Skip to main content

Facts: How much taxpayer money has the US Govt actually pissed away?

Here is an overview of the US budget:

Right now all the talk is is on trying to find a few billion to plug the holes in the trillion dollar healthcare budget in the US. Well what if I told you EVERYONE COULD HAVE FULL COVERAGE, DENTAL AND ALL EXTRAS JUST BASED ON MONEY ALREADY SPENT FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS ALONG WITH FREE COLLEGE?!

The bank bailouts were reported on in the news, but it's been tragically misrepresented. the sheer scale and and mind boggling enormity of the crime have not actually been widely assimilated and processed. I cannot emphasize enough how epically evil this whole thing is. clear your head and keep an open mind and be objective. Think simply and fundamentally process the gravity of the forward projected total of this figure:
30 trillion dollars.

Bear in mind with proper free market capitalism the Banks should simply fail..  They are currently reaping record profits again while many of their clients who are bailing them out as we speak with their taxes, lost everything.

The housing bubble was brought on more by the the Bush Administration Housing policies than the repeal of Glass-Steagal.
Here are some more nauseating figures:

God needs money and tax breaks.
Tax Breaks for RELIGION costs $71 Billion annually

What about the trillions wasted on needless wars? Look at two countries alone:

War and the Pentagon.
Last year, a Reuters article brought renewed scrutiny to the budgeting practices of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), specifically the U.S. Army, after it was revealed that the department  had “lost” $6.5 trillion in 2015 due to “wrongful budget adjustments.” Nearly half of that massive sum, $2.8 trillion, was lost in just one quarter. Reuters noted that the Army “lacked the receipts and invoices to support those numbers [the adjustments] or simply made them up” in order to “create an illusion that its books are balanced.”
Officially, the DOD has acknowledged that its financial statements for 2015 were “materially misstated.” However, this was hardly the first time the department had been caught falsifying its accounting or the first time the department had mishandledmassive sums of taxpayer money.
The cumulative effect of this mishandling of funds is the subject of a new reportauthored by Dr. Mark Skidmore, a professor of economics at Michigan State University, and Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of housing.
Their findings are shocking.
(I'll give you a clue. "Losing" means off budget black ops spending)

“Losing” the equivalent of the national debt"

The report, which examined in great detail the budgets of both the DOD and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), found that between 1998 and 2015 these two departments alone lost over $21 trillion in taxpayer funds.:

All of this is deficit spending, putting taxpayers grandchildren on the hook to settle loans made from the Fed  (another whole story in itself) because money is borrowed AT INTEREST!  Here is the latest:

START MAKING NOISE! It's not the poor who want something for for nothing, it's the poor donate welfare to the rich banks and Military Industrial Complex!

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.

Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…