I mean, it is true and all...
No it isn't.
We spend more on the military than China, and that is why, to them, it is too much.
LMAO. Totally like taking advise from the other people playing RISK with you.
QFT
We spend more on the military than China, and that is why, to them, it is too much.
No, we spend more on the military than anybody, and that is partially why, to me, it is too much. Don't get me wrong, I agree with all of you that Mr. Bingde's motives are questionable, and I think that the RISK analogy is pretty appropriate. But disregarding where the statement came from and looking at it in a more objective sense, I pretty much have to agree with it.
No, we spend more on the military than anybody,
Which doesn't actually mean that it's too much.
Which doesn't actually mean that it's too much.
Which is why I say that's only partially why. ;)
But yeah, it's pretty amusing as it is, considering the source - that's what makes it funny!
Well, as a country I think we spend too much on everything due to inefficient spending and corruption/backscratching, military included. Rather than that being an excuse, though, I believe that it is perfectly valid to look at military spending and trying to reduce it. Just as many other areas of government spending need a looking-over and revision.
But yeah, it's pretty amusing as it is, considering the source - that's what makes it funny!
Completely agreed.
Well, as a country I think we spend too much on everything due to inefficient spending and corruption/backscratching, military included. Rather than that being an excuse, though, I believe that it is perfectly valid to look at military spending and trying to reduce it. Just as many other areas of government spending need a looking-over and revision.
But yeah, it's pretty amusing as it is, considering the source - that's what makes it funny!
That is true. But the answer there isn't to cut the military budget; that just impacts the areas that actually need the money. The answer is to cut out the inefficiency and corruption (and I think there is a fair amount of both) so that you can then cut spending.
Well, as a country I think we spend too much on everything due to inefficient spending and corruption/backscratching, military included.
Some time Congress forces them to spend money on stuff they do not want as well.
Well, as a country I think we spend too much on everything due to inefficient spending and corruption/backscratching, military included. Rather than that being an excuse, though, I believe that it is perfectly valid to look at military spending and trying to reduce it. Just as many other areas of government spending need a looking-over and revision.
But yeah, it's pretty amusing as it is, considering the source - that's what makes it funny!
That is true. But the answer there isn't to cut the military budget; that just impacts the areas that actually need the money. The answer is to cut out the inefficiency and corruption (and I think there is a fair amount of both) so that you can then cut spending.
I never said the solution was to cut military spending (or spending on the other stuff). I just said that the US spends too much on everything due to those factors (which would also contribute to the whole "buy what they don't want" thing that calronmoonflower mentioned).
However, I'd love to see less spent on the military because the inefficiency and corruption have been cut, not the budget, you know? Just like a lot of other government areas.
Much of the budget system for government is really inefficient - the fact that you have to keep spending every year or else you get less money is very backwards. It doesn't help programs become efficient or save money or anything; it just encourages them to pad out their programs to get a bigger slice so that they don't lose what they have.
Ug. It's a complicated issue with no simple, clear-cut solution. Pretty much anyone would fix the system if it were simple to do (imagine that feather in your re-election hat!).
But the article is amusing simply because it's an "opponent" telling us how to "win" the "game".
Ug. It's a complicated issue with no simple, clear-cut solution. Pretty much anyone would fix the system if it were simple to do (imagine that feather in your re-election hat!).
Oh, I don't know. Cutting spending while, at the same time, increasing efficiency is not all that complicated. Unfortunately, it would require a step most Americans are unwilling to take.
Yeah. Like voting.
As depressing as your comment is, it is very true.
Ug. It's a complicated issue with no simple, clear-cut solution. Pretty much anyone would fix the system if it were simple to do (imagine that feather in your re-election hat!).
Oh, I don't know. Cutting spending while, at the same time, increasing efficiency is not all that complicated. Unfortunately, it would require a step most Americans are unwilling to take.
Cutting spending is not complicated. Increasing efficiency is extremely complicated (at least when dealing with bureaucracy). Increasing efficiency and cutting spending at the same time is almost impossible to do correctly (you need not only to successfully increase efficiency but be able to predict the outcome of your changes to cut spending by the correct amounts so as to neither waste money nor adversely effect the program or organization you are supporting).
Ug. It's a complicated issue with no simple, clear-cut solution. Pretty much anyone would fix the system if it were simple to do (imagine that feather in your re-election hat!).
Oh, I don't know. Cutting spending while, at the same time, increasing efficiency is not all that complicated. Unfortunately, it would require a step most Americans are unwilling to take.
Cutting spending is not complicated. Increasing efficiency is extremely complicated (at least when dealing with bureaucracy). Increasing efficiency and cutting spending at the same time is almost impossible to do correctly (you need not only to successfully increase efficiency but be able to predict the outcome of your changes to cut spending by the correct amounts so as to neither waste money nor adversely effect the program or organization you are supporting).
Exactly. It is complicated, simply on the scale that one is dealing with. Everyone wants everything to be funded smartly and work well, but it's difficult to make it happen. This isn't a problem to the US government, but organizations in general. Companies strive to make their organizations more efficient all the time.
I don't think it's a matter of just "people don't want to", but that it is complicated. Oversimplifying does a disservice to the people who actually work to make the system better. It's easy to say it's a simple problem, and it's a great tagline/talking point/etc to make anyone look like they're not trying to make it better.
And you have lots of different people with different ideas as to what would make it better/more efficient, so that makes it more complicated.
*shrug*
EDIT: This is not to say that I think it's impossible, or that there aren't steps that politicians aren't willing to take out of fear of losing voters. Just that it's a large system and it's complicated in general.
Give me 10 years of absolute authority and I'll show you how simple it is to solve so many of the so-complicated problems. At the end of those 10 years we'll hold a popular vote. If a simple majority of people in this country want me out at that time, I'll order my own execution.
And that absolute-power solution has rarely, if ever, created more and different problems! Good job!I apologize, I apparently forgot that this I was on teh internets. My bad.
If a system doesn't work, change the system. Holding on to a broken system that leads to a downward spiral is the epitome of idiocy. Sometimes drastic changes are needed.
We've been indoctrinated to believe that allowing one person to have any significant amount of power is the most horrible thing imaginable. That's not true. The problems only come up when you get the wrong person in charge. The insane, the stupid, the lazy, and the power-hungry are not who you want leading. The one you want in charge is the person who will work tirelessly to insure that life is better for everyone, and is willing to risk their wealth, reputation, and even their life to make that happen.
Are there other options? Sure. I'm just giving an extreme example of one way to fix things. If people start thinking about how to fix the problem instead of who's to blame, maybe things will actually get better.
If people start thinking about how to fix the problem instead of who's to blame, maybe things will actually get better.
If people would just starting to accept when they are the ones to blame, half the problems would simply stop existing. Blaming someone else for everything has become a way of life.
I actually said "it's impossible" and "it shouldn't be thought about".
Oh wait, what I really said was the opposite.
EDIT: This is not to say that I think it's impossible, or that there aren't steps that politicians aren't willing to take out of fear of losing voters. Just that it's a large system and it's complicated in general.
It's funny because I've never said it wasn't possible, or that there aren't several solutions that could be tried, or that we have to stick with what's in place, or that what's in place is best and shouldn't be removed/replaced. Just that it's complicated.
I was poking fun at the fact that you seem to believe you're being revolutionary. Nothing that you're saying is particularly new or original thinking. That's not to say that it's not worth anything or that it shouldn't be supported, just that you're not the first to propose it or think of it as a solution. But it's not simple. Even the "simple" solution of being a dictator is complicated.
Go, go, internets.
Now, having said all that. Take a look at the US government budget. I don't mean in abstract, I mean the actual papers, numbers, and everything associated with it. I, for one, do not think that one person, even given absolute authority, could possible devise a solution for every problem within that one issue. And that's not touching all of the other things that are tied into the budget tangentally that would be affected by anything done to said budget.
It's complicated. Not simple. Composed of elaborately interconnected parts; complex. Difficult to analyze, understand, explain, etc.
There is a romanticized notion that just some good-old practicality and belt-tightening will solve everything, but I'm not buying it. It simply isn't that simple. ;)
Depends. If everyone tightens their belts - firmly around their necks - I'm fairly certain all of these issues will be resolved. Or, at the least, cease to matter.
A truly elegant solution to a complicated problem.
to you, sir!Thank you, I try. Now if only I could find a way to pull this damned belt tighter ...
Oh noes! Your plan is undone!2. Foreign nation talk. You know what that means:
BTW, you spend a lot of time finding those, don't you? Not that they aren't cool. Cause they are.
Oh! Maybe I'll get modded!! Then I can be part of the club!!
BTW, you spend a lot of time finding those, don't you? Not that they aren't cool. Cause they are.
Google Image'd "in b4 lock". 1st page.
I was poking fun at the fact that you seem to believe you're being revolutionary.
Where did you get the ridiculous idea that I thought I was being revolutionary? Were you projecting? Do you open every line of conversation thinking you've had a revolutionary thought?
Believe it or not, even old ideas can have merit. At the very least, they shouldn't be dismissed just because they're not new.
I was poking fun at the fact that you seem to believe you're being revolutionary.
Where did you get the ridiculous idea that I thought I was being revolutionary? Were you projecting? Do you open every line of conversation thinking you've had a revolutionary thought?
Believe it or not, even old ideas can have merit. At the very least, they shouldn't be dismissed just because they're not new.
Wanna know what is revolutionary?
As I said, it seemed that you thought you were being revolutionary. I apologize for poking fun of that particular aspect of it, as it wasn't intended (you weren't). That doesn't really affect anything else I said, however. It's still a complicated issue.
Take all of our current politicians, on a state, and federal level. Lock them into their legislative buildings.
Tell them 1 they will not be given Food until they actually fix the damn problem.
2. Tell them if by the end of 3 weeks no solutions to any of the problems have been found, that the building will be burned down. With them still in it. To demonstrate our bipartisan hatred, shoot one blue tie, and one red tie.
3. pick one of the more incompetent ones at random and shoot them in the face, to prove that we're being serious.
4. Profit.
Solution.
Take all of our current politicians, on a state, and federal level. Lock them into their legislative buildings.
Tell them 1 they will not be given Food until they actually fix the damn problem.
2. Tell them if by the end of 3 weeks no solutions to any of the problems have been found, that the building will be burned down. With them still in it.
3. pick one of the more incompetent ones at random and shoot them in the face, to prove that we're being serious.
4. Profit.
Three weeks is too long. I'd say give them only a week at most. Also, you have to make a stronger point when shooting one in the face. You need to take one of the more influential ones and toss him/her into a tree-chipper.
But the more influential they are, the more likely they are totally incompetent at actually doing what they are supposed to do ;)
But if you are willing to toss one of the more influential ones into a tree-chipper, imagine what you would be willing to do to the others. The others will have a great example of your ruthlessness to motivate them to get their act together.
Shouldn't that'n be 'In Before the Lockout'?