jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (29 posts)

$56.2 billion just for the intelligent budget last year!

  1. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    And we don't have any money to save our country!

    1. profile image84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      56.2 billion dollars in borrowed money, to be exact.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image79
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Worst!

    2. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hello Max.

      You can not possibly be suggesting that the US eliminate spending for intelligence gathering operations. This $56.2 billion is not unreasonable and it accounts for less than 1.5% of the $3.8 trillion in government outlays during 2012. {1}

      Using the scale of an average employee in NY State working in the private sector, this amount is equivalent to spending $14 of her $933 weekly salary for reading and learning materials that keep her informed about local and world events. {2}

      Education Answer also contributed the following…
      “56.2 billion dollars in borrowed money, to be exact.”
      (Greetings EA. Howzit goin’?)

      To be exact, EA, $56.2 billion is less than 5% of the $1.3 trillion added to the total national public debt outstanding during 2012. {3}

      In September, 2012, the Treasury Department was paying 00.1 percent interest on a 3 month T-bill. {4}

      The cost of borrowing $56.2 billion for one year increases the annual expenditures by 00.006% per year. 

      Therefore, if we are practical, rational, and realistic, we should know that we could not catch up on past due mortgage payments by slashing the tip we slip to our barber.

      Maxoxam41 also wrote…
      “And we don't have any money to save our country.”

      The $716 B spent for national defense was all about saving our country. Some knowledge about how the government spends is clearly missing. Other expenditures in fiscal year 2012 included…

      Transportation $102 B

      Education, Training, Employment
      and Social Services $139 B

      Health $361 B

      Veterans Benefits and Services $130 B

      Administration of Justice  $62.0 B
      {5}

      “We can’t be in an ideological battle to redeem the soul of the country if we don’t have the facts.” ~ Tavis Smiley

      We need to carefully examine the facts, Max, because we already have a glut of opinions.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Unite … ral_budget
      {2} http://www.bls.gov/ro2/aeearnny.htm
      {3} http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/s … dYear=2012
      {4} http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/busin … .html?_r=0
      {5} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Unite … ral_budget

      1. maxoxam41 profile image79
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I know exactly what our government is spending. Any idiot has access to this information so spare me your pseudo knowledge. I want a constructive debate not a glorification of grand larceny!

        1. Quilligrapher profile image91
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hi there Max.

          I am so sorry my facts upset you.

          I offered you a constructive debate in my first two paragraphs. You ignored them.

          “This $56.2 billion is not unreasonable and it accounts for less than 1.5% of the $3.8 trillion in government outlays during 2012.

          Using the scale of an average employee in NY State working in the private sector, this amount is equivalent to spending $14 of her $933 weekly salary for reading and learning materials that keep her informed about local and world events.”

          I offered you facts and supporting references to indicate US expenditures for intelligence gathering is not unreasonable. Surely, you have facts to prove me wrong.

          I also see a claim that “we don't have any money to save our country!” If this is not just bravado on your part then you must have some facts to back up this assertion also.

          I would welcome a constructive debate, one that consists of more than anemic USA bashing. I am happy to exchange ideas that include verifiable facts and traceable citations. I am looking forward to seeing if you are too.

          Thank you, Max, for sharing. I am sure your pseudo knowledge will be superior to mine. smile
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

        2. profile image84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's the problem.  Everybody in Washington tries to justify expenses by saying they are a drop in the bucket.  When the bucket is overflowing, every drop counts.  A billion dollars isn't much to a politician.  They throw it around like nothing.  Spend a billion here and a billion there, and we just go further and further into debt.  The point is that all our spending is bloated, so a sliver of a bloated budget is too much to spend.

          1. Quilligrapher profile image91
            Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Hi EA. Your opinion is coming across loud and clear. I thank you for sharing with us.

            Both you and the OP implied that spending $56.2B for intelligence gathering in 2013 was too much even though it is $2B less than 2011. {1} I thought it was a reasonable request for the flimsy reasons I gave. However, “the point is that all our spending is bloated,” you say, “so a sliver of a bloated budget is too much to spend.” You did say “too much to spend,” right?

            “The budget request lists five major missions for the intelligence agencies: warning American leaders about threats and instability; battling terrorism; countering weapons proliferation; cyberoperations; and counterespionage.” {2}

            Based upon your experience in this area, which of these goals would you cut back? If it is your opinion $56.2B is too high, please tell us the right amount and how you arrived at it.

            Having enough knowledge about this subject to criticize this spending must mean you also know enough about this subject to offer a solution. I would love to hear it.

            Please forgive me if this seems obtuse. With all due respect, I truly mean no offense, EA. Clearly, you object to spending deficits and the national debt. I think most Americans do. However, you joined in with the OP to target a highly complex subject without offering an iota of justification to support your conclusions. Having a high regard for one’s own opinions is not a good reason to criticize the government without doing adequate research and gathering an arsenal of facts. Neither you nor I can pretend to have all the answers unless we first take the time to research all the questions. 

            I am always grateful to you for all of your valuable contributions, EA. Thank you again.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
            {1} http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us … gence.html
            {2} Ibid.

            1. profile image84
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You have a nice way of giving backhanded compliments. 

              You state, "Having a high regard for one’s own opinions is not a good reason to criticize the government without doing adequate research and gathering an arsenal of facts." There are two sides to each coin.  You seem to do your research but also seem to be all too willing to support objectives that, by design, are intended to sound worthy of government funding.  Of course the goals of this program sound great.  That's how government works.  If you don't make your goals/objectives sound worthy, you won't acquire the kind of funding you desire.

              Look at the goals of our military, and you'll find that they, too, sound great.  As a conservative who believes in a strong military, I also support budgetary cuts in our military.  Look at the goals of our Federal Department of Education, and you'll find that they, too, sound great.  As a teacher who believes that a strong education is the future of America, I also support budgetary cuts in the Federal Department of Education.  You see, I believe that we will go broke, and that the spending has to be slowed down.  That doesn't mean I do not support spending for worthy programs like this; I just don't support a hemorrhaging of our budget. Virtually all government programs sound great on the surface.  That's how they got funded in the first place!  One has to look beyond the stated goals to see if they are actually being met and if they can be met for less money.  Don't politicians have a responsibility to provide the greatest services for the least money, or do they just justify spending based on great goals?

              How is that 56 billion dollars being spent?  Do you support the Patriot Act in its entirety?  Do you support drones flying over your home?  Does that seem American?  Do you support your own government infecting your computer with spyware?  Does that seem American?  Do you support your own government watching your phone calls or even listening to them?  How about satellites watching you?  How about massive computers intended to store information about you?  Perhaps you like the fact that Google and other companies have been "encouraged" to provide information about customers to the government.  Yes, I believe that 56 billion dollars is too much to spend on this.  I believe that our government is spending money targeting not only the terrorists but its own American citizens. I don't want to fully fund a program that targets its own people in addition to terrorists.  Further, if you do a little research, you'll find that there is plenty of waste and room for budgetary cuts:

              Homeland Security under fire for wasteful spending

              http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/ … 095154.php

              Abolish the Department of Homeland Security

              http://www.cato.org/publications/commen … d-security

              Best wishes.

              1. Quilligrapher profile image91
                Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Good Evening, EA.

                I do not give backhanded compliments. I do try to be honest about what I see and read. This sometimes leads to remarks that contain both sincere compliments and disserved criticism too. I am sorry that you can not tell the difference and have decided to call them backhanded. 

                Regarding intelligence gathering, I glean from your comments that you think less is better. Your rationale seems to favor slashing no matter what the consequences to national security. While I too share your concerns about budget deficits, waste in government, and the national debt, I favor targeting and eliminating specific examples of waste. I do not believe indiscriminate, imprudent, or poorly considered cutting is in the best interest of national security. You have made it clear that you do and you are entitled to your opinion.

                I thank you again for your extensive reply. I am grateful for the time and effort you invested.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                1. maxoxam41 profile image79
                  maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Which consequences? Let's see how far you will go in your argumentation! He couldn't careless about people in Detroit, homelessness... What happens in other countries doesn't concern any US citizen! America is bleeding and Quiligrapher wants to increase our debt. What else?

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image91
                    Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Hello, Max. Good to see you back.

                    I do not want to increase our debt and I never said I do. So let’s really focus on your own OP statement:

                    You wrote:
                    “$56.2 billion just for the intelligent [sic] budget last year!
                    And we don't have any money to save our country!”


                    While I never said this amount should be increased, you started this thread by implying $56.2B for intelligence gathering was too much to spend in 2013 even though it is $2B less than 2011. {1} I thought it was a reasonable request for the flimsy reasons I gave. You gave no reasons. If it is your opinion $56.2B is too high, please tell us the right amount and why.

                    When I suggested there would be consequences to national security from slashing funds for gathering intelligence, you replied, “Which consequences?”

                    I agree with you, the USA is hurting. I also agree that Detroit is hurting. And, yes, there are too many unemployed and homeless. I do not make light of any of these problems but there are other issues too.

                    You ask "Which consequences?"

                    Foreign enemies penetrated our borders and killed more than 3,000 Americans on American soil.

                    I have not forgotten that America is under attack. I believe it would be imprudent to slash funding for gathering intelligence about our enemies without considering any of the consequences.

                    You ask "Which consequences?"

                    “The fact that the United States has not suffered a large-scale attack since 9/11 speaks to the country’s counterterrorism successes.”  “Indeed since bin Laden’s death, at least nine publicly known Islamist-inspired terror plots against the United States have been foiled, bringing the total number of foiled plots since 9/11 to at least 50.” “47 were thwarted due to the concerted efforts of intelligence and law enforcement.” {2} [Emphasis added.]

                    You ask "Which consequences?"

                    “There still were 207 terrorist attacks recorded inside the US in the decade after 9/11 – about 20 per year on average, according to the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) maintained at the University of Maryland, widely regarded as the nation’s most complete tally.” {3}

                    You ask "Which consequences?"

                    “September 2009, the feds arrested Naji-bullah Zazi and at least four others. They were arrested for purchasing chemical explosive materials allegedly to bomb the New York subway system.” Wire taps authorized under the Patriot Act contributed to their apprehension. {4}

                    You ask "Which consequences?"

                    “Bomb plots targeting the New York Stock Exchange and the city's subway were among more than 50 terrorist acts worldwide thwarted by top-secret surveillance programs since the 2001 al Qaeda attacks on the United States, security officials said Tuesday.” {5} [Emphasis added.]


                    You ask "Which consequences?"

                    Our national security represents the consequences. What is the security of the United States worth? Do you have a number in mind? I have no doubt that pro-terrorist supporters around the world would celebrate the US slashing its intelligence programs.

                    All of that aside, I truly hope you have a great night, Max.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                    {1} http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us … gence.html
                    {2} http://www.heritage.org/research/report … -terrorism
                    {3} http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0427/ … iled-plots
                    {4} http://www.fox19.com/story/16214431/rea … or-attacks
                    {5} http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/18/politics/ … index.html

                  2. profile image0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you really believe that global events have no affect on America and on the lives of Americans?

                    Do the words "global economy" mean anything to you?

                2. profile image84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I can most certainly tell the difference between "disserved [sic] criticism" and backhanded compliments.  I can also tell when the "deserved criticism" is total opinion.  Let's be honest, there's no way to prove either one of us right on this issue.  Thus, your "deserved criticism" is total opinion.

                  I believe that less intelligence gathering on American citizens is better; I believe that we need to continue gathering intelligence on terrorists.  Targeting the majority of American citizens IS wasteful, and it runs contrary to everything America should stand for.  It's reminiscent McCarthyism, and I am opposed to funding such a program. 

                  I, too, thank you for your reply.  While we disagree, I am not going to pretend that I am right and criticize you because you disagree.  Instead, I will merely say that I respect your opinion, because I believe it comes from a good and just place, the desire to keep Americans safe.

                  Best wishes.

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image91
                    Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this


                    Thank you, EA, for sharing. I am grateful to you for your comments.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              2. maxoxam41 profile image79
                maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you for acknowledging the realities of our government. It is exactly what I am reproaching Quilligrapher, at first sight he seems liberal but as you dig deeper he is a newt gingrinch!

    3. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Define "save our country".

      1. maxoxam41 profile image79
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Do I look like a toy for you to play with? Don't insult my intelligence! If you didn't understand what I meant then you don't belong to this debate! Didn't you just refer to Detroit? Do you really think that Detroit will be the only one?

  2. profile image0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    Facts or data or documentary evidence matter little to those whose automated response to any facts or data or documentary evidence that have the potential to undermine their agenda---whatever it may be, is to claim that anyone who disagrees with them is unable to read or to reason and is equally unable to find and process information independently of "the media". If we disagree with them, we are subject to the most patently personal of attacks. If we disagree with them we are media puppets and fools.

    1. maxoxam41 profile image79
      maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      When the media won't be biased then I will listen. When our government that lies to us (weapon of mass destruction...), that acknowledges their crime after the statute of limitations (CIA...), that allows grand larceny by the white collars of Wall-Street... will act in the name of the people and not in the name of the elite, if it ever happens in this country, then I will support my government but, to do it blindly, I refuse.

      1. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And where do you get your data? Webpages? Blogs? Print? Radio?

        Are these not media?

        1. maxoxam41 profile image79
          maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No. Not mainstream, guaranteeing thereto its independence!

 
working