One of the key things that people are overlooking is the uncertainty that SDI injects into calculations. SDI makes the chances of a successful first strike or decapitation strike much more uncertain. That helps deterrence greatly.
An "an unequivocal waste" you say? That's funny, since the US seems to have a small scale working ballistic missile defense system in operation NOW. Elements of that system are being deployed to Europe to protect them from Iran.
Do you think that system was created without research?
According to the 2014 Social Security Trustees Annual Report, Social Security's "annual cash-flow deficit will average about $77 billion between 2014 and 2018." After that, the report says, the deficit will rise "steeply as income growth slows (and) the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers."
There were chemical agent casualties caused by chemical munitions in Iraq.
There was an outbreak of anthrax in Iraq around the time some biological weapons were found and recovered.
As for the rest, Iraq had nothing to do with 911. That was the first big lie that got America involved in yet another costly (in money and lives) and unnecessary war.
The big lie is the one claiming that the Bush administration blamed 9/11 on Iraq. That didn't happen.
Iraq was very costly for al Qaeda - they lost many fighters and much treasure there. It helped expose their operations and finances in the wider region and to roll many of them up.
Unfortunately that isn't how it has worked in practice, which is one of the reasons there is a huge and growing problem.
The money for the Social Security "trust fund" has been replaced with IOUs and used for general spending for decades. Now the Baby Boomers are retiring, and the money isn't there. The only way to get it is to raise taxes to repay the IOUs, take the money from other spending, print money, or pay less than expected. None of those solutions works to the advantage of the people.
So you responded to someone using welfare as a reference to the massive US social welfare spending, which really is a danger to US fiscal health, and you responded with the 1/80th of social welfare programs formally titled Welfare? Nice. Nice.
Did the idea of discussing total social welfare spending in comparison to the defense budget ever cross your mind?
I guess that the US deployment of a working ballistic missile defense system slipped right by you? The portion based on the Aegis air defense system works particularly well.
Iraq manufactured it's own chemical and biological weapons. It developed the technology to do so either on its own (some such as mustard gas are relatively simple to make with industrial chemicals), or working with other Arab nations (mainly Egypt). It didn't buy any of them from the US. The US wouldn't even consider selling them.
Although there were some of those weapons found scattered around the country, there were also large numbers in Iraqi munitions bunkers. They were in good enough shape to cause a number of chemical weapons casualties in Iraq.
Nearly all of the entitlement programs are "social welfare" programs, as is the actual program called "Welfare." Trying to pretend that the US doesn't spend large amounts of money on social welfare programs because not all of the money is funneled through the program actually titled "Welfare" isn't particularly honest either. The US spends a huge amount of money on social welfare spending, enough that the continuing growth of spending in those programs constitutes a genuine danger to the financial health of the republic. It isn't sustainable unless something changes.
Welfare spending has hit a stunning, all-time high. A new Congressional Research Service report confirms what research here at The Heritage Foundation has shown: The government’s means-tested welfare programs now cost taxpayers roughly $1 trillion a year. (This figure does not include either Social Security or Medicare.)
Unlike general government programs, mean-tested welfare programs provide assistance exclusively to poor and low-income individuals. The federal government runs over 80 means-tested programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care and social services to around 100 million Americans.
You also seem to be of the delusion that the US spends a lot of money on public assistance. It spends very little. For what we paid for the Iraq war (not including nation building expenses) we could fund US public assistance programs at the current levels for 219 years.
23.55% Social Security 18.33% National Defense 15.53% Income Security 14.41% Medicare 10.37% Health 06.39% Net Interest 04.02% Veterans Benefits and Services 02.65% Transportation - truncated -
The US spends a great deal on public assistance / social welfare. The additional spending for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq was a minor portion of the defense budget, and was dwarfed by social welfare spending every year. And please note that this is only Federal spending. States, counties, and cities also have their own budgets for social welfare spending.
Hillary the soon to be indicted felon? Mishandling classified information is no laughing matter. Ordering underlings to strip classification markings to send information via unsecure email is even more serious.
(note that the third sentence is completely made up, probably by yourself)
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee released a scathing statement Friday, calling on Hillary Clinton to "come clean" after the State Department released an email in which she asked an aide to send information on a non-secure system after attempts to send the document securely failed.
Sen. Chuck Grassley said the email, released at about 1:30 am Friday morning along with about 3,000 other emails from Clinton's State Department tenure, is "disturbing," and "appears to show the former Secretary of State instructing a subordinate to remove the headings from a classified document and send it to her in an unsecure manner."
And now a special request . . .
The year was 1993 and the Clintons were in the White House, and there we got a glimpse into the character of Hillary Clinton. . .
Slashdot Mirror
So you want government corruption, sex crimes against children, and terrorism to be somewhere between more difficult and impossible to investigate?
One wonders where your moral crusade will end?
They will be just fine for government use. Your claim is specious.
Perhaps they are, but they are still social welfare programs.
It is a pity that Head Start doesn't seem to have an enduring effect. It only takes a couple of grades before it is a wash.
One of the key things that people are overlooking is the uncertainty that SDI injects into calculations. SDI makes the chances of a successful first strike or decapitation strike much more uncertain. That helps deterrence greatly.
An "an unequivocal waste" you say? That's funny, since the US seems to have a small scale working ballistic missile defense system in operation NOW. Elements of that system are being deployed to Europe to protect them from Iran.
Do you think that system was created without research?
The Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS)
Social Security belongs right where it is. The "trust fund" money has been used for general spending and replaced by IOUs since the 1960s.
How would you close Social Security's deficit?
According to the 2014 Social Security Trustees Annual Report, Social Security's "annual cash-flow deficit will average about $77 billion between 2014 and 2018." After that, the report says, the deficit will rise "steeply as income growth slows (and) the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers."
There were chemical agent casualties caused by chemical munitions in Iraq.
There was an outbreak of anthrax in Iraq around the time some biological weapons were found and recovered.
As for the rest, Iraq had nothing to do with 911. That was the first big lie that got America involved in yet another costly (in money and lives) and unnecessary war.
The big lie is the one claiming that the Bush administration blamed 9/11 on Iraq. That didn't happen.
Iraq was very costly for al Qaeda - they lost many fighters and much treasure there. It helped expose their operations and finances in the wider region and to roll many of them up.
Unfortunately that isn't how it has worked in practice, which is one of the reasons there is a huge and growing problem.
The money for the Social Security "trust fund" has been replaced with IOUs and used for general spending for decades. Now the Baby Boomers are retiring, and the money isn't there. The only way to get it is to raise taxes to repay the IOUs, take the money from other spending, print money, or pay less than expected. None of those solutions works to the advantage of the people.
They clearly are social welfare programs and trying to pretend they aren't is nonsense.
The question before us was one of budgets, spending in one category versus another. Your comment is unrelated to that.
Yes, and "Welfare" is a specific instance or subset of welfare.
So you responded to someone using welfare as a reference to the massive US social welfare spending, which really is a danger to US fiscal health, and you responded with the 1/80th of social welfare programs formally titled Welfare? Nice. Nice.
Did the idea of discussing total social welfare spending in comparison to the defense budget ever cross your mind?
I guess that the US deployment of a working ballistic missile defense system slipped right by you? The portion based on the Aegis air defense system works particularly well.
You seem to know a lot about zombies.
Iraq manufactured it's own chemical and biological weapons. It developed the technology to do so either on its own (some such as mustard gas are relatively simple to make with industrial chemicals), or working with other Arab nations (mainly Egypt). It didn't buy any of them from the US. The US wouldn't even consider selling them.
Although there were some of those weapons found scattered around the country, there were also large numbers in Iraqi munitions bunkers. They were in good enough shape to cause a number of chemical weapons casualties in Iraq.
Nearly all of the entitlement programs are "social welfare" programs, as is the actual program called "Welfare." Trying to pretend that the US doesn't spend large amounts of money on social welfare programs because not all of the money is funneled through the program actually titled "Welfare" isn't particularly honest either. The US spends a huge amount of money on social welfare spending, enough that the continuing growth of spending in those programs constitutes a genuine danger to the financial health of the republic. It isn't sustainable unless something changes.
So you were using ONE program versus the defense spending? I don't think that is a valid comparison.
Welfare Spending at All-Time Highand Growing
Welfare spending has hit a stunning, all-time high. A new Congressional Research Service report confirms what research here at The Heritage Foundation has shown: The government’s means-tested welfare programs now cost taxpayers roughly $1 trillion a year. (This figure does not include either Social Security or Medicare.)
Unlike general government programs, mean-tested welfare programs provide assistance exclusively to poor and low-income individuals. The federal government runs over 80 means-tested programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care and social services to around 100 million Americans.
Here you go:
Two-Thirds of All Federal Spending Went to Entitlement Programs in 2014
Federal Spending by the Numbers, 2014: Government Spending Trends in Graphics, Tables, and Key Points
You also seem to be of the delusion that the US spends a lot of money on public assistance. It spends very little. For what we paid for the Iraq war (not including nation building expenses) we could fund US public assistance programs at the current levels for 219 years.
That is rubbish.
Two-Thirds of All Federal Spending Went to Entitlement Programs in 2014
Federal Spending by the Numbers, 2014: Government Spending Trends in Graphics, Tables, and Key Points
Share of 2013 Spending
23.55% Social Security
18.33% National Defense
15.53% Income Security
14.41% Medicare
10.37% Health
06.39% Net Interest
04.02% Veterans Benefits and Services
02.65% Transportation
- truncated -
The US spends a great deal on public assistance / social welfare. The additional spending for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq was a minor portion of the defense budget, and was dwarfed by social welfare spending every year. And please note that this is only Federal spending. States, counties, and cities also have their own budgets for social welfare spending.
Likewise.
Which is why I'll continue bringing facts, the truth, to these discussions despite the fact that many hate it, and in some cases can't identify it.
Indeed.
We are fortunate indeed that Trump has come along, otherwise how could we understand Australian politics?
Vincit omnia veritas.
Ah, nothing like sweet pedantry to finish off the charade...
Yes, I'm sure you find it disagreeable that I want to see some sort of actual connection between myself and things you ascribe to me.
On the other hand that also means I can't claim that you enjoy "sweet pederasty" while finishing off the shiraz.
Hillary the soon to be indicted felon? Mishandling classified information is no laughing matter. Ordering underlings to strip classification markings to send information via unsecure email is even more serious.
(note that the third sentence is completely made up, probably by yourself)
Nope.
Senator: Newly released Clinton email 'disturbing'
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee released a scathing statement Friday, calling on Hillary Clinton to "come clean" after the State Department released an email in which she asked an aide to send information on a non-secure system after attempts to send the document securely failed.
Sen. Chuck Grassley said the email, released at about 1:30 am Friday morning along with about 3,000 other emails from Clinton's State Department tenure, is "disturbing," and "appears to show the former Secretary of State instructing a subordinate to remove the headings from a classified document and send it to her in an unsecure manner."
And now a special request . . .
The year was 1993 and the Clintons were in the White House, and there we got a glimpse into the character of Hillary Clinton. . .
Travelgate Inquiry Suggests Signs of Lies by First Lady
How Hillary Clinton sicced the FBI on the White House travel office