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
Originally posted by spruce112358Would you like to volunteer to be the one to die in the attack that we don't bother foiling?
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
Originally posted by sh76Would you like to volunteer to be the one to pay for foiling such attacks?
Would you like to volunteer to be the one to die in the attack that we don't bother foiling?
I've never been personally affected by terrorists. I am not part of the upper class which they are targetting.
Originally posted by sh76So it seems reasonable to you to spend that kind of money?
Would you like to volunteer to be the one to die in the attack that we don't bother foiling?
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?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI 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.
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.
Originally posted by spruce112358Ironically, many many many more lives could be saved by spending all that money on health care instead.
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
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".
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.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYet another benefit the upper class bestows upon you.
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.