No more welfare for druggers

[faceking]

This is a very good point. Meth, cocaine, heroin, MDMA, crack cocaine, benzos, opiates...all undectable after 2-5 days of use. The only people this law would be catching is pot smokers...and pot is pretty much legal in 13 states...this measure would be a terrible waste of tax payer money

that's saying a lot. i wouldn't underestimate druggies ability to not stay clean for a week.

 

[lucky8]

that's saying a lot. i wouldn't underestimate druggies ability to not stay clean for a week.

You obviously do not know many people who parttake in the drug culture...

...and you also shouldn't underestimate the ease of passing a drug test while high...it's really not that complicated of a thing to pull off

 

[deleted15807]

Starman, you are really desperate and jonsing for any "controversial" material to gin up conversation around here.

I guess this is what you gotta do when conservative economic philosophy is burning up in flames (you switch topics).

So incredibly typical. Of all the enormous challenges the United States faces and the world faces Faux News, Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly uses (see gay marriage, abortion, sex education, yada yada yada) these 'issues' to rally the rabid conservative 'base'. The good news is it no longer works except for the rural bible belt areas of the country and that is just not enough to win elections anymore. Good Bye and good riddance.

Your chart doesn't even have military spending.

The Federal Pie Chart

Honestly, if we spent as much on welfare as we have Iraq, we'd all have free healthcare and college educations. Give me a break star.

Again, good idea, but we need to put a cap on the rampant military spending before taking away foodstamps from potheads.

Hadn't you heard? There is no fiscal responsibility when it comes to the military-industrial complex. Killing people and not necessarily your enemy is always deep in vogue regardless of the cost. Like North Korea we don't care if our people are starving in the streets as long as we have the ability to pulvarize other nations it's alright. In fact it's preferrable.

Bomb Iran Now

And we have the F-22's costing $354 million a piece. Yes you read right. Three fighters could well cost over $1billion. How many people could remain in their homes for $1billion? But it's welfare for druggies we are worried about.

 

[novice_btm]

Well, this is a political message board...

Um, actually, no, it's not. Technically, it's a big dick message board, with a small side forum dedicated to politics, to isolate its rants and shenanigans from the rest of the board's general population.

 

[HazelGod]

And we have the F-22's costing $354 million a piece. Yes you read right. Three fighters could well cost over $1billion. How many people could remain in their homes for $1billion?

That figure is highly misleading, and the slanted article does nothing to clarify the cost as stated.

The F-22 unit flyaway cost is actually around $175M per aircraft, including weapons systems. That much higher figure stated is a calculated unit program acquisition cost that includes all sunk costs of the entire line (est. $62B). It may seem like splitting hairs to some, but it isn't. The R&D is spent already. The incremental cost for addition planes is around $138M and will decrease as more are built, causing the program acquisition cost per unit to drop off linearly as more are produced.

The entire reason the PAUC has reached such high numbers is that the government has drastically reduced its orders for the aircraft...from 750 at the program's inception to 183 as of the last review in 2006. In the present/future where stealth and precision are the premier tactical advantages in armed conflict, where is the logic in scaling back such a piece of technology? And how in the world do you characterize a $62B expenditure over a 20-year program that produces the most advanced and effective air-superirority fighter in the world as excessive when our government has thrown nearly 15 times that much money down the Wall Street black hole in a likely vain effort to find some bottom? At least the F-22 program employs people across all disciplines and produces a tangible good.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Um, actually, no, it's not. Technically, it's a big dick message board, with a small side forum dedicated to politics, to isolate its rants and shenanigans from the rest of the board's general population.

Thanks for pointing that out. Its a politics forum. I thought I was lost for a minute.

There are some people that cannot conceive of reading post without the words big dick.

I believe the folks at LPSG appreciate having a well rounded membership; not just penis-obsessed fanatics.

For those without the wherewithal to keep up with current events...one might suggest hanging out in Fictitious Stories or Large Penis Personal Ads.

Happy reading.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

For those without the wherewithal to keep up with current events...one might suggest hanging out in Fictitious Stories...

Good idea. You'd be a hit there!

 

[deleted15807]

That figure is highly misleading, and the slanted article does nothing to clarify the cost as stated.

The F-22 unit flyaway cost is actually around $175M per aircraft, including weapons systems. That much higher figure stated is a calculated unit program acquisition cost that includes all sunk costs of the entire line (est. $62B). It may seem like splitting hairs to some, but it isn't. The R&D is spent already. The incremental cost for addition planes is around $138M and will decrease as more are built, causing the program acquisition cost per unit to drop off linearly as more are produced.

The entire reason the PAUC has reached such high numbers is that the government has drastically reduced its orders for the aircraft...from 750 at the program's inception to 183 as of the last review in 2006. In the present/future where stealth and precision are the premier tactical advantages in armed conflict, where is the logic in scaling back such a piece of technology? And how in the world do you characterize a $62B expenditure over a 20-year program that produces the most advanced and effective air-superirority fighter in the world as excessive when our government has thrown nearly 15 times that much money down the Wall Street black hole in a likely vain effort to find some bottom? At least the F-22 program employs people across all disciplines and produces a tangible good.

Before we go any further do you have a personal bias concerning the F-22 program or do you or close relatives have a financial interest in the F-22 progam?

 

[HazelGod]

Before we go any further do you have a personal bias concerning the F-22 program or do you or close relatives have a financial interest in the F-22 progam?

I wouldn't say that I have any personal bias particular to the F-22, and although I have USAF flight surgeons in my extended family, they're Eagle pilots. As for financial interests, I'm not aware of any that either my family or myself hold in Lockheed Martin or any ancillary contractor who supports the Raptor program.

Bottom line, please feel free to discuss reasonably and expect the same in reply.

 

[novice_btm]

...I believe the folks at LPSG appreciate having a well rounded membership; not just penis-obsessed fanatics.

For those without the wherewithal to keep up with current events...one might suggest hanging out in Fictitious Stories or Large Penis Personal Ads.

Happy reading.

Conversely, to that aim of well-roundedness, I'm sure that's why the ranks for NeoConEncouragementAssociation.com and LiberalsRally.com are suddenly being flooded with the dick-crazed, demanding Phallus forums.

I mean, from those site titles, it's obviously where I'd go look for cock.

 

[deleted15807]

I wouldn't say that I have any personal bias particular to the F-22, and although I have USAF flight surgeons in my extended family, they're Eagle pilots. As for financial interests, I'm not aware of any that either my family or myself hold in Lockheed Martin or any ancillary contractor who supports the Raptor program.

Bottom line, please feel free to discuss reasonably and expect the same in reply.

Apparently the point is moot as the program was ended today. But this sums up my point:

“The plane flies, there’s no question about that, but is it a Cold War weapon, is it a weapon we need to deal with terrorism, or what?” said Philip Coyle, senior adviser for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Defense Information.

​

And how much longer can the US afford to spend vastly more than the rest of the world for 'defense'. World Wide Military Expenditures

 

[HazelGod]

Apparently the point is moot as the program was ended today. But this sums up my point:

“The plane flies, there’s no question about that, but is it a Cold War weapon, is it a weapon we need to deal with terrorism, or what?” said Philip Coyle, senior adviser for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Defense Information.​

​

I wouldn't say it's moot. The defense spending proposal put forth by Gates is already being torn apart by the Senate. I wouldn't place a very high likelihood of his cuts becoming reality as the bills wind their way through the process.

Coyle's quote isn't very persuasive, IMO. In fact, I see it as remarkably short-sighted. A long-range air superiority fighter with low observability is suited to virtually any defensive role that might be called for. Just because decentralized terrorist organizations are the most prominent enemy in political lip service today doesn't mean squat in terms of a reasoned overall national defense posture. One need only look to Israel/Iran or North Korea to see that there remains viable nationalistic needs for continued investment in our ability to project power around the world.

And how much longer can the US afford to spend vastly more than the rest of the world for 'defense'. World Wide Military Expenditures

Mind you, I'm not advocating a wholesale continuation of our entire military spending policies. I just believe the Raptor program to be one that has been unfairly characterized to the public, and is now being offered up as a scapegoat to change. More governmental nonsense when what we need is reasoned policy making in these times.

For an example of what I mean, consider the discussion I started today on the new projected losses of the TARP bailout. Where is the sense in scrapping a $65B and two-decade investment in the F-22 program that employs nearly 100,000 Americans and produces tangible assets with a demonstrable purpose as "inefficient spending on unnecessary technology," when we're literally flushing more than five times that amount of money down the Wall St. drains right now?

 

[deleted15807]

[/INDENT]I.............we're literally flushing more than five times that amount of money down the Wall St. drains right now?

It's far more than Wall St. it's the very foundation of capitalism being rescued. There is little doubt that the failure of AIG, Citibank, Bank Of America, etc would have triggered mass hysteria. There's a reason both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration fears, no is terrified what a collapse of that magnitude would trigger. And no one wants to find out. All over the world governments are resucing financial institutions and for good reason. The fear alone can trigger the reality. Nothing works better than fear. Nothing.