is justify that US gov  spent lot of money on  deffence?
90311
Of course it is. Its their obligation to have a strong military to defend this great country.
840187
You really should check just how much money is spent on entitlement programs in this country... it could open your eyes.\n\nReading the responses, I see that you aren't the only one that doesn't have a clue to how this government spends money.
1071657
I'm so sorry this happened to you.  In all honesty, the government doesn't care.  They put up a paltry reward of $50K for the return.  Whomever buys this information, sadly YOUR information, will pay much much more than $50K.\n\nIf you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
256461
yes. why spend all the money developing it if your not going to use it. also in order for a military to be affect it needs the latest technoligy.
564729
no. the problem is that all this "enforcement" costs money and time and we seem to want these things but then we get pissed when the govt tries to enforce them. Big govt is not good. We need to keep our selves safe. keep ourselves reponsible, and dammit, keep ourselves from dying from hurricanes ALL BY OURSELVES!
492138
Sadly, you are trying to pretend that this happened only during Clinton's years, so unfortunately if I agree with you in part I fear I am going to hurt your feelings again. This is not intended to be a slander against you, because you are right in what you say, you just don't go far enough.\n\nYou are right, every President's budget since 1982 has skimmed money out of the Social Security Trust Fund to hide how much the deficit is. This past year, the federal government diverted over 400 billion (I forgot who the President is now, apparently you did too). Regardless of who was in office during these last 25 years (8 years dems and 17 years reps) it has been shameless and criminal. And yes, you are right, this is the REAL problem with Social Security; if it had been left alone from the beginning, there would still be enough of a build-up for many years of Baby Boomer retirements until the population stabilizes again. Technically the Trust Fund is full, but in actuality it is full of inter-governmental bonds (the treasury borrows from SS and gives an IOU).\n\nWe should all be ashamed that we have allowed this to go on for so long, even though the government has done such a good job trying to make certain we didn't notice it.
155962
Purposely? No.\n\nBut was the attempt to help people in and out of the city done competently? No.\n\nI don't think it was rasict or malicious...just incompetence, from poorly selected managers and a Homeland Defence Department that is mainly focused on terrorists.\n\nThey should have left FEMA out of the DHS and put a disaster specialist in charge instead of a political crony.
777069
It's an absolute outrage, and the sad truth is, this has been going on since BEFORE 9/11.  The link I've included below takes you to a paper written by the Center for Security Policy back in 2001.  In in turn references an investigative report that ran in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review back in January of 2001.  Those Investments go back to when Barbara Hafer was the State Treasurer.  This has been a known issue for almost six years, and as far as I'm concerned, Bob Casey along with everyone else who serves on the retirement fund board, should be charged with treason!\n\nThe paper below includes the entire original article, which gives the names of five companies, and how those companies are involved in aiding terrorists.
272308
The is NO DOUBT in my mind that it is a total FARCE. These are the same people who recommended duct tape to seal your house in case of a chemical, biological, and radiological attack. Look at how much contraband that has eluded  airport checkpoints. Look at how FEMA and the rest of the US government handled the Hurrican Katrina diaster in  New Orleans. Need I cite any more examples?
542487
Not really.  But it gave us justification to blow the #%$&*!!! out of anything that looks suspicious.
815696
I couldn't agree more.  Assuming you have time-lined the Cole the WTC bombing in 2/26/93 the embassies etc.\n\nThat fact is crime is out of control in this country.  The Midwest is experiencing a massive surge in violent crime (St Louis MO named most violent city).  How much safer would we REALLY be had we used a portion of the $330 Billion on domestic law enforcement?\n\nThe GOP is selling us an illusion of security in the meantime we are rotting from within.
1182668
It causes the government to spend money on war materials, many of which are made in the USA. The money is debt-financed, which suggests that the positive effect may only be short-lived.
330309
youre wrong fusion. the freedom to govern & protect ourselves eliviates the need for federal protection. the fed is 200 years old, is the outcome good? no, we're high on everyones shltlist, our economy is based on variables rather than actual wealth (gold, silver, jewels, ect) http://www.philipdru.com/griffin_stream.html , we're constantly at war, tollerate obvious inhouse attrocities (waco), we're 28th in education globally, agh!!! to much to list. point is, aint workin out. if we all have the means to peotect ourselves the crazies will come out in mass, true. itll be anarchy, but very short lived (so to speak). the more we rely on the fed, proven, the worse off we are. name something the fed does better & more efficient than private enterprise. no way, give me freedom, i'll handle my own security. shlt, this side of town handles its own security now, cops dont come here without military trained swat.
102672
Unless you are engaging in activity that could be construed as aiding and abetting terrorism, I think you are being overly paranoid.\n\nThe government is engaging in those activities, but it has more to do with data mining. The government has a program called Tempest that is capable of monitoring electronics within the nation, but it does not do so arbitarily. Tempest runs in the background. When certain key phrases come up (for instance, "I want to kill the President"), Tempest roars to life and signals agents that someone to watch out for has been identified.\n\nThe government does not just arbitrarily say, "I think I'm gonna listen in on Sam's conversation tonight and see what pops up." That is like finding a needle in a haystack.
424036
First thing, most people get the quote wrong.\n\nEveryone agrees (pretty much) that temporary or minor sacrifies are not a big deal. Or if you don't, how many are sacrificing their liberties by wearing a seatbelt in the name of security?\n\nThe issue, as many see it, is whether we should sacrifice permanent or essential liberties, in the name of temporary or illusionary security ("...deserve neither liberty nor security").\n\nHow many people actually believe that the airport security would stop a determined intelligent hijacker, other than by shear luck? But it makes most people feel better, so we give up those liberties in the name of illusionary security.\n\nAccording to some current polls, the majority of US citizens agree that we should allow the government to eavesdrop on anything they want, all in the name of security against terrorists. But how many really believe that out of the 300 million people in the US, and nobody knows how many billions of phone calls and emails per day, that the 6 people actually plotting the next terrorist attack (I'm guessing, no I don't have firsthand knowledge) will be caught?\n\nWould we all be safer if police could just grab anyone at any time and search them? Or if all weapons were illegal? Or if all phone calls had to be pre-approved and were always monitored, thus limiting each person to 1-2 calls per day? Or if people had to have federally approved licenses to check out books from the library, and the government could decide who was allowed to read what? Or if everyone had their federal SSN/ID# tattood on their forehead? Probably. But are those sacrifies worth the gains?\n\nIs it worth removing constitutional protections to gain security? Maybe a little. Probable cause, emergency circumstances, other exceptions on an as-needed basis. But there's always a slippery slope. There's always a point where it becomes too much lost for too little gain.\n\nOur country, right now, is figuring out where it thinks the lines should be. And this choice is likely to have a significant impact on us for decades to come.
415178
They can't justify it that's why they do it, politicians are contrary creatures!\n\nActually, I agree with you, all governments seem to spend more money on stupid things than on something that's actually pertinant to their society!  I think there's a certain amount of one-up-manship, but perhaps also the fact that politicians are so well paid that they don't care about real issues, they just care about themselves!
42522
In many cases it is important to find an answer to a problem but we are overdoing it. We have gone hog wild on this.\n\nGovm't spending is way out of hand. Our total taxation is over 51% and climbing. \n\nWe need NASA to keep pace with science and world progress. \n\nOur govm't was designed to protect the people not subsidize them which means our welfare programs have gone too far. \n\nThe fruit fly study was for the benefit of the orchardists.