I admire your positive outlook but we are talking about flooding the country
with thousands more unemployed when many of the unemployed
are employable but there are no jobs for them.
Our military have a job, they deserve the job they were trained for,
that is to defend our country.
I don't quite agree that the country will be flooded with returning vets looking for jobs. And there ARE jobs but it is necessary for a mindset change in this country. Our children will have more than one career and will have to consistently get new training to remain relevant in the job market otherwise they will be unemployed or most likely underemployed. I think the days of career military jobs are going to be few and far between. It is not feasible to think the US can continue to police the rest of the world. We simply cannot support the military industrial complex anymore nor should we want to support it. It is time for us to move forward. I listened to a good episode on NPR today about cutting spending and David Wessel made a good point about mindless spending cuts. They just can't happen. We have to set priorities and cut everywhere and that includes the military in order for the US to get it's financial house in order.
Yes I agree I am for military cuts along with all the social budget cuts as well.
Gotta get the budget balanced again with everyone equally suffering
Let PBS provide for itself... love those old music shows money drives
Public broadcasting gets $445 million which is .01% of the ENTIRE US budget. While defense spending gets $1 trillion. Yes, by all means, lets balance the budget. But why is it ok to say that PBS should provide for itself? How much of the $1 trillion are you cutting from defense? Will it be a proportional percentage? We should INSIST that Congress cut defense spending because we ARE NOT defending ourselves. Instead, we are propping up governments in order to retain our power all throughout the world so we can maintain economic supremacy over the entire world. Let's not presume that defense spending has anything to do with taking care of our soldiers. Your implication is that this budget is for the soliders when in reality it is not.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I don't quite agree that the country will be flooded with returning vets looking for jobs. And there ARE jobs but it is necessary for a mindset change in this country. Our children will have more than one career and will have to consistently get new training to remain relevant in the job market otherwise they will be unemployed or most likely underemployed. I think the days of career military jobs are going to be few and far between. It is not feasible to think the US can continue to police the rest of the world. We simply cannot support the military industrial complex anymore nor should we want to support it. It is time for us to move forward. I listened to a good episode on NPR today about cutting spending and David Wessel made a good point about mindless spending cuts. They just can't happen. We have to set priorities and cut everywhere and that includes the military in order for the US to get it's financial house in order.
Yes I agree I am for military cuts along with all the social budget cuts as well.
Gotta get the budget balanced again with everyone equally suffering
Let PBS provide for itself... love those old music shows money drives
Public broadcasting gets $445 million which is .01% of the ENTIRE US budget. While defense spending gets $1 trillion. Yes, by all means, lets balance the budget. But why is it ok to say that PBS should provide for itself? How much of the $1 trillion are you cutting from defense? Will it be a proportional percentage? We should INSIST that Congress cut defense spending because we ARE NOT defending ourselves. Instead, we are propping up governments in order to retain our power all throughout the world so we can maintain economic supremacy over the entire world. Let's not presume that defense spending has anything to do with taking care of our soldiers. Your implication is that this budget is for the soliders when in reality it is not.
Not sure where my little pie chart is but it shows what the budget goes to,
military and social is equal.
I want to cut everything across the board equally.
Now most blues do not want to cut the social programs, often because that is
where their bread and butter comes from, but sorry they must.
Equal across the board.
And yes waste will hopefully pretty much disappear
when the money funds are no longer endless...
just like in our own households.
And yes other countries will be without a sugar daddy
or a comptroller whatever the individual case is. Let humanitarian efforts
rely on humans not governments.
Got to get the deficit under control, balance the budget, and take care of your own...
including our people in uniform, however that will be.
Wow you are something :wtf: ... you got all that insulting crap out of one question.
Just ready to pounce huh? sickening ...
Of course I am not making war a job creation. I oppose war on all levels!
To assume otherwise with a simple question shows your arrogant bias
and small mindedness towards me.
I'm asking what would he do to put the thousands who come home to work?
It was as simply as that. No alterior motive, no war monger here,
good lord you are just priceless!
I should have pressed the f'in button on this one! Get personally insulting much?
best reread the guidelines.
ya, go ahead, report me again :roll: show me the personal attack....I was commenting on the mindset behind leaving troops in foreign countries, some in combat operations, because there is no work for them at home. I have no problem calling that line of thinking 'psychotic', regardless of who says it. Funny that you follow the crocodile tears with a string of personal attacks of your own.
Like I said...you'll side step the inference since it was framed as a question....called that, didn't I?
I am not, our military deserve to be provided quality positions and we know if they return home
in the thousands they will be treated like all the past vets...
not so good huh?
Lies. You never said they deserve to be provided quality positions. You said this:
Our military have a job, they deserve the job they were trained for,
that is to defend our country.
You deny it on the same page you said it? :fp:
Your country spends hundreds of billions on foreign military bases. You don't think you could use a portion of that money to help out your vets?
I know the answer.....it could, but new markets, and the resources of foreign countries are a much more fruitful ROI for your corporate leaders, and spending on foreign hospitals and infrastructure is just capitalism at work...while doing the same in your own country is socialism...
Public broadcasting gets $445 million which is .01% of the ENTIRE US budget. While defense spending gets $1 trillion. Yes, by all means, lets balance the budget. But why is it ok to say that PBS should provide for itself? How much of the $1 trillion are you cutting from defense? Will it be a proportional percentage? We should INSIST that Congress cut defense spending because we ARE NOT defending ourselves. Instead, we are propping up governments in order to retain our power all throughout the world so we can maintain economic supremacy over the entire world. Let's not presume that defense spending has anything to do with taking care of our soldiers. Your implication is that this budget is for the soliders when in reality it is not.
...
Fact Check -
U.S. Military spending is 700 billion for fiscal 2012. Divide that by 365 days and you get $1,780,821,917.00 spent per day by the Pentagon.
$450,000,000.00 per year to fund PBS comes to about 25% of that $1,780,821,917.00 per day expense or about 6 hours of Defense spending.
...
Source: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/ ... y-spending
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
back on topic.....the EU reached a preliminary deal to tighten sanctions on Iran. It places further restrictions on resource based imports, but focuses mostly on the financial sector.
This article does a good job of explaining how focusing on the financial sector means these sanctions are not 'smart' or 'targeted', and DO punish everyday people with no connection to the government.
Sanctions Will Kill Tens of Thousands of Iranians
by Muhammad Sahimi, August 09, 2012
When she was running for president in 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton threatened to “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel. Her opponent, Barack Obama, responded that Clinton’s threat was “too much like Bush.” Four years later Iran has not attacked Israel (and will not do so, unless attacked by Israel first), but President Obama is actually carrying out the threat that his current secretary of state made in 2008, waging an undeclared war on Iran and Iranians. The U.S. and Israel have launched cyber attacks, assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists, and supported armed ethnic groups that carry out terrorist operations inside Iran, killing innocent people. In addition, Israel has been active in the Kurdistan region of Iraq and in the Republic of Azerbaijan, encouraging and supporting small separatist movements among Iranian ethnic groups, such as the Kurds and Azeris.
But the most devastating part of the undeclared war on Iran is the tough economic sanctions that the U.S. and its allies in the European Union (EU) have imposed on Iran. Officially, the sanctions are supposed to be “smart” and “targeted,” aiming only to hurt the Iranian government, particularly the Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, the most powerful part of Iran’s military. But in reality, the most vulnerable members of Iranian society, namely, millions of ordinary Iranians, have suffered the most. Not only have they been hurt badly by the sanctions, but tens of thousands of them, if not more, will also lose their lives if the sanctions continue, even without being tightened further.
The supposedly “smart” sanctions that the United States and its EU allies have imposed on Iran have been expanded to all areas, even if they are not part of the official sphere of sanctions. This is because the U.S. and its EU allies have imposed sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank and practically all other Iranian banks that are involved in commercial transactions with the outside world. Since these banks open lines of credit for exports and imports and provide financial guarantees for commerce with the outside world, it has become very difficult, if not impossible, to import vital good and products into the country.
An area that has been particularly hit hard is the pharmaceutical sector. Although Iran produces a large part of the medications and drugs that its population needs, based on the generic versions of brand-name pharmaceuticals, it is unable to produce the most advanced drugs that have come to the market over the past 10–15 years that deal with a variety of illnesses and medical problems, simply because their generic versions are not yet available. As a result, Iran must still import a significant amount of drugs every year to deal with illnesses such as leukemia and AIDS. But the sanctions that the United States and its allies have imposed on Iran’s banks and other financial institutions have made importing necessary drugs and medical instruments almost impossible. At the same time, as Iran’s oil exports continue to decrease because of the sanctions, the financial resources of the nation become increasingly strained, making it more difficult to pay for expensive drugs, even if a way can be found to import them. As a result, the shortage of drugs will soon become a catastrophe if not addressed. I have been able to personally verify the shortage, as two of my brothers-in-law are pharmacists and run large pharmacies in Iran. They have confirmed to me that the crisis is reaching dangerous levels.
The board of directors of the Iranian Hemophilia Society recently informed the World Federation of Hemophilia that the lives of tens of thousands of children are being endangered by the lack of proper drugs caused by international economic sanctions. According to the Society, while the export of drugs to Iran has not been banned, the sanctions imposed on the Central Bank of Iran and the country’s other financial institutions have severely disrupted the purchase and transfer of medical goods. Describing itself as a nonpolitical organization that has been active for 45 years, the Society condemned the “inhumane and immoral” U.S. and EU sanctions and appealed to international organizations for help.
Tens of thousands of Iranian boys and men have hemophilia and need certain drugs that must be imported. Many of them need surgery for a variety of reasons, but in the absence of proper drugs for their hemophilia, the surgeries cannot be performed. In fact, several reports from Iran indicate that all surgeries for all hemophiliac patients have been canceled.
But the problem is not restricted to hemophiliacs. Reports indicate that advanced drugs for a variety of cancers (particularly leukemia), heart diseases, lung problems, multiple sclerosis, and thalassemia cannot be imported, endangering the lives of tens of thousands of people. There are about 37,000 Iranians with multiple sclerosis, a debilitating disease that can be controlled only with advanced medications; without them, the patients will die. And given that, even under the best medical conditions, 40,000 Iranians lose their lives to cancer every year, and that it has been predicted by many experts that Iran will have a “cancer tsunami” by 2015, because every year 70,000–80,000 new cases of cancer are identified in Iran, the gravity of the situation becomes even more glaring.
Considering that over the last year economic sanctions against Iran have been tightened and that sanctions against Iran’s financial institutions went into effect only over the last few months, the above statistics must be seen as preliminary. As the sanctions drag on and the West tries to dry up all of Iran’s earnings from oil, not only will the drug shortage kill a large number of Iranians, but shortages of food and other important products may also become significant. When the West imposed economic sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s, a very large number of Iraqi children lost their lives as a result. The most reliable estimate of the number of dead, provided by UNICEF, put it around 500,000. Given that Iran’s population is three times that of Iraq, if the sanctions imposed on Iran last several years, the number of dead could be much higher than in Iraq.
In the meantime, the sanctions have not affected the hardline position of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has called for the development of a “resistance economy” in order to resist the pressure by the West. There are already voices both within Iran and in the diaspora that call on the Iranian leadership to compromise with the West. The U.S. can make such voices stronger and louder if it offers to lift some of the sanctions in return for more flexibility by Iran, particularly regarding its enrichment of uranium to 19.75%. But, under pressure from Israel and its American allies in an election year, the president and his advisers have been unyielding. The U.S. offered Iran practically nothing in the negotiations in Moscow but demanded that Iran give up one of its most important negotiation cards, namely, enrichment of uranium to 19.75% and the facility where this is done, the Fordow site near Qom. The result has been only more suffering by ordinary Iranians.
It may be useless to preach to the Obama administration about the human toll of its policy toward Iran, given that the president has continued the destructive Middle East policies of George W. Bush and has been even tougher and more harmful to the Iranian people. When United States citizens abroad are assassinated with the president’s approval and without due process and when Salafi and Wahhabi thugs in Syria supported by one of the worst religious dictatorships in the world, Saudi Arabia, are hailed by the administration as “freedom fighters,” it’s absurd to expect the president to have a moral policy toward Iran.
But the emerging catastrophe will be an ethical and moral problem for the West for decades to come, a catastrophe that is being created simply because the West blindly pursues crippling sanctions on Iran in order to stop a nonexistent nuclear weapons program at the urging of the War Party in the U.S. and its Israeli allies.
Well this is a new low.
I'm sure you will try to sidestep this inference since you framed it as a question, but you are blatantly evoking war as job creation, something even the most emboldened hawks would never do. Rather than dealing with your internal employment/poverty issues, you’d have your military continue to occupy other countries, knowing full well that this will result in innocents (both American and lesser peoples) dying. Subsidize your economy with blood, huh? Although it’s nice to see someone tell it like it is for once, this inference makes me sick to my stomach :evil: It displays amoral and antisocial behavior, extreme egocentricity, and a failure to learn from experience.
Can you guess where I found that list of traits?
It’s the definition of ‘psychopath’.
and yes you should be greatly reprimanded for this when I asked a simple question
of another poster...
you assuming I was a war monger and was totally insulting and personal :wtf:
but now you will lie and skirm you way out saying it was not directed at me but as we see it was
you see you admit an inference... I was not inferring what you thought! :evil:
To Drowned...
I hear what you are saying... but isn't Iran responsible to for what Iran chooses to spend their money on? Medicine? Military? Medicine? Military?
My arguement is... Iran holds some of the responsibility on what is happening to them.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm not sure why their own government is not to blame...
protect their people, compromise, comply.
Is it because the power in place could care less about it's own people?
They are disposable to them?
Did you not read the above article? The sanctions aren't hurting the Iranian leadership. The sanctions are hurting 75 Million Iranian civilians. Iran isn't imposing sanctions on the Iranian people, the U.S is.
Of course not don't you get that that is the Iranian's governments fault?
and they do not care enough about their people to protect them by complying, compromising,
and negotiating in the world arena.
pandora: yes, it was an inference, I admitted that from the start. And I wasn't exactly trying to fool anyone by saying 'someone' :roll: ....quoting you made that pretty obvious.
I admire your positive outlook but we are talking about flooding the country
with thousands more unemployed when many of the unemployed
are employable but there are no jobs for them.
Our military have a job, they deserve the job they were trained for,
that is to defend our country.
Both of your posts on bringing the troops home spoke of doing so in a negative light. If you're saying they should stay put until we figure it out what to do with them - I think that's psychotic and stand by my words. If you meant they should be brought home and you're just asking what to do with them when they get here, then yes, I misunderstood you and apologize for that.
Now can we get back on topic?
Wow you are something :wtf: ... you got all that insulting crap out of one question.
Just ready to pounce huh? sickening ...
Of course I am not making war a job creation. I oppose war on all levels!
To assume otherwise with a simple question shows your arrogant bias
and small mindedness towards me.
I'm asking what would he do to put the thousands who come home to work?
It was as simply as that. No alterior motive, no war monger here,
good lord you are just priceless!
I should have pressed the f'in button on this one! Get personally insulting much?
best reread the guidelines.
ya, go ahead, report me again :roll: show me the personal attack....I was commenting on the mindset behind leaving troops in foreign countries, some in combat operations, because there is no work for them at home. I have no problem calling that line of thinking 'psychotic', regardless of who says it. Funny that you follow the crocodile tears with a string of personal attacks of your own.
Like I said...you'll side step the inference since it was framed as a question....called that, didn't I?
I am not, our military deserve to be provided quality positions and we know if they return home
in the thousands they will be treated like all the past vets...
not so good huh?
Lies. You never said they deserve to be provided quality positions. You said this:
Our military have a job, they deserve the job they were trained for,
that is to defend our country.
You deny it on the same page you said it? :fp:
Your country spends hundreds of billions on foreign military bases. You don't think you could use a portion of that money to help out your vets?
I know the answer.....it could, but new markets, and the resources of foreign countries are a much more fruitful ROI for your corporate leaders, and spending on foreign hospitals and infrastructure is just capitalism at work...while doing the same in your own country is socialism...
that wouldn't be my answer ...
is this directed at me, all Americans, or what? as long as you got it all figured out
my answer would be yes, like I'm assuming many Americans, we could provide for our vets with some of the money. Of course it's funny money,
kind of the problem everything must be cut, huge budget cuts to get back on track.
The thing with building infrastructure and hospitals at least you got something to show,
to provide, and to give both in finished product and in the making. Yes, some aspects of
capitalism is very good. I'd rather build free hospitals here than have Obamacare that's for sure.
...
Fact Check -
U.S. Military spending is 700 billion for fiscal 2012. Divide that by 365 days and you get $1,780,821,917.00 spent per day by the Pentagon.
$450,000,000.00 per year to fund PBS comes to about 25% of that $1,780,821,917.00 per day expense or about 6 hours of Defense spending.
...
Source: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/ ... y-spending
pandora: yes, it was an inference, I admitted that from the start. And I wasn't exactly trying to fool anyone by saying 'someone' :roll: ....quoting you made that pretty obvious.
I admire your positive outlook but we are talking about flooding the country
with thousands more unemployed when many of the unemployed
are employable but there are no jobs for them.
Our military have a job, they deserve the job they were trained for,
that is to defend our country.
Both of your posts on bringing the troops home spoke of doing so in a negative light. If you're saying they should stay put until we figure it out what to do with them - I think that's psychotic and stand by my words. If you meant they should be brought home and you're just asking what to do with them when they get here, then yes, I misunderstood you and apologize for that.
Now can we get back on topic?
No that is how you took the posts.... negative.
They were simple questions on providing for our thousands of service people returning home.
They were legitimate questions and concerns. I was not saying they should stay put
so yes I accept the apology ...
and I'm really glad I'm not a war monger for more than the obvious reason
if there are any on the board beware
To Drowned...
I hear what you are saying... but isn't Iran responsible to for what Iran chooses to spend their money on? Medicine? Military? Medicine? Military?
My arguement is... Iran holds some of the responsibility on what is happening to them.
Absolutely. But when faced with the world and regional superpowers flexing their muscles in their face....do they have a choice but to participate in the arms race? Other than to comply and/or compromise? (which, again, they shouldn't have to do!) Sounds like they were spending money on medicine until the sanctions made that impossible.
I'm probably guilty of having too much empathy for the positions taken by these 'enemy' countries....Guess I'm trying to balance the lack thereof shown by many. When the economy is destroyed by foreign powers with a history of killing your leaders and bombing your neighbours....it runs the risk of strengthening the government's position; galvanizing the population against the people causing the misery. We can easily say it's the Iranian govt causing the misery...but the Iranian people may not see it that way....they are being exposed to their own propaganda - knowing the history, it wouldn't be hard to demonize the US to Iranians.
So where does this all leave us? This entire debate centres around the opinion that Iran is a threat to Israel. THAT is what we need to be discussing. Because if we determine that it is not (and I think we can), then all of this is just further cause for blowback against the west....shooting ourselves in the foot again.
I have no idea if that answered your question or if I'm just rambling
No that is how you took the posts.... negative.
They were simple questions on providing for our thousands of service people returning home.
They were legitimate questions and concerns. I was not saying they should stay put
so yes I accept the apology ...
and I'm really glad I'm not a war monger for more than the obvious reason
if there are any on the board beware
sigh....I try to diffuse the discussion by apologizing if I got the meaning of your inference wrong, and you have to point out that my comprehension is too poor to gauge your tone.
You said that they would be homeless and hungry if we brought them home. That's not negative?
Progress is made when both sides can give a little...I did. But you keep provoking while playing victim. whatever, I'm done with this.
Public broadcasting gets $445 million which is .01% of the ENTIRE US budget. While defense spending gets $1 trillion. Yes, by all means, lets balance the budget. But why is it ok to say that PBS should provide for itself? How much of the $1 trillion are you cutting from defense? Will it be a proportional percentage? We should INSIST that Congress cut defense spending because we ARE NOT defending ourselves. Instead, we are propping up governments in order to retain our power all throughout the world so we can maintain economic supremacy over the entire world. Let's not presume that defense spending has anything to do with taking care of our soldiers. Your implication is that this budget is for the soliders when in reality it is not.
...
Fact Check -
U.S. Military spending is 700 billion for fiscal 2012. Divide that by 365 days and you get $1,780,821,917.00 spent per day by the Pentagon.
$450,000,000.00 per year to fund PBS comes to about 25% of that $1,780,821,917.00 per day expense or about 6 hours of Defense spending.
...
Source: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/ ... y-spending
If you want to skew the numbers to justify large expenditures on the entire defense budget then your numbers will certainly justify your point of view. However, my main point was the reason our budget is so large for defense (and the trillion dollars I quoted includes more than just military spending but also other DoD departments, Pentagon, etc) because we are NOT defending our nation against any imminent attack but rather trying to retain our status as economic superpower.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Fact Check -
U.S. Military spending is 700 billion for fiscal 2012. Divide that by 365 days and you get $1,780,821,917.00 spent per day by the Pentagon.
$450,000,000.00 per year to fund PBS comes to about 25% of that $1,780,821,917.00 per day expense or about 6 hours of Defense spending.
...
Source: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/ ... y-spending
If you want to skew the numbers to justify large expenditures on the entire defense budget then your numbers will certainly justify your point of view. However, my main point was the reason our budget is so large for defense (and the trillion dollars I quoted includes more than just military spending but also other DoD departments, Pentagon, etc) because we are NOT defending our nation against any imminent attack but rather trying to retain our status as economic superpower.
...
Actually... the numbers I have provided support your arguement that cutting the spending on PBS is almost nothing when looked at in the big picture and compare to Defense spending alone.
1 year of what is spent on PBS... is spent every 6 HOURS by the Pentagon.
In other words... cutting PBS out entirely will do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.
In numeric terms we can understand...
Let's say you are spending $6,500.00 a year on your car. That amount represents the Defense budget.
You also spend $4.50 on Avocados each year. This represents the same amount (in relative terms) as PBS is getting.
Romney is saying... you will have a lower annual debt... if you eliminate your annual avacado consumption.
...
That is a true fact... your debt per year would only be $6500.00 per year... instead of $6504.50 per year.
Only an idiot would think that would make a significant impact on yuor financial health.
...
In other words... I agree with your point.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Absolutely. But when faced with the world and regional superpowers flexing their muscles in their face....do they have a choice but to participate in the arms race? Other than to comply and/or compromise? (which, again, they shouldn't have to do!) Sounds like they were spending money on medicine until the sanctions made that impossible.
I'm probably guilty of having too much empathy for the positions taken by these 'enemy' countries....Guess I'm trying to balance the lack thereof shown by many. When the economy is destroyed by foreign powers with a history of killing your leaders and bombing your neighbours....it runs the risk of strengthening the government's position; galvanizing the population against the people causing the misery. We can easily say it's the Iranian govt causing the misery...but the Iranian people may not see it that way....they are being exposed to their own propaganda - knowing the history, it wouldn't be hard to demonize the US to Iranians.
So where does this all leave us? This entire debate centres around the opinion that Iran is a threat to Israel. THAT is what we need to be discussing. Because if we determine that it is not (and I think we can), then all of this is just further cause for blowback against the west....shooting ourselves in the foot again.
I have no idea if that answered your question or if I'm just rambling
...
I hear you. I'm just saying that both sides of this issue hold responsibility.
Speaking purely objectively... if Iran were smart... they would lay low (i.e., tell that Members Only jacket wearing jack-ass to shut the fuck up with the 'Death To Israel' rhetoric already) and continue to feed their influence to the like-minded Shi'ite majority in Iraq. That would be an easy way to create a Shi'ia Bloc in a Sunni dominated region and add to their oil production capabilities.
From there... work out a deal to be the sole oil exporter to China and and Russia and gain greater global economic influence.
...
But, Fundamentalist rarely live in a rational, reasoning world. So, they let their little blabbermouth spew shit that leads to sanctions.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Fact Check -
U.S. Military spending is 700 billion for fiscal 2012. Divide that by 365 days and you get $1,780,821,917.00 spent per day by the Pentagon.
$450,000,000.00 per year to fund PBS comes to about 25% of that $1,780,821,917.00 per day expense or about 6 hours of Defense spending.
...
Source: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/ ... y-spending
If you want to skew the numbers to justify large expenditures on the entire defense budget then your numbers will certainly justify your point of view. However, my main point was the reason our budget is so large for defense (and the trillion dollars I quoted includes more than just military spending but also other DoD departments, Pentagon, etc) because we are NOT defending our nation against any imminent attack but rather trying to retain our status as economic superpower.
...
Actually... the numbers I have provided support your arguement that cutting the spending on PBS is almost nothing when looked at in the big picture and compare to Defense spending alone.
1 year of what is spent on PBS... is spent every 6 HOURS by the Pentagon.
In other words... cutting PBS out entirely will do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.
In numeric terms we can understand...
Let's say you are spending $6,500.00 a year on your car. That amount represents the Defense budget.
You also spend $4.50 on Avocados each year. This represents the same amount (in relative terms) as PBS is getting.
Romney is saying... you will have a lower annual debt... if you eliminate your annual avacado consumption.
...
That is a true fact... your debt per year would only be $6500.00 per year... instead of $6504.50 per year.
Only an idiot would think that would make a significant impact on yuor financial health.
...
In other words... I agree with your point.
Gotcha! Math is not my strong suit :fp:
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Did you not read the above article? The sanctions aren't hurting the Iranian leadership. The sanctions are hurting 75 Million Iranian civilians. Iran isn't imposing sanctions on the Iranian people, the U.S is.
Of course not don't you get that that is the Iranian's governments fault?
and they do not care enough about their people to protect them by complying, compromising,
and negotiating in the world arena.
[/quote]
Complying, compromising, and negotiating in the World arena? Is that what Israel does? Why aren't we imposing sanctions on Israel for failing to comply with international law? Why aren't we causing the Israeli people to suffer as a result of the actions of their government?
Did you read the above article? Or was your "Of course not" your answer to that question?
It is not feasible to think the US can continue to police the rest of the world.
America isn't the World's policeman. America is the bully of the World. Police are ostensibly supposed to maintain order and the rule of law. America's actions in the World are the complete opposite.
It is not feasible to think the US can continue to police the rest of the world.
America isn't the World's policeman. America is the bully of the World. Police are ostensibly supposed to maintain order and the rule of law. America's actions in the World are the complete opposite.
I agree about the bully aspect; however, I think many Americans view our actions as just and in the name of securing or procuring freedom for others. The larger question still remains: why do we continue to feel the need to impose sanctions and exert our dominance over other countries? What do we think will be gained by continuing to demonstrate our superior military force and economic strength? What else do we need? I don't think we need to remain THE superpower in order to retain our standing in the world. In fact, I wonder if we couldn't benefit from a shared responsibility with other nations.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Did you not read the above article? The sanctions aren't hurting the Iranian leadership. The sanctions are hurting 75 Million Iranian civilians. Iran isn't imposing sanctions on the Iranian people, the U.S is.
Of course not don't you get that that is the Iranian's governments fault?
and they do not care enough about their people to protect them by complying, compromising,
and negotiating in the world arena.
Complying, compromising, and negotiating in the World arena? Is that what Israel does? Why aren't we imposing sanctions on Israel for failing to comply with international law? Why aren't we causing the Israeli people to suffer as a result of the actions of their government?
Did you read the above article? Or was your "Of course not" your answer to that question?[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
Yes dear I read it and I understand the situation, like some here I
believe it is Iran's governments job to protect their people. How do they do that?
By not pissing off the rest of the world.
Hey you as well as I know why we have the relationship we do with Israel,
so why ask questions you know the answers too?
I know why, you don't need to answer that...
I do that too, ask questions I know the answer to.
No that is how you took the posts.... negative.
They were simple questions on providing for our thousands of service people returning home.
They were legitimate questions and concerns. I was not saying they should stay put
so yes I accept the apology ...
and I'm really glad I'm not a war monger for more than the obvious reason
if there are any on the board beware
sigh....I try to diffuse the discussion by apologizing if I got the meaning of your inference wrong, and you have to point out that my comprehension is too poor to gauge your tone.
You said that they would be homeless and hungry if we brought them home. That's not negative?
Progress is made when both sides can give a little...I did. But you keep provoking while playing victim. whatever, I'm done with this.
Not true I was happy to forgive your overly insulting jump to conclusion.
Obviously your passion brought that on, I understand and admire that.
I thought the apology was great especially since you did not put a 'but' at the end of it ,
well done and thank you for that.
I think it was a realistic question, not a negative one. Obviously I am not alone,
many are concerned with returning vets and an already historic unemployment rate.
Many are concerned with our homeless and hungry and adding to the rolls.
I'm not sure if you read my post about how many vets may feel when they return
to a weekly entitlement check after being heroes. They are proud patriotic people
I want them to not be discarded, I want them to be appreciated.
VIENNA - A drawing based on information from inside an Iranian military site shows an explosives containment chamber of the type needed for nuclear arms-related tests -- tests that U.N. inspectors suspect Tehran has conducted at the site. Iran denies such testing and has neither confirmed nor denied the existence of such a chamber.
The computer-generated drawing was provided to the Associated Press by an official of a country tracking Iran's nuclear program who said it proves the structure exists, despite Tehran's refusal to acknowledge it.
That official said the image is based on information from a person who had seen the chamber at the Parchin military site, adding that going into detail would endanger the life of that informant.
The official comes from an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) member country that is severely critical of Iran's assertions that its nuclear activities are peaceful and asserts they are a springboard for making atomic arms.
Comments
Public broadcasting gets $445 million which is .01% of the ENTIRE US budget. While defense spending gets $1 trillion. Yes, by all means, lets balance the budget. But why is it ok to say that PBS should provide for itself? How much of the $1 trillion are you cutting from defense? Will it be a proportional percentage? We should INSIST that Congress cut defense spending because we ARE NOT defending ourselves. Instead, we are propping up governments in order to retain our power all throughout the world so we can maintain economic supremacy over the entire world. Let's not presume that defense spending has anything to do with taking care of our soldiers. Your implication is that this budget is for the soliders when in reality it is not.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
military and social is equal.
I want to cut everything across the board equally.
Now most blues do not want to cut the social programs, often because that is
where their bread and butter comes from, but sorry they must.
Equal across the board.
And yes waste will hopefully pretty much disappear
when the money funds are no longer endless...
just like in our own households.
And yes other countries will be without a sugar daddy
or a comptroller whatever the individual case is. Let humanitarian efforts
rely on humans not governments.
Got to get the deficit under control, balance the budget, and take care of your own...
including our people in uniform, however that will be.
Like I said...you'll side step the inference since it was framed as a question....called that, didn't I?
Lies. You never said they deserve to be provided quality positions. You said this: You deny it on the same page you said it? :fp:
Your country spends hundreds of billions on foreign military bases. You don't think you could use a portion of that money to help out your vets?
I know the answer.....it could, but new markets, and the resources of foreign countries are a much more fruitful ROI for your corporate leaders, and spending on foreign hospitals and infrastructure is just capitalism at work...while doing the same in your own country is socialism...
:fp:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Fact Check -
U.S. Military spending is 700 billion for fiscal 2012. Divide that by 365 days and you get $1,780,821,917.00 spent per day by the Pentagon.
$450,000,000.00 per year to fund PBS comes to about 25% of that $1,780,821,917.00 per day expense or about 6 hours of Defense spending.
...
Source: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/ ... y-spending
Hail, Hail!!!
This article does a good job of explaining how focusing on the financial sector means these sanctions are not 'smart' or 'targeted', and DO punish everyday people with no connection to the government.
Sanctions Will Kill Tens of Thousands of Iranians
by Muhammad Sahimi, August 09, 2012
http://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2012 ... -iranians/
When she was running for president in 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton threatened to “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel. Her opponent, Barack Obama, responded that Clinton’s threat was “too much like Bush.” Four years later Iran has not attacked Israel (and will not do so, unless attacked by Israel first), but President Obama is actually carrying out the threat that his current secretary of state made in 2008, waging an undeclared war on Iran and Iranians. The U.S. and Israel have launched cyber attacks, assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists, and supported armed ethnic groups that carry out terrorist operations inside Iran, killing innocent people. In addition, Israel has been active in the Kurdistan region of Iraq and in the Republic of Azerbaijan, encouraging and supporting small separatist movements among Iranian ethnic groups, such as the Kurds and Azeris.
But the most devastating part of the undeclared war on Iran is the tough economic sanctions that the U.S. and its allies in the European Union (EU) have imposed on Iran. Officially, the sanctions are supposed to be “smart” and “targeted,” aiming only to hurt the Iranian government, particularly the Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, the most powerful part of Iran’s military. But in reality, the most vulnerable members of Iranian society, namely, millions of ordinary Iranians, have suffered the most. Not only have they been hurt badly by the sanctions, but tens of thousands of them, if not more, will also lose their lives if the sanctions continue, even without being tightened further.
The supposedly “smart” sanctions that the United States and its EU allies have imposed on Iran have been expanded to all areas, even if they are not part of the official sphere of sanctions. This is because the U.S. and its EU allies have imposed sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank and practically all other Iranian banks that are involved in commercial transactions with the outside world. Since these banks open lines of credit for exports and imports and provide financial guarantees for commerce with the outside world, it has become very difficult, if not impossible, to import vital good and products into the country.
An area that has been particularly hit hard is the pharmaceutical sector. Although Iran produces a large part of the medications and drugs that its population needs, based on the generic versions of brand-name pharmaceuticals, it is unable to produce the most advanced drugs that have come to the market over the past 10–15 years that deal with a variety of illnesses and medical problems, simply because their generic versions are not yet available. As a result, Iran must still import a significant amount of drugs every year to deal with illnesses such as leukemia and AIDS. But the sanctions that the United States and its allies have imposed on Iran’s banks and other financial institutions have made importing necessary drugs and medical instruments almost impossible. At the same time, as Iran’s oil exports continue to decrease because of the sanctions, the financial resources of the nation become increasingly strained, making it more difficult to pay for expensive drugs, even if a way can be found to import them. As a result, the shortage of drugs will soon become a catastrophe if not addressed. I have been able to personally verify the shortage, as two of my brothers-in-law are pharmacists and run large pharmacies in Iran. They have confirmed to me that the crisis is reaching dangerous levels.
The board of directors of the Iranian Hemophilia Society recently informed the World Federation of Hemophilia that the lives of tens of thousands of children are being endangered by the lack of proper drugs caused by international economic sanctions. According to the Society, while the export of drugs to Iran has not been banned, the sanctions imposed on the Central Bank of Iran and the country’s other financial institutions have severely disrupted the purchase and transfer of medical goods. Describing itself as a nonpolitical organization that has been active for 45 years, the Society condemned the “inhumane and immoral” U.S. and EU sanctions and appealed to international organizations for help.
Tens of thousands of Iranian boys and men have hemophilia and need certain drugs that must be imported. Many of them need surgery for a variety of reasons, but in the absence of proper drugs for their hemophilia, the surgeries cannot be performed. In fact, several reports from Iran indicate that all surgeries for all hemophiliac patients have been canceled.
But the problem is not restricted to hemophiliacs. Reports indicate that advanced drugs for a variety of cancers (particularly leukemia), heart diseases, lung problems, multiple sclerosis, and thalassemia cannot be imported, endangering the lives of tens of thousands of people. There are about 37,000 Iranians with multiple sclerosis, a debilitating disease that can be controlled only with advanced medications; without them, the patients will die. And given that, even under the best medical conditions, 40,000 Iranians lose their lives to cancer every year, and that it has been predicted by many experts that Iran will have a “cancer tsunami” by 2015, because every year 70,000–80,000 new cases of cancer are identified in Iran, the gravity of the situation becomes even more glaring.
Considering that over the last year economic sanctions against Iran have been tightened and that sanctions against Iran’s financial institutions went into effect only over the last few months, the above statistics must be seen as preliminary. As the sanctions drag on and the West tries to dry up all of Iran’s earnings from oil, not only will the drug shortage kill a large number of Iranians, but shortages of food and other important products may also become significant. When the West imposed economic sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s, a very large number of Iraqi children lost their lives as a result. The most reliable estimate of the number of dead, provided by UNICEF, put it around 500,000. Given that Iran’s population is three times that of Iraq, if the sanctions imposed on Iran last several years, the number of dead could be much higher than in Iraq.
In the meantime, the sanctions have not affected the hardline position of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has called for the development of a “resistance economy” in order to resist the pressure by the West. There are already voices both within Iran and in the diaspora that call on the Iranian leadership to compromise with the West. The U.S. can make such voices stronger and louder if it offers to lift some of the sanctions in return for more flexibility by Iran, particularly regarding its enrichment of uranium to 19.75%. But, under pressure from Israel and its American allies in an election year, the president and his advisers have been unyielding. The U.S. offered Iran practically nothing in the negotiations in Moscow but demanded that Iran give up one of its most important negotiation cards, namely, enrichment of uranium to 19.75% and the facility where this is done, the Fordow site near Qom. The result has been only more suffering by ordinary Iranians.
It may be useless to preach to the Obama administration about the human toll of its policy toward Iran, given that the president has continued the destructive Middle East policies of George W. Bush and has been even tougher and more harmful to the Iranian people. When United States citizens abroad are assassinated with the president’s approval and without due process and when Salafi and Wahhabi thugs in Syria supported by one of the worst religious dictatorships in the world, Saudi Arabia, are hailed by the administration as “freedom fighters,” it’s absurd to expect the president to have a moral policy toward Iran.
But the emerging catastrophe will be an ethical and moral problem for the West for decades to come, a catastrophe that is being created simply because the West blindly pursues crippling sanctions on Iran in order to stop a nonexistent nuclear weapons program at the urging of the War Party in the U.S. and its Israeli allies.
and yes you should be greatly reprimanded for this when I asked a simple question
of another poster...
you assuming I was a war monger and was totally insulting and personal :wtf:
but now you will lie and skirm you way out saying it was not directed at me but as we see it was
you see you admit an inference... I was not inferring what you thought! :evil:
I hear what you are saying... but isn't Iran responsible to for what Iran chooses to spend their money on? Medicine? Military? Medicine? Military?
My arguement is... Iran holds some of the responsibility on what is happening to them.
Hail, Hail!!!
and they do not care enough about their people to protect them by complying, compromising,
and negotiating in the world arena.
Both of your posts on bringing the troops home spoke of doing so in a negative light. If you're saying they should stay put until we figure it out what to do with them - I think that's psychotic and stand by my words. If you meant they should be brought home and you're just asking what to do with them when they get here, then yes, I misunderstood you and apologize for that.
Now can we get back on topic?
that wouldn't be my answer ...
is this directed at me, all Americans, or what? as long as you got it all figured out
my answer would be yes, like I'm assuming many Americans,
we could provide for our vets with some of the money. Of course it's funny money,
kind of the problem everything must be cut, huge budget cuts to get back on track.
The thing with building infrastructure and hospitals at least you got something to show,
to provide, and to give both in finished product and in the making. Yes, some aspects of
capitalism is very good. I'd rather build free hospitals here than have Obamacare that's for sure.
You'd have a better chance of asking my cat to explain the cosmological origins of life and the validity of the God concept.
Good luck with that.
Hail, Hail!!!
:fp:
And I dont use the facepalm lightly.
They were simple questions on providing for our thousands of service people returning home.
They were legitimate questions and concerns. I was not saying they should stay put
so yes I accept the apology ...
and I'm really glad I'm not a war monger for more than the obvious reason
if there are any on the board beware
I'm probably guilty of having too much empathy for the positions taken by these 'enemy' countries....Guess I'm trying to balance the lack thereof shown by many. When the economy is destroyed by foreign powers with a history of killing your leaders and bombing your neighbours....it runs the risk of strengthening the government's position; galvanizing the population against the people causing the misery. We can easily say it's the Iranian govt causing the misery...but the Iranian people may not see it that way....they are being exposed to their own propaganda - knowing the history, it wouldn't be hard to demonize the US to Iranians.
So where does this all leave us? This entire debate centres around the opinion that Iran is a threat to Israel. THAT is what we need to be discussing. Because if we determine that it is not (and I think we can), then all of this is just further cause for blowback against the west....shooting ourselves in the foot again.
I have no idea if that answered your question or if I'm just rambling
You said that they would be homeless and hungry if we brought them home. That's not negative?
Progress is made when both sides can give a little...I did. But you keep provoking while playing victim. whatever, I'm done with this.
If you want to skew the numbers to justify large expenditures on the entire defense budget then your numbers will certainly justify your point of view. However, my main point was the reason our budget is so large for defense (and the trillion dollars I quoted includes more than just military spending but also other DoD departments, Pentagon, etc) because we are NOT defending our nation against any imminent attack but rather trying to retain our status as economic superpower.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Actually... the numbers I have provided support your arguement that cutting the spending on PBS is almost nothing when looked at in the big picture and compare to Defense spending alone.
1 year of what is spent on PBS... is spent every 6 HOURS by the Pentagon.
In other words... cutting PBS out entirely will do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.
In numeric terms we can understand...
Let's say you are spending $6,500.00 a year on your car. That amount represents the Defense budget.
You also spend $4.50 on Avocados each year. This represents the same amount (in relative terms) as PBS is getting.
Romney is saying... you will have a lower annual debt... if you eliminate your annual avacado consumption.
...
That is a true fact... your debt per year would only be $6500.00 per year... instead of $6504.50 per year.
Only an idiot would think that would make a significant impact on yuor financial health.
...
In other words... I agree with your point.
Hail, Hail!!!
I hear you. I'm just saying that both sides of this issue hold responsibility.
Speaking purely objectively... if Iran were smart... they would lay low (i.e., tell that Members Only jacket wearing jack-ass to shut the fuck up with the 'Death To Israel' rhetoric already) and continue to feed their influence to the like-minded Shi'ite majority in Iraq. That would be an easy way to create a Shi'ia Bloc in a Sunni dominated region and add to their oil production capabilities.
From there... work out a deal to be the sole oil exporter to China and and Russia and gain greater global economic influence.
...
But, Fundamentalist rarely live in a rational, reasoning world. So, they let their little blabbermouth spew shit that leads to sanctions.
Hail, Hail!!!
Gotcha! Math is not my strong suit :fp:
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Complying, compromising, and negotiating in the World arena? Is that what Israel does? Why aren't we imposing sanctions on Israel for failing to comply with international law? Why aren't we causing the Israeli people to suffer as a result of the actions of their government?
Did you read the above article? Or was your "Of course not" your answer to that question?
'If there are any on the board'? Are you serious?
America isn't the World's policeman. America is the bully of the World. Police are ostensibly supposed to maintain order and the rule of law. America's actions in the World are the complete opposite.
I agree about the bully aspect; however, I think many Americans view our actions as just and in the name of securing or procuring freedom for others. The larger question still remains: why do we continue to feel the need to impose sanctions and exert our dominance over other countries? What do we think will be gained by continuing to demonstrate our superior military force and economic strength? What else do we need? I don't think we need to remain THE superpower in order to retain our standing in the world. In fact, I wonder if we couldn't benefit from a shared responsibility with other nations.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Complying, compromising, and negotiating in the World arena? Is that what Israel does? Why aren't we imposing sanctions on Israel for failing to comply with international law? Why aren't we causing the Israeli people to suffer as a result of the actions of their government?
Did you read the above article? Or was your "Of course not" your answer to that question?[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
Yes dear I read it and I understand the situation, like some here I
believe it is Iran's governments job to protect their people. How do they do that?
By not pissing off the rest of the world.
Hey you as well as I know why we have the relationship we do with Israel,
so why ask questions you know the answers too?
I know why, you don't need to answer that...
I do that too, ask questions I know the answer to.
if they are, the wink usually means lighten it up.
Obviously your passion brought that on, I understand and admire that.
I thought the apology was great especially since you did not put a 'but' at the end of it ,
well done and thank you for that.
I think it was a realistic question, not a negative one. Obviously I am not alone,
many are concerned with returning vets and an already historic unemployment rate.
Many are concerned with our homeless and hungry and adding to the rolls.
I'm not sure if you read my post about how many vets may feel when they return
to a weekly entitlement check after being heroes. They are proud patriotic people
I want them to not be discarded, I want them to be appreciated.
Godfather.
The computer-generated drawing was provided to the Associated Press by an official of a country tracking Iran's nuclear program who said it proves the structure exists, despite Tehran's refusal to acknowledge it.
That official said the image is based on information from a person who had seen the chamber at the Parchin military site, adding that going into detail would endanger the life of that informant.
The official comes from an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) member country that is severely critical of Iran's assertions that its nuclear activities are peaceful and asserts they are a springboard for making atomic arms.
http://www.startribune.com/world/151319025.html?refer=y
found this.
Godfather.