With all of today's news in the Pacific, it should be noted that the GOP's budget will cut funding for tsunami monitoring
slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/...Posted Mar 11, 2011, 4:20 PM UTC
709151
slate.com
Because million dollar missiles to kill goat herders are much more important than protecting our coastal residents.
Bootstrappy people surf Tsunami wave.
edit: Grammar / Spelling.
37
You seem to be forgetting that the coastal places of the country aren't "real America," and therefore, not nearly as important.
Derp.
17
*than
(Comphermc started it)
1
I sea wear eye was wrong.
6
I HATE when people simplify things like this.
No, making million dollar missiles to kill goat herders is not more important that protecting our coastal residents, but military spending is important. What's more, I guarantee the conversation didn't go like this: "We need more missiles" "Oh really? Okay, cut tsunami warning spending, they're not as important" "Okay. YAY WAR!"
No. They made cuts where they deemed necessary. Yes, with the recent international events, that cut kind of seems like a bad idea (and I'll bet the cut doesn't happen now, btw), but that's budgeting.
Yes, the US government hasn't had a great track record with budgeting recently, but that comes from both sides. The democrats and the GOP have made stupid decisions.
/rant - dare I defend the GOP in r/politics...
edit: wow, I was -3 but now I'm back even! Thanks for considering an alternative opinion and listening.
1
Problem is, it is that simple. Our defense spending is far and away the greatest drain on our budget and it has been for decades. Paying that much to kill when really helping our people by protecting and warning is obscene.
4
Whether you want to believe it or not, having a military DOES save American lives, much like a tsunami warning system would. I know that we, young left-leaning, republican-disliking, not-actually-part-of-the-real-world-yet, people don't want to believe that military IS important, but it is. Yes, our decisions haven't been great and many innocent people die, I'm not defending that, but we, being the current world leader, need to have a military to boot.
We cut all our of military spending, we get attacked or our allies get attacked and a lot of our "friends" die. It's not a popular opinion, I know, and that's fine, but that's the truth. Ever since the beginning of man, there has been war, and I'd rather be on the side that is prepared so that I can be defended.
Do I think that half of our budget should be military? Probably not, but I'm not in the position to make those decisions, so I don't have necessary knowledge to drop the hammer. Should we spend more on education and tsunami warning systems? Maybe so. There are a lot of problems that need to be solved but it is my belief that slashing the military budget isn't the way to go.
I will say, however, that I think the war in the middle east is a bit unnecessary, so I would be happy to save money by discontinuing that.
0
First of all, I am not young and dumb. I'm am in my mid-thirties, a husband and father who has been working for almost twenty years. So sorry you have that impression, idealism is not a dream exclusive to the youth..
Secondly, having a defense budget that is greater than most of the world's defense budgets combined is not responsible, and is only good for making the rich richer and poor people dead.
- edit typos
4
Whether you want to believe it or not, having a military DOES save American lives
I'm probably overlooking some obvious fact why having military presence in Germany and Japan six decades after WW2 is saving lives, or why having military presence in any country not currently engaged in a war is saving lives.
The common line of reasoning seems to be this: "The military is in country X. They can stop future attacks from that country by foreseeing them ahead of time, so they're indirectly saving lives that would have been lost in that hypothetical conflict." But the problem is, it's agencies like the CIA and international ambassadors doing the "recon," not the military grunts. They're there for show. If you want to praise someone for saving lives by preventing future conflicts, praise the intelligence communities, not the military, whose only role is supposed to be actual combat.
2
Mongolar makes a point about how we value military spending too highly.
You say:
I HATE when people simplify things like this.
Mongolar then points out that the amount we spend on defense is bad, especially when we aren't taking care of everything at home
you say:
We cut all our of military spending, we get attacked or our allies get attacked and a lot of our "friends" die.
So, who's oversimplifying now?
He never said that we should cut "all" military spending. Can we agree that somewhere between zero dollars and "every dollar we got" is an appropriate amount of military spending. Arguing that it is too high is not arguing that the number should be zero. You cannot argue about whether or not a number is too high or too low based on a concept like "being the current world leader, need to have a military to boot," anecdotes, etc. The argument you make makes just as much sense if military spending is 200 billion as it does if its 400 or 800 billion. In other words, it has no bearing on an argument about whether a number is too high or too low.
Therefore, I'll give you an argument with numbers.
The United States comprises 4.5% of the world population. That 4.5% of the world is responsible for 43% of all military spending. Now you tell me that all of that is necessary for "defense." Only in a completely deluded, Orwellian society can a country be responsible for nearly half of the world's military spending and call it "Defense spending" or have it controlled by the "Department of Defense." That is Offense. That is the Department of War. We could cut our military spending in HALF, and if we did, the military budget would be more than that of the U.K., France, Russia, Germany, Japan, and Saudia Arabia combined (those are the countries 3rd-8th), and still more than triple the military budget of China.
Sir, are you really going to defend the position that a country with less than a 20th of the world population should be responsible for 43% of all world military spending because it is necessary for security?
1
I would agree with you, if we didn't spend vastly more money on our military than every other country on earth. But we do, and as a result, at least half our military budget is a choice between killing people and helping people/reducing the deficit.
4
I think the number spend on "defense" is like 700 billion a year, I think we could probably get away with about a tenth of that.
1
Of course they are, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, and California are all blue states. They could give a damn about the lives at risk, especially from the Cascadia Subduction Zone.
25
r/politics, relating worldwide tragedies to America since 2008.
4
Hey, the thread title brought it up, so its worth pointing out that political favoritism exists in federal funding. It's more relevant then you think, given that the NOAA does Tsunami warnings for most of the Pacific Rim.
On top of that, I do have family in Japan affected by this, so its not all "everything is about America". Thanks for playing!
1
My point is that it was unnecessary to try to involve today's tragedy.
1
r/politics is about US news. I am not out to politicize this, but consider that Japan's extensive preparation saved hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of lives. Then realize our western seaboard faces the same threat.
We SHOULD take this event as a wake up call.
3
Umm, tsunami hit California this morning and did millions of dollars' damage and killed someone. I think that's related to America.
1
Ok, I'll bite.
Maybe Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, and California should be paying for their own tsunami warning systems if that is a priority for them.
Nothing in the constitution says that someone in Oklahoma should be paying for a warning system in California. Just like Oregon shouldn't have to pay for tornado research that benefits people in mostly red states.
The guys who set up this country had this brilliant idea of leaving things up to the states. Perhaps we should pay attention to that.
2
Tsunami monitoring is handled by the NOAA. They also handle hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural events. Most of these are cross-state events, and it would be stupidly inefficient to require each state to have its own worldwide tsunami monitoring apparatus, hurricane monitoring systems, etc.
22
To better tie my point together, feel free to name 1 state that does not face natural disasters monitored by the NOAA. This IS a national problem, and picking and choosing which monitoring systems to fund is political favoritism.
13
North Dakota/Montana :)
although I agree that what the NOAA does is very important and should be funded, after all its not only disaster warning that they do.
1
Earthquakes in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. Try again.
7
They get both tornadoes and severe thunderstorms. As well as winter storms.
But again, we agree.
4
Nice thought, but a lot of Federal facilities that support ALL the states exist on the coast - military bases, governmental installations, etc. Its worthwhile to protect them for the sake of the country as a WHOLE. Or maybe we should allow coastal states to tax all goods and services that go through them to support these systems - as a matter of fact, Oklahoma should have to pay taxes for every state that its commerce goes through.
7
His point is that tsunami warning systems don't benefit the nation at large. The military does.
2
His point is that the tsunami warning system benefits the military and government which in turn benefits the nation at large.
5
What's good for one state is good for the nation as a whole.
4
We pay for more red state specific programs than they pay for blue state programs.
4
Which reinforces my point, even though you make it sound like it invalidates it.
Every state should pay its own way.
1
We are a united country and we should pay to keep our farmlands, coastal cities and every other location supplied with what they need.
1
Oklahoma? Ok, I'll bite.
How about all those fly over states pay for their own anything first.
3
So you agree with me. Each state should pay its own way.
1
Yet the military should be handled by the federal government?
How is defending against human attacks any different than defending against natural disasters? The latter of which kill many more people than terrorist attacks.
2
An invasion threatens three hundred million people. A tsunami threatens people living within a few miles of the coast within a few select states.
1
Maybe the red states would like to pay for their own corn subsidies. Or anything else you care to name - it's been repeatedly shown that the states that receive the most federal money in relation to the tax dollars sent to Washington (i.e., are heavily subsidized by the US gov) are largely staunchly Republican, and the states that receive the least (i.e., are effectively subsidizing the Fed) are largely Democratic.
Tea Partiers in particular are strong in states that couldn't live as they currently do on their own revenues.
Beyond all that, there's a reason for having certain programs at the federal level, and it's the same reason corporations merge - the elimination of redundant efforts, and the increased savings realized with greater buying power. Local autonomy has its benefits, but it is not without costs. Fiscal conservatives are not natural allies of state's-rights proponents, unless said "conservatives" are really just anarchists in suits. Suggesting that either local control or a national, top-down structure is always more efficient is simplistic and flat-out wrong.
0
Suggesting that either local control or a national, top-down structure is always more efficient is simplistic and flat-out wrong.
It's always easy to beat up men made of straw!
1
The guys who set up this country had this brilliant idea of leaving things up to the states. Perhaps we should pay attention to that.
What part of that did I misunderstand?
1
How about googling "red state welfare", dumbfuck.
-1
came here to say this. have an upboat
-5
Tell me about some of the tsunamis that have struck the West Coast. Before you open another tab to research, consider the fact that you have to open another tab to research.
The last major tsunami was in 1964, in Alaska. You didn't include that state, why? Oh, because they're RED. That 50-year old event caused 122 deaths. How much would you spend over 50 years in order to prevent 122 deaths, sir?
It's funny you mention the Cascadia Subduction Zone. I think you just threw that in there to sound credible. There has been one earthquake in the Cascadia Zone in all of recorded history. So, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there are no lives at risk there. Apparently you don't give a damn about the lives at risk for mis-spending hundreds of millions of dollars of our tax money. Think of the children!
-1
Actually, I live in Washington, and Cascadia has had several events, every 300-500 years. Not to mention, when it does go, the tsunami will devastate the entire western seaboard.
So yes, spending this money to create high skilled jobs that save lives, IS worth it. And, I didn't have to look it up :P
5
We know from geologic evidence and Japanese tsunami records that what you say is true. The last event in the zone was in 1700 and was estimated to be a 9.0 quake. I wasn't wrong in saying there has been one quake there in recorded history, but I exaggerated when I said there was no risk.
I did more reading. The probability of a quake in the next 50 years was revised in research last year upwards to 37%. I am coming around to the idea that it's worth investing into, but I think it is worth debating whether it's worth it while our budget is in shambles. I'd be more inclined to support funding immediately if I knew how many jobs you're talking about here, since that would kill two birds with one stone.
1
NOAA is not our biggest budget concern by far. Glad you followed up and researched it though, big ups.
2
OK, please stop invoking 'it will create jobs' as a justification for spending. Paying people to stay home and watch TV also 'creates jobs'
1
Way to cherry pick half of the point and ignore the whole picture.
Creates high skilled jobs that save fucking lives, more effectively than trying to do it state by state. How simple can this be?
0
So, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there are no lives at risk there.
Right, natural disasters never happen in the States. Don't worry about it.
4
Don't put words in my mouth; you know I didn't say no one in the US is at risk of natural disasters. You know I was talking about the Cascadia's earthquake production. Here's what your reply should have said:
Research has concluded that an event at that particular seismic area has a 10-30% chance of occurring in the next 50 years, in spite of the fact that there has only been one earthquake there that we know of.
To which I would have replied:
Alright, so there's potential. I'll admit I exaggerated when I said there is no risk. How much should we spend to minimize a 10% chance in the next 50 years of loss of life when our nation is spiraling the drain, though?
0
You couldn't have said it better; there is no reason why unabashed fear should determine how we allocate resources, rather than logic and reason. It is despicable that people could be so naive that their selfishness to feel good about the bubble in which they live would actually lead to another's sorrow; "for the common good," I suppose.
2
Insurance seems expensive.
1
Northern California, 2006 I was hit by a tsunami which damaged quite a few boats and ports.
In 1964, eleven people were killed in a town near where I grew up (Crescent City California.)
There was a similar even in 2010 after the Chilean quake.
The bridge in Gold Beach was destroyed by a tsunami in the 80's? I think also.
1
coundn't
They could not give a damn. A damn is not something that they give, or could contemplate giving.
-8
couldn't
8
He meant to spell it D A M. Like, they could give a dam to stop the tsunami from hitting the west coast.
6
No, see, they could give a damn, but they don't.
5
cound they?
2
• Sensationalistic subject line not backed by the cited article. Check.
• A whole bunch of up-votes. Check.
• Nearly everyone who posts actual science-based comments getting down-voted. Check.
r/politics is so predictable.
16
I KNEW you'd say that!
1
They're trying to cut the NOAA, which runs the tsunami warning system. So, not sure what you're complaining about.
0
The NOAA does a lot of things. There's no reason to believe that a general budget cut will reduce funding for tsunami monitoring. The submitter simply made that part up to get attention.
2
There's no reason to believe that a general budget cut will reduce funding for tsunami monitoring.
There's also no reason to believe it won't.
1
- Self-righteous reply criticizing r/politics readers. Check.
You're right, it is predictable.
-3
We'll just pray more. That'll do it. After all, the US is god's country.
11
Tsunamis are part of God's plan, no need to delay the rapture.
9
Not to worry, the free market will fix it by lowering the demand for imported asian tsunamis.
8
As someone who lives in a tidal flood zone.. damn.
7
This article has nothing to do with tsunami monitoring. Shame. Tsunamis are mentioned in one spot:
Are there cuts here that would have impacted the speed at which, say, California reacted to the impending tsunami? Doubtful, but I think we've found a government worker more sympathetic than the proverbial unionized teacher.
But this isn't about tsunamis, is it, OP? It's about mudslinging at the GOP. Reddit has problems when it comes to deficit vs. GOP. On one hand, we bitch about the deficit bankrupting the country. Yet, the GOP is the only group trying to do something about it. But that deeply conflicts with the vitriol Reddit has for them. So how do we reconcile this mind-split? We upvote posts that (don't even) show how the GOP's budget-cutting is going to destroy the nation.
Guess what, people. There are benefits for every program our government sponsors, so it's not going to be possible to balance the budget without pain. Read that again, because it's important. You can't have the Candyland fantasy you're hoping for. Our leaders, if they are good ones, are going to make decisions that hurt some in the short-run, but benefit our nation of people in the long. Disclaimer: I don't think the GOP is going to solve our problems, but fuck, some of them are trying! Meanwhile, armchair warriors boo them from the bleachers. Bombs away.
7
[deleted]
4
Tsunamis are just a theory.
3
Because it is Republican Policy to live in an ignorant, religious bliss!
3
Cut research, deliver pallets of money to warlords.
3
Scumbag Republicans.
1
And how is this not fearmongering?
Step 1: Natural Disaster!
Step 2: Turn it into a political talking point to smear and slander the other side!
Step 3: Bitch and moan when the other party uses the same tactics back!
Step 4: Increase level of fearmongering/slandering/lies/manipulation and use the other party's use of the same tactics as justification!
Nice plan.
3
We don't need no tsunami warnings... we don't need no volcanoes.
2
let the motherfucker burn
3
Actually I was thinking Pink Floyd, but I suppose that works too ;-)
2
Checks for "onion.com" link ... cries
2
I have diarrhea.
2
We really don't have to look that far to find issues with the GOP's budget so can we avoid the partisan finger-pointing when we have the benefit of hindsight? Using a natural disaster as an excuse to say "See the right are a bunch of idiots!!" seems awfully petty to me, especially when the linked article says that the cuts are unlikely to have a serious effect on the ability to detect disasters.
2
can we avoid the partisan finger-pointing when we have the benefit of hindsight?
No, because number one, "hindsight" extends far further than one day, and since this sort of problem has happened before in the history of the world, then we all have always had the benefit of hindsight to show us that this sort of spending is worthwhile. And number two, I would have opposed that cut two days ago and I oppose it just the same now, so what benefit has this sudden hindsight given me?
They are a bunch of idiots. It's nothing to do with this most recent tsunami, they just are.
3
Fox News years later after another tsunami.
"Government failure leads to loss of life and property, Democrats propose more spending to cure tsunami problems."
2
Cue Bobby Jindal: "Something called [giggle] tsunami monitoring!!"
2
it clearly states in the bible that any cataclysmic event will be preceded with locusts. we don't need any left-wing liberal scientists to tell us when danger is approaching
Sorry but Australia is in the middle of a locust plague, should have seen t is warning.
This joke is funny because only someone who believes the bible is literal can be fiscally conservative.
The truth is, after the news in the pacific today we clearly need to put more money into tsunami monitoring. A lot more. Tons more. Our entire economy should be based on it.
FTFY
Also, it couldn't hurt to use some capitalization and punctuation. I left my red pen in my other pants; otherwise, I'd grade this for you.
it's friday! why are you wearing pants?
Casual writing is like casual speech. It doesn't have to be right, as long as there's no problem understanding it. I had no problem at all with understanding him, so it's fine. Also, everything on reddit is casual writing.
Yeah, but comphermc is really smart and observant, and he wants attention. Casual writing doesn't give him any attention.
Oh, you DIDN'T get the memo... it's all punctuation and proper capitalization now here on reddit. Roll with the change ! /s