Guns versus Arsenic- A careful analysis

[Spinaroonie]

Reading this board you can pretty much tell who is a liberal and who's conservative. Well... for the most part. I didn't know PC was a Republican until last night. Honest. Anyways, when it comes to the budget and its cuts, there's always somebody complaining, from Bob Barker and the ASPC to Jim Mizzelbeck and the sanitation commission that runs on a subsidy to clean up dead animals off of the street.

So, I'm going to take a look at two and think about them.

1. Clinton's military spending cut that tightened belts all over the armed services.
2. Bush Jr.'s environmental cut that allowed more arsenic in our water.

Conservatives depict Clinton as some sort of cross-breed betwen Adolf Hitler and Satan because he cut military spending. Liberals depict Bush as a man who only cares about "big business" and not the enviroment for his cut. The conservative PR machine wins.

However, let's look at the impact of the cuts. With Clinton's cut, military salaries were tightened. Purchases of weapons encountered a small slowdown and our armed forces struggled to make ends meet. With the Bush cut, water standards were releaxed, allowing money to be saved in such things as filter replacements and in testing materials for retesting failed water. Another effect? The gradual increase in sales of bottled water. (PS for all of your water affectionados, Daisani is Calgary's tap water). This increase is generally due to the taste of the water and the fact that nobody is reading this because when I mentioned the two names at the beginning people automatically decided what they tought about what I'm going to say w/o even reading it. Arsenic, a completely natrual substance, as you probably know, is a known poision, along with flourine, which is added to our water ("for the children"). Arsenic will NOT kill you in small doses. However it will slowly deteriate your health over time. The arsenic in our water is going to cause us a lot of problems down the road, even if you don't drink it, it's still in your pasta, in your jell-o, etc. It's in your food by being in your tap water. You also shower/bathe in it, unless you are Michael Jackson. If you are Michael Jackson please PM me (However, I am 20).

So, by reasoning, we see the adverse affects from the Clinton cut are immediate and the Bush cut will come farther down the road.

So, I'm asking, why is it more socially acceptable (In terms out lesser amounts of outrage) to allow poisons in our water, than to cut the military's budget?

Some facts about the military: The US military has the highest budget in the world by far. Our military budget is greater than the second highest military budget through the fifteenth highest military budget combined. The US also has the largest amount of tactical nuclear weapons with over ten thousand. The next highest country? China- with 510.

Arsenic has been linked to cancer, birth defects and death. Long-term arsenic poisoning is not curable by arsenic-poison-curing means. The band poison sucked. It's unproven if arsenic is a factor in diabeties. According to some estimates, arsenic in drinking-water will cause 200,000 – 270,000 deaths from cancer in Bangladesh alone (Bangladesh has no arsenic/water standards)

Warren Zevon is indifferent to this thread.

 

[Problem Child]

I'm hardly a Republican. I'm more of a Libertarian trapped in a Republican who would vote Democrat once in a while if Clinton wasn't such a pig and Gore wasn't such a bore.

But Bush is a moron, and libertarians never win, so what's a girl to do?

That, said, I don't really know what you're asking here. I don't really see how you can compare the two things in terms of social responsibility...directly, but there are other ways.

To be fair, the military build-down started with Bush I, right after the gulf war ended and continued with Clinton. In my opinion, I wish that presidents and congresses would stop fucking with the military and let it coast along at more or less an even budget level, but Republicans tend to build up the military, while Democrats tend to cut it so that's never going to happen.

I'm curious as to where you get your info on the arsenic thing. I was under the impression that it was a red herring, and that the levels are so ridiculously low that even with raising them, they still aren't considered dangerous. Maybe you could provide more info.

Getting back to the military, with Clinton/Bush cuts coupled with overstretching the military beyond their mission capabilities with countless "peacekeeping" missions, the morale in the military steadily declined in the 90's.

We lost many, many career fighter pilots in the last decade, for example. These are people that cost millions of dollars each to train, and when they don't re-enlist because they are tired of going on year-long deployments and only seeing their families every six months, we lose tons of money trying to recruit and train new pilots.

Military pay was also so poor until recently that some enlisted people had to go on food stamps and other public assistance to make ends meet. These people also don't tend to re-enlist.

In general, military people had a very bad taste in their mouth about Clinton, and were relieved when Bush was elected because they figured that the military would get more money, and more respect.

When you do have to pump serious money into the military budget, doesn't that take more money away from social programs? Of course it does. The U.S. military is like driving an ocean liner...it takes a long time to get it turned around when it's headed in the wrong direction. It's better to try and keep it on an even keel and heading in the right direction than it is to try and turn it.

The way that all of this affects our economy is that when the military is neglected, sooner or later it has to be repaired, and when you let it take this roller-coaster ride of budgetary ups and downs, it costs more to fix when it becomes apparent that that's what you have to do.

I didn't answer your question because I don't know enough about the arsenic thing. Sorry. My half-answer is I don't think slashing the military budget every other administration is a wise thing because it just costs twice as much to build it back up again.

 

[RawHumor]

2. Bush Jr.'s environmental cut that allowed more arsenic in our water.

Again, Bush just repealed Clinton's 11th hour bill, so he essentially kept things the same as what they were before, even during the first 7 years and 364 days of Clinton's term.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Guns versus Arsenic- A careful analysis

Again, Bush just repealed Clinton's 11th hour bill, so he essentially kept things the same as what they were before, even during the first 7 years and 364 days of Clinton's term.

Ok. Thanks for reminding me, raw.

 

[Mischka]

The band poison sucked.

Agreed. And I make Jell-O with champaigne.

 

[Problem Child]

You also shower/bathe in it, unless you are Michael Jackson. If you are Michael Jackson please PM me (However, I am 20).

lol...funny

The US also has the largest amount of tactical nuclear weapons with over ten thousand. The next highest country? China- with 510.

Actually, you're wrong Spin:

<<2. How many countries have nuclear weapons?
At present, eight countries possess these weapons: United States (10,500), Russia (13,000), United Kingdom (200), France (500), China (400), India (85), Pakistan (20) and Israel (100). These numbers are generally not made public and are therefore approximate. It is clear, though, that the vast majority of nuclear weapons are in the arsenals of the US and Russia. >>

from: http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/krieger-faq.htm



According to some estimates, arsenic in drinking-water will cause 200,000 – 270,000 deaths from cancer in Bangladesh alone (Bangladesh has no arsenic/water standards)

that's a cool stat but it's irrelevant to this argument.

 

[Spinaroonie]

I got some information from the EPA and EPA webpages.

I can't recall offhand if that page mentions the resolution passes Feb/March regarding arsenic. They got a measure through that would reduce the amounts of arsenic allowed in drinking water, but aren't implementing it at the moment for budget concerns.

However, in your half answer you have good thinking, but- why does the Military budget have to be built up again? Isn't there a point where enough is enough? In terms of sheer spending force the US military can outspend them all by a long shot. Shouldn't that induce some insane confidence factor? (In the military department itself, not just in the ugly Americans).

Is it technology concerns? The M16 killed more Americans in the Vietnam war due to its jamming than it killed the enemies. Plus technology is allowing us to make training even cheaper- New semi-VR training simulators cost eleven dollars a day to train untold amount of troops in battle situations. Better, more useful training for cheaper.

Perhaps they should investigate their own pork budget expendatures before going insane when budgeting is slashed.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Re: Re: Guns versus Arsenic- A careful analysis

Actually, you're wrong Spin:

<<2. How many countries have nuclear weapons?
At present, eight countries possess these weapons: United States (10,500), Russia (13,000), United Kingdom (200), France (500), China (400), India (85), Pakistan (20) and Israel (100). These numbers are generally not made public and are therefore approximate. It is clear, though, that the vast majority of nuclear weapons are in the arsenals of the US and Russia. >>

from: http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/krieger-faq.htm

Ooops. Still, I think that over ten thousand nuclear weapons is much more than anybody can really use. India has more than anybody can use.

that's a cool stat but it's irrelevant to this argument.

I put that in there just as a punctuator to say that arsenic is a real danger. However, you're right, it's tangental.

 

[Problem Child]

I got some information from the EPA and EPA webpages.

I can't recall offhand if that page mentions the resolution passes Feb/March regarding arsenic. They got a measure through that would reduce the amounts of arsenic allowed in drinking water, but aren't implementing it at the moment for budget concerns.

It says they are going to go ahead and implement the 10 ppb level. What's the problem?

However, in your half answer you have good thinking, but- why does the Military budget have to be built up again? Isn't there a point where enough is enough? In terms of sheer spending force the US military can outspend them all by a long shot. Shouldn't that induce some insane confidence factor? (In the military department itself, not just in the ugly Americans).

What are ugly Americans?

It needs to be built up because we have people in like 100 countries around the world right now, and we are engaged in a war on terrorism. If you don't want the budget increased then you should lobby your congressperson to pull back some of the troops we have overseas or tell them you are against fighting international terrorism. As I said in my first post, I wish they wouldn't be fucking with the military budget all the time. Make the chages more gradual, based on true need, not political considerations.

Is it technology concerns? The M16 killed more Americans in the Vietnam war due to its jamming than it killed the enemies. Plus technology is allowing us to make training even cheaper- New semi-VR training simulators cost eleven dollars a day to train untold amount of troops in battle situations. Better, more useful training for cheaper.

Spin, sometimes you make a lot of sense and other days you're just a fucking fruitcake. Where are you getting this ridiculous bullshit about the M-16? You're nuts. The M-16 had a few teething problems due to ammo problems and magazine problems, but after these initial problems were solved it proved to be an excellent rifle.

What is this about training that costs eleven dollars and how is it going to seriously reduce our military budget? Do you know how much it costs to run a fucking F-16 or an M1A1 tank for an hour, let alone a week or a year?

Spin, based soley on the M-16 comment alone, I think you should think about give up commenting about the military. You suck at it. Sorry.

 

[Carp]

Re: Our military

PC, I think I agree with you. (Somehow, this makes me shudder.) But it seems like the optimal course is to establish a long-term budget, then stick to it. The real argument will come in trying to determine what the long-term budget needs are. We probably need to sit a large number of folks down and determine what our needs really are, what new weapons systems we really need, and budget off that. Then, if there is a deployment somewhere, add a supplemnentary appropriation to cover those expenses. Of course, many of those expenses are just standing costs and won't increase due to a deployment.

But, who is going to determine what the real budget needs are? The military? Defense contractors? Cogressmen? (With or without bases in their state?) Doves? Hawks? No matter what, there are winners and losers. Who decides? How do you get a fair reading of what the budget needs REALLY are? I don't think you can do it.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Re: Guns versus Arsenic- A careful analysis

Ooops. Still, I think that over ten thousand nuclear weapons is much more than anybody can really use. India has more than anybody can use.

It's all relative. Actually the reason that the U.S. and the USSR never actually had a nuclear war is precisely because we had such insanely huge numbers of nukes. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) actually worked for the former superpower enemies.

Don't you think that if during the Cuban missile crisis we both had say, 25 nukes it would have been a lot easier for either side to justify a first strike? I do.

Doesn't India and Pakistan scare the crap out of you, even though they both have relativley few nukes? They should.

Having said all that, I think we should stive to reduce the total number of nukes everywhere. The thing is, smaller nations think they need to keep them as a lever against our huge conventional might as well as to use them to threaten their potential neighbor enemies, i.e. Pakistan and India.

 

[Carp]

PC. you just have to stop posting stuf I can agree with. YOUR MESSING WITH MY WORLD, MAN!!!

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Our military

PC, I think I agree with you. (Somehow, this makes me shudder.) But it seems like the optimal course is to establish a long-term budget, then stick to it. The real argument will come in trying to determine what the long-term budget needs are. We probably need to sit a large number of folks down and determine what our needs really are, what new weapons systems we really need, and budget off that. Then, if there is a deployment somewhere, add a supplemnentary appropriation to cover those expenses. Of course, many of those expenses are just standing costs and won't increase due to a deployment.

But, who is going to determine what the real budget needs are? The military? Defense contractors? Cogressmen? (With or without bases in their state?) Doves? Hawks? No matter what, there are winners and losers. Who decides? How do you get a fair reading of what the budget needs REALLY are? I don't think you can do it.

As I think I said, or implied, having a an even level of military spending over any appreciable period of time is a fantasy. It's driven by politics as much as real need. The dems tend to cut and the Repubs tend to raise. That's just a political reality in American politics.

 

[scylis]

durring the first few years of its use, the M-16 killed more users than it did targets. however, they kinda corrected the problem by implementing a couple of measures out in the field and by various modifications to the next few rounds of production models. after that brief little fuck up, things were turned around and our guys started a killing, killing, killing away with it.

i think spin just heard some old anti-war/gun spewtum there.

as for the eleven dollars a day... it cost more to power the systems, easy. then there's the cost of paying the operators of it their wages. and let's not forget the technitians who keep it running. or the soldiers training there. the MPs or SPs who are guarding it. cooks in the mess halls feeding the everybody. workers at the commissary who offer the people on base convenient shopping opportunities. and on and on and on. they all need to be paid, too.

so take you eleven dollars a day and stuff it! better yet, give it to me! in ones. the strippers need tips, after all.

 

[Problem Child]

PC. you just have to stop posting stuf I can agree with. YOUR MESSING WITH MY WORLD, MAN!!!

Hey, just fucking PUT ME ON IGNORE if you don't like me man! Fuck..


Oh wait...sorry, that rant was left over from last night. My apologies.

 

[RawHumor]

Spin, sometimes you make a lot of sense and other days you're just a fucking fruitcake.

Can you point me to a day in which he wasn't a fruitcake?

 

[Azwed]

Another reason we had so many nukes during the cold war was because oh how many more tanks along with other support equipment the Soviets had in europe compared to NATO. NATO was out numbered by several divisions worth of Soviet block troops.

It was thought that there was no way we could stop a full on soviet attack becuase we would be crushed by the sheer mass numbers of the soviets.

The nukes could be used to even out the odds in NATO's favor during a massive ground war in europe.

 

[Carp]

Can you point me to a day in which he wasn't a fruitcake?

Asking for a whole day is a little much, don't you think?

 

[Problem Child]

durring the first few years of its use, the M-16 killed more users than it did targets.

This is also an exaggeration. The rifle had problems, true. Unfortunately some soldiers were killed when their weapons jammed. The problems were fixed, solutions were found.

read http://www.soft.net.uk/entrinet/us_weapons1.htm

 

[scylis]

hey, broadsiding him with the Chair Leg of Truth would have drastically reduced my chance of getting $1s for the strippers!

for god's sake, man, think of the strippers!