Obama Administration had slashed budget for domestic bombing prevention by 45%!

Jango · Apr 21, 2013

specklebang said:
Regrettably, it is that very partisanship that has immobilized out thought processes.

You make perfect sense regarding the intelligence agencies. Too many costing too much. How could anybody disagree? But just in the last few days, look at the outcry because of the lowering of investment in domestic IED research. That isn't even partisan really except for the ulta partisans (Obama's fault, Not Obama's fault).

Another example is out tax code. Look what a nightmare that is. Everybody agres it should be simplified but nobody can agree to actually do it.

As a businessman and a kind of hyper-organized person, the whole mess seems really poorly structured to me. But instead of repair, we add more and more complexities ever legislative session and even then large groups complain because their legislation has not yet been added to the tangle.

Pet projects can always be justified. Lets say my Senator attaches an amendment to a defense bill to allocate funds to build a huge statue of Specklebang. Think of all those sculptors that would lose work if it were eliminated not to mention the custodians that remove bird poop from my head and shoulders (the statue, not me).

Who will determine what is important?

The thing about domestic IED research... what exactly does that entail? Like, people paying attention to certain bomb components being bought and sold throughout the United States? Does is cover bomb-dog deployment? Going to the terrorist attacks in Boston, I have to ask if the marathon was a National Security Special Event. Bomb-dogs were there, so an anti-IED component was present on scene. According to one eyewitness, there were announcements over the PA system that drills were being conducted. I saw with my own eyes from live coverage on Fox National Guard helping survivors and the wounded after the bombs detonated, so obviously there was military presence. Fox also reported that DHS was there. I guess I just don't see a direct correlation between President Obama cutting funding to domestic IED research and the Boston terrorist attacks going down. There was, already, a massive amount of men and women in positions of authority carrying guns walking around the place with bomb-sniffing dogs at their side.

Sure, our tax code. But why stop there? Why do we have to play petty politics when the stability, future and solvency of our country depends on the thoughts, words and actions we perform today. You know those yellow legal pads? You could fill a few pages of the problems we face as a nation today, in the mid-term and in the long-term. And that's not to speak of the mistakes, errors and evils we committed in the past that we've yet to learn from. We are in turbulent times. They are only going to get worse.

I wouldn't say that they can 'always' be justified. I mean, if the pet project is a hospital, then yes, because a hospital benefits a population. But if the pet project benefits only a small concentration of people, like mostly the politicians that wanted it in the first place, then I don't see any point in the taxpayers having to pay for it. Are we peasants and they our rulers?

I would say that probably the smartest people in the world out of all of the types of people would be best served for determining what's necessary and what's not, and those kinds of people are realists.

specklebang · Apr 21, 2013

As far as I can tell, we are in agreement - sort of.

IED Research - I don't have a clue what is entailed. Neither does anybody else. But shouts went up right here inferring that Obama had failed us because the funding was cut from $20M to $11M. So, where does that leave us in terms of cutting back on anything?

The Tax Code - I use this as a prime example of system failure. All that complexity is ingrained to benefit relatively few people. Yet it has never been addressed because the people who can address it all have a finger in the pie and they can't expose anything for fear of their own beneficiaries distress.

Pet Projects - I feel you are implying that building a huge Specklebang statue is not critical to the nation? As I pointed out, this will cause job loss. This will result in unemployment claims.

The smartest people - Realists or logicians? So, are you proposing a Meritocracy in lieu of a Democracy. You got my vote. But "realistically", never happen.

Jango said:
The thing about domestic IED research... what exactly does that entail? Like, people paying attention to certain bomb components being bought and sold throughout the United States? Does is cover bomb-dog deployment? Going to the terrorist attacks in Boston, I have to ask if the marathon was a National Security Special Event. Bomb-dogs were there, so an anti-IED component was present on scene. According to one eyewitness, there were announcements over the PA system that drills were being conducted. I saw with my own eyes from live coverage on Fox National Guard helping survivors and the wounded after the bombs detonated, so obviously there was military presence. Fox also reported that DHS was there. I guess I just don't see a direct correlation between President Obama cutting funding to domestic IED research and the Boston terrorist attacks going down. There was, already, a massive amount of men and women in positions of authority carrying guns walking around the place with bomb-sniffing dogs at their side.

Sure, our tax code. But why stop there? Why do we have to play petty politics when the stability, future and solvency of our country depends on the thoughts, words and actions we perform today. You know those yellow legal pads? You could fill a few pages of the problems we face as a nation today, in the mid-term and in the long-term. And that's not to speak of the mistakes, errors and evils we committed in the past that we've yet to learn from. We are in turbulent times. They are only going to get worse.

I wouldn't say that they can 'always' be justified. I mean, if the pet project is a hospital, then yes, because a hospital benefits a population. But if the pet project benefits only a small concentration of people, like mostly the politicians that wanted it in the first place, then I don't see any point in the taxpayers having to pay for it. Are we peasants and they our rulers?

I would say that probably the smartest people in the world out of all of the types of people would be best served for determining what's necessary and what's not, and those kinds of people are realists.

Obama Administration had slashed budget for domestic bombing prevention by 45%!

Jango

specklebang

Discount Philosopher

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency