blockade. A blockade of an island nation is clearly an act of war. The United States later ended the war with a nuclear attack on two civilian populations. Yes, the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons (weapons of mass destruction) on a civilian population, now objects to Iran having them. Iran would be but one of a dozen nations in today's world with nuclear weapon capability. How would you, as an American Patriot, state the history of these events? Would it be different than the view of the Japanese Patriot? Is either position true?

Another example would be the Vietnamese Patriot's view of our actions in Vietnam. We supported a corrupt government against a civil uprising. The primary excuse used was an attack on a US Naval vessel in the Gulf of Tonkin. Eye witness reports and the narration given by our acting Secretary of Defense, at the time, Robert McNamara, was that the attack was friendly fire in the fog. You can witness McNamara’s testimony in The Fog of War. A patriot, born in Vietnam, would probably say we had no business interfering in that war. American opinions vary on the involvement of our troupes in Vietnam, but I would guess that a true American Patriot backed that war. “My country, right or wrong, my country.” “United We Stand.”

Move forward to our involvement in the Middle East (starting in Iraq). We are there based on 9/11 and “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. George W. Bush has admitted that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and anyone who is not willfully blind, having even a slight knowledge of physics, is aware that the Twin Towers fell by means of demolition. They obviously did not “burn down”. So, God Bless America, where the patriots live in a much rosier world than I do.

“Without Patriots there would be no war.” - The Pacifist

Cheers, Old Buz 3/6/2021

iambloggerbuz.blogspot.com

Born an agnostic and with GOD's help will remain one.

Corona Light Refinance

 

We are at a point in time when tens of millions of folks witha good credit rating and adequate equity in their home are about to be foreclosed on and made homeless through no fault of their own.  The folks who will foreclose on them will lose reliable customers and devalue their asset base, by crashing the housing market.  Could it be that there is possibly a better answer to the problem?

I recently refinanced my home, taking advantage of a lower interest rate and lowering my monthly payment by one hundred dollars.  The downside was temporarily lowering my equity in my home, but in balance I decided that a decrease in monthly payments was the greater consideration.  I asked the mortgage servicing representative how lowering my interest rate was an advantage to his company.  He explained to me that the company’s primary income is a fee paid by the government mortgage corporations for the servicing of the loan and that they don’t want to see my business taken away by another mortgage servicing company offering the same lower rate that they are offering me.  They also profit from their new loan origination fees.  This all seemed reasonable to me, so I went with the offer.

So what am I suggesting here?  Design a mortgage refinance that will keep good customers in their homes and protect the value of the home and the income stream as well.  How would you do this?  Create a new Coved 19 Mortgage refinance program that would put a moratorium on mortgage payments for people unemployed by the virus.  Have the government pay the mortgage servicing companies the same fee for not collecting the payments as they were for collecting them.  This is a far lower cost to the government than foreclosure.  Have payments resume when employment for the borrower resumes.    Precompute the new payment with no penalties, but with the loss to the government of interest income added back into the principal and the payments resumed for a period equal to the original term of the loan.  If no increase in payment amount is desired, lengthen the term of the loan accordingly.  This all would require some cooperation from government and mortgage service companies and the borrowers, but it would benefit them all.  It would be a way that capitalism could serve the nation.  There is a touch of socialism thrown in as well.  The two systems work well in concert with each other and they always have.  All that is required is skill and reason being applied.

Cheers, Old Buz   2/2/2021

Iambloggerbuz.blogspot.com

January 6th, 2021

 

I want to start by apologizing to you for waiting a couple of weeks to write this blog.  I was waiting for a news commentator to raise this question.  “Why were the rioters who overran The Capital not armed?  And, how much control from above would it take to accomplish this?

The Trump Heroes were not armed for their attack on the Capital.  The cause was to disrupt the authority of Congress to verify the results of the Electoral College, the same College that handed Trump the presidency despite his loss in the people’s popular vote of 2016.

Some would claim that the Trump Monkeys were a pure grass roots movement of the Proud Boys, “Q”anon and other misguided simpletons arriving on the Trump Train, but no, they were obviously under strict control from above (or below).  Folks, they were unarmed!  These are 2^nd amendment, right to bear arms folks.  You see them in your supermarket.  They wear a gun to shop for apples.  Did you see any assault rifles or semiautomatic pistols during the insurrection, being carried by the rioters?  I know I didn’t.  Those orders not to go in armed were issued and absolutely followed.  And why was this in their marching orders?  Why do they not follow the same rules when marching on a state capital? 

One, this was not designed as a peaceful march to the Capital.  It was an insurrection and riot.  It could be argued that they could have been armed for a peaceful march.  Again, a peaceful march was not their intention.  Their intention was to stop our democracy from functioning by entering and taking control of our capital.

Two, a gun battle would have ended ultimately in their defeat.  Trump Monkeys do not yet control our military.  If armed, one of the Monkeys would have fired his weapon in that riot and Hell would have been released.  This was a public relations stunt and only a fool (Trump) would think that it would delay the Biden administration.  This nation has not been softened enough for a successful armed insurrection.  At this time, a gun battle would have been bad public relations. So yes, January 6^th was under very rigid control.  Please let me know if any of my assumptions or observations are incorrect.

Cheers, Old Buz     1/22/21

Iambloggerbuz.blogspot.com

Trump Monkeys on Reality TV

 

Yesterday, January 6^th, 2021, I was treated to my first entire viewing of a reality TV show.  It featured the Trump Monkeys vs. the Keystone Cops.  It was priceless.  A great show.  The narrators moaned, “The end of democracy” but in fact, democracy had ended years before.  The scam of legislation continued that very evening with the House/Senate confirming the Electoral College vote of all 50 states.  The trashing of the legislative building had a small, short term effect on its operation.  Actually its operation came to a close years ago when Mitch McConnell stated that he would no longer bring any bill to the floor for debate or a vote, unless he had first determined if the President would sign it.  This placed the actions of the legislature under the direct control of The President.  We no longer had a functioning legislative branch of the government, since no law could go into effect without the approval of both houses.  Hundreds of pieces of legislation stopped on The Majority Leader of The Senate’s desk.  Nancy Pelosi has the same power in The House of Representatives.  These are draconian rules of procedure in the legislature, but I don’t hear any screaming from the representatives you sent to Washington.  Your representatives fight like hell to get a bill placed indefinitely, on a majority leader’s desk.  You even send them donations to get these meaningless bills passed.

I have to pause for a moment and apologize for using the term, “Trump Monkeys,” It is an insult to monkeys.  Some monkeys show great intelligence.  On the other hand, when a candidate for office tells you that he “grabs any woman’s pussy he wants to and they can’t say anything because he is a star”  he is telling you that he is either a rapist or a liar and in our president’s case we later learned that he was both.  In his four years as President, he did not grow in character.  Some of you voted for him. 

The question has been raised, “Were the Trump Monkeys treated better by the Keystone Cops than they would have been had they been black?”  What’s the question?  The monkeys were treated like friends.  Police shoot unarmed black men in the back when they are offering no threat.  We see that on the news often.  The least the Keystones could have done was turn some fire hoses on those marauding monkeys.  It was cold in DC.  Perhaps even arrested a few more.

Will any action be taken by the government against The Golden Ass for instigating this riot in the next couple of weeks, before he leaves office?  Probably not.  Ho hum.  God Bless America.

Cheers, Old Buz 1/7/2021

Iambloggerbuz.blogspot.com

Who is vaccinated first?

 

Who is vaccinated first?

This is America, so it is obvious that the first Covid-19 vaccinations will be administered to the wealthiest 1% of the population.  After that the order will possibly be based on contribution to society or perhaps voting influence.  The Biden future White House is now dealing with the order of disbursement.  I would see contribution to the society be the prime determinant, so it probably won’t be, but if it were, it would look like this:

The medical personnel working to fight the pandemic along with the technicians that support their efforts would be number one.  Then those involved in the logistics of getting food and shelter to the population.  Next would be educators  and first responders.  Then, those who maintain and repair machinery and appliances.

Many of you are now saying, “You have forgotten those in assisted living.”  I haven’t forgotten them.  I have not yet gotten down to them in my suggested list.  A doctor might have already listed them because they would, from a health standpoint, benefit most from the vaccine.  This is a valid goal that is easily defended.  Those in assisted living are the most frail and most likely to die from the virus.  By being in assisted living, they have started down the slippery slide toward death.  If one of our goals is to save the US economy, they shift to low on the list.  I, myself, am one year into my eighth decade, retired, not physically or mentally as strong as I once was (society has retired me).  So my question is, do you, for the sake of the nation, want to give me the vaccine first, or give it to an eighteen year-old?  The eighteen year old is yet to produce their family or contribute their strength and education to the nation.  I would give the vaccination first to the young and productive, last to the retired.  I would tend to give it first to those who shower after work, then to those who shower before work.  I am not designing a death panel here, I am choosing a logical map to distribute a lifesaving vaccine, that is temporarily in short supply.  I am looking to benefit the nation, not individuals, because it will be a nationally designed and implemented program, funded by the nation.  Individual decisions are heavily weighted by self-preservation, not the good of the whole.  This includes political decisions. 

So, who goes last?   Those who harm the nation (the greedy).  In other words, first to those who benefit the nation, next those who have a neutral effect and last those who do the nation harm.  A simple and logical road map, but not one to likely be followed.  We will see.

Cheers, Old Buz     11/29/2020

Iambloggerbuz.blogspot.com

Law vs. Justice

 

   What is the correlation between law and justice?  I suspect that depends on the particular law being considered.  Law results from the wishes of the political party in power when the law is made.  An example of this would be The US Senate deciding not to hear from witnesses or read documents when acting as jurors in an impeachment trial.  This would be “Blind Justice” taken to an extreme.  Justice is probably a point of view of an individual or a like-minded group.  In its purest form it would be decided by listening to one’s own internal moral rudder.  Lower sources of justice would be: religion, political party, parents, local law, friends or TV news casters.  Here are some of the examples that cause me to ask the question.

   When I was in college, I served tables at a fraternity house.  One of the young men I served was a hero to his brothers partly because he would often get very drunk then get into his Corvette and knock over trash cans or other inanimate objects.  It was laughed about and encouraged by the group.  On one unfortunate weekend the objects were two young college women and they were killed.  His brothers no longer knew him or encouraged his frequent drunk driving.  The law suddenly got very serious and imprisoned him for much of the balance of his natural life.  That’s the law!  Is it justice?  I realize that each time the young man chose to drive drunk, he chose to do something very wrong.  However, he no more intended to kill the young women than he intended to knock over the trash cans.  Would you cage him for life because he killed the young women or because he chose to drunken drive?  Would you cage any of his fraternity brothers for egging him on?  Try to access your moral rudder for the answers to these questions.

  Imagine in a moment of temporary rage I picked up a handgun and fired it at another human being; let’s look at law and justice.  If I hit the other person right between the eyes and ended their life, I would be imprisoned for a long time.  If I missed and smashed up a lamp, it would be a different issue.  If it was a first offence, for the miss, I would probably get my hand slapped by the law and have to replace the lamp.  The difference here is not my intent or my actions.  It is my skill with the weapon that would determine my punishment.  Is that moral justice or is it “the law”?

   Assuming that I am a violent person (I’m not.  I’m a pacifist.) and I’m at a bar and get into an argument, then throw a punch landing on my advisory’s jaw, the man could perhaps become unconscious for a moment or two, or could strike his head on a table corner and die.  What now?  Same punch, same intent.  We are talking about the luck of the fall that determines the rest of my life.  Is that justice?  Our law is often based on random outcome not intent or action taken.

   A young single mom is driving at 10 over the speed limit in Seattle.  She gets a citation for $235.  Bill Gates gets the same ticket an hour later on the same street.  His ticket is also $235.  For the young woman the fine is two weeks of groceries for her and her child.  For Bill, it is hardly an inconvenience.  His secretary would probably write the check and mail it.  Is that equal punishment under the law?  I don’t suspect even Mr. Gates would say it was.  So wouldn’t you say that in a just society annual income would be a factor in determining the amount of a fine?  Bill would be getting multi-million dollar traffic fines (and I am OK with that).

  I had the opportunity to pose these questions to a retired federal judge.  I was interested in her perceived correlation between law and justice.  Her final, irritated, answer to these questions was, “Well, it’s the law!!”

   It would be very difficult in some cases to administer justice based on intent, not outcome, but it would be nice to try.

Cheers, Old Buz  10/11/20

Iambloggerbuz.blogspot.com