There are superior alternatives to the simple-minded double hull requirement- the overpaid riffraff in DoD should have worked it:
20% is spend on the Defense Department. The US could cut that to 5% and still be in line with most European allies. The medical system in the US is also a big mess. If it would be more efficient the costs could be less than half. Over here every treatment has a fixed price which is determined by the government.
Thats juggling with numbers and you know it.
-- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
European nations spend less because they know we would defend. This reduces their expenditures and increases ours.
The medical system in
I don't think it's a mess, maybe expense, but not a mess.
If it would be more efficient the costs
There are different ways to measure efficiency, How long do you need to wait for a CT scan or MRI. I see we have 4 times more CT scanners and 4 times more MRI units per capita than the UK.
You just don't understand how much we hate the government fixing prices.
Everything I said is true.
Figure it out, in 2010 social security cost $700 billion, the IRS took in 2.2 billion, 700,000,000/2,200,000,000,000 = 31.8% You can calculate the rest.
What do you think I Juggled? Data from;
"Superior" is a judgment call and that judgment was made by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) not the US DoD.
That statement seems to be self-contradictory.
-- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
...
MO
No- it is an engineering fact. DoD bureaucrats will use any excuse to do nothing...
Another fact- bad karma here.
You know, that attitude isn't healthy. Hatred, i.e. desiring and enjoying someone else's misfortune, will eat you up.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Have you ever been, or worked with, a so-called "DoD bureaucrat"? I have (and do) and absolutely none of those I have known are "do nothings." That a simple-minded caricature.
Are you suggesting that the preferred course of action would have been to have ignored the IMO requirements?
Goofy there.
-- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
How about the R&D drug budget in the US around 10 times higher than other countries? Doesn't that lower costs for other countries? Pretty easy to cut costs when someone else is paying the R&D.
-Bill
the
Just as easy as the Republican choice of not raising any more money by raising taxes, if probably a little more respectable.
And the Republicans are holding out for no tax increases for self- interested electoral advantage. One of the weaknesses of democracy is that you end up having to choose between politicians. Obama is a skillful and effecive politician. The Republicans are having to settle for trying to be effective, and are likely to end up looking like like stop-at-nothing blackmaillers.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
y f ,
le
More constructing an argument by presenting carefully selected "facts".
What excuses?
Which rather ignores the point that pump-priming deficit spending is aimed at making the economy grow at better than 2% per year. When you get it back to the normal 4% growth rate, you stop priming the pump - not only is it no longer necessary, but once the economy is back running close to full capacity, pump-priming spending tends to produce inflationary demands in bottle-necked areas.
You ignore this because your flat earth economic views "prove" that pump-priming doesn't work, but this doesn't give you a license to make predictions based on the proposition that pump-priming is goping to go on forever.
It also cuts the amount of money they can hang onto as profits and distribute to their shareholders, which makes it a progressive tax on the rich. Since most companies have to compete with foreign imports, the extent to which they can recover company taxes is more limited than you seem to think - if what you are doing can be dignified by the title "thinking".
US coporate tax rates ran from 0% to 35% on top of state taxes that run from 0% to 12%. The peak rate - of 47% - does seem to be uniquely high, but huge numbers of US coporations benefit from tax shelter and tax-loopholes carefully written into irrelevant legislation by helpful membbers of Congress.
In effect, the high corporate tax environment is an invitation to bribe a legislator, or move off-shore. It's noticeable that James Arthur doesn't advocate plugging this particular loop-hole which happens to be worth billions.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
someone else's misfortune, will eat you up.
Judging by his paranoia, it already has.
Fred T.
The 2.2 billion. You're off by 2197.8 billion.
-- It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.
[snip]
I often have an order from my doctor, "Go across the street and get an MRI, and bring back the DVD" ;-) ...Jim Thompson
[On the Road, in New York]
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Actually, the US spends as much on defence as the next ten countries down the pecking order put together - historically, spending as much as your two closest rivals put together was seen to be enough.
You currently spend $687.2 billion, China spends $114.3 billion and France $61.3 billion. The old rule would have you spending $175.6 billion, which is almost exactly a quarter of what you actually spend.
It would be a lower proportion of your budget than the UK, Germany and France spend at the moment, and they don't seem to be cheap-skating by international standards.
The UK National Health Service is notoriously cheap - if no less effective than the US system, averaged over the population as a whole. The French and German systems - which deliver universal health care of a quality equal to what you get in the US if fully insured - cost about 2/3rds of the US system per head.
But the number of MTRI and CT scanner per head isn't much of an indicator of quality of medical care. If you look at the web-site that you presumably are quoting
you will see that the US has fewer CT scanners per head of population than Belgium or Australia, but many more MRI scanners than anybody else - 27 per million potential patients - with Iceland second at about 20, followed by Italy and Australia with about 17. Countries with seriously good medical systems - UK, France and Germany - go from about 5 to 8.
The thing is that the US has malpractice insurance, which has instilled the expensive habit of in its medical practitioners of ordering every last diagnostic test that any lawyer might think of. MRI scans don't do any harm, and any juror can understand that a highly detailed picture of a patients insides is useful (even though it usually isn't) which makes MRI scans widely prescribed and easily available, which is to say, part of the mess in US medicine that needs to be cleaned up.
Actually, what we understand is the money that has been spent by the US medical insurance business propagandising US citizens about the "virtues" of the mess that the insurers do so well out of. One of the reasons that the US medical system is so expensive is the phenomenal amount it costs to administer it. Universal health care is lot cheaper, simply because there isn't as much motivation to cheat, and correspondingly less cheating to detect.
European nations spend less because they know we would defend. This reduces their expenditures and increases ours.
The medical system in > the US is also a big mess.
I don't think it's a mess, maybe expense, but not a mess.
If it would be more efficient the costs > could be less than half.
There are different ways to measure efficiency, How long do you need to wait for a CT scan or MRI. I see we have 4 times more CT scanners and 4 times more MRI units per capita than the UK.
You just don't understand how much we hate the government fixing prices.
Everything I said is true.
Figure it out, in 2010 social security cost $700 billion, the IRS took in 2.2 billion, 700,000,000/2,200,000,000,000 = 31.8% You can calculate the rest.
What do you think I Juggled? Data from;
The only thing you have said so far that has been close to being correct.
The country that does NOT "put back" the way our community of free nations do,is CHINA.
They got onto the world finance market because we put so many plants there when a piece of it was under UK rule that they then ended up with. Now they are allowed on the world market, and end up bigger than all of us because unlike ALL of US, they do NOT put ANYTHING back into the free nations of the world.
China should pay off a lot of the world's debts as payment for being allowed to play along.
*We* all did. With blood and honor. THAT is where the imbalance is.No. Instead, the bastards will continue manufacturing more AK-47s than any other nation in the world. They are, in fact, one of the only nations where they are made.
If you guys can't see what's coming, you are dumber than I thought.
You are an idiot.
IRS fed tax does not pay for SS.
EVERY worker in the nation pays FICA, which is NOT a tax, and "the IRS" does NOT "take it in".
You can't calculate a damned thing correctly.
Yes. The report is about percentages of the budget, and YOU called it a percentage of the tax revenue block. They are two different values.
Yeah, and then there is that too.
Exactly. Thank you. They are old ship tech. When I saw "ghost ships" I was thinking they were scraping some new stealth ship or such.
No. Those ships ARE still being built and used.
Scraping was the cheapest solution.
You guys want to cry about lost expenditure, look at the big accelerator we were building down in Texas that was like 82% complete or such (Bush killed it actually).
Sure the new one is bigger, but this one would have made us the leader for a while, and that would have brought a lot of industry here.
But Noooooooooo...
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.