as for blakey, i just said i was not trying to pick an argument and you said otherwise! bizarre! where did i 'insult' the UK? in that regard, i insulted the USA in a similar fashion. i said they both had their pros and cons, if you read the post.
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
Minneapolis bridge collapse
- Thread starter icerfan
- Start date
Re: Okay, gotta call BS ...
That is what the military calls engineer, even though it's engineering technology in many cases.
Civil, Electrical, Mechanical -- the big 3 disciplines.
Their personnel do go to engineering and technology programs for that training, often taught by full engineers or experienced (and often licensed) engineering technologists.
Engineering also sucks up a lot of operations and logistics -- the vehicles used are massive and take a good chunk of budget.
Again, you did not pick a breakdown that is appropriate for the context.
And roads and structures, as well as systems.
That is what the military calls engineer, even though it's engineering technology in many cases.
Civil, Electrical, Mechanical -- the big 3 disciplines.
Their personnel do go to engineering and technology programs for that training, often taught by full engineers or experienced (and often licensed) engineering technologists.
Engineering also sucks up a lot of operations and logistics -- the vehicles used are massive and take a good chunk of budget.
Again, you did not pick a breakdown that is appropriate for the context.
And if you need even more detailed explanation as to what Operations and Maintenance (in this case) mean. Then I suggest you go straight to the source - The US Department of Defense.
Here is a link (a term you are no doubt none to familiar with - lol):
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/fy2007_overview.pdf
Here is a link (a term you are no doubt none to familiar with - lol):
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/fy2007_overview.pdf
Re: Okay, gotta call BS ...
Come on now.
Your statement was the following:
'You'd be surprised how little slashing the entire defense budget would dent this.
Especially since the largest, most significant portion of the DoD budget is engineering related.'
That statement is incorrect.
If you will refer to my above Department of Defense link you will see that engineering related expenditures ARE NOT the 'largest, most significant portion of the DoD budget.' There are engineering expenditures within the budget, obviously. But it is NOT the largest, most significant expenditure - as you stated it was.
Roads and structures? Engineering equipment, operations and logistics? It is your contention that these things make up the 'most significant portion' of the DoD defense budget?
Come on now.
Your statement was the following:
'You'd be surprised how little slashing the entire defense budget would dent this.
Especially since the largest, most significant portion of the DoD budget is engineering related.'
That statement is incorrect.
If you will refer to my above Department of Defense link you will see that engineering related expenditures ARE NOT the 'largest, most significant portion of the DoD budget.' There are engineering expenditures within the budget, obviously. But it is NOT the largest, most significant expenditure - as you stated it was.
it's cool - i'm not getting stressed about it
but you said you weren't trying to pick an argument <hence my use of quotation marks around "trying to pick an argument" in my last post>
then in your next post you say
i wouldn't class that as "big-ing up" the UK -
1 - you're saying the UK is incompetently run
and
2 - that brits, for some reason < perhaps naivete, stupidity or our inherant stoicism > accept this incompetence as a matter of course
:dunno:
anyhoo - i guess i'm getting off track with this so back to topic .....
and where did i say i was "big-ing up" [sic.] the USA. i said quite categorically that they both had their pros and cons. and many people do believe the UK has gone from bad to worse in the way services/infrastructure/transport is run.
...that's why i said it's all relative. was not trying to pick an argument - both the USA and the UK have their pros and cons. but, by and large, the USA is very exact and careful when it comes to structural defences and transportation issues.
On our infrastructure spending,the assertion that the federal govt. is spending anything close to what they spend on the defense budget on infrastructure is simply not true.Here is a good story on the spending.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_re_us/bridge_safety;_ylt=AjbtXHa.eVkVLKU6o.XgmbvZa7gF
From the story:
"The federal government provides 80 percent of the money for construction, repair and maintenance of the so-called federal-aid highway system including Interstate highways and bridges. But states set priorities and handle construction and maintenance contracts."
"The federal government is now providing about $40 billion a year to improve and expand the nation's highways and bridges."
40 billion is 1/10 of what we spend annualy on defense.And it is irelevant what amount of the defense budget is spent on civil enginnering as virtually none of that is money spent on US civilian use infrastructure.So to say that if we had the 430 billion or some large portion of that we spend on defense to spend on infrastructure would not make a difference is hard to understand.
The figure given by the enginneers report to fix every bridge in the country is 188 billion.Cut the defense budget in half and we could pay for it in one year.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_re_us/bridge_safety;_ylt=AjbtXHa.eVkVLKU6o.XgmbvZa7gF
From the story:
"The federal government provides 80 percent of the money for construction, repair and maintenance of the so-called federal-aid highway system including Interstate highways and bridges. But states set priorities and handle construction and maintenance contracts."
"The federal government is now providing about $40 billion a year to improve and expand the nation's highways and bridges."
40 billion is 1/10 of what we spend annualy on defense.And it is irelevant what amount of the defense budget is spent on civil enginnering as virtually none of that is money spent on US civilian use infrastructure.So to say that if we had the 430 billion or some large portion of that we spend on defense to spend on infrastructure would not make a difference is hard to understand.
The figure given by the enginneers report to fix every bridge in the country is 188 billion.Cut the defense budget in half and we could pay for it in one year.
Bush gets firsthand look at bridge
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070804/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
"MINNEAPOLIS - Flying over Minneapolis' collapsed highway bridge, President Bush got a bird's-eye view Saturday of the concrete slabs and twisted steel that once spanned the Mississippi River."
Never fear,Bush is here.Another Katrina in the making.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070804/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
"MINNEAPOLIS - Flying over Minneapolis' collapsed highway bridge, President Bush got a bird's-eye view Saturday of the concrete slabs and twisted steel that once spanned the Mississippi River."
Never fear,Bush is here.Another Katrina in the making.
Excellent post - IMO.
However, some may find that it is in the wrong context - lol.
Bridges to nowhere,congressional earmarks etc divert money from priorities to pork.Same old, same old.
The major issue in the american media as a result of this disaster has been our crumbling infrastructure,as it should be IMO.
I agree. I was just making a joke - a reference to posts from this and at least one other thread. Maybe you didn't get it. Probably should have done it in pm.
I never was good at telling jokes.
'These two FreeOneites walk into a brothel...'
LOL,hope they have lots of cash.No problem I didn't take in negatively.It's just that I have been told I am off topic sometimes here when I thought I wasn't.But back to this topic.This had really stirred debate here.How does a bridge in the wealthiest country in the world just fall over is whats being asked.And the resounding answer seems to be negligence by our leaders who spend the money badly or think tax cuts for the wealthy are better priorities.
Agreed. Booming economy!
Debt will hit $1.5 trillion if we stay in Iraq until 2017. Real estate is falling apart. Gas is high, everything dependendent on oil is going up, i.e. everything. Shady mortgages are all going into foreclosure and people can't declare personal bankruptcy anymore. Statistics show that a two income family usually can't buy a home. US car manufacturers probably won't survive. Typically stock market is making records based on no real value while smart money is still jumping in and out of the highs and lows. No chance that Bin Laden has been stopped, and it's only going to get worse.
No offense, but "tax cuts for millionaires" isn't looking at the problem, it's not even looking at a possible solution. The socialist spending agenda is the problem in the first place! You can't tax income earners into national prosperity -- especially when you're just going to turn around and spend it on stupid, self-defeating things!
Well, of course the bill of goods being sold is that tax breaks for millionairre's will work their way down into the pockets of the workers who are hired to work in the industries owned by the millionairre's who accumulated too much at the expense and detriment of others anyway.
:dunno: I've been called stupid before. I just don't get it?
Sounds like Marx.
:dunno: I've been called stupid before. I just don't get it?
Sounds like Marx.
Well, of course the bill of goods being sold is that tax breaks for millionairre's will work their way down into the pockets of the workers who are hired to work in the industries owned by the millionairre's who accumulated too much at the expense and detriment of others anyway.
:dunno: I've been called stupid before. I just don't get it?
Sounds like Marx.
Actually wouldn't tax breaks for the lower incomes which trickled up be better.I mean these are people who will put that extra income right into the economy buying normal consumer type goods.Yacht sales wouldn't go up much that way would be the downside.
"Eat the rich, eat the rich, don't you know, life is a bitch."
If people don't like it, then they can start their own business and work for themselves. That's why we call this the "land of opportunity." Unfortunately, 4 out of 5 businesses fail within 5 years, and not because of "big brother" or "big corporations" squashing them either. Some people just don't want to put in the effort.
Over 9 out of 10 US millionaires and 9 out of 10 US billionaires are first generation -- not inherited, not had it handed to them. That's why we call this the "land of opportunity," not the "land of entitlement." They built the better mousetrap. If you prevent them from doing such, then you're just going to make things more stagnant.
Besides, income tax breaks don't reward businesses or the wealthy, only mid-to-higher income earners. So raising or lowering them does nothing to capital gains taxes or anything related to existing wealth. It only affects the amount of discretionary income that the mid-to-higher income earners had.
And when it comes to raising taxes, one of the biggest ones was by Clinton -- who raised it on anyone making over $20,000. That's not exactly what I'd call "high income earners." It just utterly eliminated any "discretionary income" to those who had a chance to finally invest and build some wealth.
People come to this country -- some great people from all over the world -- because there is that incentive and opportunity. If you remove it, you just remove much of the incentive for anyone to excel. I mean, why would I travel and work away from my wife if the government is just going to take twice as much now? I'd be better off squandering my talents at home, doing something far below my capability.
That's why I'm working hard now, when the income taxes are low, to acquire my wealth. Because once they go back up, I'm going to stop working so much, because the government won't be able to tax the wealth I already acquired! It amazes me that people don't see that.
Since a significant number of people here think that capitalism is inherently bad, the former way-of-life in the US is fucked. And it won't be until our GDP plummets and people reality, "oh, that's what I gave up for the 'lowest common denominator'"?:dunno: I've been called stupid before. I just don't get it?
Sounds like Marx.
Yet another thread raped by anti-US capitalist agendas ...
There is no such thing as a "greater tax cut for low income" in a "progressive tax system."
You can only have "tax credits" -- which means the government subsidizes people, which is "redistribution of wealth."
I'd rather just go socialist, it's far more efficient for that.
A majority is not spent on luxuries, but on investments, which create private sector jobs.
Of the 9 out of 10 self-made millionaires in the US, they didn't do such by buying luxuries for themselves.
Most of them have a typical, family sedan, normal sized house (4 bedroom or less) and have expenditures not unlike the middle class.
Those are your "high income earners" -- the ones who fund new private sector jobs.
Basic microeconomics 101 at work here.
Obviously you don't understand the first thing about a "progressive tax system."
There is no such thing as a "greater tax cut for low income" in a "progressive tax system."
You can only have "tax credits" -- which means the government subsidizes people, which is "redistribution of wealth."
I'd rather just go socialist, it's far more efficient for that.
Obviously you don't know where most discretionary income is spent.I mean these are people who will put that extra income right into the economy buying normal consumer type goods.
Yacht sales wouldn't go up much that way would be the downside.
A majority is not spent on luxuries, but on investments, which create private sector jobs.
Of the 9 out of 10 self-made millionaires in the US, they didn't do such by buying luxuries for themselves.
Most of them have a typical, family sedan, normal sized house (4 bedroom or less) and have expenditures not unlike the middle class.
Those are your "high income earners" -- the ones who fund new private sector jobs.
Basic microeconomics 101 at work here.
Similar threads
