Why should we vote for anyone in the primaries if they refuse to shout about this great injustice?

[Fred Sanders]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484







________________________________________________________________

"What do you say is your problem, Uncle Sam?"

[Thinkingabout]

1. Good point.

[ish of the hammer]

48. you are aware that Clinton's policies supports the MIC far more than Sanders' ?

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. are you aware that is bullshit?

[ish of the hammer]

60. Libya, no-fly zone Syria, Victoria Nuland Ukraine, any number of MIC related companies donating to

the Clinton "charity".
Clinton represents the status quo, which includes continued feeding of the MIC.

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. oh really? Here is the BIG picture the ACTUAL public record ....not your cute little list...

Hillary Clinton on War & Peace

Supported decision to target Osama bin Laden. (Sep 2013)
Would have never diverted attention from Afghanistan. (Jan 2008)
After 9/11:Those helping terrorists would feel “wrath” of US. (Jun 2007)
1960s conversion to liberalism based on opposing Vietnam. (Jun 2007)
At Wellesley in ‘68, steered anti-war movement within system. (Jun 2007)
I have seen firsthand terrorists’ terrible damage. (Jun 2007)
Ok to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan; we did that 10 years ago. (Jan 2006)
Strategizing about Pakistan destabilizes a nuclear power. (Aug 2007)
Iran

Policy of prevention, not containment, on Iranian nukes. (Jan 2013)
Trust but verify Iran: goal is diplomacy & open inspections. (Jan 2013)
Massive retaliation from US if Iran attacks Israel. (Apr 2008)
Continue diplomatic engagement with Iran. (Dec 2007)
Believed, with others, that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapon. (Dec 2007)
Pledge that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb. (Oct 2007)
Rushing to war with Iran vs. doing nothing is a false choice. (Oct 2007)
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard promotes terrorism. (Sep 2007)
Prevent Iran from becoming nuclear power by diplomacy first. (Sep 2007)
Rule out nukes against Iran. (Aug 2007)
Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable. (Jun 2007)
Iraq War

I got it wrong on 2002 Iraq War vote. (Jun 2014)
OpEd: Iraq war follows tradition of active US leadership. (Jun 2012)
OpEd: 2003 Iraq vote unmistakably authorized war. (Nov 2010)
2002: Saddam gave sanctuary to terrorists including Al Qaeda. (Oct 2010)
2007: Avoided war apology to avoid "flip-flopper" label. (Jan 2010)
2007: Opposed funding Iraq War; no escalation. (Aug 2009)
2002: Saddam gave aid to Al Qaeda terrorists. (Oct 2008)
Up to the Iraqis to decide the future they will have. (Feb 2008)
Some tactical success in Iraq, but no strategic success yet. (Feb 2008)
Leaving 130,000 troops in Iraq is irresponsible abdication. (Jan 2008)
Have nearly all combat troops out in a year. (Jan 2008)
Voted against precedent of US subordinate to UN in Iraq. (Jan 2008)
Iraq war authorization was not authority for preemption. (Jan 2008)
Told by the White House how the war resolution would be used. (Jan 2008)
Withdrawing troops is dangerous, including 100,000 civilians. (Jan 2008)
No military solution in Iraq; this debate motivates solution. (Jan 2008)
Called war on terror “Bush’s war” but has played active role. (Nov 2007)
2002: Accepted connection between Saddam & Al Qaeda. (Nov 2007)
Leave combat troops in Iraq only for conterterrorism. (Sep 2007)
Pentagon calls her unpatriotic for asking about exit plan. (Jul 2007)
Bush misused authorization for war. (Jun 2007)
The Iraq war is Bush’s war. (Jun 2007)
Iraq war wouldn’t have happened had the inspectors been sent. (Jun 2007)
It was a mistake to trust Bush on his judgment to wage war. (Jun 2007)
This war is up to Iraqi people to win or lose, not the US. (Apr 2007)
No permanent bases, but continuing residual force in Iraq. (Apr 2007)
Takes responsibility for Iraq war vote, but not a mistake. (Feb 2007)
OpEd: Voting for war enabled criticizing how it was waged. (Oct 2005)
2002 Iraq speech criticized both Saddam and U.N. (Feb 2004)
2002: Attacking Iraq "not a good option" but authorized it. (Feb 2004)
Middle East

No-fly zone in Syria, but no American troops on the ground. (Oct 2015)
Not helping Free Syrian Army left vacuum for ISIS to fill. (Aug 2014)
Don't demand complete moratorium on Israeli settlement. (Jun 2014)
2012: We helped Syrian rebels, but we should have done more. (Jun 2014)
Invested in Israel: negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza. (Jun 2014)
I wanted to arm Syrian rebels, along with regional partners. (Jun 2014)
Obama rejected her 2012 plan to arm the Syrian rebels. (Aug 2013)
Clinton-Gates combo won push for Afghan surge. (Jun 2012)
Supports border security fence in Israel. (Oct 2006)
Cut off US aid if Palestine declares a state unilaterally. (Oct 2000)
Focuses on increasing relationship between US and Israel. (Oct 2000)
Support Israel in finding a safe and secure peace. (May 2000)
Extend peace treaties to Palestinians, Syrians & Lebanese. (Nov 1999)
Russia

Putin's annexing Crimea plays outdated zero-sum game. (Jun 2014)
Putin wants to reassert Russia's dominance in its own areas. (Jun 2014)
Contain Russia or Putin will expand beyond Crimea. (Apr 2014)

Voting Record

Iraq war vote was meant to be used as coercive diplomacy. (Jan 2008)
Voted against Levin Amendment: it gave UN veto over US. (Jan 2008)
Voted for Iraq war based on available info; now would not. (Apr 2007)
Critic of Iraq war, but won’t recant 2002 vote in its favor. (Nov 2006)
Regrets Bush’s handling of war, but not her war vote. (Oct 2006)
Voted YES on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq. (Jan 2007)
Deploy UN multinational peacekeeping force in Darfur. (Jul 2007)
Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran. (Oct 2007)

http://ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm#War_+_Peace

[Comrade Grumpy]

78. Your list of "accomplishments" pretty much proves the poster's claim.

She is too hawkish.

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. those are the actual record that does NOT prove that...

its the entire record...good bad and indifferent. Not cherry-picked like Sanders supporters like to do..

[ish of the hammer]

84. Thanks- like someone already said - proves my point.

Clinton is all about the status quo - including continuing the bloated MIC in its present form.
Wall St. wouldn't have it any other way.
oh, I forgot something else -
Hillary: Making sure women get a bigger piece of the middle-class pie that her neoliberal, DLC, pro-Wall Street, pro-Pentagon, pro-TPP, Republican-lite economic policies are designed to shrink. - expatjouro

[VanillaRhapsody]

86. It does not....

utter hogwash...

Balance lower military & higher diplomacy budget: Opposes topic 15
There is no safe haven for the terrorists: Favors topic 15
Our troops are stretched; so increase size of military: Favors topic 15
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 15
Extend reserve retirement pay parity back to 9/11: Favors topic 15
Improve mental health care benefits for returning veterans: Favors topic 15
YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding: Opposes topic 15
YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months: Opposes topic 15


http://ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_03n-SANE.htm

[ish of the hammer]

89. your "list" proves my point

Clinton will continue the MIC in all it's maleficence. Wall St wouldn't have it any other way.
The above is your "cherry-picked" facts out of your list.

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. bullshit....it does not...

that list is the outcome AFTER taking the others into consideration..

Perhaps you could look at the source I provided.

[ish of the hammer]

91. "cherry-picked"

[cherokeeprogressive]

94. Wow. A new version of "The List"! I'm impressed.

It's not as good as President Obama's. I'll give you this though; it's a hell of a lot more ambiguous.

[SCantiGOP]

72. correct, vanillarhapsody

All three Dem candidates are talking about this, so what is the point of the OP?

[Thinkingabout]

63. I am aware of the votes Sanders has made for military contractors, he continues to vote for the F-35

program which is not practical, over budget and the experts says it will lose in a dog fight, helmets costing $400,000 a piece. The OP is about the money in the Defense budget. On Clinton policies supporting MIC more than Sanders, he has voted more times for military action than Clinton and recently stated he would take military action and use drones, maybe becoming aware of Sanders policies and voting record would be informative.

[brooklynite]

87. Point to any evidence that Sanders will significantly cut that military percentage?

F-35s perhaps?

[Thinkingabout]

97. Wont happen, defense contractors love Sanders, he keep giving them more contracts.

[Scuba]

2. If we can't afford to educate our children, to heal our sick or care for our elderly ...

... just what is it the defense budget is defending?

[think]

3. It defends the assets of multinational corporations around the globe..

[raouldukelives]

105. Yep. It defends the interests of individual shareholders.

Each one freely choosing to aid and abet war mongers, racists and science denial over being a force for positive change with their one life.

Hey, its a free country, I just wish they would be honest about it. Don't tell me your serious about making things better when your assets are in the service of those making things worse.

[Fred Sanders]

5. I don't get it, why are the liberal candidates, top to bottom not talking about the military bloat?

Is it some kind of sacred cow, because that is not what free speech was supposed to do, exempt the military from criticism of any kind....and after straffing a hospital and killing 30 innocents you would think by now someone might broach the topic????

No more fucking sacred cows that even have the gall to spend some of their milk on buying patriotic songs and marches at sporting events before captive audiences...how fucked up this thst in so many ways?

Let's have our potential political representatives at the highest political level yearning to control the tests of that beast speak of the animal some more??

Please?

[think]

13. Just 2 days ago: Senator Bernie Sanders Votes Against Increasing Defense Spending

Senator Bernie Sanders Votes Against Increasing Defense Spending

“If we are serious about ending waste, fraud, abuse and excessive spending, we have got to focus on all agencies – including the Department of Defense. This bloated Pentagon budget continues to pour money into outdated weapons systems that don’t function properly. The Department of Defense is the only federal agency that cannot pass a clean audit. Many of its major acquisition programs suffer from chronic cost overruns. Virtually every defense contractor has been found guilty or has reached a settlement with the government because of fraudulent and illegal activities. This has got to change.”

http://enewspf.com/2015/11/10/senator-bernie-sanders-votes-against-increasing-defense-spending/

[Fred Sanders]

15. Excellent! A good start on the talk.....now how about a 50% reduction, all going to domestic?

That alone would fund every single excellent initiative everyone on the left is proposing.

How about a written policy proposal to cut the sacred cow in half.....while still outspending Russia and China by several factors?

The Progressive Caucus Budget shows how, in some detail.

The Better Off Budget of 2014

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/better-off-budget/

[think]

23. No argument here. Sanders would work hard to cut military spending. As to what percentage

I doubt he'd shoot for 50% but I could see him fighting for major reductions. By major meaning 10-25% which is huge considering the support for military spending by both parties.

Obviously JMO...

[Fred Sanders]

29. Reducing the military will have to be a progression, an evolution and not a revolution.

Unfortunately that is the reality, but if I can dream I would still prefer a doable maybe-revolution in military spending reductions because that would have to trigger a revolution in domestic economic spending as well.

$300,000,000,000 a year forever per year, indexed to inflation, freed up for domestic spending on the middle class and poor would accomplish what?

[Android3.14]

79. In other words...

I'll ignore my own OP, trash Bernie Sanders at every turn, and support the war hawk candidate, because I won't stand by my expressed convictions.

[jalan48]

18. I think it's because the military/security state is actually running the government.

[restorefreedom]

34. nailed it. nt

[paleotn]

49. Ike's greatest worry as come true. (nt)

[GoneFishin]

81. And it is easy to hide fraud, waste, and price gouging in a system hidden behind a wall of national

security.

[tecelote]

101. Exactly.

Cheney may not be in office anymore but we are still fighting his wars.

[erronis]

21. Trick question? We're defending the rest of the world against itself!

You know, weapons to Iraq to fight Iran. Missiles to Iran to fight Iraq. Land mines and fighter jets to anyone with cash (or we can arrange a nice loan...)

[Enthusiast]

55. +1 an entire shit load.

[Still In Wisconsin]

75. Oh don't worry Hillary cares a LOT about our children, our sick, and our elderly...

just so long as it doesn't mean higher taxes for her billionaire bankster buddies.

[Cassiopeia]

4. Yet you support Clinton,

the most hawkish of the candidates.

[Fred Sanders]

7. Sorry, this is 100% about The Pentagon and why no one is talking about The Pentagon, including

Clinton. I support them all, November, 2015, and I prefer Clinton now, because I like preferential balloting systems and own a calander, and refuse to not think that way.

I reserve judgment on them all until they have said what they must say about this single subject of bloated military spending and the lack of control by civilian authoity over justice in the military....why does The Pentagon have completed control of the investigation of a potential American war crime, for example?

[bahrbearian]

11. No, its about war, and the people that push it.

The pentagon didn't vote for AMUF

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. who would that be?

[bahrbearian]

65. "We came , We saw, He died " Who said that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

67. this proves your point how?

particularly when the ACTUAL record says otherwise...

[bahrbearian]

68. Yea right , Hillary always promoted peace through War

[VanillaRhapsody]

69. Oh she has? Record says otherwise..

Supported decision to target Osama bin Laden. (Sep 2013)
Would have never diverted attention from Afghanistan. (Jan 2008)
After 9/11:Those helping terrorists would feel “wrath” of US. (Jun 2007)
1960s conversion to liberalism based on opposing Vietnam. (Jun 2007)
At Wellesley in ‘68, steered anti-war movement within system. (Jun 2007)
I have seen firsthand terrorists’ terrible damage. (Jun 2007)
Ok to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan; we did that 10 years ago. (Jan 2006)
Strategizing about Pakistan destabilizes a nuclear power. (Aug 2007)
Iran

Policy of prevention, not containment, on Iranian nukes. (Jan 2013)
Trust but verify Iran: goal is diplomacy & open inspections. (Jan 2013)
Massive retaliation from US if Iran attacks Israel. (Apr 2008)
Continue diplomatic engagement with Iran. (Dec 2007)
Believed, with others, that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapon. (Dec 2007)
Pledge that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb. (Oct 2007)
Rushing to war with Iran vs. doing nothing is a false choice. (Oct 2007)
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard promotes terrorism. (Sep 2007)
Prevent Iran from becoming nuclear power by diplomacy first. (Sep 2007)
Rule out nukes against Iran. (Aug 2007)
Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable. (Jun 2007)
Iraq War

I got it wrong on 2002 Iraq War vote. (Jun 2014)
OpEd: Iraq war follows tradition of active US leadership. (Jun 2012)
OpEd: 2003 Iraq vote unmistakably authorized war. (Nov 2010)
2002: Saddam gave sanctuary to terrorists including Al Qaeda. (Oct 2010)
2007: Avoided war apology to avoid "flip-flopper" label. (Jan 2010)
2007: Opposed funding Iraq War; no escalation. (Aug 2009)
2002: Saddam gave aid to Al Qaeda terrorists. (Oct 2008)
Up to the Iraqis to decide the future they will have. (Feb 2008)
Some tactical success in Iraq, but no strategic success yet. (Feb 2008)
Leaving 130,000 troops in Iraq is irresponsible abdication. (Jan 2008)
Have nearly all combat troops out in a year. (Jan 2008)
Voted against precedent of US subordinate to UN in Iraq. (Jan 2008)
Iraq war authorization was not authority for preemption. (Jan 2008)
Told by the White House how the war resolution would be used. (Jan 2008)
Withdrawing troops is dangerous, including 100,000 civilians. (Jan 2008)
No military solution in Iraq; this debate motivates solution. (Jan 2008)
Called war on terror “Bush’s war” but has played active role. (Nov 2007)
2002: Accepted connection between Saddam & Al Qaeda. (Nov 2007)
Leave combat troops in Iraq only for conterterrorism. (Sep 2007)
Pentagon calls her unpatriotic for asking about exit plan. (Jul 2007)
Bush misused authorization for war. (Jun 2007)
The Iraq war is Bush’s war. (Jun 2007)
Iraq war wouldn’t have happened had the inspectors been sent. (Jun 2007)
It was a mistake to trust Bush on his judgment to wage war. (Jun 2007)
This war is up to Iraqi people to win or lose, not the US. (Apr 2007)
No permanent bases, but continuing residual force in Iraq. (Apr 2007)
Takes responsibility for Iraq war vote, but not a mistake. (Feb 2007)
OpEd: Voting for war enabled criticizing how it was waged. (Oct 2005)
2002 Iraq speech criticized both Saddam and U.N. (Feb 2004)
2002: Attacking Iraq "not a good option" but authorized it. (Feb 2004)
Middle East

No-fly zone in Syria, but no American troops on the ground. (Oct 2015)
Not helping Free Syrian Army left vacuum for ISIS to fill. (Aug 2014)
Don't demand complete moratorium on Israeli settlement. (Jun 2014)
2012: We helped Syrian rebels, but we should have done more. (Jun 2014)
Invested in Israel: negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza. (Jun 2014)
I wanted to arm Syrian rebels, along with regional partners. (Jun 2014)
Obama rejected her 2012 plan to arm the Syrian rebels. (Aug 2013)
Clinton-Gates combo won push for Afghan surge. (Jun 2012)
Supports border security fence in Israel. (Oct 2006)
Cut off US aid if Palestine declares a state unilaterally. (Oct 2000)
Focuses on increasing relationship between US and Israel. (Oct 2000)
Support Israel in finding a safe and secure peace. (May 2000)
Extend peace treaties to Palestinians, Syrians & Lebanese. (Nov 1999)
Russia

Putin's annexing Crimea plays outdated zero-sum game. (Jun 2014)
Putin wants to reassert Russia's dominance in its own areas. (Jun 2014)
Contain Russia or Putin will expand beyond Crimea. (Apr 2014)


Voting Record


Iraq war vote was meant to be used as coercive diplomacy. (Jan 2008)
Voted against Levin Amendment: it gave UN veto over US. (Jan 2008)
Voted for Iraq war based on available info; now would not. (Apr 2007)
Critic of Iraq war, but won’t recant 2002 vote in its favor. (Nov 2006)
Regrets Bush’s handling of war, but not her war vote. (Oct 2006)
Voted YES on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq. (Jan 2007)
Deploy UN multinational peacekeeping force in Darfur. (Jul 2007)
Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran. (Oct 2007)

http://ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm#War_+_Peace

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Yeah one candidate is talking about the Pentagon, Fred...

Sanders Opposes Bloated Pentagon Budget
Thursday, December 11, 2014
he Senate on Thursday advanced a Department of Defense bill that would authorize $560 billion for the military. The vote was 85-14. Sen. Bernie Sanders voted no. “I am voting no because I have very serious concerns about our nation's bloated military budget and the misplaced national priorities this bill reflects.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/sanders-opposes-bloated-pentagon-budget


Pentagon Bloat

[tecelote]

103. +1! Thanks.

[tecelote]

104. I glad you wrote this OP and am glad you're a Hillary supporter.

I'm a Bernie supporter but I don't hate Hillary. However, this is issue #1 for me. I want it in front of all candidates.

We need to stop killing for oil and focus on the needs of Americans at home.

If we want to create jobs and help the ME, let's send engineers, doctors and teachers over there.

But, right now, we need our tax dollars bringing America up to the standards we tend to think we have. Let's bring children out of poverty before we decide to bring Democracy to countries that didn't ask for our help.

[Fred Sanders]

111. China and Cuba send doctors, engineers and teachers everywhere instead of arms...and will win

the hearts and minds of the world some day that America never will.

[bahrbearian]

8. Up is down, its crazy

[Bluenorthwest]

6. I agree with this, Fred...

Bernie Sanders is right—America spends too much money on its military
http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-defense-spending/

[BlueCaliDem]

9. In terms of percentage of GDP, Russia still outspends us. But in terms of real dollars...wow.

Has Bernie Sanders come out and said he'll work to reduce military spending? I know Hillary Clinton has even though she's supposedly a "hawk" and a "warmonger", unlike "anti-war" Sanders, so...

Clinton calls for commission to examine U.S. Military Spending

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called on Thursday for the creation of a high-level commission to examine U.S. defense spending.

Speaking at a town hall-style campaign appearance in New Hampshire, Clinton said: "I think we are overdue for a very thorough debate in our country about what we need, and how we are going to pay for it."

She added: "Very often, leadership of the Defense Department wants to eliminate certain spending, or wants to change it, and they're stopped by the Congress."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/18/us-usa-election-clinton-defense-idUSKCN0RH37B20150918

[Fred Sanders]

12. Sanders is clearly against more military spending, but is he for drastically reducing it?

I mean drastically! Is Clinton and Martin?

The Pentagon is not a sacred cow! Let's talk about it, Candidates!

[99th_Monkey]

20. Facts speak for themselves: "Defense Industry Embraces Hillary By Far Their Favorite Dem."

Defense Industry Embraces Democrats, Hillary By Far The Favorite

The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.

An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Post's Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.

Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html

[Fred Sanders]

27. Clinton is perhaps the lesser of three evils for MIC, but MIC must be getting nervous at all the

leftist rhetoric from Clinton lately.....but what I want to know is who will be first to point this out, maybe use a visual display, I like visual displays:

America's #1 Human Rights Issue Explained in One Pie Chart



And the solution from the already long time existing left wing of the Democratic Party - sorry, no one pie chart:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/better-off-budget/

[99th_Monkey]

30. I don't think MIC will be nervous about Clintons leftist rhetoric until she returns their $$$$

Nice pie chart though.

[azurnoir]

107. quick quiz question which candidate recently said they WOULD bomb Iran if.......?

as opposed it could be an option?

[BlueCaliDem]

58. It only shows that they believe she'll win the presidency.

The biggest cheerleader and supporter between the top two front-runners for the Democratic nom, for the most wasteful spending at the Pentagon is Bernie Sanders.

See my post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=798275

The Lockheed Martin F-35 is the epitome of Pentagon waste. The program has already cost taxpayers roughly half a trillion dollars, with $700 billion or more to come during the program’s lifetime. During an interview, Pierre Sprey, a co-designer of the F-16, went into great detail about how the F-35 was a lemon aircraft. Sprey explained that the fighter is an excessively heavy gas guzzler with small wings, a low bomb-carry capacity, low loiter time, is incapable of slow flight, is detectable to World War II-era low-frequency radar, and costs $200 million apiece. And just a little over a week ago, the F-35 caught fire on a runway at Eglin Air Force Base.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion

I guess Senator Sanders believes some corporations - like Lockheed Martin and other MiC corporations - are good. They create jobs in Vermont, which is a good argument to make, but he forgets to tell his supporters that other corporations do the same and don't get 82% of their revenue from American taxpayers. Can this be called corporate socialism?

[99th_Monkey]

61. Yes, that's exactly what MIC endor$ement$ and Ca$h are doing: betting on their darling to win

and if you're asking me to believe the MIC won't feel entitled to get both access
and "certain favor$" from Hillary if she ever sits in the Oval Office, then I have to wonder
if you DO "know" much about "how it works" in DC, or about your candidate's record.

[BlueCaliDem]

71. EMPLOYEES are donating to her campaign. Not the Corporations themselves.

if you're asking me to believe

I'm not asking you to do anything but just consider the facts and to not put your own prejudiced spin on them just because you dislike Hillary Clinton so. These employees know what you appear not to want to accept - that she will win the primaries and, considering the smaller amount of donations to Republicans, will also win the presidency from Republicans.

That's it. That's all. The rest is just negatively spun conjecture on your part.

[99th_Monkey]

74. I am very aware of CU's fig-leaf "arms length" bullshit legalese

Weasle-words that contort both logic and instinct to grant all the parties i.e. the candidates
and their donor corporations "cover" for brazenly buying political favor. The fact that you feel
so compelled to buy into this illogic is understandable, I suppose, given who your candidate
is. But please don't expect me to find it even remotely convincing.

[BlueCaliDem]

80. So what you're saying is, corporations are people? Hello, Mitt.

And you do love your conspiracy theories - based solely on your prejudiced views of candidates you abhor, of course. But I suppose, given the candidate whom you claim to support, being a conspiracy theorist is a prerequisite.

[99th_Monkey]

82. I love how slinging CT accusations distracts from your whole-hearted embrace of Citizens United

well done.

[BlueCaliDem]

37. No, you're right...the Pentagon is not a sacred cow and Pentagon leadership have wanted to reduce.

the budget or change it, but Congress won't let them.

Consequently, Bernie Sanders supports the Lockheed Martin F-35, which is called the "epitome of Pentagon waste" - and he's doubled down on defending that spending.

The estimated lifetime expense of the F-35 is $1.2 trillion.

When asked if his support to cut military spending would include the F-35, Sanders said, "No, and I’ll tell you why – it is essentially built. It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and of NATO. It was a very controversial issue in Vermont. And my view was that given the fact that the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful, that’s a good question. But for better or worse, that is the plane of record right now, and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality."

A bit of a muddled response, but clearly he has NO PLANS to cut that wasteful military spending.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 is the epitome of Pentagon waste. The program has already cost taxpayers roughly half a trillion dollars, with $700 billion or more to come during the program’s lifetime. During an interview, Pierre Sprey, a co-designer of the F-16, went into great detail about how the F-35 was a lemon aircraft. Sprey explained that the fighter is an excessively heavy gas guzzler with small wings, a low bomb-carry capacity, low loiter time, is incapable of slow flight, is detectable to World War II-era low-frequency radar, and costs $200 million apiece. And just a little over a week ago, the F-35 caught fire on a runway at Eglin Air Force Base.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion

I guess Senator Sanders believes some corporations - like Lockheed Martin and other MiC corporations - are good. They create jobs in Vermont, which is a good argument to make, but he forgets to tell his supporters that other corporations do the same and don't get 82% of their revenue from American taxpayers. Can this be called corporate socialism?

[frylock]

50. The same F-35 that Hillary promised to supply to Netanyahu when she was flexing muscle..

before the Brookings Institute?

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Budget Amendment on Auditing the Pentagon

[SmittynMo]

41. I read

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah Blah. Non committal and total lack of substance. She's an artist at this.

Does it really indicate her stance? Noooooooooooooooo

[bvar22]

92. Another "Commission" to "study" the problem?

Yeah!!!
That ALWAYS works.

[firebrand80]

10. USA #1

[Fred Sanders]

14. Here are US military bases near Iran - how much does that cost?

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation.


Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region's fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

Much more:

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

[Fred Sanders]

19. This is a human rights issue, not a political issue and it does not need to be politicized to be

discussed.

Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on the military, trillions over time, is a human rights issue....for Americans, because the right to paid vacations, maternity leave, poverty reduction, crime reduction, funding of infrastructure and space exploration, tax cuts for all, the list goes on and on......not having any of thst because of an obscenely bloated military gobbling up whatever wealth is left for the 99% is a human rights issue, to me.

[Ichingcarpenter]

24. This is politics and your candidate promotes it

Human rights are politics as are creating destruction of middle east countries for so called 'democratic change''

These things are not separate even though you wish they were so 'they are not discussed ........... its inclusive to the problem not an exclusive discussion.

I agree on the MIC problem but you can't ignore facts and the main fact is the MIC problem is bigger and stronger than any branch of government be it executive, judicial or legislature.

Why are we still in Afghanistan? What are our goals there?

[dorkzilla]

25. But it IS political

You’ve gotten a few good links and we all agree with your post - you really do need to think about the candidate you’re supporting and how cozy they are with defense industry, but also how said person has been pushing fracking across the globe -- I think the most important human right is the right to clean safe drinking water.

Just think it over. That’s all.

[SmittynMo]

44. Bingo

Nailed it. I'm all in, 100%. Also helps make my choice clear on who to vote for.

[lonestarnot]

17. Very good damn question! Why would we?

I would not.

[99th_Monkey]

22. News Flash: "Senator Bernie Sanders Votes Against Increasing Defense Spending"

Unlike the presumptuous front-runner, Bernie is not the darling of the defense & munitions industry.

http://enewspf.com/2015/11/10/senator-bernie-sanders-votes-against-increasing-defense-spending/

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. And we wonder why are schools are crumbling, our infrastructure is obsolete, our water system is in

desperate need of repair and no money for WE THE PEOPLE of this country? THIS IS A SICKNESS! It has to STOP!


"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

[valerief]

28. The WAR budget is where the fat cats make their money.

Wealth distribution that moves upward.

[Fred Sanders]

32. Sacred cows of the military and corporate fat cats. Now there is an image waiting for a metaphor!

[Comrade Grumpy]

31. Think what we could do with that money. n/t

[Fred Sanders]

35. Create a lot more jobs, for starters:

[KoKo]

33. Thanks for bringing this up, Fred, with the Charts....Great Post!

Notice the absence of this being addressed in any debates...The "Mainstream Media/Military/Wall St./Industrial Complex" still rules no matter which part is elected! This needs to change...

Recommend!

[Armstead]

39. Well the IMC fed me and my neighbors, let my Dad buy a house, etc.

That's one big reason the IMC is such a sacred cow.

The city I grew up in was basically a company town for the IMC. My Dad was a hyphen in the Military-Industrial Complex as a guy who negotiated contracts. Probably 50 percent of the people I knew worked for the defense plant, or in businesses that were indirectly supported by it.,

If a politician can say "I just got (GE/Lockheed/Boeing) to locate that plant for the ASE3763 -B missile system there with 5,000 jobs" that's a feather in the cap as far as political support goes.

Especially these days, when most industries have been shipped out and sent overseas.

It's not right, but it's a big reason it's always been a Third Rail.

[malthaussen]

40. Well, for one who says he is a political realist, isn't that a bit naive?

Any candidate of any stripe who came out and said he would cut military spending would not stand a chance with the electorate. And what will matter will be what the person does when he takes the office, which is unfortunately pig-in-a-poke time. And supplies are voted by Congress, which would probably defeat any budget that makes significant cuts to military spending, since such must inevitably have an adverse financial effect on their constituencies, and when it comes to cash, they suddenly very get concerned with the welfare of their districts.

Sacred cow? You bet, and one that is milked by just about everyone in politics at the national level. Realistically, the best we can hope for is that revenue will be increased, and that most of that increase will be channeled towards domestic spending, rather than inflating the military budget even more.

-- Mal

[n8dogg83]

42. There were a couple articles discussing Bernie's calling out of the DoD....

for the amount of fraud and wasteful spending. He has also called for an audit of the Pentagon, which is a great first step, imo.

Link:

Next, Halperin asks for specifics about cutting the budget deficit...


BERNIE SANDERS: I find it interesting that the only federal agency which has never been audited is the Dept. of Defense. It hasn't been able to audit itself or have an independent audit.

What I can tell you is virtually every major defense contractor has either reached a settlement with the U.S. government because of allegations of fraud or have been convicted of fraud.

You have massive cost overrun. One area we could take a hard look at is the defense budget.

also: ][link:http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/video-audio/budget-amendment-on-auditing-the-dept-of-defense|

[Ford_Prefect]

43. US military activity in Africa has been growing for some time yet is rarely discussed by MSM or

Congress. Many troops assigned to duties there are forbidden to speak of their location or activities. These are not the troops sent to help with ebola outbreaks nor those officially deployed to pursue Bokko Haram. Some units are special forces groups with very specific missions which Congress has no coherent awareness of. It reminds me very much of similar activity in Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

Some commentary suggests that the goal of this policy is not preserving local regimes or peace but rather to "safeguard" American access to rare earth metals and other natural resources. Originally this policy was said to be a counter to Chinese and other nation's influences in the region. More recently the specter of Al Qaeda and lately ISIL have been alleged to require the network of hardened bases and permanent troop assignments. Armed drones have also been assigned to bases in South Africa and elsewhere on the continent.


[link:|

[polly7]

59. This. Just part of why Qaddafi had to go. nt.

[sabrina 1]

45. That's why I support Bernie Sanders because he has been 'shouting' about it

for a long time. Hillary not so much.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Bernie does more than shout. He just voted against the "defense" spending bill.

But, you're right. They should all be shouting about it and demanding cuts...substantial cuts.

http://enewspf.com/2015/11/10/senator-bernie-sanders-votes-against-increasing-defense-spending/

“If we are serious about ending waste, fraud, abuse and excessive spending, we have got to focus on all agencies – including the Department of Defense. This bloated Pentagon budget continues to pour money into outdated weapons systems that don’t function properly. The Department of Defense is the only federal agency that cannot pass a clean audit. Many of its major acquisition programs suffer from chronic cost overruns. Virtually every defense contractor has been found guilty or has reached a settlement with the government because of fraudulent and illegal activities. This has got to change.

[cascadiance]

52. He also proposed a war tax on the wealthiest too, hitting those that benefit from military spending

... the most, which if perhaps it has conditions on an upper level marginal tax bracket increase that put it in place if there's a measurable state of war we're involved in, this might help serve the big money donor's own self interest to disempower the MIC and to have their bought politicians work AGAINST having us at war instead of pushing them to get in to wars.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/236463-sanders-to-push-war-tax-for-millionaires-to-finance-piece-of-gop-budget

I'd like to think that some of my earlier posts here proposing Bernie's platform that recommended this sort of tax might have influenced Bernie in to proposing this legislation then too.

[daleanime]

47. Shouting no....

cutting, yes. At least in half.

[MohRokTah]

51. Because presidential candidates who shout about the military lose?

[Agnosticsherbet]

56. We are electing a government,

not an occupant of a soap box.

[LiberalArkie]

57. Good Post Fred. Thank you. And what ever happened to the peace dividend?

Peace dividend is a political slogan popularized by US President George H.W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the early 1990s, purporting to describe the economic benefit of a decrease in defense spending. It is used primarily in discussions relating to the guns versus butter theory. The term was frequently used at the end of the Cold War, when many Western nations significantly cut military spending (such as Britain's Options for Change defence review).

While economies do undergo a recession after the end of a major conflict as the economy is forced to adjust and retool, a "peace dividend" refers to a potential long-term benefit as budgets for defense spending are assumed to be at least partially redirected to social programs and/or a decrease in taxation rates. The existence of a peace dividend in real economies is still debated, but some research points to its reality.[1]

A political discussion about the peace dividend resulting from the end of the Cold War involves a debate about which countries have actually scaled back military spending and which have not. The scale back in defense spending was mainly noticeable in Western Europe and in the Russian Federation. The United States, whose military spending was rapidly reducing between 1985 and 1993 and remained flat between 1993 and 1999,[2] has dramatically increased it after September 11, 2001 to fund conflicts like the War on Terror, the War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_dividend

[Spitfire of ATJ]

64. Tell a typical white American that most of the world is another color and they FREAK OUT....

[ConservativeDemocrat]

66. About that "great injustice"

You are aware that if the US wasn't the world's policeman, then there would be a massive increase in worldwide military expenditures, right?

Oh, probably not. Political hatred of our military is just part and parcel of the far lefty mindset.

It's bizarre to me that people who all believe in gun control, saying that the police should be the only people who are armed, are proverbially "up in arms" about the US playing the exact same role on the international level. I guess self-consistency isn't people's strong suit.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[stone space]

88. Wow. Your DU name is very well chosen. (nt)

[dreamnightwind]

93. Seems a conservative like yourself wouldn't want U.S. taxpayers to pay for it

Why, exactly, are we spending all of this money when the only attacks against our country are blowback against our troops being in everyone's country?

Mexico and Canada have got us surrounded, better have the world's largest military to defend us.

I disagree on principle that we should be projecting our "influence" militarily all over the planet. It's wrong, plain and simple. It's also not our citizens' interests, nor our planet's, that are being furthered by our militarism, it's the interests and profits of the world's largest and most corrupt corporations, who require "stable business environments" to guarantee them extraction rights to natural resources independent of the wishes of the people that live in those countries. That's wrong, plain and simple.

But a conservative analysis (which I personally have no interest in but would think you would) would have to acknowledge that we are literally taking wealth from our children's mouths to pay for most of the planet's military expenditures, running massive budget deficits in the process. That seems entirely unsupportable.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

96. I'm a conservative Democrat, not a conservative Republican

While I don't like having to pay taxes (who does?), I have no objection to paying taxes for a good cause.

Your question might be more correctly rephrased "Why are we spending money on the military that keeps the peace, when (except for a few places our military isn't in) the peace appears to be kept?" You are, in short, attacking the US military for doing too good a job.

I, and several hundred thousand Syrian refugees, disagree with you about whether it is "wrong" to keep the peace or not. You throw around the typical leftist shibboleths like "corrupt corporations" and "extraction rights", apparently not realizing that instability and war fuels exploitative extraction, as is what ISIS is doing with its wildcat oil wells, etc. (By the way, have you ever heard of the phrase "Blood Diamond"? Let me explain to you that the "blood" part doesn't exactly refer to that terrible awful corrupt "stable business environment" you're so against.)

And, to reiterate, because you obviously didn't understand this the first time. The US military's dominant position reduces, not increases, worldwide military spending. So while even if we were "literally taking wealth from our children's mouths" - which I doubt - (what do you think we do, feed them candy money as a staple of the US diet? No wonder we have so much childhood obesity!), actually poor children worldwide have more food on their plates because many nations aren't spending anywhere near as much on their own military, as they would feel they had to if we weren't on patrol.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[dreamnightwind]

98. Your logic, and worldview, are terrible

So you differentiate yourself from a Republican because you don''t mind spending so much of our tax money on the military? I know you won't agree with my framing there but that's more or less the point you made. That aside, I'm genuinely curious how else you differentiate yourself from Republicans.

You think the world is peaceful where our military is and a mess where it isn't? That's insane.

Why do you think there is currently so much instability in the Middle East? Are you even aware of our role in that? Have you read the PNAC document? Any idea of our contributions to destabilizing Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, to name a few? Or our role in supporting cruel dictatorships (until we tire of them, or them of us, at which point we get to destabilize again) in countries with resources the corporations want access to?

You made one good point, which was that destabilization also can be an asset to the extraction industries. It depends, of course, on who is at the helm and what the multinational's relationship with that person is, whether destabilization is seen as useful or not.

Any yes, the massive taxpayer liability for the MIC is the main reason we can't seem to afford to support our citizens as well as countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, or most any other first-world type nation, even though we have way more resources and wealth than those nations.

I'm still curious why you consider yourself a Democrat. I believe in a big tent to a certain extent, but views like what you expressly support have no place in this party's tent, unless the tent also includes millions of Republicans, in which case we truly have but one party representing the interests of the monied elites.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

99. My logic, and worldview, is the dominant Democratic position

Do you seriously think that Democrats (outside of a handful of emerald-blue ivory tower type college towns) are anti-US military? I mean yes, this is indeed the Republican caricature of Democrats: pot-smoking half naked professors of basket weaving, who protest barefoot in the park, shouting nonsensical 1960s communist slogans while screaming about the army, but let me assure you that that's not what makes up the actual Democratic party.

I've posted this chart on the D.U. so many times, I'm wondering if it should be in my signature line, but just for you, Mr. "Very Liberal", please be aware that your logic, your worldview, represent 10% of the party. While us "Conservative" Democrats consist of 16% of the party.


Hell, even Senator Sanders, the banner waving poster child for the left wing of the Democratic party, is completely rational about US drones - by which I mean, he's all in favor of using them.

Just for your information, the number of worldwide deaths by war per year are down dramatically, even counting the Syrian conflict, which (let me remind you) we're NOT in. Like any negative nationalist, you clearly want to blame America first for the Middle East, but let me also explain, using simple words, that the Middle East is still a bunch of tribes no more than one generation removed from medieval culture. This includes still having sovereign kings claiming religious mandates from God (Allah) as their divine right to rule. Call them the 0.0000001% What's worse, is that in comparison to the opposition - they're by far the "liberal good guys".

There is so much instability in the Middle East because it has never been stable. Strong men like Saddam were able to put a veneer of stability over fundamentally ungovernable regions of it, but only because most people didn't pay much attention when he was dropping poison gas on rival tribes to do so. Add to this civil wars, not just between Sunni and Shia, but also between reformists and fundamentalists in both sects, plus all the ethnic tensions of Levantines, Kurds, Turkomans, Alawites, Druze, Iranians, etc., and you have the perfect recipe for continuing strife that has nothing to do with us. Let me repeat that again, slowly. Sometimes it isn't all about us. Really. I know you want to think it's about you, and what you think about some decade-ago-disbanded think tank's policy, but it isn't.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[dreamnightwind]

100. The more you talk the worse you seem

I will just put you on ignore. I've tried to dialog with you in the past. Honestly I do not welcome people like you in the Democratic Party. You never explained what separates you from Republicans, but I have better thinss to do than argue with you about all of this, we see the world very differently. I'm done.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

110. Yay, another echo-chamber extremist

Who runs when he has no answer.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[AzDar]

70. K & R

[Skidmore]

73. Ummmm...

I'm waiting for people to show up at the polls to vote the Teabagger House out of office and replace those who control the purse with people who will work with a president on a meaningful budget. Alas, we only vote for a president and expect that person to act as a sovereign.

[PatrickforO]

76. That's for sure!

When I watched the last GOP debate, they all want to RAISE it even more, save for Rand Paul.

[amuse bouche]

77. That is sickening

[yodermon]

83. comparison to GDP rankings is interesting, definitely some room to come down

[dreamnightwind]

95. Excellent, and one of the main reasons I support Bernie

Establishment politicians won't touch this militarism, that's pretty much undeniable. For one thing, they get a lot of campaign money, plus softer super-pac money, from the MIC, who then has their "ear" anytime they think about cutting the military.

I think it's unbelievable we as citizens tolerate the capture of our government by the global corporate military complex that uses our taxdollars to control natural resources and labor pools in all corners of the earth. How is it that we aren't talking more about this, when we have massive budget deficits, our citizens are lagging in many important quality of life metrics because the MIC takes all of our money, and we are despised by people all over the world for the activities done in our name by forces that never actually allow us to choose an alternative path?

We absolutely have to get control of this.

Bernie can't do it alone, he needs everyone's help, but he is one of the best we have on this issue.

Thanks for your excellent OP.

[tecelote]

102. Thanks for making this an issue!

We're fighting the longest war in US history - why?

No one really knows(?). Most say the terrorists. The one's we create by waging endless war in the middle east.

Oil & Profits. Yeah, we do know. We just pretend not to because that would be immoral.

[Dem_in_Nebr.]

106. As an Anabaptist (Mennonite) Pacifist

This OP is something I have no reservations about reccing.

Thanks!!

Don K.

[treestar]

108. Too many voters are fine with this

They think it shows America is the Toughest, and kicks the rest of the world's ass. Sometimes they will deflect with a Pax Americana kind of idea to make it look good.

[The_Commonist]

109. Kick to remember this thread...

...because I am unfortunately probably going to get into a discussion with a particular "conservative" at an event this evening, and I would like to be able to bring these charts up on my phone.

Great info...

[coyote]

112. Imperialism costs a lot of money. N/t