Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
Death and Taxes US 2012
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 30, 2011, 6:41 PM
Post #1 of 8 (813 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Death and Taxes US 2012
Report this Post
Can't Post

Enjoy the details:

http://deathandtaxesposter.com/

But the headline is in the middle:

National Security 60%, Non-National Security 40%


guangzhou


Oct 30, 2011, 7:55 PM
Post #2 of 8 (761 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Death and Taxes US 2012 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Enjoy the details:

http://deathandtaxesposter.com/

But the headline is in the middle:

National Security 60%, Non-National Security 40%

So, what part of our National Security would you like us to see give up?

Like it or not, America is one of the world's Super Powers. Like it or not, that are people who would be happy to destroy America? Like it or not, America has to be proactive in defending itself nationally and abroad.

Sort of like climbing. What part of the safety system are you willing to not buy because you rarely actually fall on it anyways.

Read the link below, then you decide what part of our security net you want to cut from the equation. Send me a list of the equipment in on your rack, and I don't the same so you know what you can get rid of before your next trip.

http://www.dhs.gov/...udget-bib-fy2012.pdf


(This post was edited by guangzhou on Oct 30, 2011, 8:14 PM)


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 31, 2011, 5:47 AM
Post #3 of 8 (733 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [guangzhou] Death and Taxes US 2012 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Enjoy the details:

http://deathandtaxesposter.com/

But the headline is in the middle:

National Security 60%, Non-National Security 40%

So, what part of our National Security would you like us to see give up?

Like it or not, America is one of the world's Super Powers. Like it or not, that are people who would be happy to destroy America? Like it or not, America has to be proactive in defending itself nationally and abroad.

Sort of like climbing. What part of the safety system are you willing to not buy because you rarely actually fall on it anyways.

Read the link below, then you decide what part of our security net you want to cut from the equation. Send me a list of the equipment in on your rack, and I don't the same so you know what you can get rid of before your next trip.

http://www.dhs.gov/...udget-bib-fy2012.pdf

I have never said that America doesn't have people who want to see it destroyed. What I want is a sane approach to it.

To your metaphor - you don't buy or own every piece of saftey equipment ever made and you certainly don't take every piece of safety equipment on every climb. Simply put, you buy what is necessary and you bring what you need (sometimes just a bit more, but never a whole extra bag of stuff). Does this mean there is some risk? Sure, but do you wear a headlamp on a sport climb just in case you might get stuck there at night (assuming it isn't a night climb to begin with)? Of course not, and unfortunately, the US spending is more towards buying extra headlamps.

If you want, we can go point by point thru the budget and talk merit of each. For example (on page 6 - about as far as I made it):

In reply to:
coordinating the Federal Governmentís response to global intellectual property theft

Yeah, we spend too much on that.

But I'll pass a metaphor back to you: I'll be the advertising arm of your company. If I am asking for an advertising budget and we know we need to advertise. It is very important, if we don't advertise we don't get new customers, if we don't get new customers, we go out of business.

However, if I'm spending 60% of the overall budget on advertising and you get only 40% left to run the business, would you say I'm spending too much on advertising? I sure hope so. 20% - sure for a fast growing company, but 60%, well we would be out of money rather quickly. Just like the US.

Just because something is important doesn't mean it dominates the budget.


Allfred


Oct 31, 2011, 7:56 AM
Post #4 of 8 (720 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 29, 2011
Posts: 418

Re: [guangzhou] Death and Taxes US 2012 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Enjoy the details:

http://deathandtaxesposter.com/

But the headline is in the middle:

National Security 60%, Non-National Security 40%

So, what part of our National Security would you like us to see give up?

Like it or not, America is one of the world's Super Powers. Like it or not, that are people who would be happy to destroy America? Like it or not, America has to be proactive in defending itself nationally and abroad.

Sort of like climbing. What part of the safety system are you willing to not buy because you rarely actually fall on it anyways.

Read the link below, then you decide what part of our security net you want to cut from the equation. Send me a list of the equipment in on your rack, and I don't the same so you know what you can get rid of before your next trip.

http://www.dhs.gov/...udget-bib-fy2012.pdf

hey dipshit. Look at the legend. National Security stuff on the Right Hand side of the chart is denoted with a NS. Which means that the 60% figure for defense spending includes some but not all of the spending attributed to DHS - only the subgroups with the NS. i.e. compare the Federal Air Marshals vs. the National Guard.

And why did you post up the budget request for DHS when they are somewhere less than $43B of the $754 for Defense spending. Christ pick something in the Department of Defense which accounts for $691B of the total.


scrapedape


Oct 31, 2011, 11:08 AM
Post #5 of 8 (697 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Death and Taxes US 2012 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Enjoy the details:

http://deathandtaxesposter.com/

But the headline is in the middle:

National Security 60%, Non-National Security 40%

So, what part of our National Security would you like us to see give up?

Like it or not, America is one of the world's Super Powers. Like it or not, that are people who would be happy to destroy America? Like it or not, America has to be proactive in defending itself nationally and abroad.

Sort of like climbing. What part of the safety system are you willing to not buy because you rarely actually fall on it anyways.

Read the link below, then you decide what part of our security net you want to cut from the equation. Send me a list of the equipment in on your rack, and I don't the same so you know what you can get rid of before your next trip.

http://www.dhs.gov/...udget-bib-fy2012.pdf

I have never said that America doesn't have people who want to see it destroyed. What I want is a sane approach to it.

To your metaphor - you don't buy or own every piece of saftey equipment ever made and you certainly don't take every piece of safety equipment on every climb. Simply put, you buy what is necessary and you bring what you need (sometimes just a bit more, but never a whole extra bag of stuff). Does this mean there is some risk? Sure, but do you wear a headlamp on a sport climb just in case you might get stuck there at night (assuming it isn't a night climb to begin with)? Of course not, and unfortunately, the US spending is more towards buying extra headlamps.

Or, another way of looking at this but sticking with the original analogy: the US defense budget (equaling that of all other countries combined) is like going to the crag and bringing as much gear as everyone else there combined. In which case I would say yes, you are bringing too much.


guangzhou


Oct 31, 2011, 6:46 PM
Post #6 of 8 (672 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [scrapedape] Death and Taxes US 2012 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
If you want, we can go point by point thru the budget and talk merit of each. For example (on page 6 - about as far as I made it):

In reply to:
coordinating the Federal Governmentís response to global intellectual property theft

Yeah, we spend too much on that.

Too much on protecting people intellectual property. I thought that was one of the key factors that kept the American Economy going. The ability to protect your inventions, ideas, and goods from being pirated and copied by others. If we donít protect intellectual property, why would people bother creating new and innovative products quickly.

In reply to:
But I'll pass a metaphor back to you: I'll be the advertising arm of your company. If I am asking for an advertising budget and we know we need to advertise. It is very important, if we don't advertise we don't get new customers, if we don't get new customers, we go out of business.

However, if I'm spending 60% of the overall budget on advertising and you get only 40% left to run the business, would you say I'm spending too much on advertising? I sure hope so. 20% - sure for a fast growing company, but 60%, well we would be out of money rather quickly. Just like the US.

Just because something is important doesn't mean it dominates the budget.

National defense is not about advertising; I don't see the comparison here. National defense is about protection of the United States.

But, letís say my company is spending 60% of itís budget on advertising and the advertising is successfully doing itís job of bringing in new customers or keeping old costumers with us then I canít complain about what they are doing. Yes, their budget is high, but their productivity is also high and growing my revenue. As long as the 60% on advertising can show me that it is increasing my company profits, than yes, itís money well spent. The budget would remain 60% of I agreed that it was the only way to maintain growth in my company. If I felt the company could better use that money elsewhere, and advertising department couldnít convince me otherwise, I would rework the budget to meet my companies goal. (My company goal being to earn a profit for itís share holders. (Shareholders meaning myself, my wife, and my two partners)

National defense isn't about making money, it's about protecting American people, soil, ideas, borders and endless other American assets. Abroad and on U.S. Soil

So, to answer your question, a company that doesn't protect itself from it's competitor, intellectually especially, is doomed to fail when other companies pirate their product. The question that needs to be answered is can the Defense budget me cut while still maintaining Americaís National Security. Another words, I donít mind cutting the budget it doesnít effect the security of the United States.

In reply to:
Enjoy the details:

http://deathandtaxesposter.com/

But the headline is in the middle:

National Security 60%, Non-National Security 40%

So, what part of our National Security would you like us to see give up?

Like it or not, America is one of the world's Super Powers. Like it or not, that are people who would be happy to destroy America? Like it or not, America has to be proactive in defending itself nationally and abroad.

Sort of like climbing. What part of the safety system are you willing to not buy because you rarely actually fall on it anyways.

Read the link below, then you decide what part of our security net you want to cut from the equation. Send me a list of the equipment in on your rack, and I don't the same so you know what you can get rid of before your next trip.

http://www.dhs.gov/...udget-bib-fy2012.pdf
I have never said that America doesn't have people who want to see it destroyed. What I want is a sane approach to it.

In reply to:
To your metaphor - you don't buy or own every piece of saftey equipment ever made and you certainly don't take every piece of safety equipment on every climb. Simply put, you buy what is necessary and you bring what you need (sometimes just a bit more, but never a whole extra bag of stuff). Does this mean there is some risk? Sure, but do you wear a headlamp on a sport climb just in case you might get stuck there at night (assuming it isn't a night climb to begin with)? Of course not, and unfortunately, the US spending is more towards buying extra headlamps.

The American Military doesn't buy everything ever made either; it buys what ever it thinks it may need based on the knowledge it has from intelligence. The world is abig place, the threats are diverse, so it needs a broad range of material to accomplish the mission.
As someone who was deployed to several conflicts in the Early 1990s, I can say, the money was well spent when it kept me or one of my buddies from coming home in a body bag.

You're right, I don't wear my headland on a sport route in case it gets dark, but I do have my headland in my back-pack in case my buddies and I have to hike out in the dark. I have also used my headlamp in a sport area because while walking out in the dark, I had to go up and rescue an experienced climber who dropped his rope while cleaning a belay. Without the headland, he would have to have waited much longer to be brought down.

Same is true, without equipment ready for the Defense of our country, a reaction time would be much much slower, and often more expensive. Definitely more expensive in human life.


In reply to:
Or, another way of looking at this but sticking with the original analogy: the US defense budget (equaling that of all other countries combined) is like going to the crag and bringing as much gear as everyone else there combined. In which case I would say yes, you are bringing too much.

First, I do buy the gear I think I'll need for my climbing trips. I base that on the intelligence I gather before going. In the states, that means a guidebook, overseas, that means word of mouth in most cases. After I decide what gear I have, I look at my budget and try to use it to my biggest advantage.

When I went to put up a big Wall in Sichuan China, I did bring much more gear than if I wen to climb a big wall in Yosemite. The unknown factor was much bigger. Same with the American Defense system, big unknown factors.
Some of equipment I ended up not needing, other things I would have been very useful and meant I had to change my original objective because I didn't have what I needed for my first plan. Because climbing is recreational for me, changing plans was easy, when America is under attack, we canít just change plans, we have to meet the attack where it is taking place.

Actually, the defense department doesn't bring everything on every mission. It's more like having all the gear you need to climb all the possible areas you will climb in. I have a trad rack, and aid rack, and quick-draws. Also have drill and bolts with hangers. When I go climbing at Smith rock, I bring 20 draws and a rope, when I go climbing in Yosemite I bring a bigger rack, some aider and a ledge because that's what the area needs.

National Defense is a big job. It's not just Military and overseas intelligence gathering. It cover everything from Cops on the street, to national guard, air marshals, internet protection, the list is endless.

Actually, the biggest single drain on the American Federal Budget is Social Security. National Defense program are created and deleted every year based on what is going on in the world and how it effect National Security. It's expensive to protect American for sure, but I appreciate any effort made to make America a bit safer.

Could America do better job, sure. How much better, we'll never know, only the mistakes are made public. For all we know, our National Security teams have stopped dozen of Terrorist Attacks on American Soil this year, caught countless corporate spies, prevent dozen of high jacking, and kept thousand of people from illegally crossing our borders. What we'll hear about are the ones that don't get stopped.

Edited to fix "Quote"


(This post was edited by guangzhou on Oct 31, 2011, 7:06 PM)


Toast_in_the_Machine


Nov 1, 2011, 5:18 AM
Post #7 of 8 (641 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [guangzhou] Death and Taxes US 2012 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
Too much on protecting people intellectual property. I thought that was one of the key factors that kept the American Economy going. The ability to protect your inventions, ideas, and goods from being pirated and copied by others. If we donít protect intellectual property, why would people bother creating new and innovative products quickly.

It is done to protect Mickey Mouse, not new and inovative products

In reply to:
National defense is not about advertising; I don't see the comparison here. National defense is about protection of the United States.
Of course national defense isn't advertising, but advertising is an important part, some may say the most important part of any company. But the point is it is one key part of the budget.

In reply to:
But, letís say my company is spending 60% of itís budget on advertising and the advertising is successfully doing itís job of bringing in new customers or keeping old costumers with us then I canít complain about what they are doing. Yes, their budget is high, but their productivity is also high and growing my revenue. As long as the 60% on advertising can show me that it is increasing my company profits, than yes, itís money well spent. The budget would remain 60% of I agreed that it was the only way to maintain growth in my company. If I felt the company could better use that money elsewhere, and advertising department couldnít convince me otherwise, I would rework the budget to meet my companies goal. (My company goal being to earn a profit for itís share holders. (Shareholders meaning myself, my wife, and my two partners)

That is exactly the point the "company" is the US g'ment and it is (due to economic slowdown and two wars and the debt on two wars and tax cuts) not meeting the goals (at least the goal of reamining financially solvent). The dollars need to be reduced, the percentage needs to be reduced.

In reply to:
The question that needs to be answered is can the Defense budget me cut while still maintaining Americaís National Security. Another words, I donít mind cutting the budget it doesnít effect the security of the United States.

We have this guy in Syria, we don't really like him, he is a threat. We can get rid of him for roughly 1 billion dollars. It makes the world a safer place, but can we afford it?

In reply to:
Actually, the biggest single drain on the American Federal Budget is Social Security. National Defense program are created and deleted every year based on what is going on in the world and how it effect National Security. It's expensive to protect American for sure, but I appreciate any effort made to make America a bit safer.

Never let facts get in the way of a good arguement. We started this with the statement 60% of the budget is defense based. Does Social Security need to be looked at, absolutely. But 60% of the budget is defense based. To get the budget in line we need to start there.

In reply to:
Could America do better job, sure. How much better, we'll never know, only the mistakes are made public. For all we know, our National Security teams have stopped dozen of Terrorist Attacks on American Soil this year, caught countless corporate spies, prevent dozen of high jacking, and kept thousand of people from illegally crossing our borders. What we'll hear about are the ones that don't get stopped.

No, America needs to do a worse job. Really. We can't affort the job we have now. When the economy turns around, sure, we can spend more again, but for now we need to cut back and we need to cut back first where we spend the most money. That place is defense.

The Defense spending in the US is what a Super Bowl ad was to Pets.com


Partner cracklover


Nov 1, 2011, 10:40 AM
Post #8 of 8 (626 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Death and Taxes US 2012 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
No, America needs to do a worse job. Really. We can't affort the job we have now. When the economy turns around, sure, we can spend more again, but for now we need to cut back and we need to cut back first where we spend the most money. That place is defense.

+1

The pentagon can't even cut programs they don't like and don't want, because doing so would mean losing money for somebody's congressional district, so that congressman makes sure the program lives on.

Of course, the lobbying by the private defense contractors who do the engineering/manufacture for the program probably helps a lot (since that company's contributions help pay the congressman's re-election budget).

GO


Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook