Morsaille

Sorry this is so long, my longest ever, but I included the resource list. It really is a good read. Please don't hate me for this... War Profiteering and the Concentration of Income and Wealth in America Escalating Military Spending by Prof. Ismael Hossein-zadeh How Escalation of War and Military Spending Are Used as Disguised or Roundabout Ways to Reverse the New Deal and Redistribute National Resources in Favor of the Wealthy. Escalating Military Spending: Income Redistribution in Disguise Critics of the recent U.S. wars of choice have long argued that they are all about oil. "No Blood for Oil" has been a rallying cry for most of the opponents of the war. It can be demonstrated, however, that there is another (less obvious but perhaps more critical) factor behind the recent rise of U.S. military aggressions abroad: war profiteering by Pentagon contractors. Frequently invoking dubious "threats to our national security and/or interests," these beneficiaries of war dividends, the military–industrial complex and related businesses whose interests are vested in the Pentagon’s appropriation of public money, have successfully used war and military spending to justify their lion’s share of tax dollars and to disguise their strategy of redistributing national income in their favor. This cynical strategy of disguised redistribution of national resources from the bottom to the top is carried out by a combination of (a) drastic hikes in the Pentagon budget, and ( equally drastic tax cuts for the wealthy. As this combination creates large budget deficits, it then forces cuts in non-military public spending as a way to fill the gaps that are thus created. As a result, the rich are growing considerably richer at the expense of middle– and low–income classes. Despite its critical importance, most opponents of war seem to have given short shrift to the crucial role of the Pentagon budget and its contractors as major sources of war and militarism—a phenomenon that the late President Eisenhower warned against nearly half a century ago. Perhaps a major reason for this oversight is that critics of war and militarism tend to view the U.S. military force as primarily a means for imperialist gains—oil or otherwise. The fact is, however, that as the U.S. military establishment has grown in size, it has also evolved in quality and character: it is no longer simply a means but, perhaps more importantly, an end in itself—an imperial force in its own right. Accordingly, the rising militarization of U.S. foreign policy in recent years is driven not so much by some general/abstract national interests as it is by the powerful special interests that are vested in the military capital, that is, war industries and war–related businesses. The Magnitude of U.S. Military Spending Even without the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are fast surpassing half a trillion dollars, U.S. military spending is now the largest item in the federal budget. Officially, it is the second highest item after Social Security payments. But Social Security is a self-financing trust fund. So, in reality, military spending is the highest budget item. The Pentagon budget for the current fiscal year (2007) is about $456 billion. President Bush’s proposed increase of 10% for next year will raise this figure to over half a trillion dollars, that is, $501.6 billion for fiscal year 2008. A proposed supplemental appropriation to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq "brings proposed military spending for FY 2008 to $647.2 billion, the highest level of military spending since the end of World War II—higher than Vietnam, higher than Korea, higher than the peak of the Reagan buildup."[1] Using official budget figures, William D. Hartung, Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York, provides a number of helpful comparisons: Proposed U.S. military spending for FY 2008 is larger than military spending by all of the other nations in the world combined. At $141.7 billion, this year's proposed spending on the Iraq war is larger than the military budgets of China and Russia combined. Total U.S. military spending for FY2008 is roughly ten times the military budget of the second largest military spending country in the world, China. Proposed U.S. military spending is larger than the combined gross domestic products (GDP) of all 47 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The FY 2008 military budget proposal is more than 30 times higher than all spending on State Department operations and non-military foreign aid combined. The FY 2008 military budget is over 120 times higher than the roughly $5 billion per year the U.S. government spends on combating global warming. The FY 2008 military spending represents 58 cents out of every dollar spent by the U.S. government on discretionary programs: education, health, housing assistance, international affairs, natural resources and environment, justice, veterans’ benefits, science and space, transportation, training/employment and social services, economic development, and several more items.[2] Although the official military budget already eats up the lion’s share of public money (crowding out vital domestic needs), it nonetheless grossly understates the true magnitude of military spending. The real national defense budget, according to Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute, is nearly twice as much as the official budget. The reason for this understatement is that the official Department of Defense budget excludes not only the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also a number of other major cost items.[3] These disguised cost items include budgets for the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security; nuclear weapons research and development, testing, and storage (placed in the Energy budget); veterans programs (in the Veteran’s Administration budget); most military retiree payments (in the Treasury budget); foreign military aid in the form of weapons grants for allies (in the State Department budget); interest payments on money borrowed to fund military programs in past years (in the Treasury budget); sales and property taxes at military bases (in local government budgets); and the hidden expenses of tax-free food, housing, and combat pay allowances. After adding these camouflaged and misplaced expenses to the official Department of Defense budget, Higgs concludes: "I propose that in considering future defense budgetary costs, a well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon's (always well publicized) basic budget total and double it. You may overstate the truth, but if so, you'll not do so by much."[4] Escalation of the Pentagon Budget and the Rising Fortunes of Its Contractors The Bush administration’s escalation of war and military spending has been a boon for Pentagon contractors. That the fortunes of Pentagon contractors should rise in tandem with the rise of military spending is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is the fact that these profiteers of war and militarism have also played a critical role in creating the necessary conditions for war profiteering, that is, in instigating the escalation of the recent wars of choice and the concomitant boom of military spending.[5] Giant arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman have been the main beneficiaries of the Pentagon’s spending bonanza. This is clearly reflected in the continuing rise of the value of their shares in the stock market: "Shares of U.S. defense companies, which have nearly trebled since the beginning of the occupation of Iraq, show no signs of slowing down. . . . The feeling that makers of ships, planes and weapons are just getting into their stride has driven shares of leading Pentagon contractors Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp., and General Dynamics Corp. to all-time highs."[6] Like its manufacturing contractors, the Pentagon’s fast-growing service contractors have equally been making fortunes by virtue of its tendency to shower private contractors with tax-payers’ money. These services are not limited to the relatively simple or routine tasks and responsibilities such food and sanitation services. More importantly, they include "contracts for services that are highly sophisticated [and] strategic in nature," such as the contracting of security services to corporate private armies, or modern day mercenaries. The rapid growth of the Pentagon’s service contracting is reflected (among other indicators) in these statistics: "In 1984, almost two-thirds of the contracting budget went for products rather than services. . . . By fiscal year 2003, 56 percent of Defense Department contracts paid for services rather than goods."[7] The spoils of war and the devastation in Iraq have been so attractive that an extremely large number of war profiteers have set up shop in that country in order to participate in the booty: "There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the U.S. military force there, according to the military's first census of the growing population of civilians operating in the battlefield," reported The Washington Post in its 5 December 2006 issue. The rise in the Pentagon contracting is, of course, a reflection of an overall policy and philosophy of outsourcing and privatizing that has become fashionable ever since President Reagan arrived in the White House in 1980. Reporting on some of the effects of this policy, Scott Shane and Ron Nixon of the New York Times recently wrote: "Without a public debate or formal policy decision, contractors have become a virtual fourth branch of government. On the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has soared during the Bush administration, to about $400 billion last year from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does."[8] Redistributive Militarism: Escalation of Military Spending Redistributes Income from Bottom to Top But while the Pentagon contractors and other beneficiaries of war dividends are showered with public money, low- and middle-income Americans are squeezed out of economic or subsistence resources in order to make up for the resulting budgetary shortfalls. For example, as the official Pentagon budget for 2008 fiscal year is projected to rise by more than 10 percent, or nearly $50 billion, "a total of 141 government programs will be eliminated or sharply reduced" to pay for the increase. These would include cuts in housing assistance for low-income seniors by 25 percent, home heating/energy assistance to low-income people by 18 percent, funding for community development grants by 12.7 percent, and grants for education and employment training by 8 percent.[9] Combined with redistributive militarism and generous tax cuts for the wealthy, these cuts have further exacerbated the ominously growing income inequality that started under President Reagan. Ever since Reagan arrived in the White House in 1980, opponents of non-military public spending have been using an insidious strategy to cut social spending, to reverse the New Deal and other social safety net programs, and to redistribute national/public resources in favor of the wealthy. That cynical strategy consists of a combination of drastic increases in military spending coupled with equally drastic tax cuts for the wealthy. As this combination creates large budget deficits, it then forces cuts in non-military public spending (along with borrowing) to fill the gaps thus created. For example, at the same time that President Bush is planning to raise military spending by $50 billion for the next fiscal year, he is also proposing to make his affluent-targeted tax cuts permanent at a cost of $1.6 trillion over 10 years, or an average yearly cut of $160 billion. Simultaneously, "funding for domestic discretionary programs would be cut a total of $114 billion" in order to pay for these handouts to the rich. The targeted discretionary programs to be cut include over 140 programs that provide support for the basic needs of low- and middle-income families such as elementary and secondary education, job training, environmental protection, veterans’ health care, medical research, Meals on Wheels, child care and HeadStart, low-income home energy assistance, and many more.[10] According to the Urban Institute–Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, "if the President's tax cuts are made permanent, households in the top 1 percent of the population (currently those with incomes over $400,000) will receive tax cuts averaging $67,000 a year by 2012. . . . The tax cuts for those with incomes of over $1 million a year would average $162,000 a year by 2012."[11] Official macroeconomic figures show that, over the past five decades or so, government spending (at the federal, state and local levels) as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) has remained fairly steady—at about 20 percent. Given this nearly constant share of the public sector of national output/income, it is not surprising that increases in military spending have almost always been accompanied or followed by compensating decreases in non-military public spending, and vice versa. For example, when by virtue of FDR’s New Deal reforms and LBJ’s metaphorical War on Poverty, the share of non-military government spending rose significantly the share of military spending declined accordingly. From the mid 1950s to the mid 1970s, the share of non-military government spending of GNP rose from 9.2 to 14.3 percent, an increase of 5.1 percent. During that time period, the share of military spending of GNP declined from 10.1 to 5.8 percent, a decline of 4.3 percent.[12] That trend was reversed when President Reagan took office in 1980. In the early 1980s, as President Reagan drastically increased military spending, he also just as drastically lowered tax rates on higher incomes. The resulting large budget deficits were then paid for by more than a decade of steady cuts on non-military spending. Likewise, the administration of President George W. Bush has been pursuing a similarly sinister fiscal policy of cutting non-military public spending in order to pay for the skyrocketing military spending and the generous tax cuts for the affluent. Interestingly (though not surprisingly), changes in income inequality have mirrored changes in government spending priorities, as reflected in the fiscal policies of different administrations. Thus, when the share of non-military public spending rose relative to that of military spending from the mid 1950 to the mid 1970s, and the taxation system or policy remained relatively more progressive compared to what it is today, income inequality declined accordingly. But as President Reagan reversed that fiscal policy by raising the share of military spending relative to non-military public spending and cutting taxes for the wealthy, income inequality also rose considerably. As Reagan’s twin policies of drastic increases in military spending and equally sweeping tax cuts for the rich were somewhat tempered in the 1990s, growth in income inequality slowed down accordingly. In the 2000s, however, the ominous trends that were left off by President Reagan have been picked up by President George W. Bush: increasing military spending, decreasing taxes for the rich, and (thereby) exacerbating income inequality . Leaving small, short-term fluctuations aside, Figure 1 shows two major peaks and a trough of the long-term picture of income inequality in the United States. The first peak was reached during the turbulent years of the Great Depression (1929–1933). But it soon began to decline with the implementation of the New Deal reforms in the mid 1930s. The ensuing decline continued almost unabated until 1968, at which time we note the lowest level of inequality. After 1968, the improving trend in inequality changed course. But the reversal was not very perceptible until the early 1980s, after which time it began to accelerate—by virtue (or vice) of Reaganomics. Although the deterioration that was thus set in motion by the rise of neoliberalism and supply-side economics somewhat slowed down in the 1990s, it has once again gathered steam under President George W. Bush, and is fast approaching the peak of the Great Depression. It is worth noting that even at its lowest level of 1968, income inequality was still quite lopsided: the richest 20 percent of households made as much as ten times more than the poorest 20 percent. But, as Doug Henwood of the Left Business Observer points out, "that looks almost Swedish next to today’s ratio of fifteen times."[13] The following are some specific statistics of how redistributive militarism and supply-side fiscal policies have exacerbated income inequality since the late 1970s and early 1980s—making after-tax income gaps wider than pre-tax ones. According to recently released data by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), since 1979 income gains among high-income households have dwarfed those of middle- and low-income households. Specifically: The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population nearly tripled, rising from $314,000 to nearly $868,000—for a total increase of $554,000, or 176 percent. (Figures are adjusted by CBO for inflation.) By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose a relatively modest 21 percent, or $8,500, reaching $48,400 in 2004. The average after-tax income of the poorest fifth of the population rose just 6 percent, or $800, during this period, reaching $14,700 in 2004.[14] Legislation enacted since 2001 has provided taxpayers with about $1 trillion in tax cuts over the past six years. These large tax reductions have made the distribution of after-tax income more unequal by further concentrating income at the top of the income range. According to the Urban Institute–Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, as a result of the tax cuts enacted since 2001: In 2006, households in the bottom fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts (averaging $20) that raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 0.3 percent. Households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts (averaging $740) that raised their after-tax incomes an average of 2.5 percent. The top one percent of households received tax cuts in 2006 (averaging $44,200) that increased their after-tax income by an average of 5.4 percent. Households with incomes exceeding $1 million received an average tax cut of $118,000 in 2006, which represented an increase of 6.0 percent in their after-tax income.[15] Concluding Remarks: External Wars as Reflections of Domestic Fights over National Resources Close scrutiny of the Pentagon budget shows that, ever since the election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980, opponents of social spending have successfully used military spending as a regulatory mechanism to cut non-military public spending, to reverse the New Deal and other social safety net programs, and to redistribute national/public resources in favor of the wealthy. Close examination of the dynamics of redistributive militarism also helps explain why powerful beneficiaries of the Pentagon budget prefer war and military spending to peace and non-military public spending: military spending benefits the wealthy whereas the benefits of non-military public spending would spread to wider social strata. It further helps explain why beneficiaries of war dividends frequently invent new enemies and new "threats to our national interests" in order to justify continued escalation of military spending. Viewed in this light, militaristic tendencies to war abroad can be seen largely as reflections of the metaphorical domestic fights over allocation of public finance at home, of a subtle or insidious strategy to redistribute national resources from the bottom to the top. Despite the critical role of redistributive militarism, or of the Pentagon budget, as a major driving force to war, most opponents of war have paid only scant attention to this crucial force behind the recent U.S. wars of choice. The reason for this oversight is probably due to the fact that most critics of war continue to view U.S. military force as simply or primarily a means to achieve certain imperialist ends, instead of having become an end in itself. Yet, as the U.S. military establishment has grown in size, it has also evolved in quality and character: it is no longer simply a means but, perhaps more importantly, an end in itself, an imperial power in its own right, or to put it differently, it is a case of the tail wagging the dog—a phenomenon that the late President Eisenhower so presciently warned against. Accordingly, rising militarization of U.S. foreign policy in recent years is driven not so much by some general/abstract national interests, or by the interests of Big Oil and other non-military transnational corporations (as most traditional theories of imperialism continue to argue), as it is by powerful special interests that are vested in the war industry and related war-induced businesses that need an atmosphere of war and militarism in order to justify their lion’s share of the public money. Preservation, justification, and expansion of the military–industrial colossus, especially of the armaments industry and other Pentagon contractors, have become critical big business objectives in themselves. They have, indeed, become powerful driving forces behind the new, parasitic U.S. military imperialism. I call this new imperialism parasitic because its military adventures abroad are often prompted not so much by a desire to expand the empire’s wealth beyond the existing levels, as did the imperial powers of the past, but by a desire to appropriate the lion’s share of the existing wealth and treasure for the military establishment, especially for the war-profiteering contractors. In addition to being parasitic, the new U.S. military imperialism can also be called dual imperialism because not only does it exploit defenseless peoples and their resources abroad but also the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens and their resources at home. (I shall further elaborate on the historically unique characteristics of the Parasitic, dual U.S. military imperialism in another article.) Ismael Hossein-zadeh is an economics professor at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. This article draws upon his recently published book, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan Publishers). Professor Hossein-zadeh is a frequent contributor to Global Research. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes [1] William D. Hartung, "Bush Military Budget Highest Since WW II," Common Dreams (10 February 2007), http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0210-26.htm. [2] Ibid. [3] Robert Higgs, "The Defense Budget Is Bigger Than You Think," antiwar.com (25 January 2004): http://www.antiwar.com/orig2/higgs012504.html. [4] Ibid. [5] Ismael Hossein-zadeh, "Why the US is Not Leaving Iraq," http://www.cbpa.drake.edu/hossein%2Dzadeh/papers/papers.htm. [6] Bill Rigby, "Defense stocks may jump higher with big profits," Reuter (12 April 2006), http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/04/12/defense_stocks_may_jump_higher_with_big_profits/ . [7] The Center for Public Integrity, "Outsourcing the Pentagon" (29 September 2004), http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/report.aspx?aid=385. [8] Scott Shane and Ron Nixon, "In Washington, Contractors Take On Biggest Role Ever," The New York Times (4 February 2007), http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/washington/04contract.html. [9] Faiz Shakir et al., Center for American Progress Action Fund, "The Progress Report" (6 February 2007), http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/2007/02/deep_hock.html. [10] Robert Greenstein, "Despite The Rhetoric, Budget Would Make Nation’s Fiscal Problems Worse And Further Widen Inequality", Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (6 February 2007), http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-07bud.htm [11] Ibid. [12] Richard Du Boff, "What Military Spending Really Costs," Challenge 32 (September/October 1989), pp. 4–10. [13] Doug Henwood, Left Business Observer, No. 114 (31 December 2006), p. 4. [14] Congressional Budget Office, Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2004, December 2006; as reported by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-07inc.htm. [15] See Tax Policy Center tables T06-0273 and T06-0279 at www.taxpolicycenter.org.

I have a cousin who is a Navy wife. I remembered her while reading rodeomoms posts. I am about to insult my cousin, not any of the posters here (at least not this time). My cousin spouts bumper-sticker wisdom like a fountain. She believes that we are fighting a war in Iraqistan. Seriously! I tried to tell her that there were two countries; neither of which were named "Iraqistan". I tried to show her on a map. She would have NONE of it. She knows what she knows and is convinced that everyone else not only is wrong, but is actively engaged in a coup designed to shake her faith in Bush, God, her country, and her Husband. Thank goodness our relationship is not genetic. I think I am ready to post the other article now that we have moved to Clinton. Wait right here, I'll be back shortly.

So if I am understanding... there is less filth now? Just checking, because your statement seems ABSURD. Really, bizarre - and obscure. So Bush's war on civil liberties is as important to society as the abolishment of slavery? I'll agree that what Bush is doing is important, but not in the same way that you will. It NEEDS TO STOP. *shaking fist* Damn that damn freedom of damn speech! People are responsible for so much damn smut when they can voice them(damn)selves without fear of litigation and imprisonment. Damn! Luckily we are well on our way to getting that little obstacle taken care of. If you want, I'll cite references later. I have to go for now. Take care peeps

The Clinton era was hardly a time of national crisis with record economic growth and record unemployment lows. Stockholm wouldn't apply. And you would still be in the minority, I kinda liked the adulterous fool.

Maybe I should stop, I don't want to become predictable.

Actually it's sad. People have to take sides. Misplaced hostility from the civilians has polarized the loyalties of the troops. Either that or, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Perhaps... Is the US going to remove it's military presence in all the other countries?? I might slide right - if they follow through. Wait, you didn't state which one was the enemy. Iraq? or the non-Iraqi insurgents? Maybe Iran? I got it N Korea, right? It's kind of like we said, hmm... "We don't want to fight the insurgents on their own soil, or ours for that matter. Lets hold the war in Iraq and clean up while we are at it." Facetious spin, sorry.

So she was telling the author of the article to 'get a life'? Same ad hominem. I did not feel attacked, but the statement was not constructive in the least. Neither is this one, or yours, actually. Sheesh, you've got me doing it.

It's alright TommyO. Thanks, I love when smart guys rush to my defense. Although Gailannr's post was rude and unintelligent, I was not personally offended. Gailannr - "get a life", for the record, is Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument. You are going to have to do better if you want us to see your side of things.

Since we're now talking oil, I thought I'd post this article. If you want to move on to 'wealth re-distribution through military spending' I'd be happy to post an even better one. War on Terror looks like a fraud by John Gleeson April 14, 2007 Winnipeg Sun Editor's Note The following report, which acknowledges that the war on terrorism is a fraud, was published in one of Canada's mainstream daily newspapers, The Winnipeg Sun. Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan largely rests on the shaky premise that Canadian troops are fighting a "war on terrorism". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contrary to the "patriots" who try to use the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan to stifle debate on Canada's involvement in the War on Terror, I would say that as new evidence presents itself, we would indeed be cowards to ignore it simply because we've lost troops in the field and are therefore blindly committed to the mission. And new evidence is piling up around us, arguably strong enough to declare the whole War on Terror an undeniable fraud. Virtually ignored by mainstream media, the Americans showed their hand this year with the new Iraqi oil law, now making its way through Iraq's parliament. The law -- which tens of thousands of Iraqis marched peacefully against on Monday when they called for the immediate expulsion of U.S. forces -- would transfer control of one of the largest oil reserves on the planet from Baghdad to Big Oil, delivering "the prize" at last that Vice-President Dick Cheney famously talked about in 1999 when he was CEO of Halliburton. "The key point of the law," wrote Mother Jones' Washington correspondent James Ridgeway on March 1, "is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy 'Federal Oil and Gas Council' boasting 'a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq.' That is, nothing less than predominantly U.S. Big Oil executives. "The law represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the death knell of nationalized Iraqi resources, now replaced by production sharing agreements, which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically U.S.) Big Oil. Sixty-five of Iraq's roughly 80 oilfields already known will be offered for Big Oil to exploit." While the U.S. argues that the oil deal will give Iraqis their shot at "freedom and stability," the International Committee of the Red Cross reported this week that millions of Iraqis are in a "disastrous" situation that continues to deteriorate, with "mothers appealing for someone to pick up the bodies littering the street so their children will be spared the horror of looking at them on their way to school." Four years after the invasion, it's becoming pretty clear that Iraq has been "pacified" solely for the purpose of economic aggression. Humanitarian considerations are moot. The awful plight of Iraq's one million Christians, who have no place in the new Iraq, underscores this ugly truth. Afghanistan, meanwhile, has given the U.S. a strategic military beachhead in Central Asia (which "American primacy" advocates called for in the '90s) and it was quietly reported in November that plans are being accelerated for a $3.3-billion natural gas pipeline "to help Afghanistan become an energy bridge in the region." With many Americans (including academics and former top U.S. government officials) now questioning even the physical facts of 9/11 and seriously disputing the "militant Islam" spin, with the media more brain-dead than it's been in our lifetimes, now is not the time for jingoism and blind faith in the likes of Cheney, George W. Bush and Robert Gates. Our young men are worth more than that -- aren't they, Mr. Harper?

If you want to find a few more locals, try PNW_Bandsters (pacific northwest) in Yahoo! Groups. We have a little get together in Silverdale once a month. This month is on the 22nd at 1pm. We meet at the Silverdale Bistro in 'Old Town' across from the park. Cute little wine/martini/coffee bar with comfy couches. We have a spankin' newbie, , a not-so-newbie, a veteran, and me, a spasm princess. Our other ladies come and go and are generally at about 1 year. Drop in, or write for directions. We love new faces! There are a couple of sisters in Port Orchard banded by Dr. Oh, they have had incredible success and are starting their own group (?). Don't worry Cindy. The first few months are for learning about how to work the band. Getting restriction can be difficult, but is the key to easier weight loss.

Fluoro is so great! It is a live action x-ray. You will probably have your band checked with fluoro before you even leave the hospital. They locate your port, stick you, and sit you up. Then you drink barium. If you are having a fill done, they inject saline until they see "restriction" occurring on the monitor. Blind fills rely on your perception of restriction, by drinking Water. There are many more needle sticks involved. I left my blind fill with an empty band (the doc missed my port and injected my fill into my abdomen) and a bruise as big as my hand. My best band-buddy has NEVER had a fluoro fill and has had perfect weight loss.

Me too. My surgeon anchored the band to my diaphragm. The diaphragm is responsible for hiccups. I couldn't burp without a hic for months...

Hi, I am Brenda in Kitsap. I have all my fills done with Dr. Neal's staff. Is Kitty really getting fluoro? Does the mean she will start using longer needles? It'll be worth the drive. I was banded in MX by Dr. Kuri. Love him, but he places his ports deeply and on the waistline. Kitty, last time I spoke with her, only would do fills for those bandsters who could easily feel their ports. Please feel free to PM if you have questions; or want to come to our little bandster-led support group in Silverdale. Hey Lucygirl? I have a little bad news for you. In the first month some people actually gain. With swelling, and the mushies diet, most people lose less than 20 lbs. before the first fill. The fills get the little bugger working.

And that is very probably part of the same problem. Global warming is a cruddy name for what is going on. More accurately, climate change. The (admittedly small) change in temp is altering weather patterns on the large scale. Our weather here is gorgeous, just like summer. Last week, two zipcodes away, they had snow. Quirky.

:kiss2: Thank You :clap2:

http://www.lapbandtalk.com/showthread.php?t=6847&highlight=sandyrn We aren't the only ones who found her distasteful. I remember that she "moderated" my surgeons board "at his request"... Right about the time she told me I needed to schedule a flight because I had a leak, I gave up on my surgeons support board.

The only reason I use OH at all is the clothing exchange, and I didn't get the last item after I'd sent shipping. Hope she's alright... I noticed right away that the boards are highly populated by RnY'ers. Love me some LBT and B2G!

Spasms are in the esophagus. The pouch contracts and locks down. Mine does it too, but tnot the the same degree. My band is sensitive and responds to sensation. If I consume something that the band can feel, it spasms. I actually have an easier time with solids than liquids. It is much worse when I am tense, so fills are usually a waste of time and money. I lock in spasm when the barium hits and it is very hard to see adequate restriction. I have never been so irritated as to vomit blood, but I am familiar with the irritated throat lump. Hugs, WASaBubbleButt

I understand the panic thing. My second fill was IDENTICAL! I had been bargain shopping for docs and found a blind fill for almost $200 cheaper. I went in for my fill and came out with what I thought was a fill. No restriction at all, so I splurged for a fluoro fill and my band was empty. Leak, right? Panic. My blind fill doc emptied my band but was never in the port (the second time) to give my fill back. Oops. I was only 2.5 hours away. Sorry you are having fill issues, with luck, it is just a headache like mine. now for the book answer... It can take up to two weeks to adjust to the new fill. Restriction MAY still sneak up on you.

You should never feel bad about calling the doc. That is why you pay them. My port was off-set, but I had swelling and scar tissue under my port incision. The question is doctor specific because there are many port sites and as many doctor opinions as to post-op care. At day 8 are you on full liquids? My docs definition of full liquids was essentially anything you could get up a straw (within reason). Some people are still on Clear Liquids on day 8. If this is you, the strained Beans & rice is a no-no. I understand the aversion to sweetness. I was in the same place. You shouldn't worry about stretching your pouch until you have a fill. Some people have been told to limit liquid meals, but I wasn't. It was about the healing, and getting enough Water. My bandages were supposed to stay dry and on for 14 days or until they fell off on their own. Again, call the doc because if you run into trouble later on, you'll be glad for the relationship. Plus, the peace of mind is priceless. Welcome, Brenda

I voted 'No'. Not because I advocate physical discipline, but because it is not the governments responsibility to 'parent, parents'. Child abuse is already illegal and I agree that that is a great law. I love the idea that all wrong and hurtful things should be illegal, but in practice, it is just impractical. The government is too big and stupid now, more laws just make it messier, bigger and less efficient. ..has this already been said? I didn't review before posting.

I didn't have much trouble and my little girl was barely two when I was banded. The bending over was troublesome, but with just a little help and a little slacking you should be up to full speed within a week or two. Congrats on your upcoming bandsterhood!

1) They are going back up, not sure yet about the menorah. News in 15 minutes. 2) Paper plates?!? W-T-F-! 3) In my sex-ed class (5th grade) we watched "Silent Scream". I doubt a scarier pro-life film was ever put together. Wonder if the PTA was in on that little tidbit?

How scary! My DH and I are discussing the possibility of a round 2. You will definitely be in my thoughts. Please keep us informed, alright?