According to some rightwing nut yelling into a microphone on his youtube channel no?Jay wrote:
I said that what the Democrats were proposing did nothing to lower costs or improve quality.
Then the solution must be to maintain the status quo.I know I'm overpaying.
It could have put $8,000 worth of solar panels on every home in America.Jay wrote:
You could, but it doesn't go as far as you think.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-03-05 17:32:58)
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-03-05 19:14:25)
Last edited by Jay (2020-03-06 03:01:57)
Last edited by uziq (2020-03-06 03:18:29)
Uzi, that's cool. Did you look at the infographic that I posted? You spend 6% of your budget on military defense. We spend 6.58%.uziq wrote:
let's talk about a little tiny thing called the military-industrial complex.
the huge government contracts and tenders given out to 'bombs and tank' manufacturers, and the entire communities, not to mention political careers, which are dependent on bringing those contracts home to x-y-z state (the way the F-35 is set up to be manufactured across basically every single US state is food for thought; and what politician is going to kickback against them? bad for jobs, bad for votes!).
it seems a huge amount of the nation's health and its economic circulation seems to be reliant on offloading massive amounts of ordnance on dustbowls in the middle east. the orders for the missiles have to keep coming in, the latest and greatest jets have to be built, the factories and plants have to stay open, and a whole bunch of aimless blue-collar slack jaws have to be fed into the corps and kept off the unemployment stats.
seems healthy. 'but wait', you'll say, 'we're the richest nation on earth [debatable] so of course our expenditure dwarfs all the rest'. yes, the richest nation on earth that matches its social security spending with its military spending. what a curious choice and political determination. what could you do with all that wealth and prosperity if you turned it inwards? what do the US army corps of engineers make of the levees, bridges, dams, roads, and infrastructure of your country?
here's the UK budget for 2016-17, for example.
Last edited by Jay (2020-03-06 03:25:20)
did you see that we also spend 3.5 to 4 times as much on healthcare and social services? that produces a totally free-of-use system. what does yours get you?Jay wrote:
Uzi, that's cool. Did you look at the infographic that I posted? You spend 6% of your budget on military defense. We spend 6.58%.uziq wrote:
let's talk about a little tiny thing called the military-industrial complex.
the huge government contracts and tenders given out to 'bombs and tank' manufacturers, and the entire communities, not to mention political careers, which are dependent on bringing those contracts home to x-y-z state (the way the F-35 is set up to be manufactured across basically every single US state is food for thought; and what politician is going to kickback against them? bad for jobs, bad for votes!).
it seems a huge amount of the nation's health and its economic circulation seems to be reliant on offloading massive amounts of ordnance on dustbowls in the middle east. the orders for the missiles have to keep coming in, the latest and greatest jets have to be built, the factories and plants have to stay open, and a whole bunch of aimless blue-collar slack jaws have to be fed into the corps and kept off the unemployment stats.
seems healthy. 'but wait', you'll say, 'we're the richest nation on earth [debatable] so of course our expenditure dwarfs all the rest'. yes, the richest nation on earth that matches its social security spending with its military spending. what a curious choice and political determination. what could you do with all that wealth and prosperity if you turned it inwards? what do the US army corps of engineers make of the levees, bridges, dams, roads, and infrastructure of your country?
here's the UK budget for 2016-17, for example.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/busi … mplex.htmlRoughly 10 percent of the $2.2 trillion in factory output in the United States goes into the production of weapons sold mainly to the Defense Department for use by the armed forces.
Last edited by uziq (2020-03-06 04:23:39)
Do you?uziq wrote:
did you see that we also spend 3.5 to 4 times as much on healthcare and social services?Jay wrote:
Uzi, that's cool. Did you look at the infographic that I posted? You spend 6% of your budget on military defense. We spend 6.58%.uziq wrote:
let's talk about a little tiny thing called the military-industrial complex.
the huge government contracts and tenders given out to 'bombs and tank' manufacturers, and the entire communities, not to mention political careers, which are dependent on bringing those contracts home to x-y-z state (the way the F-35 is set up to be manufactured across basically every single US state is food for thought; and what politician is going to kickback against them? bad for jobs, bad for votes!).
it seems a huge amount of the nation's health and its economic circulation seems to be reliant on offloading massive amounts of ordnance on dustbowls in the middle east. the orders for the missiles have to keep coming in, the latest and greatest jets have to be built, the factories and plants have to stay open, and a whole bunch of aimless blue-collar slack jaws have to be fed into the corps and kept off the unemployment stats.
seems healthy. 'but wait', you'll say, 'we're the richest nation on earth [debatable] so of course our expenditure dwarfs all the rest'. yes, the richest nation on earth that matches its social security spending with its military spending. what a curious choice and political determination. what could you do with all that wealth and prosperity if you turned it inwards? what do the US army corps of engineers make of the levees, bridges, dams, roads, and infrastructure of your country?
here's the UK budget for 2016-17, for example.
what does the cost of living in the US have to do with your military expenditure, exactly? so you're spending a lot on missiles because lockheed workers want an american wage?
Last edited by uziq (2020-03-06 04:23:01)
It gets me nothing.uziq wrote:
well done, you're getting at my point. so what does that expense get you? we have a totally free-to-use healthcare system.
lmao, this is the guy you have on the job. sounds like dilbert's ideal candidate. it's amazing how much these fruitcakes all sound alike, religious or anti-religious, when it comes to scientific illiteracy and blaming everything on 'rampant individualism' and not, you know, inept treatment and public health administration.Redfield's early engagement with the AIDS epidemic in the US in the 1980s and 90s was controversial. As an Army major at Walter Reed Medical Institute, he designed policies for controlling the disease within the US military that involved placing infected personnel in quarantine and investigating their pasts to identify and track possible sexual partners. Soldiers were routinely discharged and left to die of AIDS, humiliated and jobless, often abandoned by their families.
In the 1980s Redfield worked closely with W. Shepherd Smith, Jr. and his Christian organization, Americans for a Sound AIDS/HIV Policy, or ASAP. The group maintained that AIDS was "God's judgment" against homosexuals, spread in an America weakened by single-parent households and loss of family values.
how long before the government stops blaming the democrats or nasty media who insist on reporting the real figures, and starts blaming the individual cruise ship tourists or dying victims? you know trump is going to take all of this very, very personally.The White House has had a hard time choosing, vetting and retaining top appointees. After 16 months in office the President has fired or accepted the resignations of 23 top officials, including Redfield's predecessors, Dr. Thomas Frieden and Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald. Frieden, who served as health commissioner for New York City and was appointed by President Barack Obama, made $219,700 in the position.
Six months later, Dr. Fitzgerald, then state health commissioner in Georgia, was appointed to lead the agency that protects Americans from epidemics, water contamination, cancer-causing compounds and hundreds of other health threats, at a salary of $197,000. Questions were immediately raised about her relationship with the Coca-Cola Corporation and their sponsorship, at her behest, of a Georgia anti-obesity campaign.
In September Fitzgerald made decisions in CDC's Atlanta headquarters involving $28.6 million worth of private contracts for electronic data-keeping relevant to opioid prescriptions. One of the companies receiving those grants was Greenway Health, in which Fitzgerald and her husband held stock worth $300,000. Senate queries led to a larger investigation and the discovery that she continued in December to hold stocks in pharmaceutical and medical management companies that posed clear conflict violations.
Last edited by uziq (2020-03-07 02:27:21)
Gives me a headache.[…]President Trump wrote:
You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, “Ah, how is it working?” “Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air.”
It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–“Sir, we’re staying with digital.” I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.
Further, Foreign Policy’s Robbie Gramer points out that this proverbial ship has already sailed, even if the USS Ford hasn’t. “Experts say it’s virtually impossible to sort out how to replace the existing EMALS system with the old steam-powered system, and that could cost billions of dollars,” Gramer writes. In other words, Trump’s attempt to save money could cost the military dearly, even as it restricts its capacity for technological development in other ways.
Singer echoed many of these concerns in our conversation. “For people who know this topic of defense acquisitions one of the reasons you get escalating costs is when you change the requirements and designs midstream, and that’s exactly what [Trump’s] proposing to do here,” he told me. Moreover, he noted, “This is inappropriate, and an amazing level of micromanagement that would have Republican defense wonks apoplectic if Obama had done it.”
Yep. The military contractors got smart a long time ago and disbursed their manufacturing over many congressional districts. Any time the military wants to cut a weapons system the plant floods their local congressman with Do Something calls and the weapon system lives another day. There are thousands of Abrams tanks sitting in the Nevada desert because the plant in Lima, Ohio is in a swing state.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Aren't the US armed forces being force-fed equipment they don't want? I think that alone would be a significant indicator of American misspending.
Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want
https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 … -want.html
Everything You Need to Know About the “Digital” “Catapults” Donald Trump Thinks the Navy Doesn’t Need
https://slate.com/technology/2017/05/do … -what.html -Gives me a headache.[…]President Trump wrote:
You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, “Ah, how is it working?” “Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air.”
It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–“Sir, we’re staying with digital.” I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.
Further, Foreign Policy’s Robbie Gramer points out that this proverbial ship has already sailed, even if the USS Ford hasn’t. “Experts say it’s virtually impossible to sort out how to replace the existing EMALS system with the old steam-powered system, and that could cost billions of dollars,” Gramer writes. In other words, Trump’s attempt to save money could cost the military dearly, even as it restricts its capacity for technological development in other ways.
Singer echoed many of these concerns in our conversation. “For people who know this topic of defense acquisitions one of the reasons you get escalating costs is when you change the requirements and designs midstream, and that’s exactly what [Trump’s] proposing to do here,” he told me. Moreover, he noted, “This is inappropriate, and an amazing level of micromanagement that would have Republican defense wonks apoplectic if Obama had done it.”
Last edited by Jay (2020-03-07 05:05:31)
