US Politics Mega-thread - Page 317

On July 09 2013 05:06 farvacola wrote:

Pearl Harbor and the War of 1812 come to mind immediately. Both are different enough from contemporary times to render their comparisons fairly toothless though.

On July 09 2013 06:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Ah, right, War of 1812, forgot about that one. Pearl Harbor is iffy, though. From what I remember, the Japanese were just trying to cripple the US Navy to buy time for further expansion in the Western Pacific. I don't think the goal was ever to take over US territory specifically.

On July 09 2013 06:45 Souma wrote:
The U.S. military, as with so many other sectors, is full of bloat, inefficiency, rent-seeking, etc. Before we can even debate whether or not the current price tag is justifiable, we must actually realize that it's not necessary. When you actually get down into the numbers, there is just way too much crap that we're spending way too much money on, including contracts, obsolete weapons/vehicles, etc. It is possible to reduce the amount of money we spend on the military, while at the same time maintaining the current military-readiness levels. Of course, this isn't going to happen any time soon.

On July 09 2013 06:45 Souma wrote:
The U.S. military, as with so many other sectors, is full of bloat, inefficiency, rent-seeking, etc. Before we can even debate whether or not the current price tag is justifiable, we must actually realize that it's not necessary. When you actually get down into the numbers, there is just way too much crap that we're spending way too much money on, including contracts, obsolete weapons/vehicles, etc. It is possible to reduce the amount of money we spend on the military, while at the same time maintaining the current military-readiness levels. Of course, this isn't going to happen any time soon.

While Republicans settle on a least-bad immigration strategy, it’s dawned on reform opponents and their conservative allies that if the effort dies in the House, they’ll need to bring a plausible excuse to the public — that is, if they hope to sidestep at least some of the blame for the debacle.

And they think they’ve found one.

Specifically, they hope to draw a connection between the White House’s recent health care reform implementation decisions and border security measures in the Senate’s immigration bill to claim their opposition to comprehensive reform stems not from substantive objections but from a sense that the Obama administration will ignore parts of an immigration law it doesn’t like.

“If you look at this Obamacare debacle that they have right now, this administration is actually deciding when and where to actually enforce the law. And that’s what some of us in the House are concerned about,” Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), who until recently was a leading immigration reform negotiator in the House, said Sunday on Meet the Press. “If you give to this administration the authority to decide when they’re going to enforce the law, how they’re going to enforce the law … I can tell you that Janet Napolitano has already said that the border is secure. So what’s going to happen is that we’re going to give legalization to 11 million people, and Janet Napolitano’s going to come to Congress and tell us that the border’s already secure, and nothing else needs to happen.”

Labrador is referring to the Obama administration’s decision to delay the health care law’s employer mandate by one year — a move intended to smooth Obamacare implementation, but that in itself reflects the fact that Republicans will block legislative Affordable Care Act fixes, and that administrative actions are the only way to make sure the law rolls out as smoothly as possible.

On July 09 2013 06:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Ah, right, War of 1812, forgot about that one. Pearl Harbor is iffy, though. From what I remember, the Japanese were just trying to cripple the US Navy to buy time for further expansion in the Western Pacific. I don't think the goal was ever to take over US territory specifically.

On July 09 2013 07:39 Phelix wrote:

Yes, there is a lot of inefficiency in the military, but don't forget that America has a big military-industrial complex that sprinkles its monies and boosts the economy around the country. For example, there's a case where Congress mandates that they build 300 Abrams tanks even though the military thinks that it's not necessary (There are tank graveyards around the deserts.), but they are forced to because people are going to lose jobs if the factory is not open and making tanks.

It's a balance of increasing unemployment versus wasteful government spending and trying to reduce the deficit/total debt. Representatives and senators will obviously vote on these projects in their home districts/states, but outright object to being spent on other districts/states.

On July 09 2013 08:13 KwarK wrote:

In fairness the justification for this is maintaining the skillsets that let the country produce a bunch of tanks if it needs to for national security purposes. At some point the country may need to produce a new generation of tanks or if the world situation changes it may need to supply some tanks to a foreign nation or whatever. The point is making tanks you don't want will work out cheaper than training a bunch of dudes from scratch to make tanks and building them a factory when you need them in the future. And while you don't need them right now you have to give them something to do, right?

SAO PAULO (AP) - The Brazilian government began an investigation Monday into whether telecommunications firms operating in the country cooperated with the U.S. as part of a spying program that has collected data on billions of telephone and email conversations.

Anatel, the government agency that regulates the telecom sector in Brazil, said in a note that it's working with federal police and other government agencies on the investigation.

The O Globo newspaper reported this weekend that information released by NSA leaker Edward Snowden showed Brazil is the top target in Latin America for the National Security Agency's massive intelligence-gathering effort aimed at monitoring communications around the world.

Brazil isn't alone in its concern; London-based advocacy group Privacy International filed lawsuit on Monday over alleged spying of internet and phone users in Britain.

"It's worth clarifying that the confidentiality of data and telephone communications is a right guaranteed by the constitution, by our laws and by Anatel's regulations," the Brazilian regulator said in a note posted on its website. "Its violation is punishable in civil, criminal and administrative realms."

The O Globo article said the NSA collected the data through an association between U.S. and Brazilian telecommunications companies. It said it could not verify which Brazilian companies were involved or if they were aware their links were being used to collect the data.

On July 09 2013 08:25 KwarK wrote:
Every party everywhere is against waste but every party everywhere is made up of the same type of individuals who are either too incompetent or too complicit to reduce waste. Railing against waste is like railing against bad weather, it's a non argument against a straw man and even if it was a legitimate point neither side has a good track record on dealing with it.

On July 09 2013 06:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Ah, right, War of 1812, forgot about that one. Pearl Harbor is iffy, though. From what I remember, the Japanese were just trying to cripple the US Navy to buy time for further expansion in the Western Pacific. I don't think the goal was ever to take over US territory specifically.

On July 09 2013 08:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

And that would be one argument for a smaller government; it's inherently wasteful and therefore it should do less.

On July 09 2013 08:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

And that would be one argument for a smaller government; it's inherently wasteful and therefore it should do less.

On July 09 2013 08:42 Jormundr wrote:

Only if you assume that private solutions would be less wasteful.