FREE TAPATALK APP

theprestige · 13th June 2012, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

What, the $889 billion spent on the Department of Defense in 2010—more than was spent on any other U.S. federal government department or agency, and which accounted for one-fifth of all federal government expenditures that year—isn't enough?

It depends: Are "spends more or less than other departments" and "spends more or less than some fraction of total expenditures" the right metrics for deciding "enough spending"?

Corsair 115 · 13th June 2012, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

It depends: Are "spends more or less than other departments" and "spends more or less than some fraction of total expenditures" the right metrics for deciding "enough spending"?

The point of that was to put into context how that $889 billion spent on the DoD compared to the rest of the government's expenditures.

theprestige · 13th June 2012, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

The point of that was to put into context how that $889 billion spent on the DoD compared to the rest of the government's expenditures.

But is that context meaningful or relevant?

The DOD is a grouping of military expenditures. Army Navy, Air Force, etc. The more you group together under a single heading, the bigger the expenditure looks.

So we can just as easily note that four fifths--eighty per cent! of all government expenditures for 2010 were largely unrelated to national defense. And yet Obama wants to expand the public sector even more. Unless he's talking about the military, isn't four-fifths of all government spending enough?

SezMe · 13th June 2012, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

The point of that was to put into context how that $889 billion spent on the DoD compared to the rest of the government's expenditures.

I thought the emphasis was on AlBell's use of the word "rebuild". When did it fall apart?

theprestige · 13th June 2012, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I thought the emphasis was on AlBell's use of the word "rebuild". When did it fall apart?

When didn't it fall apart?

SezMe · 13th June 2012, 04:27 PM

Is answering a question with another question just a rhetorical device or did you actually have a point to make?

DevilsAdvocate · 13th June 2012, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

Woodward and Bernstein: Hey! Look at us. We're relevant!

The Watergate break-in was in June 1972. This is the 40 year anniversary of the event. A retrospective commentary from Woodward and Bernstein seems entirely appropriate, even expected.

theprestige · 14th June 2012, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Is answering a question with another question just a rhetorical device or did you actually have a point to make?

You say "just a rhetorical device" like rhetorical devices aren't useful for making points.

"Is that hammer just a tool, or does it actually do something useful?"

But actually, I was just making a joke. You ask, when did the army break down? I answer, isn't the army always broken down?

Enh.

But seriously, the military is always in a state of falling apart. Bits and pieces are constantly wearing out, breaking down, becoming obsolete. Ships rust. Wings crack. Soldiers get shell-shock. The longer you defer spending on maintenance and upgrades, the deeper the military's state of disrepair, and the more rebuilding will be necessary.

SezMe · 14th June 2012, 01:54 PM

Sorry, I guess my humor detector is on the fritz. I agree with your last comment and will endeavor to stay on topic.

Beerina · 15th June 2012, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Brown

The fundamental flaws in Nixon's character--his mania for loyalty, his view that punishment of domestic enemies is a legitimate goal for an elected official

Umm, famously, that's the "Kennedy Rule" -- Reward your friends and punish your enemies.

Brown · 15th June 2012, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Umm, famously, that's the "Kennedy Rule" -- Reward your friends and punish your enemies.

Umm, not to defend the Fascist-loving and all-around jackhole Joseph Kennedy, but the "Kennedy Rule" means something different, or at least it does today. Basically, the Kennedy in question is Justice Anthony Kennedy, and the "rule" is that his vote is the deciding vote in close cases.

To the extent that the term "Kennedy Rule" was meant to suggest that JFK used Nixon-like tactics to try to maintain an "enemies list" and use federal resources to disable or destroy his domestic enemies, then I submit there is no wide-spread use of such term, and that it is not widely recognized among politcal scientists that JFK did this on the scale that Nixon did.

As for the "famously" part, I googled the term and did not find this term widely used in your sense. So your remark smells like bull crap to me.

Corsair 115 · 15th June 2012, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Umm, famously, that's the "Kennedy Rule" -- Reward your friends and punish your enemies.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that's been the standard operating procedure in politics since... well, forever. (And probably in business too.)

13th June 2012, 12:46 PM	#41
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,905	Originally Posted by Corsair 115 What, the $889 billion spent on the Department of Defense in 2010—more than was spent on any other U.S. federal government department or agency, and which accounted for one-fifth of all federal government expenditures that year—isn't enough? It depends: Are "spends more or less than other departments" and "spends more or less than some fraction of total expenditures" the right metrics for deciding "enough spending"?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,905

13th June 2012, 12:58 PM	#42
Corsair 115 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tranquility Base Posts: 8,684	Originally Posted by theprestige It depends: Are "spends more or less than other departments" and "spends more or less than some fraction of total expenditures" the right metrics for deciding "enough spending"? The point of that was to put into context how that $889 billion spent on the DoD compared to the rest of the government's expenditures.
	__________________ "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

13th June 2012, 01:18 PM	#43
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,905	Originally Posted by Corsair 115 The point of that was to put into context how that $889 billion spent on the DoD compared to the rest of the government's expenditures. But is that context meaningful or relevant? The DOD is a grouping of military expenditures. Army Navy, Air Force, etc. The more you group together under a single heading, the bigger the expenditure looks. So we can just as easily note that four fifths--eighty per cent! of all government expenditures for 2010 were largely unrelated to national defense. And yet Obama wants to expand the public sector even more. Unless he's talking about the military, isn't four-fifths of all government spending enough?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,905

13th June 2012, 04:09 PM	#45
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,905	Originally Posted by SezMe I thought the emphasis was on AlBell's use of the word "rebuild". When did it fall apart? When didn't it fall apart?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,905

13th June 2012, 11:03 PM	#47
DevilsAdvocate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,694	Originally Posted by applecorped Woodward and Bernstein: Hey! Look at us. We're relevant! The Watergate break-in was in June 1972. This is the 40 year anniversary of the event. A retrospective commentary from Woodward and Bernstein seems entirely appropriate, even expected.
	__________________ Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau

13th June 2012, 03:15 PM	#44
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,654	Originally Posted by Corsair 115 The point of that was to put into context how that $889 billion spent on the DoD compared to the rest of the government's expenditures. I thought the emphasis was on AlBell's use of the word "rebuild". When did it fall apart?

13th June 2012, 04:27 PM	#46
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,654	Is answering a question with another question just a rhetorical device or did you actually have a point to make?

14th June 2012, 01:40 PM	#48
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,905	Originally Posted by SezMe Is answering a question with another question just a rhetorical device or did you actually have a point to make? You say "just a rhetorical device" like rhetorical devices aren't useful for making points. "Is that hammer just a tool, or does it actually do something useful?" But actually, I was just making a joke. You ask, when did the army break down? I answer, isn't the army always broken down? Enh. But seriously, the military is always in a state of falling apart. Bits and pieces are constantly wearing out, breaking down, becoming obsolete. Ships rust. Wings crack. Soldiers get shell-shock. The longer you defer spending on maintenance and upgrades, the deeper the military's state of disrepair, and the more rebuilding will be necessary.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,905

14th June 2012, 01:54 PM	#49
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,654	Sorry, I guess my humor detector is on the fritz. I agree with your last comment and will endeavor to stay on topic.

15th June 2012, 04:57 AM	#50
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Brown The fundamental flaws in Nixon's character--his mania for loyalty, his view that punishment of domestic enemies is a legitimate goal for an elected official Umm, famously, that's the "Kennedy Rule" -- Reward your friends and punish your enemies.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

15th June 2012, 05:33 AM	#51
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,293	Originally Posted by Beerina Umm, famously, that's the "Kennedy Rule" -- Reward your friends and punish your enemies. Umm, not to defend the Fascist-loving and all-around jackhole Joseph Kennedy, but the "Kennedy Rule" means something different, or at least it does today. Basically, the Kennedy in question is Justice Anthony Kennedy, and the "rule" is that his vote is the deciding vote in close cases. To the extent that the term "Kennedy Rule" was meant to suggest that JFK used Nixon-like tactics to try to maintain an "enemies list" and use federal resources to disable or destroy his domestic enemies, then I submit there is no wide-spread use of such term, and that it is not widely recognized among politcal scientists that JFK did this on the scale that Nixon did. As for the "famously" part, I googled the term and did not find this term widely used in your sense. So your remark smells like bull crap to me.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice Last edited by Brown; 15th June 2012 at 05:34 AM.

15th June 2012, 09:48 AM	#52
Corsair 115 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tranquility Base Posts: 8,684	Originally Posted by Beerina Umm, famously, that's the "Kennedy Rule" -- Reward your friends and punish your enemies. Uh, I'm pretty sure that's been the standard operating procedure in politics since... well, forever. (And probably in business too.)
	__________________ "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."