|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 07 2014 07:35 oneofthem wrote:
well with these cause of death stuff it is highly misleading to not include years of expected life lost. a guy having a heart attack at 105 years old died because he's 105.
this fantasy of death being absolutely in need of prevention at any age is absurd and costly, not only in terms of wasted money but also because it distorts priorities.
I suppose it's a bit misleading in general but it doesn't really impact my particular points.
That terrorism doesn't even make the list, yet we spend more on it than preventing targeting any other particular issue, and that the way we are spending our money is as much if not more of a problem than how much.
Also there are plenty more implicit points that aren't effected or are emboldened by more detailed information.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GaRpxmm.png)
Source
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/p1V0c4T.jpg) Show nested quote +The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. Source![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HwwQ7fQ.jpg) Show nested quote +Now that we’ve compared the risks, let’s examine how the government chooses to allocate our limited resources to combat these threats. To the least likely means of death I’ve mentioned, terrorism, the federal government devotes about $150 billion annually. On the other hand, to combat the most likely cause of death, heart disease, the government contributes only $2 billion. And just $300 million is devoted to research on the third most likely cause of death, strokes.
So looking at it another way, we spend $500 million for every death from terrorism and only $2,000 for every death resulting from strokes. That means we spend 250,000 times more per death on terrorism. The numbers aren't precise but the pattern is evident. What the hell is wrong with us? I don't think how colossal of a mistake going into Iraq was, can be overstated. Considering how much those top causes cost us in lives and healthcare costs, and how many of those deaths are directly related to legal substance abuse, not only does it make our substance laws look completely stupid, it illustrates how it's not just a matter of spending too much but how much, where. Also that keeping people alive/safe isn't why we are 'fighting terrorism' Source
So thinkbynumbers.org is full of shit. Good to know, thanks.
|
On July 07 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. SourceShow nested quote +Now that we’ve compared the risks, let’s examine how the government chooses to allocate our limited resources to combat these threats. To the least likely means of death I’ve mentioned, terrorism, the federal government devotes about $150 billion annually. On the other hand, to combat the most likely cause of death, heart disease, the government contributes only $2 billion. And just $300 million is devoted to research on the third most likely cause of death, strokes.
So looking at it another way, we spend $500 million for every death from terrorism and only $2,000 for every death resulting from strokes. That means we spend 250,000 times more per death on terrorism. The numbers aren't precise but the pattern is evident. What the hell is wrong with us? I don't think how colossal of a mistake going into Iraq was, can be overstated. Considering how much those top causes cost us in lives and healthcare costs, and how many of those deaths are directly related to legal substance abuse, not only does it make our substance laws look completely stupid, it illustrates how it's not just a matter of spending too much but how much, where. Also that keeping people alive/safe isn't why we are 'fighting terrorism' Source So thinkbynumbers.org is full of shit. Good to know, thanks.
Thanks for that spectacularly typical pointless one liner with 0 substance and nothing but a blanket dismissal of a site which is largely irrelevant to the point, other than they created an info-graphic which (I noted) isn't perfect but got 0 from you as far as specifically what was wrong or how it impacted my points.
At least you are consistent! 
|
On July 07 2014 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. SourceShow nested quote +Now that we’ve compared the risks, let’s examine how the government chooses to allocate our limited resources to combat these threats. To the least likely means of death I’ve mentioned, terrorism, the federal government devotes about $150 billion annually. On the other hand, to combat the most likely cause of death, heart disease, the government contributes only $2 billion. And just $300 million is devoted to research on the third most likely cause of death, strokes.
So looking at it another way, we spend $500 million for every death from terrorism and only $2,000 for every death resulting from strokes. That means we spend 250,000 times more per death on terrorism. The numbers aren't precise but the pattern is evident. What the hell is wrong with us? I don't think how colossal of a mistake going into Iraq was, can be overstated. Considering how much those top causes cost us in lives and healthcare costs, and how many of those deaths are directly related to legal substance abuse, not only does it make our substance laws look completely stupid, it illustrates how it's not just a matter of spending too much but how much, where. Also that keeping people alive/safe isn't why we are 'fighting terrorism' Source So thinkbynumbers.org is full of shit. Good to know, thanks. Thanks for that spectacularly typical pointless one liner with 0 substance and nothing but a blanket dismissal of a site which is largely irrelevant to the point, other than they created an info-graphic which (I noted) isn't perfect but got 0 from you as far as specifically what was wrong or how it impacted my points. At least you are consistent!
The info-graphic is made by fuckwits for fuckwits. You really need me to hold your hand an explain all the reasons why?
|
On July 07 2014 08:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2014 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. SourceShow nested quote +Now that we’ve compared the risks, let’s examine how the government chooses to allocate our limited resources to combat these threats. To the least likely means of death I’ve mentioned, terrorism, the federal government devotes about $150 billion annually. On the other hand, to combat the most likely cause of death, heart disease, the government contributes only $2 billion. And just $300 million is devoted to research on the third most likely cause of death, strokes.
So looking at it another way, we spend $500 million for every death from terrorism and only $2,000 for every death resulting from strokes. That means we spend 250,000 times more per death on terrorism. The numbers aren't precise but the pattern is evident. What the hell is wrong with us? I don't think how colossal of a mistake going into Iraq was, can be overstated. Considering how much those top causes cost us in lives and healthcare costs, and how many of those deaths are directly related to legal substance abuse, not only does it make our substance laws look completely stupid, it illustrates how it's not just a matter of spending too much but how much, where. Also that keeping people alive/safe isn't why we are 'fighting terrorism' Source So thinkbynumbers.org is full of shit. Good to know, thanks. Thanks for that spectacularly typical pointless one liner with 0 substance and nothing but a blanket dismissal of a site which is largely irrelevant to the point, other than they created an info-graphic which (I noted) isn't perfect but got 0 from you as far as specifically what was wrong or how it impacted my points. At least you are consistent! The info-graphic is made by fuckwits for fuckwits. You really need me to hold your hand an explain all the reasons why?
If you have a contention with my points say it, if not, I don't know why you bother?
|
I also don't understand what's so blatantly wrong about it that it could be denied without an explanation. I don't know if every single one of these numbers is correct, but the US defense budgets including 'Overseas contingency operations' is by far the biggest part of the federal budget, costing trillions of dollars, and is probably costing more American lives than it's saving.
|
On July 07 2014 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2014 08:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. SourceShow nested quote +Now that we’ve compared the risks, let’s examine how the government chooses to allocate our limited resources to combat these threats. To the least likely means of death I’ve mentioned, terrorism, the federal government devotes about $150 billion annually. On the other hand, to combat the most likely cause of death, heart disease, the government contributes only $2 billion. And just $300 million is devoted to research on the third most likely cause of death, strokes.
So looking at it another way, we spend $500 million for every death from terrorism and only $2,000 for every death resulting from strokes. That means we spend 250,000 times more per death on terrorism. The numbers aren't precise but the pattern is evident. What the hell is wrong with us? I don't think how colossal of a mistake going into Iraq was, can be overstated. Considering how much those top causes cost us in lives and healthcare costs, and how many of those deaths are directly related to legal substance abuse, not only does it make our substance laws look completely stupid, it illustrates how it's not just a matter of spending too much but how much, where. Also that keeping people alive/safe isn't why we are 'fighting terrorism' Source So thinkbynumbers.org is full of shit. Good to know, thanks. Thanks for that spectacularly typical pointless one liner with 0 substance and nothing but a blanket dismissal of a site which is largely irrelevant to the point, other than they created an info-graphic which (I noted) isn't perfect but got 0 from you as far as specifically what was wrong or how it impacted my points. At least you are consistent! The info-graphic is made by fuckwits for fuckwits. You really need me to hold your hand an explain all the reasons why? If you have a contention with my points say it, if not, I don't know why you bother?
My hope is that other people with brains explain it so I don't have to do the work myself. Just look at it.. it's laughably retarded.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 07 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2014 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. SourceShow nested quote +Now that we’ve compared the risks, let’s examine how the government chooses to allocate our limited resources to combat these threats. To the least likely means of death I’ve mentioned, terrorism, the federal government devotes about $150 billion annually. On the other hand, to combat the most likely cause of death, heart disease, the government contributes only $2 billion. And just $300 million is devoted to research on the third most likely cause of death, strokes.
So looking at it another way, we spend $500 million for every death from terrorism and only $2,000 for every death resulting from strokes. That means we spend 250,000 times more per death on terrorism. The numbers aren't precise but the pattern is evident. What the hell is wrong with us? I don't think how colossal of a mistake going into Iraq was, can be overstated. Considering how much those top causes cost us in lives and healthcare costs, and how many of those deaths are directly related to legal substance abuse, not only does it make our substance laws look completely stupid, it illustrates how it's not just a matter of spending too much but how much, where. Also that keeping people alive/safe isn't why we are 'fighting terrorism' Source So thinkbynumbers.org is full of shit. Good to know, thanks. Thanks for that spectacularly typical pointless one liner with 0 substance and nothing but a blanket dismissal of a site which is largely irrelevant to the point, other than they created an info-graphic which (I noted) isn't perfect but got 0 from you as far as specifically what was wrong or how it impacted my points. At least you are consistent! The info-graphic is made by fuckwits for fuckwits. You really need me to hold your hand an explain all the reasons why? If you have a contention with my points say it, if not, I don't know why you bother? My hope is that other people with brains explain it so I don't have to do the work myself. Just look at it.. it's laughably retarded.
Well I obviously know that the numbers particularly about military spending/terrorist related deaths (due to whether you count deaths outside of America [particularly in a war zone]) aren't especially accurate due to the date of the graphic and the grey area that is military/anti terrorism spending, regardless, the points are unaffected (which is why I said that at the beginning). It doesn't really matter whether it's 250,000x more or 50,000x more or 500,000x more, to the core of my point. Other than that, and the other point about YPLL, I really don't know what your issue would even be?
But you insist on turning it into some sort of guessing game, apparently because it is so retarded that you could only muster up enough effort to make 3 posts to complain about how retarded it was, but not 1 with why your argument in absentia has any thing to shed on my points?
Shouldn't take you 4 posts to just come up with what your contention is, (if you even have one?[Or worse yet, try to rally someone else to do your work for you]) even if you can't provide your reasoning...?
|
On July 07 2014 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. SourceShow nested quote +Now that we’ve compared the risks, let’s examine how the government chooses to allocate our limited resources to combat these threats. To the least likely means of death I’ve mentioned, terrorism, the federal government devotes about $150 billion annually. On the other hand, to combat the most likely cause of death, heart disease, the government contributes only $2 billion. And just $300 million is devoted to research on the third most likely cause of death, strokes.
So looking at it another way, we spend $500 million for every death from terrorism and only $2,000 for every death resulting from strokes. That means we spend 250,000 times more per death on terrorism. The numbers aren't precise but the pattern is evident. What the hell is wrong with us? I don't think how colossal of a mistake going into Iraq was, can be overstated. Considering how much those top causes cost us in lives and healthcare costs, and how many of those deaths are directly related to legal substance abuse, not only does it make our substance laws look completely stupid, it illustrates how it's not just a matter of spending too much but how much, where. Also that keeping people alive/safe isn't why we are 'fighting terrorism' Source So thinkbynumbers.org is full of shit. Good to know, thanks. Thanks for that spectacularly typical pointless one liner with 0 substance and nothing but a blanket dismissal of a site which is largely irrelevant to the point, other than they created an info-graphic which (I noted) isn't perfect but got 0 from you as far as specifically what was wrong or how it impacted my points. At least you are consistent! The info-graphic is made by fuckwits for fuckwits. You really need me to hold your hand an explain all the reasons why? If you have a contention with my points say it, if not, I don't know why you bother? My hope is that other people with brains explain it so I don't have to do the work myself. Just look at it.. it's laughably retarded. Well I obviously know that the numbers particularly about military spending/terrorist related deaths (due to whether you count deaths outside of America [particularly in a war zone]) aren't especially accurate due to the date of the graphic and the grey area that is military/anti terrorism spending, regardless, the points are unaffected (which is why I said that at the beginning). It doesn't really matter whether it's 250,000x more or 50,000x more or 500,000x more, to the core of my point. Other than that, and the other point about YPLL, I really don't know what your issue would even be? But you insist on turning it into some sort of guessing game, apparently because it is so retarded that you could only muster up enough effort to make 3 posts to complain about how retarded it was, but not 1 with why your argument in absentia has any thing to shed on my points? Shouldn't take you 4 posts to just come up with what your contention is, (if you even have one?[Or worse yet, try to rally someone else to do your work for you]) even if you can't provide your reasoning...?
From a quick glance at the info-graphic:
1) Military spending is an almost exclusively a function reserved for the Federal Government. Not so with preventing and treating heart attacks. Comparing the two is bullshit.
2) Comparing military spending with healthcare R&D is bullshit.
3) The Federal Government spends about ~20% of its budget on the military - not >50% as the graphic shows. It's outright wrong on that count.
Get real kid - it's obviously a pile of bullshit.
|
On July 07 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2014 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. SourceShow nested quote +Now that we’ve compared the risks, let’s examine how the government chooses to allocate our limited resources to combat these threats. To the least likely means of death I’ve mentioned, terrorism, the federal government devotes about $150 billion annually. On the other hand, to combat the most likely cause of death, heart disease, the government contributes only $2 billion. And just $300 million is devoted to research on the third most likely cause of death, strokes.
So looking at it another way, we spend $500 million for every death from terrorism and only $2,000 for every death resulting from strokes. That means we spend 250,000 times more per death on terrorism. The numbers aren't precise but the pattern is evident. What the hell is wrong with us? I don't think how colossal of a mistake going into Iraq was, can be overstated. Considering how much those top causes cost us in lives and healthcare costs, and how many of those deaths are directly related to legal substance abuse, not only does it make our substance laws look completely stupid, it illustrates how it's not just a matter of spending too much but how much, where. Also that keeping people alive/safe isn't why we are 'fighting terrorism' Source So thinkbynumbers.org is full of shit. Good to know, thanks. Thanks for that spectacularly typical pointless one liner with 0 substance and nothing but a blanket dismissal of a site which is largely irrelevant to the point, other than they created an info-graphic which (I noted) isn't perfect but got 0 from you as far as specifically what was wrong or how it impacted my points. At least you are consistent! The info-graphic is made by fuckwits for fuckwits. You really need me to hold your hand an explain all the reasons why? If you have a contention with my points say it, if not, I don't know why you bother? My hope is that other people with brains explain it so I don't have to do the work myself. Just look at it.. it's laughably retarded. Well I obviously know that the numbers particularly about military spending/terrorist related deaths (due to whether you count deaths outside of America [particularly in a war zone]) aren't especially accurate due to the date of the graphic and the grey area that is military/anti terrorism spending, regardless, the points are unaffected (which is why I said that at the beginning). It doesn't really matter whether it's 250,000x more or 50,000x more or 500,000x more, to the core of my point. Other than that, and the other point about YPLL, I really don't know what your issue would even be? But you insist on turning it into some sort of guessing game, apparently because it is so retarded that you could only muster up enough effort to make 3 posts to complain about how retarded it was, but not 1 with why your argument in absentia has any thing to shed on my points? Shouldn't take you 4 posts to just come up with what your contention is, (if you even have one?[Or worse yet, try to rally someone else to do your work for you]) even if you can't provide your reasoning...? From a quick glance at the info-graphic: 1) Military spending is an almost exclusively a function reserved for the Federal Government. Not so with preventing and treating heart attacks. Comparing the two is bullshit. 2) Comparing military spending with healthcare R&D is bullshit. 3) The Federal Government spends about ~20% of its budget on the military - not >50% as the graphic shows. It's outright wrong on that count. Get real kid - it's obviously a pile of bullshit.
Soo what you're saying is that you didn't have a problem with any of my points just the graphic...? You could of just said that to start. I had no intention of defending the graphic in any other way than it illustrates (even if it's as inflated as you suggest) my point.
And lets say I accept you're assertion that the comparison as shown is bullshit (of course I don't), are you suggesting that the amount of money we spend to research, develop new technology to address, and prevent terrorism, is not massively more than we spend on many of the other, much more frequent, preventable causes of death shown (there are dozens above terrorism)?
If there is a more accurate representation you can find I would be happy to use it instead? No matter how you slice the data the pattern is clear.
|
On July 07 2014 13:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. SourceShow nested quote +Now that we’ve compared the risks, let’s examine how the government chooses to allocate our limited resources to combat these threats. To the least likely means of death I’ve mentioned, terrorism, the federal government devotes about $150 billion annually. On the other hand, to combat the most likely cause of death, heart disease, the government contributes only $2 billion. And just $300 million is devoted to research on the third most likely cause of death, strokes.
So looking at it another way, we spend $500 million for every death from terrorism and only $2,000 for every death resulting from strokes. That means we spend 250,000 times more per death on terrorism. The numbers aren't precise but the pattern is evident. What the hell is wrong with us? I don't think how colossal of a mistake going into Iraq was, can be overstated. Considering how much those top causes cost us in lives and healthcare costs, and how many of those deaths are directly related to legal substance abuse, not only does it make our substance laws look completely stupid, it illustrates how it's not just a matter of spending too much but how much, where. Also that keeping people alive/safe isn't why we are 'fighting terrorism' Source So thinkbynumbers.org is full of shit. Good to know, thanks. Thanks for that spectacularly typical pointless one liner with 0 substance and nothing but a blanket dismissal of a site which is largely irrelevant to the point, other than they created an info-graphic which (I noted) isn't perfect but got 0 from you as far as specifically what was wrong or how it impacted my points. At least you are consistent! The info-graphic is made by fuckwits for fuckwits. You really need me to hold your hand an explain all the reasons why? If you have a contention with my points say it, if not, I don't know why you bother? My hope is that other people with brains explain it so I don't have to do the work myself. Just look at it.. it's laughably retarded. Well I obviously know that the numbers particularly about military spending/terrorist related deaths (due to whether you count deaths outside of America [particularly in a war zone]) aren't especially accurate due to the date of the graphic and the grey area that is military/anti terrorism spending, regardless, the points are unaffected (which is why I said that at the beginning). It doesn't really matter whether it's 250,000x more or 50,000x more or 500,000x more, to the core of my point. Other than that, and the other point about YPLL, I really don't know what your issue would even be? But you insist on turning it into some sort of guessing game, apparently because it is so retarded that you could only muster up enough effort to make 3 posts to complain about how retarded it was, but not 1 with why your argument in absentia has any thing to shed on my points? Shouldn't take you 4 posts to just come up with what your contention is, (if you even have one?[Or worse yet, try to rally someone else to do your work for you]) even if you can't provide your reasoning...? From a quick glance at the info-graphic: 1) Military spending is an almost exclusively a function reserved for the Federal Government. Not so with preventing and treating heart attacks. Comparing the two is bullshit. 2) Comparing military spending with healthcare R&D is bullshit. 3) The Federal Government spends about ~20% of its budget on the military - not >50% as the graphic shows. It's outright wrong on that count. Get real kid - it's obviously a pile of bullshit. Soo what you're saying is that you didn't have a problem with any of my points just the graphic...? You could of just said that to start. I had no intention of defending the graphic in any other way than it illustrates (even if it's as inflated as you suggest) my point. And lets say I accept you're assertion that the comparison as shown is bullshit (of course I don't), are you suggesting that the amount of money we spend to research, develop new technology to address, and prevent terrorism, is not massively more than we spend on many of the other, much more frequent, preventable causes of death shown (there are dozens above terrorism)? If there is a more accurate representation you can find I would be happy to use it instead? No matter how you slice the data the pattern is clear.
I have to go with Jonny on this. Comparing anti-terrorism funding to causes of death is a wacky apples to oranges comparison.
And to be honest, I actually agree with your point that anti-terrorism funding is excessive both in terms of what police and national forces are buying in terms of equipment and the alarming attitude that police want to militarize and national security is being used to encroach on individual rights.
I'd say anti-terrorism has the features of a new religion in Washington - it demands rituals of militarism, large funding, and sacrifices in terms of rights, and insists if they do not get those things, the angry god of terrorism will strike us all down.
But your infographic doesn't hold any water. I went to the trouble of reading the article and it's even more nonsensical.
|
http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/working_papers/pfeffer-danziger-schoeni_wealth-levels.pdf
"Through at least 2013, there are very few signs of significant recovery from the losses in wealth experienced by American families during the Great Recession. Declines in net worth from 2007 to 2009 were large, and the declines continued through 2013. These wealth losses, however, were not distributed equally. While large absolute amounts of wealth were destroyed at the top of the wealth distribution, households at the bottom of the wealth distribution lost the largest share of their total wealth. As a result, wealth inequality increased significantly from 2003 through 2013; by some metrics inequality roughly doubled."
The bottom 75% of the population has had their wealth decline since 2003. The 90th percentile has roughly the same wealth as 2003, and the top 5% is the only group that has seen significant wealth increases since 2003.
|
On July 07 2014 16:45 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2014 13:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. SourceShow nested quote +Now that we’ve compared the risks, let’s examine how the government chooses to allocate our limited resources to combat these threats. To the least likely means of death I’ve mentioned, terrorism, the federal government devotes about $150 billion annually. On the other hand, to combat the most likely cause of death, heart disease, the government contributes only $2 billion. And just $300 million is devoted to research on the third most likely cause of death, strokes.
So looking at it another way, we spend $500 million for every death from terrorism and only $2,000 for every death resulting from strokes. That means we spend 250,000 times more per death on terrorism. The numbers aren't precise but the pattern is evident. What the hell is wrong with us? I don't think how colossal of a mistake going into Iraq was, can be overstated. Considering how much those top causes cost us in lives and healthcare costs, and how many of those deaths are directly related to legal substance abuse, not only does it make our substance laws look completely stupid, it illustrates how it's not just a matter of spending too much but how much, where. Also that keeping people alive/safe isn't why we are 'fighting terrorism' Source So thinkbynumbers.org is full of shit. Good to know, thanks. Thanks for that spectacularly typical pointless one liner with 0 substance and nothing but a blanket dismissal of a site which is largely irrelevant to the point, other than they created an info-graphic which (I noted) isn't perfect but got 0 from you as far as specifically what was wrong or how it impacted my points. At least you are consistent! The info-graphic is made by fuckwits for fuckwits. You really need me to hold your hand an explain all the reasons why? If you have a contention with my points say it, if not, I don't know why you bother? My hope is that other people with brains explain it so I don't have to do the work myself. Just look at it.. it's laughably retarded. Well I obviously know that the numbers particularly about military spending/terrorist related deaths (due to whether you count deaths outside of America [particularly in a war zone]) aren't especially accurate due to the date of the graphic and the grey area that is military/anti terrorism spending, regardless, the points are unaffected (which is why I said that at the beginning). It doesn't really matter whether it's 250,000x more or 50,000x more or 500,000x more, to the core of my point. Other than that, and the other point about YPLL, I really don't know what your issue would even be? But you insist on turning it into some sort of guessing game, apparently because it is so retarded that you could only muster up enough effort to make 3 posts to complain about how retarded it was, but not 1 with why your argument in absentia has any thing to shed on my points? Shouldn't take you 4 posts to just come up with what your contention is, (if you even have one?[Or worse yet, try to rally someone else to do your work for you]) even if you can't provide your reasoning...? From a quick glance at the info-graphic: 1) Military spending is an almost exclusively a function reserved for the Federal Government. Not so with preventing and treating heart attacks. Comparing the two is bullshit. 2) Comparing military spending with healthcare R&D is bullshit. 3) The Federal Government spends about ~20% of its budget on the military - not >50% as the graphic shows. It's outright wrong on that count. Get real kid - it's obviously a pile of bullshit. Soo what you're saying is that you didn't have a problem with any of my points just the graphic...? You could of just said that to start. I had no intention of defending the graphic in any other way than it illustrates (even if it's as inflated as you suggest) my point. And lets say I accept you're assertion that the comparison as shown is bullshit (of course I don't), are you suggesting that the amount of money we spend to research, develop new technology to address, and prevent terrorism, is not massively more than we spend on many of the other, much more frequent, preventable causes of death shown (there are dozens above terrorism)? If there is a more accurate representation you can find I would be happy to use it instead? No matter how you slice the data the pattern is clear. I have to go with Jonny on this. Comparing anti-terrorism funding to causes of death is a wacky apples to oranges comparison. And to be honest, I actually agree with your point that anti-terrorism funding is excessive both in terms of what police and national forces are buying in terms of equipment and the alarming attitude that police want to militarize and national security is being used to encroach on individual rights. I'd say anti-terrorism has the features of a new religion in Washington - it demands rituals of militarism, large funding, and sacrifices in terms of rights, and insists if they do not get those things, the angry god of terrorism will strike us all down. But your infographic doesn't hold any water. I went to the trouble of reading the article and it's even more nonsensical.
Why is it that spending on anti terrorism and spending on anti-x is different when it comes to my points? I'm not discounting the idea just want to know why you think so.
Like I said I just grabbed an info graphic and a caption, I wasn't particularly tied to the specific numbers (and I thought I have certainly made that clear by this point). If someone had a better one I'd be happy to use it but, as you seem to acknowledge, my points stand without the graphic.
The entire CDC budget is smaller than just a month or two of the Iraq war (not sure if the story is terrorism had anything to do with that war or not anymore) The same could be said for the war in Afghanistan.
The CDC is tasked with protecting us from things that already kill way more Americans than terrorists do yet we give them spare change compared to what we spend to 'protect ourselves' from 'terrorism'. Since the infographic seemed not to have the intended effect I'll try some quotes.
Antibiotic resistance: CDC estimates that antibiotic resistance causes over 2
million illnesses and about 23,000 deaths are each year. The FY 2015 budget
proposes $30 million to detect and protect against the spread of the most deadly
and costly antibiotic resistant pathogens.
Source
A $40 million prison sits in the desert north of Baghdad, empty. A $165 million children's hospital goes unused in the south. A $100 million waste water treatment system in Fallujah has cost three times more than projected, yet sewage still runs through the streets.
Source
More on a prison in Iraq than we give the CDC in an entire year to fight some of the deadliest most resistant threats we face... How long have we been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan yet less Americans have died there or here during those wars than we estimate have died in one year due to anti-biotic resistant pathogens (or plenty of other causes of death)?!
|
On July 07 2014 18:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2014 16:45 coverpunch wrote:On July 07 2014 13:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. SourceShow nested quote +Now that we’ve compared the risks, let’s examine how the government chooses to allocate our limited resources to combat these threats. To the least likely means of death I’ve mentioned, terrorism, the federal government devotes about $150 billion annually. On the other hand, to combat the most likely cause of death, heart disease, the government contributes only $2 billion. And just $300 million is devoted to research on the third most likely cause of death, strokes.
So looking at it another way, we spend $500 million for every death from terrorism and only $2,000 for every death resulting from strokes. That means we spend 250,000 times more per death on terrorism. The numbers aren't precise but the pattern is evident. What the hell is wrong with us? I don't think how colossal of a mistake going into Iraq was, can be overstated. Considering how much those top causes cost us in lives and healthcare costs, and how many of those deaths are directly related to legal substance abuse, not only does it make our substance laws look completely stupid, it illustrates how it's not just a matter of spending too much but how much, where. Also that keeping people alive/safe isn't why we are 'fighting terrorism' Source So thinkbynumbers.org is full of shit. Good to know, thanks. Thanks for that spectacularly typical pointless one liner with 0 substance and nothing but a blanket dismissal of a site which is largely irrelevant to the point, other than they created an info-graphic which (I noted) isn't perfect but got 0 from you as far as specifically what was wrong or how it impacted my points. At least you are consistent! The info-graphic is made by fuckwits for fuckwits. You really need me to hold your hand an explain all the reasons why? If you have a contention with my points say it, if not, I don't know why you bother? My hope is that other people with brains explain it so I don't have to do the work myself. Just look at it.. it's laughably retarded. Well I obviously know that the numbers particularly about military spending/terrorist related deaths (due to whether you count deaths outside of America [particularly in a war zone]) aren't especially accurate due to the date of the graphic and the grey area that is military/anti terrorism spending, regardless, the points are unaffected (which is why I said that at the beginning). It doesn't really matter whether it's 250,000x more or 50,000x more or 500,000x more, to the core of my point. Other than that, and the other point about YPLL, I really don't know what your issue would even be? But you insist on turning it into some sort of guessing game, apparently because it is so retarded that you could only muster up enough effort to make 3 posts to complain about how retarded it was, but not 1 with why your argument in absentia has any thing to shed on my points? Shouldn't take you 4 posts to just come up with what your contention is, (if you even have one?[Or worse yet, try to rally someone else to do your work for you]) even if you can't provide your reasoning...? From a quick glance at the info-graphic: 1) Military spending is an almost exclusively a function reserved for the Federal Government. Not so with preventing and treating heart attacks. Comparing the two is bullshit. 2) Comparing military spending with healthcare R&D is bullshit. 3) The Federal Government spends about ~20% of its budget on the military - not >50% as the graphic shows. It's outright wrong on that count. Get real kid - it's obviously a pile of bullshit. Soo what you're saying is that you didn't have a problem with any of my points just the graphic...? You could of just said that to start. I had no intention of defending the graphic in any other way than it illustrates (even if it's as inflated as you suggest) my point. And lets say I accept you're assertion that the comparison as shown is bullshit (of course I don't), are you suggesting that the amount of money we spend to research, develop new technology to address, and prevent terrorism, is not massively more than we spend on many of the other, much more frequent, preventable causes of death shown (there are dozens above terrorism)? If there is a more accurate representation you can find I would be happy to use it instead? No matter how you slice the data the pattern is clear. I have to go with Jonny on this. Comparing anti-terrorism funding to causes of death is a wacky apples to oranges comparison. And to be honest, I actually agree with your point that anti-terrorism funding is excessive both in terms of what police and national forces are buying in terms of equipment and the alarming attitude that police want to militarize and national security is being used to encroach on individual rights. I'd say anti-terrorism has the features of a new religion in Washington - it demands rituals of militarism, large funding, and sacrifices in terms of rights, and insists if they do not get those things, the angry god of terrorism will strike us all down. But your infographic doesn't hold any water. I went to the trouble of reading the article and it's even more nonsensical. Why is it that spending on anti terrorism and spending on anti-x is different when it comes to my points? I'm not discounting the idea just want to know why you think so. Like I said I just grabbed an info graphic and a caption, I wasn't particularly tied to the specific numbers (and I thought I have certainly made that clear by this point). If someone had a better one I'd be happy to use it but, as you seem to acknowledge, my points stand without the graphic. The entire CDC budget is smaller than just a month or two of the Iraq war (not sure if the story is terrorism had anything to do with that war or not anymore) The same could be said for the war in Afghanistan. The CDC is tasked with protecting us from things that already kill way more Americans than terrorists do yet we give them spare change compared to what we spend to 'protect ourselves' from 'terrorism'. Since the infographic seemed not to have the intended effect I'll try some quotes. Show nested quote +Antibiotic resistance: CDC estimates that antibiotic resistance causes over 2
million illnesses and about 23,000 deaths are each year. The FY 2015 budget
proposes $30 million to detect and protect against the spread of the most deadly
and costly antibiotic resistant pathogens. SourceShow nested quote +A $40 million prison sits in the desert north of Baghdad, empty. A $165 million children's hospital goes unused in the south. A $100 million waste water treatment system in Fallujah has cost three times more than projected, yet sewage still runs through the streets. SourceMore on a prison in Iraq than we give the CDC in an entire year to fight some of the deadliest most resistant threats we face... How long have we been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan yet less Americans have died there or here during those wars than we estimate have died in one year due to anti-biotic resistant pathogens (or plenty of other causes of death)?!
Jonny covered it with his points. The government's role with respect to military problems is fundamentally different from those dealing with disease. Acting as though anti-terrorism outcomes are only a function of dollars spent per death is ridiculous, and it's even more so when you compare disease outcomes in the same way. We're not criticizing the details like you seem to think, we're criticizing the entire principle and basis of the logic.
It's simplistic to say a $40 million prison should have been devoted instead to disease research. The government has to balance out such competing interests because there are many projects that need to be considered for viability and feasibility. It's fair to criticize the government for costly and wasteful projects, and I would join you in that, but it's not persuasive to simply say that we should have rolled it all into a cancer-researching lab instead. I will also point out that scientists are not very good at justifying the costs of a project and not good at proving that the money has been put to good use and showing strong progress. The incentives and politics behind science funding is a separate discussion, but it just contrasts that DoD is excellent at getting Congress to see things their way.
|
So basically, military people have more money and thus better lobbyists, so they get more money. Scientists have less money and thus can waste less on good lobbyists, so they get less money?
|
On July 07 2014 22:40 Simberto wrote:
So basically, military people have more money and thus better lobbyists, so they get more money. Scientists have less money and thus can waste less on good lobbyists, so they get less money?
Yes? Thats basically how just about anything in the world works...
|
It's a pretty shitty process of decisionmaking. Just because it works like that does not mean that is a justification for it to work like that.
|
On July 07 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
3) The Federal Government spends about ~20% of its budget on the military - not >50% as the graphic shows. It's outright wrong on that count.
Get real kid - it's obviously a pile of bullshit.
If you look at the the portion of the budget that is discretionary and not mandatory it's actually a little more than 50%. If we're discussing the question "is the USA misspending money?" it doesn't make much sense to include the money that they can not redistribute anyway.
They should make that clear in their info graphic though, but it's not "bullshit".
|
On July 08 2014 00:17 Simberto wrote:
It's a pretty shitty process of decisionmaking. Just because it works like that does not mean that is a justification for it to work like that.
You're looking at this all wrong. First, military spending is exclusively the domain of the government. There is no private demand for military goods and services. In contrast, "science" spending (R&D, etc) occurs both privately and publicly. Public R&D spending is both direct and indirect (ie grants for particular research would be "direct" and tax incentives for R&D would be indirect). In other words, you can't just look at the federal budget and make rote conclusions regarding how much is being invested into science versus the military at a national level.
Second, there is a significant overlap between military spending and scientific spending. Countless technologies were first developed for military purposes before they were converted to civilian uses. Hell, war has been the single greatest driver of innovation in the medical field. You can look at each major conflict in which the US has been involved over the past hundred years and pick out a key development in our understanding of the human body and treatment of various conditions. As just the most recent example, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have helped revolutionize our understanding of traumatic brain injuries.
|
On July 07 2014 18:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2014 16:45 coverpunch wrote:On July 07 2014 13:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2014 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. SourceShow nested quote +Now that we’ve compared the risks, let’s examine how the government chooses to allocate our limited resources to combat these threats. To the least likely means of death I’ve mentioned, terrorism, the federal government devotes about $150 billion annually. On the other hand, to combat the most likely cause of death, heart disease, the government contributes only $2 billion. And just $300 million is devoted to research on the third most likely cause of death, strokes.
So looking at it another way, we spend $500 million for every death from terrorism and only $2,000 for every death resulting from strokes. That means we spend 250,000 times more per death on terrorism. The numbers aren't precise but the pattern is evident. What the hell is wrong with us? I don't think how colossal of a mistake going into Iraq was, can be overstated. Considering how much those top causes cost us in lives and healthcare costs, and how many of those deaths are directly related to legal substance abuse, not only does it make our substance laws look completely stupid, it illustrates how it's not just a matter of spending too much but how much, where. Also that keeping people alive/safe isn't why we are 'fighting terrorism' Source So thinkbynumbers.org is full of shit. Good to know, thanks. Thanks for that spectacularly typical pointless one liner with 0 substance and nothing but a blanket dismissal of a site which is largely irrelevant to the point, other than they created an info-graphic which (I noted) isn't perfect but got 0 from you as far as specifically what was wrong or how it impacted my points. At least you are consistent! The info-graphic is made by fuckwits for fuckwits. You really need me to hold your hand an explain all the reasons why? If you have a contention with my points say it, if not, I don't know why you bother? My hope is that other people with brains explain it so I don't have to do the work myself. Just look at it.. it's laughably retarded. Well I obviously know that the numbers particularly about military spending/terrorist related deaths (due to whether you count deaths outside of America [particularly in a war zone]) aren't especially accurate due to the date of the graphic and the grey area that is military/anti terrorism spending, regardless, the points are unaffected (which is why I said that at the beginning). It doesn't really matter whether it's 250,000x more or 50,000x more or 500,000x more, to the core of my point. Other than that, and the other point about YPLL, I really don't know what your issue would even be? But you insist on turning it into some sort of guessing game, apparently because it is so retarded that you could only muster up enough effort to make 3 posts to complain about how retarded it was, but not 1 with why your argument in absentia has any thing to shed on my points? Shouldn't take you 4 posts to just come up with what your contention is, (if you even have one?[Or worse yet, try to rally someone else to do your work for you]) even if you can't provide your reasoning...? From a quick glance at the info-graphic: 1) Military spending is an almost exclusively a function reserved for the Federal Government. Not so with preventing and treating heart attacks. Comparing the two is bullshit. 2) Comparing military spending with healthcare R&D is bullshit. 3) The Federal Government spends about ~20% of its budget on the military - not >50% as the graphic shows. It's outright wrong on that count. Get real kid - it's obviously a pile of bullshit. Soo what you're saying is that you didn't have a problem with any of my points just the graphic...? You could of just said that to start. I had no intention of defending the graphic in any other way than it illustrates (even if it's as inflated as you suggest) my point. And lets say I accept you're assertion that the comparison as shown is bullshit (of course I don't), are you suggesting that the amount of money we spend to research, develop new technology to address, and prevent terrorism, is not massively more than we spend on many of the other, much more frequent, preventable causes of death shown (there are dozens above terrorism)? If there is a more accurate representation you can find I would be happy to use it instead? No matter how you slice the data the pattern is clear. I have to go with Jonny on this. Comparing anti-terrorism funding to causes of death is a wacky apples to oranges comparison. And to be honest, I actually agree with your point that anti-terrorism funding is excessive both in terms of what police and national forces are buying in terms of equipment and the alarming attitude that police want to militarize and national security is being used to encroach on individual rights. I'd say anti-terrorism has the features of a new religion in Washington - it demands rituals of militarism, large funding, and sacrifices in terms of rights, and insists if they do not get those things, the angry god of terrorism will strike us all down. But your infographic doesn't hold any water. I went to the trouble of reading the article and it's even more nonsensical. Why is it that spending on anti terrorism and spending on anti-x is different when it comes to my points? I'm not discounting the idea just want to know why you think so. Like I said I just grabbed an info graphic and a caption, I wasn't particularly tied to the specific numbers (and I thought I have certainly made that clear by this point). If someone had a better one I'd be happy to use it but, as you seem to acknowledge, my points stand without the graphic. The entire CDC budget is smaller than just a month or two of the Iraq war (not sure if the story is terrorism had anything to do with that war or not anymore) The same could be said for the war in Afghanistan. The CDC is tasked with protecting us from things that already kill way more Americans than terrorists do yet we give them spare change compared to what we spend to 'protect ourselves' from 'terrorism'. Since the infographic seemed not to have the intended effect I'll try some quotes. Show nested quote +Antibiotic resistance: CDC estimates that antibiotic resistance causes over 2
million illnesses and about 23,000 deaths are each year. The FY 2015 budget
proposes $30 million to detect and protect against the spread of the most deadly
and costly antibiotic resistant pathogens. SourceShow nested quote +A $40 million prison sits in the desert north of Baghdad, empty. A $165 million children's hospital goes unused in the south. A $100 million waste water treatment system in Fallujah has cost three times more than projected, yet sewage still runs through the streets. SourceMore on a prison in Iraq than we give the CDC in an entire year to fight some of the deadliest most resistant threats we face... How long have we been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan yet less Americans have died there or here during those wars than we estimate have died in one year due to anti-biotic resistant pathogens (or plenty of other causes of death)?!
This is complete nonsense. You're just making apples to oranges comparisons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
