Welfare - When is it enough already? - Page 2

Wagner · #11 02-05-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

If the goal was simply to provide security, they could do that for 10% of what they spend.

If the goal was simply to provide security, and in addition also protect all American business interests around the world, they could probably do that for 50% of what they spend.

But the goal has become simply to spend money for the sake of spending, so that these huge military contractors can earn record profits and their CEO's and top executives can make hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

I'm sick of it, and I wonder at what point everyone else will become sick of it. How high does the military budget have to go before people have had enough? What if they spent a trillion? or 1.5 trillion? 10 years ago the number 600 billion would have been thought impossible. And now here we are. The current budget now provides for more military spending than the rest of the countries in the world put together. And yet we are less than 5% of the world's population.

Nah, you want overwhelming power so that you can never be directly challenged. And the US has never been directly challenged since Japan tried, and we all know how that turned out. And that for the sake of spending line, you obviously have no idea how advanced US weaponry really is. That crap the media shows or that you see on the Discovery channel is just the tip of the iceberg. Not to mention the sheer numbers of people and buildings the DoD runs/employees. It isn't all spent on beloved Halliburton...trust me. Take a look at one DoD electric bill for the year.....

Sponsored Links

Ishniknork · #12 02-05-2007, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

That was his intent - to draw in the unsuspecting.

I'm with you, Rebound. Some people don't realize that the technology generated with those dollars saves lives. OUR lives. Especially the soldiers, sailors, and airmen out on the front lines. I watch the advancements in our military technology closely and it's amazing what defenses and capabilities have been developed to allow our troops to take out the enemy with as little danger to themselves as possible.

It ain't cheap, and this thread makes me wonder what price he puts on his own head...

Eric5273 · #13 02-05-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ishniknork

It ain't cheap, and this thread makes me wonder what price he puts on his own head...

If the goal was saving lives, the money can be much better spent.

For example, there were approximately 4.3 million children born in the United States last year. Our infant mortality rate (meaning child dies before first birthday) is 6.43 deaths per 1000 births (according to the CIA World Fact Book). That means approximately 27,650 children died before their first birthday last year.

Now if we were to invest a very very tiny portion of that military budget in health care and bring our infant mortality rate down to the rate that Cuba has (6.22 deaths per 1000 births), that would save the lives of 900 children per year.

And if we were to bring our infant mortality rate down to that of Canada (4.69 deaths per 1000 births), we would save the lived of approximately 7,500 children per year.

And if we were to decide we would spend enough money to make our health care system the best in the world and have the lowest infant mortality rate of any country (lower than Singapores which is 2.29 deaths per 1000 births), then we would save the lives of almost 18,000 American children per year. (that's the number of people killed on 9/11/01 times 6 --- each year)

And that is just one of dozens of areas where money could be spent in order to save thousands of lives per year.

And this whole argument is assuming that by spending all this money on the military that they are actually protecting us better -- I take issue with this assumption. I'm pretty sure the people of New Zealand, Sweden, and Finland (just to name a few) are much safer than us Americans are. What are their military budgets?

Strength does not always translate into security. For example, would you feel safe living in the homne of a Mafia boss? Imagine all the security he must have. I would bet he has personal body guards, and they have quite a few guns in the house. How safe would you feel living there? Personally, I would feel safer living in my own home where there are no guns and no special security.

Security 90% based on your behavior and perhaps 10% based on strength.

Eric5273 · #14 02-05-2007, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ishniknork

It sure fooled me! I was going to remark how sick I am of paying for slackers that buy drugs, Cadillacs and 22" rims with my tax dollars!

Now if you want to talk about that, I'm all ears

I agree with you as well. But the amount of money being spent on that kind of welfare is pennies compared to what they are spending on corporate welfare. Why does one bother you while the other does not?

X rated · #15 02-05-2007, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I agree with you as well. But the amount of money being spent on that kind of welfare is pennies compared to what they are spending on corporate welfare. Why does one bother you while the other does not?

I don't mind my money going toward the military, there are so many other areas I would cut first. I'm not for handing out money for people that chose not to work for a living. You don't work, you don't eat. There are times when people need a helping hand and I'm all for that, just not keen on a life time of welfare. I'm also less than happy with my tax dollars going to provide medical care, housing, etc for illegal aliens. My grandparents came over from Italy, they learned english and supported themselves. They didn't come here looking for a handout.

SSG.Santiago · #16 02-05-2007, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I agree with you as well. But the amount of money being spent on that kind of welfare is pennies compared to what they are spending on corporate welfare. Why does one bother you while the other does not?

eric look your self at the mirror and slap yourself for me. Alway b-tchin about the military that sh-t is getting old man try something different.

JV · #17 02-05-2007, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

Nah, you want overwhelming power so that you can never be directly challenged.

War and National defense are things that you never want to be a "fair fight".

Eric- I'm sorry to say that if the US government were to devote more of the budget to the causes you wish they would, there would still be "no bid" contracts...they'd just be not bidding for methadone clinics and drug manufacturing and education contracts.

rebound · #18 02-05-2007, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

If the goal was saving lives, the money can be much better spent.

For example, there were approximately 4.3 million children born in the United States last year. Our infant mortality rate (meaning child dies before first birthday) is 6.43 deaths per 1000 births (according to the CIA World Fact Book). That means approximately 27,650 children died before their first birthday last year.

Now if we were to invest a very very tiny portion of that military budget in health care and bring our infant mortality rate down to the rate that Cuba has (6.22 deaths per 1000 births), that would save the lives of 900 children per year.

And if we were to bring our infant mortality rate down to that of Canada (4.69 deaths per 1000 births), we would save the lived of approximately 7,500 children per year.

And if we were to decide we would spend enough money to make our health care system the best in the world and have the lowest infant mortality rate of any country (lower than Singapores which is 2.29 deaths per 1000 births), then we would save the lives of almost 18,000 American children per year. (that's the number of people killed on 9/11/01 times 6 --- each year)

And that is just one of dozens of areas where money could be spent in order to save thousands of lives per year.

So nothing developed in the course of military research benefits anything else? Gotcha.

1. Since its inception in 1969, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) has spearheaded research to develop medical solutions—vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, and information—to protect our service members from biological threats. Still others recognize the impressive scientific credentials of our workforce, which represents some of the top infectious disease and biological defense experts in the Nation—indeed, in the world. - my cousin works here...

2. Physicist Charles Boyle comments, "The military applications of science and technology form no mere fringe activity indulged in by a few atypical engineers and experimentalists. In financial and manpower terms, they are central to modern research and development." Many inventions have come to benefit the public as a result of projects developed by the military for their own purposes such as lasers, radar, pesticides, processed food, and satellites. - bad stuff there. Clearly the country - no, the world would be better without...

3. A group of state and federal legislators participated in a rare nonpartisan panel to highlight the flourishing collaboration among the regional academic, military and private sectors at an MIT Lincoln Laboratory event on Feb. 13.

The speakers -- who included Gov. Mitt Romney and U.S. Senators Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John Sununu (R-N.H.) -- emphasized the benefits to technology, innovation and security resulting from the proximity of research centers such as Lincoln Lab, Hanscom Air Force Base and the Natick Soldier Systems Center to companies such as Raytheon, MITRE and BAE Systems.

Just a quick three to whet one's appetite. Keep up the rant, it's quite entertaining (and totally inaccurate).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

And this whole argument is assuming that by spending all this money on the military that they are actually protecting us better -- I take issue with this assumption. I'm pretty sure the people of New Zealand, Sweden, and Finland (just to name a few) are much safer than us Americans are. What are their military budgets?

Strength does not always translate into security. For example, would you feel safe living in the homne of a Mafia boss? Imagine all the security he must have. I would bet he has personal body guards, and they have quite a few guns in the house. How safe would you feel living there? Personally, I would feel safer living in my own home where there are no guns and no special security.

Security 90% based on your behavior and perhaps 10% based on strength.

Ah, the return of isolationsim. Pretty funny coming from a guy with a BMW. Of course, if we'd maintained our isolationism in the 30's/40's, we'd all be driving BMW's (or Hondas)...

AutoXer · #19 02-05-2007, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

Nah, you want overwhelming power so that you can never be directly challenged. And the US has never been directly challenged since Japan tried, and we all know how that turned out. And that for the sake of spending line, you obviously have no idea how advanced US weaponry really is. That crap the media shows or that you see on the Discovery channel is just the tip of the iceberg. Not to mention the sheer numbers of people and buildings the DoD runs/employees. It isn't all spent on beloved Halliburton...trust me. Take a look at one DoD electric bill for the year.....

Though I think big government waste lots of money on programs, I want overwhelming power so that others know that if they attack us, they are going to get hit back hard

rebound · #20 02-05-2007, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AutoXer

Though I think big government waste lots of money on programs, I want overwhelming power so that others know that if they attack us, they are going to get hit back hard

If Eric had his way, we'd have 30 guys in clam diggers going after them with plastic flyswatters...

Sponsored Links