What would you cut?

Dixie said:
No... 1/3+1/3+1/3= 3/3 which is 1.

Has nothing to do with dividing 1 by 3, which produces a remainder.
Click to expand...
Sure you can. 1 divided by 3 is 1/3. You cannot express it as a decimal without a remainder. That's why there are multiple forms of mathematical expression.

Regardless of whether you call a Communist a "Russian" or "Soviet" they still believe in Communist policy and aggression toward Europe.

Supertard!
Click to expand...
Yeah, all those free market companies, massive decrease in military power, inability to deal with a country that's 1/100 (or 0.01 if you prefer) it's size and supposed strength make us the only ones capable of dealing with them. And all the military aggression they've shown over the years.

Dixie, it's not the 1980s anymore.
 
Superfreak said:
holy crap... ditzie may have finally realized 1/3 does exist...
Click to expand...

I've never said otherwise. Dishonest idiot.

Nope... it was just a tease... back to ditzie's stupidity
Click to expand...

Still haven't said that 1/3 doesn't exist. Dishonest idiot.

dear ditzie, when you divide 1 by 3 it can be written as 1/3 <---- that is a fraction ditzie. You do not have to write it using decimals. I hope this helps... though given the countless attempts others have made to explain this very simple concept to you, I probably shouldn't hope for success.
Click to expand...

Dear dishonest idiot, you can write it all kinds of ways, a fractional representation of value is not value itself. "1/3" is called a "vulgar" fraction, which is an odd and peculiar word to use describing a rational number, but in the case of "1/3" it is appropriate, because "1/3" presumes the remainder is resolved, which it is resolved, because we won't calculate to infinity, but the remainder does still exist. It's irrelevant to our usage, this is why we can divide things into presumably equal thirds, by simply using the "vulgar fraction" known as "1/3."

I think we are up to post 5,290 now... this seems to be a most fascinating subject for lying dishonest morons. Can't figure that one out.

It is about accuracy ditzie. They are not called Soviets any more because the Soviet empire broke up. They are called Russians.
Click to expand...

No we were talking about the purpose and reason for certain military bases being where they are, you are arguing semantics and being silly.
 
Dixie said:
There is nothing we can cut that won't effect someone. Many here are clamoring (as usual) for cuts in defense, because they view defense spending as something we can have less of, without dramatically effecting someone, but that is so very untrue. Cuts in defense budgets mean bases will close, and that has an enormous economic impact on entire communities..
Click to expand...
Incorrect. We can cut defense by billions, and never close one base.

Just get rid of Cheney's privatized military. Let our soldiers do the 'security' details that are now being done by $1000/day subcontractors.
 
Dixie said:
I've never said otherwise. Dishonest idiot.
Click to expand...

you continue saying that it cannot exist without a remainder, that is factually incorrect. Yet you continue to pretend otherwise.

Still haven't said that 1/3 doesn't exist. Dishonest idiot.
Click to expand...

yes dearest ditzie, you do say that it cannot exist without a remainder. That is what we are mocking. That is the stupidity that you continue to display... just wait... here it comes...


Dear dishonest idiot, you can write it all kinds of ways, a fractional representation of value is not value itself. "1/3" is called a "vulgar" fraction, which is an odd and peculiar word to use describing a rational number, but in the case of "1/3" it is appropriate, because "1/3" presumes the remainder is resolved, which it is resolved, because we won't calculate to infinity, but the remainder does still exist. It's irrelevant to our usage, this is why we can divide things into presumably equal thirds, by simply using the "vulgar fraction" known as "1/3."
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... and there we go again... poor ditzie... 1/3 does exist without a remainder

No we were talking about the purpose and reason for certain military bases being where they are, you are arguing semantics and being silly.
Click to expand...

No ditzie... as others have mentioned, you are stuck in the 80's. You can't talk about Soviet power and projection in relation to countries today. The USSR no longer exists. Russia does. It isn't semantics. It is that you are flat out wrong to call them Soviets.
 
Superfreak said:
you continue saying that it cannot exist without a remainder, that is factually incorrect. Yet you continue to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

I have NEVER SAID THAT 1/3 CAN NOT EXIST!!!

yes dearest ditzie, you do say that it cannot exist without a remainder. That is what we are mocking. That is the stupidity that you continue to display... just wait... here it comes...
Click to expand...

I have NEVER SAID THAT 1/3 CAN NOT EXIST!!!

ROFLMAO... and there we go again... poor ditzie... 1/3 does exist without a remainder
Click to expand...

I DID NOT SAY THAT 1/3 CAN NOT EXIST!!!

No ditzie... as others have mentioned, you are stuck in the 80's. You can't talk about Soviet power and projection in relation to countries today. The USSR no longer exists. Russia does. It isn't semantics. It is that you are flat out wrong to call them Soviets.
Click to expand...

Not stuck in anything, I am right here in 2012 with you. I made the point that US military bases are overseas for various reasons, namely, to prevent Soviet aggression in Europe.... you want to divert the argument of the point to make the point that I am technically incorrect in semantics. YEA! Someone give this fucktard a cookie and a gold star!
 
bravo said:
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy13bs12013n


try again?

2009 - Federal spending at 24 percent GDP.
2011 - Federal debt at 97 percent GDP.
Click to expand...

If you include nuclear weapons under the military/defense, as it should be, and numerous other programs that are defense programs, then the actual number was in the trillions, sorry, Popeye, they just don't wnt you to realize just how ungawdly the budget for our defense has become!
 
Althea said:
Incorrect. We can cut defense by billions, and never close one base.

Just get rid of Cheney's privatized military. Let our soldiers do the 'security' details that are now being done by $1000/day subcontractors.
Click to expand...

What's funny is, Rumsfeld's idea was to streamline the military and eliminate many of the contractors. Since the days of Clinton, we've gone from something like 36% contractor work force in defense, to around 28% and falling. We realized this a decade or more ago, and began doing something about it. In many cases, it IS cheaper for us to do these things with existing military personnel. HOWEVER... SOME things, it is just cheaper for us to contract out. Much of what Halliburton does, are specialized things that only a handful of companies can do, and we simply can't afford to try and do cheaper. Extinguishing oil well fires, to name an example. Who else is going to do that? How are we going to buy the equipment and train the soldiers to do it? WE CAN'T... that's why we contract it.

Still... Let's take your argument to the next step... Let's say we eliminate ALL the defense contractors... you've barely touched the overall defense budget. Plus, all of those companies are effected, they have to shut down operations, which means people lose jobs. If Hughes or Martin-Marietta close facilities, the towns they are in are toast as well, as they are the largest employers... So again, you have a consequence. You've cut something you assumed was wasteful and unneeded, but in doing so, you've created another problem... but you don't have a solution, or even act like you are aware this problem would exist.
 
Dixie said:
What's funny is, Rumsfeld's idea was to streamline the military and eliminate many of the contractors. Since the days of Clinton, we've gone from something like 36% contractor work force in defense, to around 28% and falling. We realized this a decade or more ago, and began doing something about it. In many cases, it IS cheaper for us to do these things with existing military personnel. HOWEVER... SOME things, it is just cheaper for us to contract out. Much of what Halliburton does, are specialized things that only a handful of companies can do, and we simply can't afford to try and do cheaper. Extinguishing oil well fires, to name an example. Who else is going to do that? How are we going to buy the equipment and train the soldiers to do it? WE CAN'T... that's why we contract it.
Click to expand...
Not sure how many oil well fires are still burning?



Still... Let's take your argument to the next step... Let's say we eliminate ALL the defense contractors... you've barely touched the overall defense budget. Plus, all of those companies are effected, they have to shut down operations, which means people lose jobs. If Hughes or Martin-Marietta close facilities, the towns they are in are toast as well, as they are the largest employers... So again, you have a consequence. You've cut something you assumed was wasteful and unneeded, but in doing so, you've created another problem... but you don't have a solution, or even act like you are aware this problem would exist.
Click to expand...
I see. Shrinking the govt. by laying off millions of $50k/year workers is good, but getting rid of thousands of $100k/yr unnecessary soldiers is bad?
 
Rana said:
If you include nuclear weapons under the military/defense, as it should be, and numerous other programs that are defense programs, then the actual number was in the trillions, sorry, Popeye, they just don't wnt you to realize just how ungawdly the budget for our defense has become!
Click to expand...

I don't think the VA money is under the defense dept budget.
 
Dixie said:
What's funny is, Rumsfeld's idea was to streamline the military and eliminate many of the contractors. Since the days of Clinton, we've gone from something like 36% contractor work force in defense, to around 28% and falling. We realized this a decade or more ago, and began doing something about it. In many cases, it IS cheaper for us to do these things with existing military personnel. HOWEVER... SOME things, it is just cheaper for us to contract out. Much of what Halliburton does, are specialized things that only a handful of companies can do, and we simply can't afford to try and do cheaper. Extinguishing oil well fires, to name an example. Who else is going to do that? How are we going to buy the equipment and train the soldiers to do it? WE CAN'T... that's why we contract it.

Still... Let's take your argument to the next step... Let's say we eliminate ALL the defense contractors... you've barely touched the overall defense budget. Plus, all of those companies are effected, they have to shut down operations, which means people lose jobs. If Hughes or Martin-Marietta close facilities, the towns they are in are toast as well, as they are the largest employers... So again, you have a consequence. You've cut something you assumed was wasteful and unneeded, but in doing so, you've created another problem... but you don't have a solution, or even act like you are aware this problem would exist.
Click to expand...

Bawahahahahaha, Haliburton, terrible example, it is a good one for " how to rip off the government and do business under the table with countries there are US sanctions against!
 
Rana said:
Bawahahahahaha, Haliburton, terrible example, it is a good one for " how to rip off the government and do business under the table with countries there are US sanctions against!
Click to expand...

Hughes was also sued by the government for overcharges, I am not sure about M & M, but Dixie needs to do some research!
 
simple, I would cut the following

Obamacare
Medicare
Medicaid
Commerce Dept - we would have commerce without it
Energy Dept - we would have energy without it
Education Dept - we would have education without it
Dept of Agriculture - we would have crops without it
Dept of Interior
Dept of Labor
IRS
FDA
EPA

That about sums it up. I am sure the libbie heads will spin like crazy, but none of these are needed.
 
Althea said:
Not sure how many oil well fires are still burning?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how many are burning presently, how many could be on fire tomorrow, do you know? Do we have the capacity or training to put them out? If not, it's best we have someone on 'retainer' who can, isn't it? I gave this example to illustrate a point, not that we have a problem right now with oil fires, but that certain contractors perform a function we can't do with the military. Yes, we can eliminate some contractors, we can let the soldiers do a lot of the work, but there are certain things we can't eliminate and we must outsource, because there is no other practical way.

I see. Shrinking the govt. by laying off millions of $50k/year workers is good, but getting rid of thousands of $100k/yr unnecessary soldiers is bad?
Click to expand...

I don't see where that is what I said. Again, we can eliminate government defense contracts, but that has a consequence. All of the major contractors are located somewhere, and they employ thousands of people somewhere. When you punch their meal ticket, where are they going to go and what are they going to do? Not much use in the private sector for high-tech military hardware, so they would probably fold and lay off a lot of people as a result. Now suddenly, a town which was full of well-paid government contract workers, is a town full of people on unemployment. This means, not as much money to spend going out to eat at Red Lobster, so Red Lobster decides to close that location... the waitress who is a single mom struggling to get by, is effected. She isn't a defense contractor, and you didn't intend to cost her this job, but that is the consequence and ramification. Multiply this by hundreds of thousands, who will lose their jobs in totally unrelated businesses, because you pulled the plug on government contracts.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't touch defense contracts, that's what you want me to be saying so you can ridicule me. I'm saying that everything we cut has a consequence and we need to look at them before we start cutting. It's not as easy as waltzing in and waving our hand and making defense contracts go away!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top