Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 221 posts

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#211

Post by gpawl »

derefr wrote: post #74
dashundchen wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you're sarcastic or trolling . Cut back on by far the largest and most expensive military in the world then. NOAA budget 2016: $5.8 billion US military budget: $600 billion And they're proposing a $54 billion increase. You could probably trim 10 NOAAs from the military industrial complex and nothing would be lost.

With the proviso that US military support and materiel has been used as trade goods for alliance-making with other countries for most of the last century. A large portion of the US military budget is "being the substitute military for US allies." The key question of decreasing US government spending is how to get other countries to pony up for the "renting" of the US military forces that they're already doing (becaus…

The US Military leadership has publicly lobbied against raising military spending at the expense of other government activities. They know that national security depends on a comprehensive international relations investments.

The White House is pandering to their populist base and contravening the advice of their own military experts

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#212

Post by gpawl »

xenadu02 wrote: post #103
ra1n85 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. Defense comes in at 15% of federal spending. Social security and medicare combined come in at 4x that amount. Source: http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/120/2017-Estimate

Yeah and they take a very specific tax out of everyone's paycheck to pay for those two programs. If you want to have an argument about them that's fine but they have separate budgets and should be discussed separately.

They are both taxes. All else equal, taxpayers would happily pay 1pts more income tax and 2pt less social security, or vice versa. All my tax dollars are the same color.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#213

Post by DaUR »

nkozyra wrote: post #200
DaUR wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did I argue we have to rebuild the military? Are you even replying to the right comment? Is your first sentence projection?

I think you perhaps should read my post again, I made no claim about you making that argument.

Then what is your post replying to? A poster above said that Trump's military spending shows he's a warmonger, and I said it's well known to anyone who even remotely followed the election that he believes in "peace through strength", so his military spending doesn't prove he's a warmonger.

The only strawman was yours.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#214

Post by bitJericho »

CalChris wrote: post #92
bitJericho wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military is 60 percent of the budget.

> The military is 60 percent of the budget. 50% of the discretionary budget. You were embarrassingly close. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-...

I prefer to include veteran benefits.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#215

Post by squarefoot »

dragonwriter wrote: post #144
lazugod wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is true, why are they not removing all funding entirely?

Because its not (yet, at any rate) a dictatorship, and they need something that even Republicans in Congress will vote for, for one thing.

And probably also because by removing one hair at a time you can eventually make someone bald without he even noticing.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#216

Post by nkozyra »

DaUR wrote: post #213
nkozyra wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you perhaps should read my post again, I made no claim about you making that argument.

Then what is your post replying to? A poster above said that Trump's military spending shows he's a warmonger, and I said it's well known to anyone who even remotely followed the election that he believes in "peace through strength", so his military spending doesn't prove he's a warmonger. The only strawman was yours.

I didn't reply to the warmonger post. I'm not responsible for contextually connecting every one of my posts to every other in a thread.

Although I see that by not doing so it gives you the opportunity to reply with this sort of non reply.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#217

Post by [deleted] »

DaUR wrote: post #213
nkozyra wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you perhaps should read my post again, I made no claim about you making that argument.

Then what is your post replying to? A poster above said that Trump's military spending shows he's a warmonger, and I said it's well known to anyone who even remotely followed the election that he believes in "peace through strength", so his military spending doesn't prove he's a warmonger. The only strawman was yours.

[deleted]

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#218

Post by DaUR »

nkozyra wrote: post #216
DaUR wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then what is your post replying to? A poster above said that Trump's military spending shows he's a warmonger, and I said it's well known to anyone who even remotely followed the election that he believes in "peace through strength", so his military spending doesn't prove he's a warmonger. The only strawman was yours.

I didn't reply to the warmonger post. I'm not responsible for contextually connecting every one of my posts to every other in a thread. Although I see that by not doing so it gives you the opportunity to reply with this sort of non reply.

> to every other in a thread

You're misrepresenting.

You: If he cuts back on foreign intervention, this extraordinary emphasis on "rebuilding" our military (whatever that means given the relative size of our military) makes even less sense.

Me: Yes it does, "Peace through Strength"

Followed by your hyper-aggressive, completely off-topic comment right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13789479

Why did I need to write the above up?

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#219

Post by nkozyra »

DaUR wrote: post #218
nkozyra wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't reply to the warmonger post. I'm not responsible for contextually connecting every one of my posts to every other in a thread. Although I see that by not doing so it gives you the opportunity to reply with this sort of non reply.

> to every other in a thread You're misrepresenting. You: If he cuts back on foreign intervention, this extraordinary emphasis on "rebuilding" our military (whatever that means given the relative size of our military) makes even less sense. Me: Yes it does, "Peace through Strength" Followed by your hyper-aggressive, completely off-topic comment right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13789479 Why did I need…

Though I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith ...

Peace through strength is not something that requires additional military resources. I'm not sure why you're being obtuse about this.

He promised during the campaign to cut the debt; his proposed budget would do the opposite.

"Peace Through Strength" is, again, a platitude, but even if we take it at face value we have strength at 4x+ and other nation.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#220

Post by ezy »

exclusiv wrote: post #198
scriptkiddy wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me put it to you this way: There is no place to live that is totally safe from bad weather. It is in the best interest of every citizen of the United States to pay for climate and weather modeling as disastrous weather can have massive impact on the economy. Also, from a moral standpoint, I personally don't mind shelling out some money to try and keep people safe. As to your point about people living in areas whe…

Is the NOAA the only entity that could provide this data? Nobody is suggesting forcing people to leave, but there are people that knowingly live in places that are drastically more dangerous just like there are a ton of people that decide to not take responsibility for their own health which creates a burden on everyone. I'm just suggesting that those local governments should take more responsibility. Or people pay e…

My stock response to libertarians: "I'm glad that things have worked out great for you". Before you propose dismantling an existing arrangement that seems to be working just fine, you first have to tell us why the existing arrangement is faulty in a real practical sense. If you can not do that, then leave it the hell alone. We have enough ideologues fucking with things already.
Post reply on HN