# Oreo Cookies...



## Makalakumu (May 5, 2006)

Check out this flash animation created by Ben and Jerry's founder Ben Cohen.  

Oreo Cookies

Thoughts?


----------



## mantis (May 5, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Check out this flash animation created by Ben and Jerry's founder Ben Cohen.
> 
> Oreo Cookies
> 
> Thoughts?



i think that's very true...
i do not feel much safer, but i definitely feel my back hurts when i drive on the freeway because of those huge halls!
and yeah, i felt that no school financial aid too!


----------



## still learning (May 5, 2006)

Hello, Great stuffs here...makes sense too ......thank-you for sharing that...Aloha


----------



## Makalakumu (May 5, 2006)

Anyone ever wonder why we have 40 oreos stacked so high and other people struggle to get even a fifth as high?


----------



## Kacey (May 5, 2006)

Thanks much - I'll be sharing that around!


----------



## MA-Caver (May 5, 2006)

Cohen for President!


----------



## stone_dragone (May 5, 2006)

I like cookies.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 5, 2006)

I saw this earlier but was at work so couldn't watch it so forgot about it until now.

I just got back from the store with oreos, found it, and remembered.

I haven't bought oreos in a very long time.  

There's more going on here then they are being upfront about...

But seriously, you guys actually spend $400 billion on your armed forces?  Shouldn't you be able to build real light sabers by now with that much going in?


----------



## michaeledward (May 5, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> But seriously, you guys actually spend $400 billion on your armed forces? Shouldn't you be able to build real light sabers by now with that much going in?


 
Well, actually, I think you would find we spend more than the 40 cookies on our military. 

_Our current exercise to spread democracy in Iraq *is not included* in the 40 cookies._ 

Operation Iraqi Freedom continues to be funded with 'Supplementals'. This allows the Bush Administration to keep the total cost of the war out of the annual budget and, to be able to use Supplemental votes against any Congressperson who might vote against the Supplmental. It makes for very nice commercials at election time.


----------



## Don Roley (May 5, 2006)

My opinion of this is that it is far too simplistic. The problems with education alone are far more complicated than in just the amount of money spent on it. There are a lot of factors, and while money may help some, there are certain things that just can't be solved until we deal with some major sacred cows.

That is just one example of something that leaves out some very important details and over simplifies the situation.

Did anyone notice the lack of a stack of cookies representing entitlement programs? Or the projected rise in their cost over the years? Someone in an article I recently read said that the biggest threat to US democracy is not China, but medicaid. Try figuring out how big the cookies will be in a few years and add that into the problem. :supcool:


----------



## Makalakumu (May 5, 2006)

Even with the cost of entitlements figured in, the cost of our military budget is 50% of our entire federal budget.  More now, once President Bush gets his way.  He would like to increase it from 40 cookies to 70 cookies.  Much of this is going to to weaponize space.  They want to institute programs with names like "Rods from Gods" in order to acheive military power that is "nearly omnipotent."  The bottom line is that we could easily cut in half the number of cookies our "defense" budget eats and still "defend" our country.  Then we could give some major tax cuts, fix education, give health care to all of our citizens, and solve many of the worlds problems.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 5, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> My opinion of this is that it is far too simplistic. The problems with education alone are far more complicated than in just the amount of money spent on it.


 
As far as education goes, all I can say is that good education costs money.  Educating kids from lower SES in order to bring them up costs even more money.  All of the research shows that success is possible...all we need is the will to pay for it.


----------



## Don Roley (May 6, 2006)

Uh, yes.... We did so well with all those cookies that we managed to stop all the attacks on our soil in the last ten years. I know, the 9-11 attacks were made by the Pentagon and not anyone else.

Oh, so throwing money at a problem is not the only way to solve it?

And we are going to deal with the rising cost of benifits how? And Medicare can be found in the constitution where? And what does the tenth ammendmant to the constitution say?

And the fact that nearly half of certain minorities drop out of school can be saved by money alone?

Again, things are a lot more complicated than some would like us to think. This type of thing might appeal to those that don't happen to think deeper than they have to. Which is a good portion of the populace now it seems.


----------



## elder999 (May 6, 2006)

Well, our economy in the U.S. is just as addicted to war as we are to foreign oil.

Jerrys $400 billion is a little off, though

 In 2003, the United States military budget reached $417.4 billion. 

 That number equaled almost half (46 percent) of the combined military expenditures of the rest of the world. 

 As we read this, the USAs military expenditures are reaching or surpassing the amount of the combined expenditures of the rest of the world. (Read that *again: we spend as much or more than our military than the rest of the governments of the world spend!)

 The American military-industrial complex is poised to monopolize the global armaments industry. 

**

The Pentagon wants to close down a fraction of its bases. In response, U.S. senators insisted (as they routinely have) that they cannot close any military bases in their states because bases provide jobs and generate income for local economies ($42 billion a year, for instance, for California). Economic survival appears to depend on a perpetual state of arms manufacture and warfare. We cannot do without war. And if we cannot do without it, we are addicted to it.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		


Uh, yes.... We did so well with all those cookies that we managed to stop all the attacks on our soil in the last ten years. I know, the 9-11 attacks were made by the Pentagon and not anyone else.


Click to expand...



Don, I don't mean to rile you, so I'm gonna ask exactly what you meant by this?

I mean, in the last ten years, we've had attacks on the Khobar Toawers in Saudi Arabia-which technically isn't our soil, but we've also had two  simultaneous truck bombs that killed 224 at our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and  an attack  on our embassy in Karachi, Pakistan-a bomb that killed 12 in 2002-all three technically qualify as "U.S. soil," and I don't think you can substantiate that our military has thwarted any attacks on the continental U.S., Hawaii or Puerto Rico...

*


----------



## Don Roley (May 6, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Don, I don't mean to rile you, so I'm gonna ask exactly what you meant by this?
> 
> I mean, in the last ten years, we've had attacks on the Khobar Toawers in Saudi Arabia-which technically isn't our soil, but we've also had two  simultaneous truck bombs that killed 224 at our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and  an attack  on our embassy in Karachi, Pakistan-a bomb that killed 12 in 2002-all three technically qualify as "U.S. soil," and I don't think you can substantiate that our _military_ has thwarted any attacks on the continental U.S., Hawaii or Puerto Rico...



Well, my point is that the original animation seems to say that we would be fine with less in defense because the closest spenders are so far behind us. But as with your examples, there is a lot more factors involved. It is not just a matter of spending a little more than the next guy. The amount of things that need to be factored into the equasion would require a thread of its own.

As just one example, does North Korea really have to worry and spend resources against a possible threat from a biological weapon being developed in Pakistan? Think about the resources needed to search out that type of threat before it happens and have the means to do something about it. And that type of thing is something that America needs to do but not a country like China. It is just too simple a thing to think that if we spend more than anyone else we would automatically be ok.

I hope that makes it clearer.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 6, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Uh, yes.... We did so well with all those cookies that we managed to stop all the attacks on our soil in the last ten years. I know, the 9-11 attacks were made by the Pentagon and not anyone else.


 
...



> Oh, so throwing money at a problem is not the only way to solve it?


 
Yes, but it helps and it must happen first.



> And we are going to deal with the rising cost of benifits how? And Medicare can be found in the constitution where? And what does the tenth ammendmant to the constitution say?


 
Tax the rich.



> And the fact that nearly half of certain minorities drop out of school can be saved by money alone?


 
Yes.  Successful programs now exist and only need money for expansion.  for the cost of one cruise missile we can build one of these programs somewhere in our nation.  



> Again, things are a lot more complicated than some would like us to think. This type of thing might appeal to those that don't happen to think deeper than they have to. Which is a good portion of the populace now it seems.


 
One of the things that you don't see is the deep thought and research that went behind the reallocation of those cookies.  Ya just gotta look a little deeper.

What this little animation shows is that America is addicted to war.  We will do ANYTHING to get more, including false flag operations and deception.  The ultimate cost of this militarism will be our country.  I find it amazing that Dwight D. Eisenhower predicted all of this so long ago when he warned against the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.  Here is another quote from this remarkable man, "when bombs come before the needs of people, we have lost our souls."


----------



## elder999 (May 6, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> One of the things that you don't see is the deep thought and research that went behind the reallocation of those cookies. Ya just gotta look a little deeper.


 
Nope-true as it all is, it has a decided left-wing bias, which Don has correctly pointed out by asking about "entitlement programs." Unfortunatley, though, those entitlement programs *don't* come anywhere near what we're spending on our "military," or even those other things _that the cartoon advocates reallocating a tiny fraction of military spending for_-that's important, Don, because they're not saying we should cut military spending to increase welfare.


The U.S. military budget request by the Bush Administration for Fiscal Year 2007 is $462.7 billion. (This includes the Defense Department budget, funding for the Department of Energy (which includes nuclear weapons) and other which the source does not define. It does not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars$50 billion for Fiscal Year 2007 and an extra $70 billion for FY 2006, on top of the $50 billion approved by Congress.)

For Fiscal Year 2006 it was $441.6 billion
For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.

These figures typically do not include combat figures, so 2001 onwards, the Afghan war, and 2003 onwards, the Iraq war costs are not in this budget. As of early 2006, Congress had already approved an additional funding total of $300 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When adjusted for inflation the request for 2007 together with that needed for nuclear weapons the 2007 spending request exceeds the average amount spent by the Pentagon during the Cold War, for a military that is one-third smaller than it was just over a decade ago.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What this little animation shows is that America is addicted to war. We will do ANYTHING to get more, including false flag operations and deception. The ultimate cost of this militarism will be our country. I find it amazing that Dwight D. Eisenhower predicted all of this so long ago when he warned against the Military Industrial Congressional Complex. Here is another quote from this remarkable man, "when bombs come before the needs of people, we have lost our souls."


 

_Economically _ addicted to war. I don't have time right now, but I can show later jsut how little of that $400 some-odd billion actually goes to pay for  servicemen and their equipment, versus the massive arsenal of archaic obscenities whose restoration (sort of like you'd do with a '57Chevy) I was once responsible for.....
:soapbox: :rpo:


----------



## michaeledward (May 6, 2006)

The 'Entitlement Programs' are not part of our Federal Income Tax.

As long as the right can continue to propagate that belief, they can argue on that topic rather than address the gross amount we spend on military. Social Security and Medicare are not funded through the 'federal income tax'. Social Security and Medicare / Medicaid are funded through a separate revenue stream. This allows political slight of hand, where at any given point, we can use the word 'tax' to mean 'Income Tax' or we can use the word 'tax' to mean all federal reveue.

Changing the topic to 'Entitlement Programs' is like the magicians *other hand*; the one we don't watch.

" Don't pay any attention to the fact the United States spends 50% of all military funds *on the planet. *The man behind the curtian is not the Great and Powerful Oz".


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 7, 2006)

anybody else follow the link to look into truemajority.org?

from their site, they seem pretty right on.  anybody know anything more about them?


----------



## mantis (May 7, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> anybody else follow the link to look into truemajority.org?
> 
> from their site, they seem pretty right on.  anybody know anything more about them?


i did follow it
but i have to disagree with your statement that they seem right on.  even if they represent 99% of this society I still think the 1% is much stronger.  it's like yeah, we're majority but there's nothing we can do!


----------



## Hand Sword (May 8, 2006)

They are not any fun without the milk to go with them!


----------



## Andrew Green (May 8, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> They are not any fun without the milk to go with them!



unless you're lactose intolerant, then they are not any fun with milk


----------



## Hand Sword (May 8, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> unless you're lactose intolerant, then they are not any fun with milk


 
Good point! That wouldn't be a pleasant experince. Just have fun licking the cream filling then.


----------



## Don Roley (May 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The 'Entitlement Programs' are not part of our Federal Income Tax.



Some are, some are not. And the fact that some are not part of the federal income tax and are _in addition_ to the story should be a worrying point since they are in for all practical purposes impossible to reduce or eliminate and the numbers for the future are growing.


----------



## michaeledward (May 8, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Some are, some are not. And the fact that some are not part of the federal income tax and are _in addition_ to the story should be a worrying point since they are in for all practical purposes impossible to reduce or eliminate and the numbers for the future are growing.


 
In the future, can we expect that you will more clearly identify which 'entitlement programs' included in the federal budget you are railing against in a discussion about military spending v education? 

While I certainly agree that there are 'entitlement programs' that are problems, I wonder how many of them could be solved by taking a couple of oreo cookies away from Donald (Oops we've seemed to lose that money in Iraq somehow) Rumsfeld?


----------



## ginshun (May 12, 2006)

While I tend to agree that we put too much money into military stuff, don't we already spend more per capita on education than pretty much any other country in the world?  Are our schools putting out the best students in the world?  I pesonally think that the problems with the American education system are a lot more complicated than just "we don't spend enough money on education"

What the original animation says does make sense, but I tend to agree with Don in that just throwing money at things isn't going to solve the problems.  Things are a lot more complicated than that.


----------



## michaeledward (May 12, 2006)

Yes, things are more complicated than "just throwing money at things".

I'm wondering if you have any "things" you can throw at education to improve it that cost no money? 

I'll wait.


----------



## Kacey (May 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yes, things are more complicated than "just throwing money at things".
> 
> I'm wondering if you have any "things" you can throw at education to improve it that cost no money?
> 
> I'll wait.



Yes.  Good parenting.  A society that values education (and before you say the US values education, look at what pro sports players get paid, in comparison to fields that require advanced education).  A government that takes societal pressures into account when looking at differences in the educational level of students with varying socio-economic, cultural, and religious backgounds, as well as those with physical, mental (learning differences and cognitive delay), and/or emotional handicaps.  A society that uniformly values education - many subsets of US society do not, or don't have the resources to put their kids' education first (as an example, one of my current students misses school at least once a week, to babysit her 3 year-old brother, so mom can work and they don't get evicted).

I'm sure others have other ideas to add.


----------



## michaeledward (May 12, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> Yes. Good parenting. A society that values education (and before you say the US values education, look at what pro sports players get paid, in comparison to fields that require advanced education). A government that takes societal pressures into account when looking at differences in the educational level of students with varying socio-economic, cultural, and religious backgounds, as well as those with physical, mental (learning differences and cognitive delay), and/or emotional handicaps. A society that uniformly values education - many subsets of US society do not, or don't have the resources to put their kids' education first (as an example, one of my current students misses school at least once a week, to babysit her 3 year-old brother, so mom can work and they don't get evicted)..


 
It seems to me that a mother that is working to ensure she and her family have a place to live is an example of "Good Parenting". In the situation you describe, that comes at the cost of a child missing school. Is there a 'no-cost' solution to this problem? 

I don't see one.


----------



## Kacey (May 12, 2006)

Sorry... I tried to edit this and ended up accidentally posting twice.  Please ignore this post and read the second one.


----------



## Kacey (May 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It seems to me that a mother that is working to ensure she and her family have a place to live is an example of "Good Parenting".



In the short term, perhaps.  In the long term, this child (my student) is being set up for a life of reduced potential because of her mother's actions.  This girl is now at a much-greater risk of school failure, and therefore of dropping out, than she would be if her mother took another option for childcare.  If she drops out, she is then at a much greater risk of having a low-income job (like her mother) and falling into a poverty cycle that will be difficult, if not impossible, for her to get out of, especially if she does drop out and remains undereducated.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> In the situation you describe, that comes at the cost of a child missing school. Is there a 'no-cost' solution to this problem?
> 
> I don't see one.



Actually, there is... but the mother won't use the daycare vouchers with which she has been provided (won't take 'charity' and doesn't trust the daycare that takes the vouchers)

Is there a 'no-cost' solution?  Quite likely not, for this particular case.  But as I said, much of the problem with education is societal, which is the point I was trying to make - until this country makes education a priority, on all levels (societal, cultural, economic, etc.) this problem will continue, and neither money nor legislation are likely to change it - something the government (which is fond of throwing money and laws at problems, instead of finding real solutions) does not seem to understand.  Nor is education the only issue facing this problem.


----------



## michaeledward (May 12, 2006)

So, those 'Day Care Vouchers' are no cost? Wow, I think back to all the checks I wrote for day care providers.


----------



## Kacey (May 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, those 'Day Care Vouchers' are no cost? Wow, I think back to all the checks I wrote for day care providers.



Only for low-income parents who are trying to re-enter the work force as a means of getting them off Welfare.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 12, 2006)

How much of the federal dime winds up at your school? It seems to me that my local taxes are always going up to pay for schools. That escrow payment bothers me more than my W2's.


----------



## michaeledward (May 13, 2006)

I thought the Federal contributions to Education amounted to about 7 percent of the education budget. 

That leaves 93 percent coming from local property taxes.

So, very little of the money listed on your W-2 ends up at the local school. Which is where Ben Cohen started this thing. How much of that W-2 tax money goes toward buying unusuable weapons (like missle defense programs, and space based lasers).

And yes, our local property taxes will continue to escalate until we can get some control over health care costs. While the school budget tends to be the biggest chunk of local budgets, health care for municple employees is probably the fasted growing area of local budgets.

Oh, and, you can have your town bill your property taxes directly, you know. You don't have to have that escrow payment. (although, I'm not sure that will lessen the discomfort).

On a positive note, Yesterday, *two *of the local schools were awarded 'Best in the State' by the State of New Hampshire; The alternative Academy of Learning and Technology middle school, and Nashua High School North. My daughter spent three years at ALT and is now at NHSN. I knew they were great schools from my experience with them; it's nice to see the public recognition. 

And just last week, our budget committee was (again) trying to take the funding away from ALT. Hopefully, this will put that fight off for another year.


----------



## Don Roley (May 14, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> " Don't pay any attention to the fact the United States spends 50% of all military funds *on the planet. *The man behind the curtian is not the Great and Powerful Oz".



Remember when I talked about things being too simple to merely deal with in regards to cookies? I don't know if your figures are accurate or not, but the underlying thinking goes straight to the problem.

Well, what about Darfur?

Remember that place? I was reminded of it reading an article about trouble at a refugee camp in Chad where the people were chanting praises of the US and begging for troops to be sent in to protect them.

The figures I have seen are from November, but the best estimates at that time seem to be over 700,000 people killed in the killing by the Janjaweed militias and rebels. Of course, that was a while ago and before the Sudanese government pressed the drive into Chad. The figures are probably much higher now.

So, should we help out, or not?

What does this has to do with military spending? Well, as I said, it is a bit complicated. 

Up until now the lead has been the UN in dealing with this. Oh, and the US pays a lot more than any other Security Council member- more than the rest combined IIRC. Japan pays more than any other than the US. People who point to how much we pay in comparison to other countries never seem to mention that as well, even though military might and diplomatic activities seem to go together so much.

Oh, it would be nice if we could let the UN deal with things with only words. But China gets oil from Sudan and won't even let the UN call the deaths of 700,000 people genocide.

Even if the UN did act, who would they expect to send international troops? The African troops have turned out to be useless. 

There is a saying that countries should speak softly and carry a big stick. Who has a big stick? Do you think the butchers in Khartoum will listen to folks that merely can tisk tisk at them? Japan spends a lot at the UN, but they would only get giggles if they tried to take the Sudanese to task. They don't fear things like international blockades thanks to their oil deals with China. 

Yes we could nuke them. Many nations could nuke them. Nukes are relatively cheap compared to the carrier fleets, etc we have. But do you think that there is a chance that we would be so concerned with the deaths of innocents that we would kill every man, woman and child in their capital? Think about that. 

Nukes are useful. If you have them you can tell other people not to invade you or fear their use. If you are scum like the rulers of North Korea you can use them to get what you want by the threat of their use. But if you want to help the children dying in the refugee camps, they are not much use.

There is different types of military power. There are military trainers, planting a carrier group off shore and using selected strikes and then there is putting an 18 year old with a rifle on the ground with all the support and supply that entails.

So, who can do that? France has led limited rescue missions in Africa. Britain sailed half way across the world to take back an island from Argentina. How many nations do you think can sit down at the table with the Sudanese government and have them know that they can put a wide variety of options on the table? That type of variety costs money- Carrier groups, overseas bases, pre- positioned supplies in Diego Garcia, etc. 

Is all  of the above needed to just protect ourselves? That is another debate that is swept aside in this animation. Should we care about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Africans or concentrate on just the US? Again, not dealt with. There are some folks that argue that the US can't solve every problem and the US president should work only for the interests of the country that elected him. That is a debate that is not dealt with here. But if we cut back enough so that we spend only enough to protect ourselves, then we take any chance of getting the guys in Khartoum to listen to us. Scum like that will not listen to pleas for humanity or calls to do the right thing. Some folks respect power and nothing else.

Some folks will tell you that, as sad as it is, we should keep our noses out of things like the Darfur mess and just try to work for America. They make some valid points. But do you think the ice cream guy thinks we should turn our back on the deaths of all those hundreds of thousands of children at risk? I can't seem to think so.

Oh, and that is just one aspect of this.

Here is just one more. I live in Japan where the Seventh Fleet is based, nominally to protect Japan. 

But the presence of that military might has a far reaching effect on the entire region. Maybe that should be debated before we talk about cookies and cutting back on the budget enough to cause the ships, troops and supplies to be pulled back.

The presence of that fleet is a big power in itself. But it also makes pulling more power into the region quickly a possibility. If you play the game of go you may think of how having a few stones in an otherwise empty corner can be a huge advantage to later plays and the influence you have over that corner. You don't need to slap your stones next to the other guy's stones, just having them there goes a long way.

And having the seventh fleet and the marines in place kind of serves as a check on a lot of ambitions and troubles. If we pull back, some folks probably will move in. China still seeks to be the big player in Asia. They would not need to invade other countries. As I said, just sitting down to the table with other nations with the possibility that you could invade goes a long way in diplomacy. They may increase their spending- which would freak me out, or other nations like Japan might try to increase their spending to avoid being Finlandized- which would freak out a lot of nations in Asia.

But whoever moves in to fill the void left, things would change here in Asia. How it would turn out is up in the air. Should that not be debated a little more seriously than with animations about cookies?

So, should we help the children in Dafur? Do you think that the Sudanese government would take seriously anyone would could not deal with them militarily? That is the type of thing that should be discussed I think. And it is a far more wide reaching debate than simply talking about how much America spends in relation to others.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 14, 2006)

Good post Don.  Here are two observations.

1.  It seems as if the US is spending a huge amount of money to protect alot of very well off people.  Why can't they take that responsibility for themselves?  For example, a rich country like Japan could invest more in its military to protect itself and secure the immediate region.

2.  The US is currently building a military that can handle three regional conflicts at the same time.  This is a much higher level then it was during the Cold War.  What change in priorities could account for this?  The threat posed by terrorism is not that dangerous.

While I agree that this animation has simplified the issue...perhaps this may be due to the fact that this issue really is simple.  The US really would have enough to take care of its military responibilities and enough to take care of social problems if five cookies were reallocated.


----------



## michaeledward (May 14, 2006)

Just a couple of thoughts ..

The entire budget for the United Nations is twenty billion dollars annually. That is not the budget for peace-keeping, but for everything they do. It works out to three dollars per person per planet. Or the entire budget is twenty cookies.

Member nation dues to the United Nations are Progressive. Those that have the ability to pay more, are expected to pay more. That the United States and Japan have the highest contribution requirements should seem obvious when one looks at the two most productive and wealthy economic states on the planet. 

The United States seems, despite its wealth and productivity, always to be late in making its payments to the United Nations. By one chart, throughout 2005, the United States unpaid dues was the cause for 50% of the UN's member debt. So, while we have a larger responsibility, it seems we aren't quite making good on that responsibility. 

I will also point out, that we seldom hear of United States citizens serving as members of United Nations Peacekeeping Forces. As I understand it, many of those Peacekeepers come from the very poor economies on the planet. What they can't contribute in cash, they make up for with personnel.

Why on earth does the United States still keep military stationed in Japan? Yes, it has far reaching consequences. As does the military stationed in (West Germany). Could it be to remind the local goverments that the United States expects them to be subservient, client states? Did you hear how our President addressed the new leader of Germany? "Angela", not "Chancellor", but "Angela" ... I don't think that's 'folksy'.

Okay, that's enough for now.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 14, 2006)

_
 1. It seems as if the US is spending a huge amount of money to protect alot of very well off people. Why can't they take that responsibility for themselves?_

Because, like it or not, we have vested interest in what's going on in a lot of places.  It does impact and affact us what happens in other places, probably moreso than any other country right now.  So if Japan or some other country doesn't step up and do what we think they should, we can't just not have it get done, we have to do it it ourselves.

_The US is currently building a military that can handle three regional conflicts at the same time. This is a much higher level then it was during the Cold War. What change in priorities could account for this?_

In the Cold War, the main threat was just the Soviet Union as a asingular target and most other 'threats' were just offshoots of that one threat, so we could focus on a potential conflict with the Soviet Union as the primary focus of our military needs.   With the collapse of  the Soviet Union as an immediate military threat, all those 'offshoots' have come into their own as legitimate independent threats.  The world changes and nations change..the world was a different place 20 years ago then it is today...just as after World War II we had to go from actually fighting the Gramans to preparing to fight the Soviets, we had to go from preparing to fight the Soviets to preapring to fight...someone else.


----------



## PatMunk (May 14, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> How much of the federal dime winds up at your school? It seems to me that my local taxes are always going up to pay for schools. That escrow payment bothers me more than my W2's.



If the government would apply the school tax as a school tax and not tack it onto the property tax everyone could pay less and they get more.

Around here probably 60 to 75 percent of the students live in apartments and their parents don't pay anything towards school taxes. Everyone should help pay for the schools not just those who own property.


----------



## michaeledward (May 14, 2006)

PatMunk said:
			
		

> Around here probably 60 to 75 percent of the students live in apartments and their parents don't pay anything towards school taxes. Everyone should help pay for the schools not just those who own property.


 
Falacy. 

Some entity owns the 'apartments'. The owners of those apartments have to pay property tax on their real estate. The costs of that property tax is rolled into the apartment rent. That the property tax is not broken out on the renters monthly check does *not *mean it is not being paid. 

Using this logic, renters are also not paying for police protection, or fire protection. As a former police officer, does that seem to make sense to you? 

If you know some way the owners of apartment complexes avoid property tax, I would be interested in hearing it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 14, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Falacy.
> 
> Some entity owns the 'apartments'. The owners of those apartments have to pay property tax on their real estate. The costs of that property tax is rolled into the apartment rent. That the property tax is not broken out on the renters monthly check does *not *mean it is not being paid.
> 
> ...



Yes, I agree that the company or individual(s) who own the property still pay taxes. 

Now, in some renaissance zones there are no taxes for Federal Income for a couple of years after start up and also the same may go for State, but they still pay property/local taxes. 

I do have a question for you ME. In our state, and I understand it is different per state or local, if you live in an apartment or townhouse renting location the police can not issue tickets and they also can take action unless they are called directly by the management or see a crime in progress. Is this true in your area? Just curious.


----------



## michaeledward (May 14, 2006)

Rich Parsons,  you may have mis-read a sentence above. 

I am not a former police officer. PatMunk's profile lists his profession as 'retired police officer', so my statement was more a question to him, based on his experiences as a cop. 

What you describe seems odd for a regular apartment. Although, it does not seem out-of-the-realm-of-possibilities for some 'Gated Communities'. I think some Gated Communities may function very much like private clubs. But, really, I have no experience in that. 

Philosophically, I am opposed to Gated Communities. I am opposed to 'Active Adult Communitie (housing restricted to 55+ year old, no children). Voluntary segregation is an idea that is detrimental to our society, and should be persued only in the most dire of requirments.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 14, 2006)

I own a house and we homeschool our children, yet I don't mind paying property tax for education in the same way I don't ride the bus and don't mind my local sales tax being used to pay to keep public transit running. *shrug*


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 14, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Rich Parsons,  you may have mis-read a sentence above.
> 
> I am not a former police officer. PatMunk's profile lists his profession as 'retired police officer', so my statement was more a question to him, based on his experiences as a cop.
> 
> ...



ME, Sorry for the mis-read.

I have not lived in a gated community, it is just the way for the local police to not have to follow up on minor details. Although I was working with my sword on the Basketball court I walked back to my apartment and this car in the parking lot cruising by was in my way when I got close to the main door. He saw the sword and I saw that he hand a hand gun and a scanner listening to the police channel. Not legal in this state to have a mobile one. So, I went inside and called the police as he was asking the dispatcher as well the send out someone to investigate me. The dispatcher and officer laughed (* I heard over the phone via the speaker *) and they let it go. The officer was undercover looking for drugs.


----------



## someguy (May 14, 2006)

I have but one thing to say.  Can any one give me an oreo please?


----------



## MA-Caver (May 14, 2006)

someguy said:
			
		

> I have but one thing to say.  Can any one give me an oreo please?


Personally I prefer the double stuffed kind...  





not, that I'm greedy you understand...


----------



## elder999 (May 16, 2006)

A report by the NNSA states that the cost of maintaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal is greater than the available budget and keeping old warheads is forcing the United States to retain an unnecessarily large atomic stockpile

The total annual cost for maintaining our nuclear arsenal is about $40 billion.

The separate annual cost for Stockpile Stewardship is $4.5 billion.

The separate annual cost of maintaining our 550 land-based ICBMs is $3.4 billion.


Uh, how many oreo cookies is *that*?

Oh, yeah, about 5-just what he asked for,..funny how that works.:lol: 

Ill note here that a lot of fat could be trimmed by paying some attention to what our nuclear profile should be, in this modern age, and the best ways to mothball some of those devices, so we could restore them if needed. Those figures dont include maintaining our nuclear subs, or their missiles-and I think that those are, by far, the least obsolete and most sensible of our obscenities.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 16, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Those figures dont include maintaining our nuclear subs, or their missiles-and I think that those are, by far, the least obsolete and most sensible of our obscenities.


 
Great observation!  :asian:


----------



## TonyMac (May 25, 2006)

These figures don't include anything concerning nuclear energy. Those figures fall in the DOE budget regardless of use.


----------



## elder999 (May 26, 2006)

TonyMac said:
			
		

> These figures don't include anything concerning nuclear energy. Those figures fall in the DOE budget regardless of use.


 
No, you're mostly wrong there. Those figures don't include anything concerning nuclear energy because they are, simply, exactly what they say-totally for nuclear weapons-my field, btw.


----------

