If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   The coolest 2011 federal budget infographic you've seen all day   (nytimes.com) divider line 112
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

7530 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Feb 2010 at 11:51 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-02-02 05:22:06 PM  
Aidan: Huh. No gifted education, and education promoting safe and stable families (like pre-natal education I assume) is eensy-weensy. I would like to see that square a whole lot bigger. In fact I'd like to think that increasing most or all of the education boxes could hugely change the look of this graph 10+ years down the road.

That's not supposed to be a federal budget item in any case. It's a prerogative and function of the states.

/does anyone, anyone remember that we're a Union of States, not a Unitary State?
 
2010-02-02 05:24:00 PM  
whidbey: brainiac-dumdum: the military also does a schnit load of research.

On better ways to kill people. Very useful.

Of course, it would be nice if we used our resources to do something else.

I suppose it wouldn't be in our nature. You can't have Manhattan Project style results without someone threatening us.


like the Internet? high-strength construction materials? in-field water purification?

/but no, everything researched by the military is bad because waaaaaaah, I hate having a strong military in a world that functions by strength of arms
 
2010-02-02 05:58:01 PM  
Anodos: He made a completely valid point; until you structurally reform entitlements' spending, reductions in defense spending are like putting a bandaid on a bullet-hole wound

Now with charts:

www.cato-at-liberty.org
 
2010-02-02 07:06:13 PM  
Anodos: whidbey: brainiac-dumdum: the military also does a schnit load of research.

On better ways to kill people. Very useful.

Of course, it would be nice if we used our resources to do something else.

I suppose it wouldn't be in our nature. You can't have Manhattan Project style results without someone threatening us.

like the Internet? high-strength construction materials? in-field water purification?

/but no, everything researched by the military is bad because waaaaaaah, I hate having a strong military in a world that functions by strength of arms


You not only have been trolled in this thread a couple of times (Alien Robot), but you are also proving to be quite the whiner.

You might stop whining for just a moment to pause and reflect exactly why those items you mentioned were developed by the military: to make killing people easier. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
2010-02-02 07:09:37 PM  
whidbey: Anodos: whidbey: brainiac-dumdum: the military also does a schnit load of research.

On better ways to kill people. Very useful.

Of course, it would be nice if we used our resources to do something else.

I suppose it wouldn't be in our nature. You can't have Manhattan Project style results without someone threatening us.

like the Internet? high-strength construction materials? in-field water purification?

/but no, everything researched by the military is bad because waaaaaaah, I hate having a strong military in a world that functions by strength of arms

You not only have been trolled in this thread a couple of times (Alien Robot), but you are also proving to be quite the whiner.

You might stop whining for just a moment to pause and reflect exactly why those items you mentioned were developed by the military: to make killing people easier. Nothing more, nothing less.


First off, I'm DEFINITELY not Alien Robot, and second of all, unless you find killing people who want/try to kill you not an effective use of technology (in which case there is no pleasing you in this reality, in this universe) then I fail to see why having multiple-use developments funded by money that goes to national defense and maintaining a strong position vice the rest of the world that benefit civilians a hundredfold as they benefit the military, then your worldview is extremely narrow and unrealistic.
 
2010-02-02 07:11:52 PM  
Anodos: ...I fail to see why having multiple-use developments funded by money that goes to national defense and maintaining a strong position vice the rest of the world that benefit civilians a hundredfold as they benefit the military, is a bad thing. Then your worldview is extremely narrow and unrealistic.
 
2010-02-02 07:19:08 PM  
Anodos: First off, I'm DEFINITELY not Alien Robot, and second of all, unless you find killing people who want/try to kill you not an effective use of technology (in which case there is no pleasing you in this reality, in this universe) then I fail to see why having multiple-use developments funded by money that goes to national defense and maintaining a strong position vice the rest of the world that benefit civilians a hundredfold as they benefit the military, then your worldview is extremely narrow and unrealistic.

I never said you were him. I said you were trolled by him and you might want to check out his mode of operation in the future.

in which case there is no pleasing you in this reality, in this universe)

oh grow up.

then I fail to see why having multiple-use developments funded by money that goes to national defense and maintaining a strong position vice the rest of the world that benefit civilians a hundredfold as they benefit the military, then your worldview is extremely narrow and unrealistic

No, the reality is that we have come up with some amazing technology, tech we should have been able to develop without having to do it under the aegis of military might.

That speaks volumes about what a warlike rather death-minded society we still are, and it's troubling to at least one of us.
 
2010-02-02 07:22:18 PM  
whidbey: Anodos: First off, I'm DEFINITELY not Alien Robot, and second of all, unless you find killing people who want/try to kill you not an effective use of technology (in which case there is no pleasing you in this reality, in this universe) then I fail to see why having multiple-use developments funded by money that goes to national defense and maintaining a strong position vice the rest of the world that benefit civilians a hundredfold as they benefit the military, then your worldview is extremely narrow and unrealistic.

I never said you were him. I said you were trolled by him and you might want to check out his mode of operation in the future.

in which case there is no pleasing you in this reality, in this universe)

oh grow up.

then I fail to see why having multiple-use developments funded by money that goes to national defense and maintaining a strong position vice the rest of the world that benefit civilians a hundredfold as they benefit the military, then your worldview is extremely narrow and unrealistic

No, the reality is that we have come up with some amazing technology, tech we should have been able to develop without having to do it under the aegis of military might.

That speaks volumes about what a warlike rather death-minded society we still are, and it's troubling to at least one of us.


As opposed to all of the peace-loving, altruistic societies that were responsible for the developments and advancements that we see throughout the history of mankind?
 
2010-02-02 07:28:52 PM  
Anodos: That speaks volumes about what a warlike rather death-minded society we still are, and it's troubling to at least one of us.

As opposed to all of the peace-loving, altruistic societies that were responsible for the developments and advancements that we see throughout the history of mankind?


*shrugs*

keep bringing up examples to defend the mindset, I don't care.

My point is that we, the USA, think we're pretty damn special and here we behave in much the same way as what we accuse everyone else of doing. You are apparently all right with that, I'm not, and I'm sure I'm not alone in making the observation.
 
2010-02-02 08:37:44 PM  
Anodos: Aidan: Huh. No gifted education, and education promoting safe and stable families (like pre-natal education I assume) is eensy-weensy. I would like to see that square a whole lot bigger. In fact I'd like to think that increasing most or all of the education boxes could hugely change the look of this graph 10+ years down the road.

That's not supposed to be a federal budget item in any case. It's a prerogative and function of the states.

/does anyone, anyone remember that we're a Union of States, not a Unitary State?


In my defense, I'm still learning about how the States work. Only been here 10 years. (Yeah yeah I know, not much of an excuse)

Also... Some things are technically States, and still end up being funded by the Federal govt. I'm thinking of drinking age and whatever the associated payoff is (education funds, I think?).
 
2010-02-02 08:52:20 PM  
Aidan: Anodos: Aidan: Huh. No gifted education, and education promoting safe and stable families (like pre-natal education I assume) is eensy-weensy. I would like to see that square a whole lot bigger. In fact I'd like to think that increasing most or all of the education boxes could hugely change the look of this graph 10+ years down the road.

That's not supposed to be a federal budget item in any case. It's a prerogative and function of the states.

/does anyone, anyone remember that we're a Union of States, not a Unitary State?

In my defense, I'm still learning about how the States work. Only been here 10 years. (Yeah yeah I know, not much of an excuse)

Also... Some things are technically States, and still end up being funded by the Federal govt. I'm thinking of drinking age and whatever the associated payoff is (education funds, I think?).


Ah, didn't realize you were from "out of town" so to speak. But yeah, education originally, when it became a prerogative of government, was considered solely within the realm of the states, and was the purpose for most local and state taxes (well, that and road maintenance, until the federal highway system under Eisenhower, took up the bulk of state outlays.) Even the Medicaid system, however federally manipulated, is funded by and large on the state level, rather than the federal, though obviously (and as the healthcare debacle illustrated) that can change.

And yes, to the drinking age (the payoff is highway money.) The Supreme Court gave up on the idea of states rights a long time ago, by applying the "interstate commerce clause" for everything from drugs to train schedules and back. It's part of why there is a lot of tension about the FBI and DEA going in and trampling drug legalization in individual states, and then justifying their intervention under the ICC by claiming that their intrusion into what would and should ordinarily be state business by claiming that drugs can be transported across state lines, regardless of any evidence of such.

In that example, California's response in the case of marijuana was to carefully ensure that the "medical" marijuana in that state was all grown within the borders of the state, to much federal pushback.
 
2010-02-04 01:35:03 AM  
The Icelander, Goldsfool

Obviously it was their intention to give the internet to the people from the beginning, how silly of me.

/rolls eyes
 
Displayed 12 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report