Bin Laden Dead
- Thread starter iacrenter
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
the thing is there is no guarantee that spending all this money is going to prevent another 9/11 attack, you can say that we have not had another 9/11 for 10 years now due to the spending, but before 9/11 what was the previous large attack? the world trade center? the oklahoma city bombing? Also, you cant prove a negative right so its hard to actually say that the spending is in fact why there has not been another 9/11.
i see your point about safety being a number one priority but that is the question right, the costs are crippling this country - keep spending at this rate, we wont be able to borrow anymore, then we wont be able to spend on security and then we end up more vulnerable than we were before.
to answer your question, i think i would rather go the euro rout and deal with some attacks and not spend the money.
check out this list of countries with the most military spending - its kind of crazy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Anyone who lost someone in recent attacks in Europe might think differently.
@rkp:
And don't get me wrong... I'm not happy with military spending... but I'm not happy with ANY gov spending. But, if they're going to waste money on something... I'll take security over education. You talk about quality of life... would you rather have absence of life?
people die every day, you risk your life getting into your car to go to work to make money, so your risk your life every day for money. you do this because you understand that the chances of you dying in your car on the way to/from work are pretty small. You can never make a country completely safe. the govt does not appear to understand the concept of diminishing returns.
would i risk the life of an innocent person over money? Yes. If you told me a i could save the life a stranger in exchange for 100K, i would let the person die. Im guessing most people would.
Would you give up a nice chunk of your down payment savings for your next irvine home to save the life of some stranger in NYC? by spending on that money on the DOD that is what the govt is doing on all of our behalf.
And no... if someone were to give me $100k to kill a stranger... I would not do it because that would be me killing that stranger.
And yes... every time I pay taxes I'm saving some stranger's life... maybe yours.
Would you rather the gov spend $1bil on military or social programs?
posing the question of would you save your sister/brother/insert relative for 100K vs the government spending 700B on Defense in one year and crippling the nation are not quite the same. the govt doesnt have relatives, just tax payers. maybe you should ask the govt if they would pay $100 million dollars in exchange for terrorist to release your sister, they would say no because of the precedent it would set (we dont negotiate with terrorists remember), but then they would turn around and spend $300 million on trying to catch the terrorist that kidnapped your sister.
regarding govt spending, i wish they would just spend what the get in tax revenue and not run a 1 trillion $ deficit annually. but if i had to choose on whether to spend that 1 trillion of deficit spending i would rather spend it on social programs vs defense. there are an awful lot of useless/wasteful defense programs that dont really do much in the way of national security.
The point here is that we both agree that a deficit is bad. I value security over debt though... whereas it seems you wouldn't mind debt as long as it was spent on social programs.
I respect your opinion... but you asked the original question and I answered it.
thanks for responding - i was just curious if people were ok with cutting spending at the expense of losing some folks. im not good with deficits for social programs by the way, i never said that. like i said above, we should only spend what we take in. there is too much wast in govt in general
i think the big challenge is proving that the spending is protecting anyone and lack of spending would increase terror. forget the actual number and look at the percentage of spending to GDP and the US is right up there with militant islamic states that are constantly fighting internally and externally. does that make sense to you?
we should drop to a more reasonable number like western europe and i dont think that would cause us to have major increase in deaths or loss of life.
Damn - i dont know how to do the fancy quotes you do to respond individually to each question
when 9/11 happened i was 24 years old, two years out of college, all i was interested was in girls/drinking/working out and having a good time, so government spending, economy and all that fun stuff was not really on my radar. But if i transport myself back in time with my current knowledge of politics/finance/world economics i would say that doubling DOD spending over the next 10 years in response to the terrorist attack is not a good thing. Keep in mind though, im not religious at all, im very practical so i tend to have a different reaction to death than most people. I do remember thinking that while it was a tragic event, s#it happens, people die every day, so it didnt really impact my life one way or the other at the time.
To me there is a cost/benefit to everything. Ive told my wife that if i get severely ill at some point and insurance happens to run out that i dont want her to spend our life savings to save me. Chances are im going to die anyway then she will be broke and single, not good.
Im not into politics, im not a registered democrat or republican, hell i dont even vote - it seems like it doesnt matter who you vote in, the govt just keeps on spending what they dont have. Bush started these huge deficits and Obama seems to continue them as well.
On the $447B - no i am not ok with it. We are deeply in debt, adding more debt is not a solution to fix the deficit. The last stimulus package didnt appear to work, im not sure i believe the saved or created 4 million jobs, to me you cant prove a negative, how many jobs did it actually save? who knows.
the only way this spending problem is going to get resolved is when resolution is forced on us by our creditors. then the s#it is really going to hit the fan and the current proposed cuts are going to seem like childs play.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Interesting... reports say it was over a week ago and that the US has the body of Bin Laden.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Hmm... the presidential address said it was in a firefight that happened today.
iacrenter
Well-known member
I am very grateful for the men and women of the US military and anti-terrorist professionals who were instrumental in bringing this despot to justice. It was a good speech by President Obama and hopefully a chapter we can now close in American history. The war on terror is not over but we've hit a significant milestone.
ajw522
Active member
While I do not agree with the President on a variety of issues, I do have to commend him for finally capturing Bin Laden, along with the brave Navy SEALs who executed the plan with great skill. They deserve our deepest gratitude.
This also sends a message to all of our enemies that no matter how long it takes, if you mess with America, we will hunt you down and get you!
This also sends a message to all of our enemies that no matter how long it takes, if you mess with America, we will hunt you down and get you!
iacrenter
Well-known member
As we come upon the 10th anniversary of 9/11, it is probably a good time to reflect on all that has happened and not happened since that date.
We haven't had another major attack on US soil so far--thanks to the hard work and sacrifices of our armed forces and other government agencies.
Unfortunately, we have also lost paid a heavy price. About 7000 coalition troops have died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This fight against terrorism has also been the longest war in US history.
I'm hopeful the US is on the verge of eliminating Al Qaeda as a threat to our way of life. Certainly the removal of Bin Laden and other key leaders has had a significant impact on their ability to carry out major attacks.
In the days and years ahead, we must still be vigilant. There are still many enemies out there who will do us harm.
As we struggle to deal with the financial meltdown in the US, I hope we can reunite as a a country like we did after the days that followed 9/11. I remember seeing flags flying from almost every window and street corner. Americans came together as one nation, united in purpose.
We haven't had another major attack on US soil so far--thanks to the hard work and sacrifices of our armed forces and other government agencies.
Unfortunately, we have also lost paid a heavy price. About 7000 coalition troops have died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This fight against terrorism has also been the longest war in US history.
I'm hopeful the US is on the verge of eliminating Al Qaeda as a threat to our way of life. Certainly the removal of Bin Laden and other key leaders has had a significant impact on their ability to carry out major attacks.
In the days and years ahead, we must still be vigilant. There are still many enemies out there who will do us harm.
As we struggle to deal with the financial meltdown in the US, I hope we can reunite as a a country like we did after the days that followed 9/11. I remember seeing flags flying from almost every window and street corner. Americans came together as one nation, united in purpose.
qwerty
Well-known member
Just have a question - we have hundreds and hundreds of billions on the war on terror and beefing up security and new agencies (Homeland security, etc). Would the country be better off not spending hundreds of billions against the war on terror running up insane deficits? Are we better off not spending that money and accepting a higher risk that there is an occasional terrorist attack? Im not sure how other countries respond to terrorist attacks, you read about the occasional terrorist attack in London (or other major european cities) and i dont think they respond by spending hundreds of billions on a war on terror that decimates a countries finances. At some point you have to weight the cost/benefit of everything right?
any thoughts?
any thoughts?
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
@PatStar:
You lost me at "I really wish Hilary was President".
@qwerty:
Tough question... it's akin to do I spend all this money on life insurance when I can probably use it on something that will do me more good... unless I die. I don't like gov spending as much as the next person... but let's flip the coin... say we don't spend money on security and instead reduce our debt... but then something like 9/11 happens again... what would you prefer?
Personally... I would rather owe someone money than have someone close to me die... and I realize that may be an unfair analogy... but I am of the position of safety being at the top of the list (hence why I live in Irvine even though it costs me more). What I do think is we should spend smarter... too much waste in gov spending.... whether it be war, social programs, healthcare, bank bailouts, homeowner bailouts etc.
You lost me at "I really wish Hilary was President".
@qwerty:
Tough question... it's akin to do I spend all this money on life insurance when I can probably use it on something that will do me more good... unless I die. I don't like gov spending as much as the next person... but let's flip the coin... say we don't spend money on security and instead reduce our debt... but then something like 9/11 happens again... what would you prefer?
Personally... I would rather owe someone money than have someone close to me die... and I realize that may be an unfair analogy... but I am of the position of safety being at the top of the list (hence why I live in Irvine even though it costs me more). What I do think is we should spend smarter... too much waste in gov spending.... whether it be war, social programs, healthcare, bank bailouts, homeowner bailouts etc.
you might rather own someone money than have someone close die but the problem is that its really not you owing that money. its our kids.
i think of it more like you using your credit card or taking a loan to pay for the highest life insurance policy possible. sure when you die you are leaving a windfall for your family but you are also leaving massive debt.
spending tons on military protection and security might provide us with more people alive but what will their quality of life be due to massive debt and decreased social programs? is it better to have a bigger military and less educated population? something has to give right?
i think of it more like you using your credit card or taking a loan to pay for the highest life insurance policy possible. sure when you die you are leaving a windfall for your family but you are also leaving massive debt.
spending tons on military protection and security might provide us with more people alive but what will their quality of life be due to massive debt and decreased social programs? is it better to have a bigger military and less educated population? something has to give right?
qwerty
Well-known member
irvinehomeowner said:@PatStar:
You lost me at "I really wish Hilary was President".
@qwerty:
Tough question... it's akin to do I spend all this money on life insurance when I can probably use it on something that will do me more good... unless I die. I don't like gov spending as much as the next person... but let's flip the coin... say we don't spend money on security and instead reduce our debt... but then something like 9/11 happens again... what would you prefer?
Personally... I would rather owe someone money than have someone close to me die... and I realize that may be an unfair analogy... but I am of the position of safety being at the top of the list (hence why I live in Irvine even though it costs me more). What I do think is we should spend smarter... too much waste in gov spending.... whether it be war, social programs, healthcare, bank bailouts, homeowner bailouts etc.
the thing is there is no guarantee that spending all this money is going to prevent another 9/11 attack, you can say that we have not had another 9/11 for 10 years now due to the spending, but before 9/11 what was the previous large attack? the world trade center? the oklahoma city bombing? Also, you cant prove a negative right so its hard to actually say that the spending is in fact why there has not been another 9/11.
i see your point about safety being a number one priority but that is the question right, the costs are crippling this country - keep spending at this rate, we wont be able to borrow anymore, then we wont be able to spend on security and then we end up more vulnerable than we were before.
to answer your question, i think i would rather go the euro rout and deal with some attacks and not spend the money.
check out this list of countries with the most military spending - its kind of crazy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Hence the life insurance comparison... there are no guarantees... just "in case" scenarios.qwerty said:
I am not equating any non-events after 9/11 to the amount of money spent on the war efforts. All I'm saying is that were I to chose between spending my money on safety vs not being in debt... I would choose the former.
Again... to it's not so much WHAT we're spending it on, it's HOW MUCH. I'm am sure that even without the war on terror, our government would have still found a way to put us in a deeper deficit. Let's take Universal Healthcare... is there really a need for it? You can save a ton of money right there.
Really? I find this hard to believe. You would risk the life of an innocent person over money? Would you trade the life of a relative now, so that your future relatives would not have to worry about debt? That's a bit hyperbolic but I don't think you can put a price on safety.
Anyone who lost someone in recent attacks in Europe might think differently.
@rkp:
And don't get me wrong... I'm not happy with military spending... but I'm not happy with ANY gov spending. But, if they're going to waste money on something... I'll take security over education. You talk about quality of life... would you rather have absence of life?
qwerty
Well-known member
irvinehomeowner said:
people die every day, you risk your life getting into your car to go to work to make money, so your risk your life every day for money. you do this because you understand that the chances of you dying in your car on the way to/from work are pretty small. You can never make a country completely safe. the govt does not appear to understand the concept of diminishing returns.
would i risk the life of an innocent person over money? Yes. If you told me a i could save the life a stranger in exchange for 100K, i would let the person die. Im guessing most people would.
Would you give up a nice chunk of your down payment savings for your next irvine home to save the life of some stranger in NYC? by spending on that money on the DOD that is what the govt is doing on all of our behalf.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Maybe you would do it for a stranger but I asked specifically about a relative. If you change your scenario from "stranger" to "relative" or "someone close to you" does that change your answer?qwerty said:
And no... if someone were to give me $100k to kill a stranger... I would not do it because that would be me killing that stranger.
And yes... every time I pay taxes I'm saving some stranger's life... maybe yours.
Would you rather the gov spend $1bil on military or social programs?
qwerty
Well-known member
irvinehomeowner said:
posing the question of would you save your sister/brother/insert relative for 100K vs the government spending 700B on Defense in one year and crippling the nation are not quite the same. the govt doesnt have relatives, just tax payers. maybe you should ask the govt if they would pay $100 million dollars in exchange for terrorist to release your sister, they would say no because of the precedent it would set (we dont negotiate with terrorists remember), but then they would turn around and spend $300 million on trying to catch the terrorist that kidnapped your sister.
regarding govt spending, i wish they would just spend what the get in tax revenue and not run a 1 trillion $ deficit annually. but if i had to choose on whether to spend that 1 trillion of deficit spending i would rather spend it on social programs vs defense. there are an awful lot of useless/wasteful defense programs that dont really do much in the way of national security.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Well I did say I was exaggerating.qwerty said:
I agree about tax revenue, but I disagree where a deficit should be a result of. Social programs mean nothing if we are dead.
I agree... but there are an awful lot of useless/wasteful social programs too.
The point here is that we both agree that a deficit is bad. I value security over debt though... whereas it seems you wouldn't mind debt as long as it was spent on social programs.
I respect your opinion... but you asked the original question and I answered it.
qwerty
Well-known member
irvinehomeowner said:
thanks for responding - i was just curious if people were ok with cutting spending at the expense of losing some folks. im not good with deficits for social programs by the way, i never said that. like i said above, we should only spend what we take in. there is too much wast in govt in general
i think the big challenge is proving that the spending is protecting anyone and lack of spending would increase terror. forget the actual number and look at the percentage of spending to GDP and the US is right up there with militant islamic states that are constantly fighting internally and externally. does that make sense to you?
we should drop to a more reasonable number like western europe and i dont think that would cause us to have major increase in deaths or loss of life.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
@qwerty
Just to be clear... I don't think you are wrong in your thinking. We are all entitled to our personal opinions. But I do want to know if this was how you felt 10 years ago in the aftermath of 9/11.
I've noticed that the farther we get away from that tragedy, the less people are concerned about national security and terrorist threats. I'm the opposite, I'm more concerned.
And don't get me wrong... I'm not a warmonger... if there is a way to protect our citizens without sending men and women out to kill or get killed, I'm all for it.
I've had these type of discussions on the IHB before and I found it interesting that the counterpoint was so focused on Bush and that it was his fault so many extremists hate America. We have a different prez... non-white (PC?) and with a Muslim name no less... has that hatred gone down? We are still at war... and added another "pseudo" war (Libya)... is it really the prez or just how it is?
BTW: Obama wants to spend $447bil on a jobs package... is that okay?
Just to be clear... I don't think you are wrong in your thinking. We are all entitled to our personal opinions. But I do want to know if this was how you felt 10 years ago in the aftermath of 9/11.
I've noticed that the farther we get away from that tragedy, the less people are concerned about national security and terrorist threats. I'm the opposite, I'm more concerned.
And don't get me wrong... I'm not a warmonger... if there is a way to protect our citizens without sending men and women out to kill or get killed, I'm all for it.
I've had these type of discussions on the IHB before and I found it interesting that the counterpoint was so focused on Bush and that it was his fault so many extremists hate America. We have a different prez... non-white (PC?) and with a Muslim name no less... has that hatred gone down? We are still at war... and added another "pseudo" war (Libya)... is it really the prez or just how it is?
BTW: Obama wants to spend $447bil on a jobs package... is that okay?
qwerty
Well-known member
irvinehomeowner said:
Damn - i dont know how to do the fancy quotes you do to respond individually to each question
when 9/11 happened i was 24 years old, two years out of college, all i was interested was in girls/drinking/working out and having a good time, so government spending, economy and all that fun stuff was not really on my radar. But if i transport myself back in time with my current knowledge of politics/finance/world economics i would say that doubling DOD spending over the next 10 years in response to the terrorist attack is not a good thing. Keep in mind though, im not religious at all, im very practical so i tend to have a different reaction to death than most people. I do remember thinking that while it was a tragic event, s#it happens, people die every day, so it didnt really impact my life one way or the other at the time.
To me there is a cost/benefit to everything. Ive told my wife that if i get severely ill at some point and insurance happens to run out that i dont want her to spend our life savings to save me. Chances are im going to die anyway then she will be broke and single, not good.
Im not into politics, im not a registered democrat or republican, hell i dont even vote - it seems like it doesnt matter who you vote in, the govt just keeps on spending what they dont have. Bush started these huge deficits and Obama seems to continue them as well.
On the $447B - no i am not ok with it. We are deeply in debt, adding more debt is not a solution to fix the deficit. The last stimulus package didnt appear to work, im not sure i believe the saved or created 4 million jobs, to me you cant prove a negative, how many jobs did it actually save? who knows.
the only way this spending problem is going to get resolved is when resolution is forced on us by our creditors. then the s#it is really going to hit the fan and the current proposed cuts are going to seem like childs play.
iacrenter
Well-known member
When it comes to government spending and security. More is not necessarily better. As a society we have to decide how we spend our limited tax dollars and what are our national priorities.
It is not an all or none proposition. There is plenty of room for compromise. But be sure to know, that every dollar we spend on security is one dollar less we spend on other important areas such as education, health care, infrastructure, etc...
I certainly believe in a strong national defense and domestic security but our government lost focus over the last 10 years. The Iraq war while admirable in its achievements (i.e. removing a hated dictator and bringing democracy to the region), was very costly in both blood and treasure and was a huge distraction on the war on terror.
We need to be smarter with current spending and invest in the future. This means maximizing technology and innovation with regards to our military and not just throwing more money at the problem.
The same can be said to all parts of the federal government. We need a smaller government that is more efficient, flexible, and responsive to the needs of the people. Not one that continues to run up huge deficits without regard to the people writing the checks.
It is not an all or none proposition. There is plenty of room for compromise. But be sure to know, that every dollar we spend on security is one dollar less we spend on other important areas such as education, health care, infrastructure, etc...
I certainly believe in a strong national defense and domestic security but our government lost focus over the last 10 years. The Iraq war while admirable in its achievements (i.e. removing a hated dictator and bringing democracy to the region), was very costly in both blood and treasure and was a huge distraction on the war on terror.
We need to be smarter with current spending and invest in the future. This means maximizing technology and innovation with regards to our military and not just throwing more money at the problem.
The same can be said to all parts of the federal government. We need a smaller government that is more efficient, flexible, and responsive to the needs of the people. Not one that continues to run up huge deficits without regard to the people writing the checks.