SEC=UGA Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 CBS/AP) CHICAGO - Chicago braced for more demonstrations Monday, with protesters vowing to march to the Boeing Corp. headquarters a day after police clashed with a group of demonstrators at the end of a march protesting the NATO summit. Many downtown businesses have told their employees to stay home during the second and final day of the summit — where world leaders are discussing the war in Afghanistan, European missile defense and other security issues — because of traffic snarls and the possibility of more protests. More than two dozen Metra rail stations along a line that carries around 14,000 riders in from the southern suburbs on most weekdays will be closed and stations and platforms patrolled by a larger contingent of law enforcement personnel and K-9 units. The Chicago Transit Authority will have to reroute 24 buses through the summit zone. On Sunday, several thousand protesters marched through downtown in one of Chicago's largest demonstrations in years, airing grievances about war, climate change and a wide range of other complaints as world leaders assembled for a NATO summit. Four officers suffered minor injuries Sunday, the U.S. Secret Service told CBS Chicago station WBBM-TV. A spokesperson with Mercy Hospital said seven protesters were treated and released. Organizers with the Occupy Chicago movement planned to gather at a West Side park at 9 a.m., and an hour later march toward the Boeing building along the Chicago River in the city's business district to protest the company's role in building airplanes for the U.S. military. Later, immigration rights activists will gather at the same park before boarding a bus to travel to the small village of Crete, about 35 miles south of Chicago, where federal officials are considering building a nearly 800-bed detention facility for illegal immigrants slated for deportation. Andy Thayer, one of the main anti-NATO protest organizers, said he expected many demonstrators from out of town to leave Sunday night. But he said a strong contingent of protesters still will show up for the Boeing protest Monday morning and decried how city leaders and police officials have handled the protests. "I am disgusted, particularly, with the upper echelon of our city," Thayer said. Sunday's protests drew together a broad assortment of participants, including peace activists joining with war veterans and people more focused on economic inequality. But the diversity of opinions also sowed doubts about whether there were too many messages to be effective. And some of the most enduring images of the event were likely to be from the end — when a small group of demonstrators clashed with a thick line of police who tried to keep them from the lakeside convention center where President Obama is hosting the gathering. The protesters tried to move east toward McCormick Place, with some hurling sticks and bottles at police. Officers responded by swinging their batons. After nearly two hours, the two sides were still locked in a standoff, with police blocking the protesters' path and the crowd refusing to leave. Some protesters appeared to have blood streaming down their faces. Following the main skirmish, Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said 45 protesters were arrested. Police said four officers were hurt, including one stabbed in the leg. Those numbers seemed certain to rise as new clashes erupted later. Hundreds of protesters gathered late Sunday night near the Art Institute of Chicago as first lady Michelle Obama hosted a dinner for spouses of NATO leaders inside. At least 100 Chicago police officers in riot gear were also at the scene. The protests lacked the size and single message that shaped the last major protest moment in Chicago, when nearly half a million people filled the city's downtown in 2006 to protest making it a felony to be an illegal immigrant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I just saw a little bit on the news. Looked like crazy chit. Do NATO meetings usually get this chit-storm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 This is the part I find crazy "march toward the Boeing building along the Chicago River in the city's business district to protest the company's role in building airplanes for the U.S. military." What is Boeing supposed to do, pass up bidding on huge defense contracts? Wouldn't that mean less jobs in the US? Wouldn't that be bad for workers, the economy etc? The planes are still going to get built, and most likely by a US company (really don't want those defense contracts with firms outside the US). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 21, 2012 Author Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) This is the part I find crazy "march toward the Boeing building along the Chicago River in the city's business district to protest the company's role in building airplanes for the U.S. military." What is Boeing supposed to do, pass up bidding on huge defense contracts? Wouldn't that mean less jobs in the US? Wouldn't that be bad for workers, the economy etc? The planes are still going to get built, and most likely by a US company (really don't want those defense contracts with firms outside the US). And they're typically union workers... I can't believe these people are so anti-union... Edited May 21, 2012 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 What is Boeing supposed to do, pass up bidding on huge defense contracts? I'm not one of the protesters, so I can't really articulate their motivation the way a newpaper can in a half sentence. It seems like there could be a philosopical debate on whether we need to be spending federal tax dollars on more and more weaponry and defense gadgetry/systems while things like education and public transportation spending get slashed and unfunded. Or even the whole notion that a company like Boeing gets those kinds of dollars mostly because of the way they are allowed to lobby Congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I'm not one of the protesters, so I can't really articulate their motivation the way a newpaper can in a half sentence. It seems like there could be a philosopical debate on whether we need to be spending federal tax dollars on more and more weaponry and defense gadgetry/systems while things like education and public transportation spending get slashed and unfunded. Or even the whole notion that a company like Boeing gets those kinds of dollars mostly because of the way they are allowed to lobby Congress. While I do sympathize with the "occupiers" concerns about the military-industrial complex and wall street running amok, a fundamental difference between them and those of us in the so-called liberty movement, is that they seem to view the power of these corporations as the problem, whereas we see the government bowing down to and supporting their interests and bailing out their irresponsible "mistakes" as the real problem... I agree with steve that if they don't get the contract, then someone else will, so it's a problem of where the money is coming from to do so (our pockets), not that companies are supplying it. As despicable as find it that war has become a profitable business for many, it's much more disgusting that it's enabled by our tax dollars and not just as a last resort, but in many cases, a preferred option filled with conflicts of interest and incentives to do so... Hell, you even have people arguing to keep it the unsustainable trillions going just for the sake of the "economy". So we'd rather support the unnecessary killing of civilians abroad and tank our economy that way, than have a small % have to find new jobs here. Sickening... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Sounds good to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I agree with steve that if they don't get the contract, then someone else will, so it's a problem of where the money is coming from to do so (our pockets), not that companies are supplying it. As despicable as find it that war has become a profitable business for many, it's much more disgusting that it's enabled by our tax dollars and not just as a last resort, but in many cases, a preferred option filled with conflicts of interest and incentives to do so... Hell, you even have people arguing to keep it the unsustainable trillions going just for the sake of the "economy". So we'd rather support the unnecessary killing of civilians abroad and tank our economy that way, than have a small % have to find new jobs here. Sickening... Defense spending is a federal jobs program under a different guise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 21, 2012 Author Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) 645 Billion this year and a requested 613 billion next year for defense. 2011 was 687 Billion, so it looks like we are at least cutting the spending. ETA: What I found interesting while looking at the PDF of the Def. Dept. budget was one page with a littl box on it that read: Preparation of this study/report cost the Department of Defense a total of approximately $34,000 in FY 2012. Edited May 21, 2012 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 645 Billion this year and a requested 613 billion next year for defense. 2011 was 687 Billion, so it looks like we are at least cutting the spending. I guess the price of artificail limbs has gone down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 21, 2012 Author Share Posted May 21, 2012 I guess the price of artificail limbs has gone down? No, due to an increase in demand and having to run additional shifts with a mainly union employee base has actually caused the price for artificial limbs to increase. The decrease has come from allowing women to serve in front line combat positions and paying them only 65% of what their male counterparts are paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 645 Billion this year and a requested 613 billion next year for defense. 2011 was 687 Billion, so it looks like we are at least cutting the spending. ETA: What I found interesting while looking at the PDF of the Def. Dept. budget was one page with a littl box on it that read: Preparation of this study/report cost the Department of Defense a total of approximately $34,000 in FY 2012. It looks like the one they're trying to put through is $642. Is that the 645 you're speaking of or the 613? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 22, 2012 Author Share Posted May 22, 2012 It looks like the one they're trying to put through is $642. Is that the 645 you're speaking of or the 613? It's probably the 2012 budget that they are trying to approve right now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 It's probably the 2012 budget that they are trying to approve right now... Not saying you're not right, but it would seem to me that they'd want to approve the 2012 budget before 2012 started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 22, 2012 Author Share Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) Not saying you're not right, but it would seem to me that they'd want to approve the 2012 budget before 2012 started. VEry few budgets have passed through this congress. Most of the time they have been passing their "official" budgets after the fact and have also been adding a lot of temporary spending bils along the way to actually fund opearations as they can not pass budgets because they are a bunch of whiney freaking children. ETA: SOmething isn't making sense or adding up. The 2012 Defense budget, according to the Dept of Defense has been enacted and is 645.7 Billion. The 2013 request from the DOD is 613.9 Billion. So, one of a few things is going on. They are currently trying to approve the 2013 budget and have somehow added 30 some odd billion to it, or the LA times is reporting the wrong number, or there is something else going on about which I have no freaking clue. Anyway, here is a link to the budget http://comptroller.defense.gov/budget.html Edited May 22, 2012 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 You cut your toenails with those fingers? $34,000.00 seems reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 22, 2012 Author Share Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) You cut your toenails with those fingers? $34,000.00 seems reasonable. It seems absolutely reasonable, Deloitte would charge upwards of 100K to put that analysis together. I just think it is interesting that they dedicate an entire page to it. I also enjoyed the wording "a total of approximately". Edited May 22, 2012 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 VEry few budgets have passed through this congress. Most of the time they have been passing their "official" budgets after the fact and have also been adding a lot of temporary spending bils along the way to actually fund opearations as they can not pass budgets because they are a bunch of whiney freaking children. ETA: SOmething isn't making sense or adding up. The 2012 Defense budget, according to the Dept of Defense has been enacted and is 645.7 Billion. The 2013 request from the DOD is 613.9 Billion. So, one of a few things is going on. They are currently trying to approve the 2013 budget and have somehow added 30 some odd billion to it, or the LA times is reporting the wrong number, or there is something else going on about which I have no freaking clue. Anyway, here is a link to the budget http://comptroller.d...gov/budget.html The gubment doesn't run from January to December. Can't remember when it's fiscal year starts and ends but that might have something to do with the confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 22, 2012 Author Share Posted May 22, 2012 The gubment doesn't run from January to December. Can't remember when it's fiscal year starts and ends but that might have something to do with the confusion. I don't think that is it as the 2012 DOD budget appears to have passed on May 26 of 2011. It seems that this is the vote for the 2013 DOD budget. But that was one of my thoughts, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 While I do sympathize with the "occupiers" concerns about the military-industrial complex and wall street running amok, a fundamental difference between them and those of us in the so-called liberty movement, is that they seem to view the power of these corporations as the problem, whereas we see the government bowing down to and supporting their interests and bailing out their irresponsible "mistakes" as the real problem... I agree with steve that if they don't get the contract, then someone else will, so it's a problem of where the money is coming from to do so (our pockets), not that companies are supplying it. As despicable as find it that war has become a profitable business for many, it's much more disgusting that it's enabled by our tax dollars and not just as a last resort, but in many cases, a preferred option filled with conflicts of interest and incentives to do so... Hell, you even have people arguing to keep it the unsustainable trillions going just for the sake of the "economy". So we'd rather support the unnecessary killing of civilians abroad and tank our economy that way, than have a small % have to find new jobs here. Sickening... Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.