|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message Social
security was included. No. The Social Security Administration was included. Much of the money for Social Security (as well as other social programs) are 'off budget', I.E. the money spent on them is not discretionary. Until you can at least provide factual data to support your claim, then all you are doing is arguing against the facts I have presented, based on your opinion. I presented the breakdown of a $1.7 trillion federal budget. If you have factual data showing totally different amounts, please present them. If you sincerely believe that the "administration" of the Education, Health/Human Services, HUD, Food/Nutrition programs, Labor Department, Soc. Sec. Admin departments actually use almost $600B, just to "administrate," you're nuts. I have shown that it is indeed justified. No, you have done no such thing. You supplied your opinion that the National Debt was directly attributed to excessive defense spending. Again, at least I can say that I have supplied data to support my position, including showing where the data came from. You have yet to show ANY supporting data at all to support your position. If you can show such data, I would be more than happy to discuss it. Until such time though, you do not have a leg to stand on. No. You have provided carefully slanted data from a selected portion of the available sources. LOL What I have done is provide actual data. Whether or not your opinion agrees with it is irrelevant. Please provide factual evidence to support YOUR conclusions. Your main point remains an unsupported assumption based on your personal opinion and incomplete information. Again, this is ridiculous. Your original point, regarding social spending being a magnitude more than defense spending was the totally unsupported opinion. You provided absolutely NO data to support your opinion, for that is what it was, an opinion, not a factual statement. You want to PROVE me wrong? Then please do so. But proving means more than just saying I'm wrong. It means backing up your words with facts. Whether or not you agree with my facts, whether you think they're slanted or not, at least I took the time to gets some facts to back up my ideas. You, on the other hand, appear to think that simply spewing an opinion automatically makes it a fact. Like the saying goes, put up or shut up. Whether or not this "debate" (if I can call it that, as, between the two of us, I am the only one presenting any facts) will continue probably depends on whether or not the moderators here care to let it go on. Since it appears that most of the people in the group are rather more on the conservative side of things, it probably won't be long before I get shut out. But then again, who knows? Like I have said repeatedly, I'm all for a good spirited debate, but it's pointless when the other side can not, or will not, back up their positions. So, if you can nor or will not provide factual data from a reputable source, then please do us all a favor and not respond back. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 14:30:03 -0800 (PST), "The Ruzicka Family"
wrote: Whether or not this "debate" (if I can call it that, as, between the two of us, I am the only one presenting any facts) will continue probably depends on whether or not the moderators here care to let it go on. Since it appears that most of the people in the group are rather more on the conservative side of things, it probably won't be long before I get shut out. But then again, who knows? I'd like to think (and I assume) that one's position in the political spectrum is not used as a reason to "shut you out" from posting here. As a casual observer, it seems that the real debate between you and Derek is over who gets "the blame" for swallowing up money that might otherwise be used for the space program. Martha seemed to place that blame squarely on the defense budget. You seem to concur. Personally, I think our defense spending is far too high. Not that I think we have far too much defense, but I think it's as inefficient and over-spending as any other government (and often corporate) bureaucracy. My totally unsupported opinion is that we should be getting far more "bang for the buck", not only from the DOD, but from many places we currently pour our money into (not only governmental). Derek's assertion that social spending is an "order of magnitude" above military spending is pretty hard to swallow. So is the assertion that military spending is solely to blame for us not having enough money for space (or roads, healthcare, libraries- whatever). There are flaws in our system. One is the bloated and excessive cost of getting anything done anymore. Lots of reasons for that beyond simple greed and graft, I suppose. Another is that it's easy for a President and/or Congress to take the easy way out, financially and politically, and just spend beyond our government's revenues. You listed the interest on the national debt. That amount is appalling. That problem is getting worse at a record rate. Maybe if someone with courage actually tackled the problems with the bloated and inefficient (and in some cases, no doubt corrupt) status quo, and the citizenry began to realize that we then need to pay for what we get, we'd have the money to actually rebuild our infrastructure, provide the needed "social" programs, maintain an adequate defense _and_ explore space to boot. But I'm not holding my breath..... Dale |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
"Dale" wrote in message
... On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 14:30:03 -0800 (PST), "The Ruzicka Family" wrote: I'd like to think (and I assume) that one's position in the political spectrum is not used as a reason to "shut you out" from posting here. If I mistook the positions of anyone here, or gave offense, I do apologize. Derek's assertion that social spending is an "order of magnitude" above military spending is pretty hard to swallow. So is the assertion that military spending is solely to blame for us not having enough money for space (or roads, healthcare, libraries- whatever). There are flaws in our system. One is the bloated and excessive cost of getting anything done anymore. Lots of reasons for that beyond simple greed and graft, I suppose. Another is that it's easy for a President and/or Congress to take the easy way out, financially and politically, and just spend beyond our government's revenues. You listed the interest on the national debt. That amount is appalling. That problem is getting worse at a record rate. I was not trying to imply that I believe the spending we do on defense is to "blame" for anything, other than possibly the increasing deficit. I was simply trying to point out that the original statement of social program spending being a "magnitude" higher than defense was not accurate. Hell, I work for the largest defense contractor on the planet (or at least in the USA). I do though believe that our priorities in the USA have become skewed. When we can't afford simple things, like seat belts on our school buses, yet we pay for them for Iraqi kids, or we demand that NASA build a better shuttle, yet refuse to give them all the money needed to do a proper job (just like with the current shuttle system), things are out of whack. Again though, I do apologize to anyone else I may have inadvertently insulted. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:14:01 -0800 (PST), "The Ruzicka Family"
wrote: If I mistook the positions of anyone here, or gave offense, I do apologize. I was just trying to reassure you that you won't be banned from this group just because many members may have a different political viewpoint than yours- not that you mistook anyone's position. I was not trying to imply that I believe the spending we do on defense is to "blame" for anything, other than possibly the increasing deficit. My turn to apologize. I kinda merged your posts with Martha's, so perhaps I was the one who mistook someone's position... I'm not sure we're equipping Iraqi schoolbuses with seatbelts at the expense of our own kids, but I do agree that our priorities seem to be seriously out of whack. We should try to get back in whack Dale |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:46:57 -0800 (PST), Dale wrote:
I'm not sure we're equipping Iraqi schoolbuses with seatbelts at the expense of our own kids, but I do agree that our priorities seem to be seriously out of whack. We should try to get back in whack Having been on said schoolbuses since they started appearing in the mid-90s (when I was in middle school; I graduated HS in June 02, so...), I have to say that I never saw the point of seatbelts on em. In general, seatbelts have a purpose...but on the seats of your average schoolbus? No point, say I. John |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
"John Penta" wrote in message
... On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:46:57 -0800 (PST), Dale wrote: I'm not sure we're equipping Iraqi schoolbuses with seatbelts at the expense of our own kids, but I do agree that our priorities seem to be seriously out of whack. We should try to get back in whack Having been on said schoolbuses since they started appearing in the mid-90s (when I was in middle school; I graduated HS in June 02, so...), I have to say that I never saw the point of seatbelts on em. In general, seatbelts have a purpose...but on the seats of your average schoolbus? No point, say I. John Quite possibly true, but beside the intended point. The purpose of my comment was not if they are useful or not. The purpose was to say that it is a bit screwed up to NOT fund bus seat belts for American kids (such a request was turned down by the Bush Administration), yet at the same time pay for bus seat belts for Iraqi kids (a small part of the $87B appropriation). (and no, I do not have the reference to cite specifically on this one. it was just a passing reference I hear on CNN) Sorry for bringing it up though, as I did not mean for the discussion to turn primarily onto the advantages/disadvantages of bus seat belts! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 19:08:16 -0800 (PST), "The Ruzicka Family"
wrote: "John Penta" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:46:57 -0800 (PST), Dale wrote: I'm not sure we're equipping Iraqi schoolbuses with seatbelts at the expense of our own kids, but I do agree that our priorities seem to be seriously out of whack. We should try to get back in whack Having been on said schoolbuses since they started appearing in the mid-90s (when I was in middle school; I graduated HS in June 02, so...), I have to say that I never saw the point of seatbelts on em. In general, seatbelts have a purpose...but on the seats of your average schoolbus? No point, say I. John Quite possibly true, but beside the intended point. The purpose of my comment was not if they are useful or not. The purpose was to say that it is a bit screwed up to NOT fund bus seat belts for American kids (such a request was turned down by the Bush Administration), yet at the same time pay for bus seat belts for Iraqi kids (a small part of the $87B appropriation). (and no, I do not have the reference to cite specifically on this one. it was just a passing reference I hear on CNN) Sorry for bringing it up though, as I did not mean for the discussion to turn primarily onto the advantages/disadvantages of bus seat belts! Hmm. OK then. In all fairness to the appropriations committee, seatbelts have (IIRC) standard on US schoolbuses for a while now. Since Iraq drives on the right, it wouldn't be hard to use US-make schoolbuses, and lots of schools probably have buses they don't use. John |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
"The Ruzicka Family" wrote:
I was simply trying to point out that the original statement of social program spending being a "magnitude" higher than defense was not accurate. Something you have failed to do, because you have failed to examine the entirety of goverment spending. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
"The Ruzicka Family" wrote:
Quite possibly true, but beside the intended point. The purpose of my comment was not if they are useful or not. The purpose was to say that it is a bit screwed up to NOT fund bus seat belts for American kids (such a request was turned down by the Bush Administration) Why should the Federal goverment pay for things that are rightly the province of the several States? D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
... "The Ruzicka Family" wrote: I was simply trying to point out that the original statement of social program spending being a "magnitude" higher than defense was not accurate. Something you have failed to do, because you have failed to examine the entirety of goverment spending. D. This is really getting rather boring. If you have factual data from a reputable source to present that supports your side, then by all means present it and prove your point. On the other hand, if you can NOT supply such data, then you can NOT support your side. It's really pretty simple. That's the way reasonable debates work. Again, as the saying goes, put up or shut up. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|