Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    09 Sep '11 14:54
    Here is a thoughtful economics argument: we would have to be foiling 1,667 Times Square-style attacks every year to justify our current level of homeland security spending. So at least 4 attacks per day. How many do they actual foil? 5-6 per year would be optimistic, I think. Is it maybe more like 1 or 2?

    Yes, we should definitely raise taxes because government allocates our country's wealth SO much better than those nasty rich people who merely "invest."

    http://www.slate.com/id/2303169/?from=rss
  2. 09 Sep '11 15:00
    How about actually paying for temporary wars with temporary taxes?

    Or has the US been running such great surplusses that it could simply pay for these wars out of the normal budget?
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    09 Sep '11 16:48
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Here is a thoughtful economics argument: we would have to be foiling 1,667 Times Square-style attacks every year to justify our current level of homeland security spending. So at least 4 attacks per day. How many do they actual foil? 5-6 per year would be optimistic, I think. Is it maybe more like 1 or 2?

    Yes, we should definitely raise taxes because ...[text shortened]... han those nasty rich people who merely "invest."

    http://www.slate.com/id/2303169/?from=rss
    Would you like to volunteer to be the one to die in the attack that we don't bother foiling?
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    09 Sep '11 16:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Would you like to volunteer to be the one to die in the attack that we don't bother foiling?
    Would you like to volunteer to be the one to pay for foiling such attacks?

    I've never been personally affected by terrorists. I am not part of the upper class which they are targetting.
  5. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    09 Sep '11 18:08
    Originally posted by sh76
    Would you like to volunteer to be the one to die in the attack that we don't bother foiling?
    So it seems reasonable to you to spend that kind of money?

    Suppose we spent only 1/10th that budget and only foiled up to 167 attacks per year. That would protect us completely against a steady bombing campaign of one bombing attempt in the US every 2-3 days.

    You really think the threat on US soil -- with our existing border control -- resembles the threat level, say, of Iraq?
  6. 09 Sep '11 20:46
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Would you like to volunteer to be the one to pay for foiling such attacks?

    I've never been personally affected by terrorists. I am not part of the upper class which they are targetting.
    I don't think terrorists attacked the upper class -- they are attacking what they perceive US symbols. The twin towers were office buildings. Most people feel most vulnerable to attacks when they are on potential targets like bridges, trains or airplanes.
  7. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    10 Sep '11 00:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Here is a thoughtful economics argument: we would have to be foiling 1,667 Times Square-style attacks every year to justify our current level of homeland security spending. So at least 4 attacks per day. How many do they actual foil? 5-6 per year would be optimistic, I think. Is it maybe more like 1 or 2?

    Yes, we should definitely raise taxes because han those nasty rich people who merely "invest."

    http://www.slate.com/id/2303169/?from=rss
    Ironically, many many many more lives could be saved by spending all that money on health care instead.

    Conservatives always fail to notice this as they salute the flag and hand their wallets over to the military-industrial complex while complaining about "big government".
  8. 10 Sep '11 00:29
    if they really wanted to throw the fear into us, they would hit an amusement park packed full of children, or a Zoo,,,,, etc
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 Sep '11 02:44 / 1 edit
    I understand Los Angeles is not one of the current targets. There was a threat released recently.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-08/u-s-homeland-security-reports-9-11-terror-threat.html

    I'm always on the lookout though. I could be asploded any day of course. Live one day at a time.
  10. 10 Sep '11 05:42
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Would you like to volunteer to be the one to pay for foiling such attacks?

    I've never been personally affected by terrorists. I am not part of the upper class which they are targetting.
    Yet another benefit the upper class bestows upon you.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 Sep '11 16:46
    Originally posted by JS357
    Yet another benefit the upper class bestows upon you.
    Benefit? LOL. It's not a benefit to me that they go around pissing off violent fanatics who then attack my country.