Space Force

3,779 Views | 38 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by riflebear
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's time. It used to be enough to own the sky. Now that real estate is getting too crowded.
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Edmond Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
.

Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GolemIII said:

It's time. It used to be enough to own the sky. Now that real estate is getting too crowded.


Unless there is some perceived threat .....don't see the need to militarize space.

DaveyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

GolemIII said:

It's time. It used to be enough to own the sky. Now that real estate is getting too crowded.


Unless there is some perceived threat .....don't see the need to militarize space.


The Chinese, using technology that we forced on them during the Clinton EPA fiasco of the 1990's can easily shoot down lower orbiting satellites.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DaveyBear said:

Canada2017 said:

GolemIII said:

It's time. It used to be enough to own the sky. Now that real estate is getting too crowded.


Unless there is some perceived threat .....don't see the need to militarize space.


The Chinese, using technology that we forced on them during the Clinton EPA fiasco of the 1990's can easily shoot down lower orbiting satellites.


Suspect we can as well.

IMO that doesn't translate into the need for a space force .
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Now Trump is tweeting he wants to replace the troops with weak minded clones who will unquestioningly follow his commands. There aren't enough Trumpers who will join the service apparently.
ABC BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

Now Trump is tweeting he wants to replace the troops with weak minded clones who will unquestioningly follow his commands. There aren't enough Trumpers who will join the service apparently.
A Space Force of weak minded clones will allow Trump to humanely transport his political enemies to battle the Klingons of Uranus.
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

Now Trump is tweeting he wants to replace the troops with weak minded clones who will unquestioningly follow his commands. There aren't enough Trumpers who will join the service apparently.
Well, if he's looking for weak minded clones, there's no shortage on the left. He just needs to send out some kind of snappy hashtag like #ImWithHerInSpace or #MeTooInSpace or #BernieBrosInSpace



Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Buddha Bear said:

As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.

Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings


I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
robby44
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"We will build a Great Galactic Space Force!!! And we will destroy the Jedi once & for all,"
robby44
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dear President Trump,

If you want to create a Space Force, I'm your guy. I was once Supreme Commmander of the Galactic Empire. Give me a call when you can.

Sincerely, Lord Vader.
Jack and DP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
robby44 said:

Dear President Trump,

If you want to create a Space Force, I'm your guy. I was once Supreme Commmander of the Galactic Empire. Give me a call when you can.

Sincerely, Lord Vader.


George Clinton called first.
CSIBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.

Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings


I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
Absolutely perfect.
robby44
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.

Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings


I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
How bout that $600 billion+ military budget? Those listed above are peanuts compared to this one. When is a military budget TOO big? I don't think Americans really know, even though they act like they know what conservative spending is.
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Buddha Bear said:

GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.

Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings


I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
How bout that $600 billion+ military budget? Those listed above are peanuts compared to this one. When is a military budget TOO big? I don't think Americans really know, even though they act like they know what conservative spending is.


Well, the only truly legitimate functions of government (functions where only government should have final authority) are police, military and courts of law....or from an economic perspective, which is a bit broader, the non-excludable non-rival functions (public goods). The latter might include things like light houses, uncongested roads and air traffic control. But what it doesn't include is transfer payments.

So while you advocate cutting one of the only legitimate functions of government, you failed to mention one our founders couldn't find in the constitution.


Quote:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison


According to a quick search: "Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States" This is certainly higher today and still dwarfs our military spending.

So let's do this:

1. Make all the cuts I listed above.
2. Cut welfare transfer payments by 5% per year for the next 10 years.
3. Means test social security and raise the age for eligibility
4. Cut Medicare part D entirely
5. Build a border wall
6. Keep illegals out of our country and send those back who are already inside.
7. Stop all foreign aid

8. Keep our military incredibly strong

Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.

Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings


I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
How bout that $600 billion+ military budget? Those listed above are peanuts compared to this one. When is a military budget TOO big? I don't think Americans really know, even though they act like they know what conservative spending is.


Well, the only truly legitimate functions of government (functions where only government should have final authority) are police, military and courts of law....or from an economic perspective, which is a bit broader, the non-excludable non-rival functions (public goods). The latter might include things like light houses, uncongested roads and air traffic control. But what it doesn't include is transfer payments.

So while you advocate cutting one of the only legitimate functions of government, you failed to mention one our founders couldn't find in the constitution.


Quote:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison


According to a quick search: "Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States" This is certainly higher today and still dwarfs our military spending.

So let's do this:

1. Make all the cuts I listed above.
2. Cut welfare transfer payments by 5% per year for the next 10 years.
3. Means test social security and raise the age for eligibility
4. Cut Medicare part D entirely
5. Build a border wall
6. Keep illegals out of our country and send those back who are already inside.
7. Stop all foreign aid

8. Keep our military incredibly strong


Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.

Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Buddha Bear said:

GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.

Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings


I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
How bout that $600 billion+ military budget? Those listed above are peanuts compared to this one. When is a military budget TOO big? I don't think Americans really know, even though they act like they know what conservative spending is.


Well, the only truly legitimate functions of government (functions where only government should have final authority) are police, military and courts of law....or from an economic perspective, which is a bit broader, the non-excludable non-rival functions (public goods). The latter might include things like light houses, uncongested roads and air traffic control. But what it doesn't include is transfer payments.

So while you advocate cutting one of the only legitimate functions of government, you failed to mention one our founders couldn't find in the constitution.


Quote:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison


According to a quick search: "Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States" This is certainly higher today and still dwarfs our military spending.

So let's do this:

1. Make all the cuts I listed above.
2. Cut welfare transfer payments by 5% per year for the next 10 years.
3. Means test social security and raise the age for eligibility
4. Cut Medicare part D entirely
5. Build a border wall
6. Keep illegals out of our country and send those back who are already inside.
7. Stop all foreign aid

8. Keep our military incredibly strong


Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.

Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
Our health system has been under attack by Obama care in recent years and will certainly need some time to recover. But it's still the most amazing, technologically advanced system in the world. Get government out of it and it gets even better, because we agree that politicians are corrupt and corrupt it and should be term limited.

I agree that other nations should foot the bill for their own security. Too many have ignored their NATO commitments and they need to be billed for our expenditures on their behalf, to be sure. We should actually send them a bill for the slack we pick up and see what happens.

With regard to our strength, I am not sure there is a specific limit to how strong we should be...specifically the United States. There are a few reasons for this, but largely it's because we are stabilizing and we are benevolent with our power. There is really no other country on earth which has historically been as benevolent with power as the US. Most nations, when they acquire the power we have, use it to conquer neighbors (see Crimea recently, most of Europe during WWI and WWII, USSR satellites, etc). We, on the other hand, genuinely act as a stabilizing force (most of the time) and don't keep territory once unstable leaders are deposed. We've made some bad calls (Trying to depose Assad for instance), but overall, the US acts as a strong force for stability internationally. That is effectively something that provides us protection at home as well. If we can help keep the world stable, we can keep our nation safer. Now, that doesn't mean I think we should go on foreign adventures left and right and waste money. But it does mean that we should have the equivalent of "**** You Money" with regard to our military power. We should be so incredibly strong that the nearest 50 nations (enemies or allies) wouldn't dare confront us. We should retain that power and still remain benevolent with it.

Additionally, unlike welfare payments, our military spending has generated some amazing economic advancements via military innovations that bled over into the civilian world. Competition is creative and nothing is more creative than necessity. While the threat might only be perceived in some instances, the creativity it generates is not. Without military spending we wouldn't be talking like this because there wouldn't be an internet or computers...certainly not at the advanced stages they exist today. Other things we have arguably as a consequence of that spending include:

GPS
Duct Tape
Drones
Microwave Ovens
Disposable Razors
Weather Radar
Digital Cameras
Jet Engines
Superglue
Canned food
The EpiPen
Bloodbanks and transfusions
Nylon
Freeze Drying
Feminine Hygiene Products
Bug Spray

We get something for our money with military spending. We actually get a lot more than what we pay for (sometimes for ill, but mostly for good).


corncob pipe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is this what we are doing now? Ok...

Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cBUrurenthusism
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keyser Soze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
because 21 trillion is not enough debt !


All those cuts above are good, do them AND skip the space force
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CSIBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.

Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings


I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
How bout that $600 billion+ military budget? Those listed above are peanuts compared to this one. When is a military budget TOO big? I don't think Americans really know, even though they act like they know what conservative spending is.


Well, the only truly legitimate functions of government (functions where only government should have final authority) are police, military and courts of law....or from an economic perspective, which is a bit broader, the non-excludable non-rival functions (public goods). The latter might include things like light houses, uncongested roads and air traffic control. But what it doesn't include is transfer payments.

So while you advocate cutting one of the only legitimate functions of government, you failed to mention one our founders couldn't find in the constitution.


Quote:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison


According to a quick search: "Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States" This is certainly higher today and still dwarfs our military spending.

So let's do this:

1. Make all the cuts I listed above.
2. Cut welfare transfer payments by 5% per year for the next 10 years.
3. Means test social security and raise the age for eligibility
4. Cut Medicare part D entirely
5. Build a border wall
6. Keep illegals out of our country and send those back who are already inside.
7. Stop all foreign aid

8. Keep our military incredibly strong


Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.

Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
Our health system has been under attack by Obama care in recent years and will certainly need some time to recover. But it's still the most amazing, technologically advanced system in the world. Get government out of it and it gets even better, because we agree that politicians are corrupt and corrupt it and should be term limited.

I agree that other nations should foot the bill for their own security. Too many have ignored their NATO commitments and they need to be billed for our expenditures on their behalf, to be sure. We should actually send them a bill for the slack we pick up and see what happens.

With regard to our strength, I am not sure there is a specific limit to how strong we should be...specifically the United States. There are a few reasons for this, but largely it's because we are stabilizing and we are benevolent with our power. There is really no other country on earth which has historically been as benevolent with power as the US. Most nations, when they acquire the power we have, use it to conquer neighbors (see Crimea recently, most of Europe during WWI and WWII, USSR satellites, etc). We, on the other hand, genuinely act as a stabilizing force (most of the time) and don't keep territory once unstable leaders are deposed. We've made some bad calls (Trying to depose Assad for instance), but overall, the US acts as a strong force for stability internationally. That is effectively something that provides us protection at home as well. If we can help keep the world stable, we can keep our nation safer. Now, that doesn't mean I think we should go on foreign adventures left and right and waste money. But it does mean that we should have the equivalent of "**** You Money" with regard to our military power. We should be so incredibly strong that the nearest 50 nations (enemies or allies) wouldn't dare confront us. We should retain that power and still remain benevolent with it.

Additionally, unlike welfare payments, our military spending has generated some amazing economic advancements via military innovations that bled over into the civilian world. Competition is creative and nothing is more creative than necessity. While the threat might only be perceived in some instances, the creativity it generates is not. Without military spending we wouldn't be talking like this because there wouldn't be an internet or computers...certainly not at the advanced stages they exist today. Other things we have arguably as a consequence of that spending include:

GPS
Duct Tape
Drones
Microwave Ovens
Disposable Razors
Weather Radar
Digital Cameras
Jet Engines
Superglue
Canned food
The EpiPen
Bloodbanks and transfusions
Nylon
Freeze Drying
Feminine Hygiene Products
Bug Spray

We get something for our money with military spending. We actually get a lot more than what we pay for (sometimes for ill, but mostly for good).



Beautifully written. Well said.
Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CSIBear said:

GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.

Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings


I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
How bout that $600 billion+ military budget? Those listed above are peanuts compared to this one. When is a military budget TOO big? I don't think Americans really know, even though they act like they know what conservative spending is.


Well, the only truly legitimate functions of government (functions where only government should have final authority) are police, military and courts of law....or from an economic perspective, which is a bit broader, the non-excludable non-rival functions (public goods). The latter might include things like light houses, uncongested roads and air traffic control. But what it doesn't include is transfer payments.

So while you advocate cutting one of the only legitimate functions of government, you failed to mention one our founders couldn't find in the constitution.


Quote:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison


According to a quick search: "Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States" This is certainly higher today and still dwarfs our military spending.

So let's do this:

1. Make all the cuts I listed above.
2. Cut welfare transfer payments by 5% per year for the next 10 years.
3. Means test social security and raise the age for eligibility
4. Cut Medicare part D entirely
5. Build a border wall
6. Keep illegals out of our country and send those back who are already inside.
7. Stop all foreign aid

8. Keep our military incredibly strong


Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.

Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
Our health system has been under attack by Obama care in recent years and will certainly need some time to recover. But it's still the most amazing, technologically advanced system in the world. Get government out of it and it gets even better, because we agree that politicians are corrupt and corrupt it and should be term limited.

I agree that other nations should foot the bill for their own security. Too many have ignored their NATO commitments and they need to be billed for our expenditures on their behalf, to be sure. We should actually send them a bill for the slack we pick up and see what happens.

With regard to our strength, I am not sure there is a specific limit to how strong we should be...specifically the United States. There are a few reasons for this, but largely it's because we are stabilizing and we are benevolent with our power. There is really no other country on earth which has historically been as benevolent with power as the US. Most nations, when they acquire the power we have, use it to conquer neighbors (see Crimea recently, most of Europe during WWI and WWII, USSR satellites, etc). We, on the other hand, genuinely act as a stabilizing force (most of the time) and don't keep territory once unstable leaders are deposed. We've made some bad calls (Trying to depose Assad for instance), but overall, the US acts as a strong force for stability internationally. That is effectively something that provides us protection at home as well. If we can help keep the world stable, we can keep our nation safer. Now, that doesn't mean I think we should go on foreign adventures left and right and waste money. But it does mean that we should have the equivalent of "**** You Money" with regard to our military power. We should be so incredibly strong that the nearest 50 nations (enemies or allies) wouldn't dare confront us. We should retain that power and still remain benevolent with it.

Additionally, unlike welfare payments, our military spending has generated some amazing economic advancements via military innovations that bled over into the civilian world. Competition is creative and nothing is more creative than necessity. While the threat might only be perceived in some instances, the creativity it generates is not. Without military spending we wouldn't be talking like this because there wouldn't be an internet or computers...certainly not at the advanced stages they exist today. Other things we have arguably as a consequence of that spending include:

GPS
Duct Tape
Drones
Microwave Ovens
Disposable Razors
Weather Radar
Digital Cameras
Jet Engines
Superglue
Canned food
The EpiPen
Bloodbanks and transfusions
Nylon
Freeze Drying
Feminine Hygiene Products
Bug Spray

We get something for our money with military spending. We actually get a lot more than what we pay for (sometimes for ill, but mostly for good).



Beautifully written. Well said.
I just doubt it takes $600 billion per year to invent things. $400 billion would do the job. There's a lot of money unaccounted for every year, and it's a lot more than the cuts that Golem mentioned in a previous post.
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Buddha Bear said:

GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

GolemIII said:

Buddha Bear said:

As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.

Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings


I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
How bout that $600 billion+ military budget? Those listed above are peanuts compared to this one. When is a military budget TOO big? I don't think Americans really know, even though they act like they know what conservative spending is.


Well, the only truly legitimate functions of government (functions where only government should have final authority) are police, military and courts of law....or from an economic perspective, which is a bit broader, the non-excludable non-rival functions (public goods). The latter might include things like light houses, uncongested roads and air traffic control. But what it doesn't include is transfer payments.

So while you advocate cutting one of the only legitimate functions of government, you failed to mention one our founders couldn't find in the constitution.


Quote:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison


According to a quick search: "Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States" This is certainly higher today and still dwarfs our military spending.

So let's do this:

1. Make all the cuts I listed above.
2. Cut welfare transfer payments by 5% per year for the next 10 years.
3. Means test social security and raise the age for eligibility
4. Cut Medicare part D entirely
5. Build a border wall
6. Keep illegals out of our country and send those back who are already inside.
7. Stop all foreign aid

8. Keep our military incredibly strong


Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.

Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
What is your experience? You put that qualifier in there, so I think it's important to define what your experience is.
Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
contrario said:

Buddha Bear said:





Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.

Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
What is your experience? You put that qualifier in there, so I think it's important to define what your experience is.
8 years abroad. Lived in UK, Thailand, Uganda and Tanzania. In addition to those countries, I've used hospital services in South Africa, Australia and Singapore.

I could write a novel about the experience. Some worse in that list and some better, with UK, Singapore, Australia and South Africa all pretty good. All significantly cheaper. And access in all of those countries is easier. The US has good to great quality healthcare in most places. But access and price are pitiful, and it hasn't been a sustainable model in my 20 years of adulthood that I've experienced. I prefer a different system.




contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Buddha Bear said:

contrario said:

Buddha Bear said:





Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.

Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
What is your experience? You put that qualifier in there, so I think it's important to define what your experience is.
8 years abroad. Lived in UK, Thailand, Uganda and Tanzania. In addition to those countries, I've used hospital services in South Africa, Australia and Singapore.

I could write a novel about the experience. Some worse in that list and some better, with UK, Singapore, Australia and South Africa all pretty good. All significantly cheaper. And access in all of those countries is easier. The US has good to great quality healthcare in most places. But access and price are pitiful, and it hasn't been a sustainable model in my 20 years of adulthood that I've experienced. I prefer a different system.





All of those countries have benefited from the research and development that have been created by the for profit US system, but because of price controls, they haven't historically had to pay for the benefit. In other words, the US has paid for the R&D of new pharmaceuticals, medical treatment procedures and medical devices. With your experience, how do we solve that problem? Do we just accept the fact that without a profit motivator, some new medical research won't be completed because it isn't feasible to do so? Because if you look across the globe, medical research across the board is significantly less, or less without the understanding that they can charge whatever they want in the US for new breakthroughs. So if we move to a more socialized program, how do we ensure medical innovation will continue? How do we get other countries to accept their fair share? Or do we just accept that medical innovation going forward won't be what it is today?

And you can't give vague platitudes, I need specifics and empirical data if you are going to propose fundamentally changing our medical system. I'm on board with making changes to the medical system to make it affordable, but I think the two biggest changes is that we need to require other countries to pay their fair share of new medical innovations and we need transparency in pricing for medical care and an incentive to find better prices for care.
Keyser Soze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Buddha Bear said:

contrario said:

Buddha Bear said:





Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.

Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
What is your experience? You put that qualifier in there, so I think it's important to define what your experience is.
8 years abroad. Lived in UK, Thailand, Uganda and Tanzania. In addition to those countries, I've used hospital services in South Africa, Australia and Singapore.

I could write a novel about the experience. Some worse in that list and some better, with UK, Singapore, Australia and South Africa all pretty good (all with lower cancer survival rates). All significantly cheaper (misleading -funded by taxes). And access in all of those countries is easier (only if you are not counting wait times - wait times matter). The US has good to great quality healthcare in most places. But access and price are pitiful, and it hasn't been a sustainable model in my 20 years of adulthood that I've experienced. I prefer a different system.





See bold
Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
contrario said:

Buddha Bear said:

contrario said:

Buddha Bear said:





Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.

Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
What is your experience? You put that qualifier in there, so I think it's important to define what your experience is.
8 years abroad. Lived in UK, Thailand, Uganda and Tanzania. In addition to those countries, I've used hospital services in South Africa, Australia and Singapore.

I could write a novel about the experience. Some worse in that list and some better, with UK, Singapore, Australia and South Africa all pretty good. All significantly cheaper. And access in all of those countries is easier. The US has good to great quality healthcare in most places. But access and price are pitiful, and it hasn't been a sustainable model in my 20 years of adulthood that I've experienced. I prefer a different system.





All of those countries have benefited from the research and development that have been created by the for profit US system, but because of price controls, they haven't historically had to pay for the benefit. In other words, the US has paid for the R&D of new pharmaceuticals, medical treatment procedures and medical devices. With your experience, how do we solve that problem? Do we just accept the fact that without a profit motivator, some new medical research won't be completed because it isn't feasible to do so? Because if you look across the globe, medical research across the board is significantly less, or less without the understanding that they can charge whatever they want in the US for new breakthroughs. So if we move to a more socialized program, how do we ensure medical innovation will continue? How do we get other countries to accept their fair share? Or do we just accept that medical innovation going forward won't be what it is today?

And you can't give vague platitudes, I need specifics and empirical data if you are going to propose fundamentally changing our medical system. I'm on board with making changes to the medical system to make it affordable, but I think the two biggest changes is that we need to require other countries to pay their fair share of new medical innovations and we need transparency in pricing for medical care and an incentive to find better prices for care.
In regards to R&D, that is an argument pharmaceutical companies always make when politicians when we ask why we can't negotiate drug prices. Other countries do it. We are stupid for not doing so. Another corrupt congressional move that has destroyed a portion of our medical system. That leads back to my argument of congressional term limits that I think everyone agrees with. No change will happen without it.

Also, America is not the only innovator in the medical field. We may be a leader, but there are plenty of others leading the charge with us. The only facts that matter are

1) Our medical costs are highest in the world, and double that of the 2nd highest.

2) Our life expectancy rate is declining.

3) Our healthcare system does not have the best value in the world. We pay more, and we get less than other developed countries. Much like our tax system.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/09/which-country-has-worlds-best-healthcare-system-this-is-the-nhs

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/18/upshot/best-health-care-system-country-bracket.html

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Buddha Bear said:

contrario said:

Buddha Bear said:

contrario said:

Buddha Bear said:





Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.

Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
What is your experience? You put that qualifier in there, so I think it's important to define what your experience is.
8 years abroad. Lived in UK, Thailand, Uganda and Tanzania. In addition to those countries, I've used hospital services in South Africa, Australia and Singapore.

I could write a novel about the experience. Some worse in that list and some better, with UK, Singapore, Australia and South Africa all pretty good. All significantly cheaper. And access in all of those countries is easier. The US has good to great quality healthcare in most places. But access and price are pitiful, and it hasn't been a sustainable model in my 20 years of adulthood that I've experienced. I prefer a different system.





All of those countries have benefited from the research and development that have been created by the for profit US system, but because of price controls, they haven't historically had to pay for the benefit. In other words, the US has paid for the R&D of new pharmaceuticals, medical treatment procedures and medical devices. With your experience, how do we solve that problem? Do we just accept the fact that without a profit motivator, some new medical research won't be completed because it isn't feasible to do so? Because if you look across the globe, medical research across the board is significantly less, or less without the understanding that they can charge whatever they want in the US for new breakthroughs. So if we move to a more socialized program, how do we ensure medical innovation will continue? How do we get other countries to accept their fair share? Or do we just accept that medical innovation going forward won't be what it is today?

And you can't give vague platitudes, I need specifics and empirical data if you are going to propose fundamentally changing our medical system. I'm on board with making changes to the medical system to make it affordable, but I think the two biggest changes is that we need to require other countries to pay their fair share of new medical innovations and we need transparency in pricing for medical care and an incentive to find better prices for care.
In regards to R&D, that is an argument pharmaceutical companies always make when politicians when we ask why we can't negotiate drug prices. Other countries do it. We are stupid for not doing so. Another corrupt congressional move that has destroyed a portion of our medical system. That leads back to my argument of congressional term limits that I think everyone agrees with. No change will happen without it.

Also, America is not the only innovator in the medical field. We may be a leader, but there are plenty of others leading the charge with us. The only facts that matter are

1) Our medical costs are highest in the world, and double that of the 2nd highest.

2) Our life expectancy rate is declining.

3) Our healthcare system does not have the best value in the world. We pay more, and we get less than other developed countries. Much like our tax system.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/09/which-country-has-worlds-best-healthcare-system-this-is-the-nhs

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/18/upshot/best-health-care-system-country-bracket.html

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf


You completely ignored my entire point. To your points:

1) if we negotiated medical prices like other countries, the only country that gives medical R&D a potential profit source would go away. What would that do to R&D.

2) I was very careful with how I worded it because I knew you would try to claim innovation is coming from places outside the US. I agree medical R&D is coming from other places outside the US, but the reason it is feasible in the other countries is because the companies know they can make a profit in the US, even though they can't in other countries due to price controls.

So to my major point, do we just accept medical research will decline because there won't be a profit motivator, or do we somehow get the other countries to pay their fair share. And if the answer is the latter, how do we accomplish that without pissing off everyone else more than we already have.

3) life expectancy is influenced by more than just healthcare - nutrition (which is very poor in many parts and in many demographics of the US) and lifestyle have more of an impact on life expectancy than healthcare.

4) again, the reason our costs are so high is because we pay for the R&D (which is significant) for the entire world, and because there is no transparency in pricing in the US.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.