Single payer is not cheaper or more efficient. Look at tax rates in those countries. Also, tuitions didn’t start to skyrocket until financial aid dramatically increased. It’s not the other way around. There is a direct correlation between the increase in tuition assistance and the cost of tuition. There is no…

That graph is also misleading when somebody starts talking about education, which is primarily funded by the states. US spending per capita on students is not a problem.

The “America is the world’s warmonger” trope is tired. And completely irrational. Not that you care.

In every instance private business operates more efficiently that government run programs. The reason you have no statistics is because they do not exist. Most people who have insurance through their employer have a max amount they can be charged each year, so no, they are not ruined financially for the rest of their…

So we spend a trillion dollars on education, but you trivialize it by selectively counting only $70 billion of it....

Tell you what, smart guy: figure out how to get rid of the Talibans and ISISes and Assads and Kim Jongs of the world and we’ll have all the free health care and education you want.

Name one country that isn’t a totalitarian state that maintains a state of alertness equal to the United States. Allow me to give you a hint. The carrier force the U.S. Just sent towards North Korea has more strike power than the totality of the RAF. And again, the military is not the only department that wastes…

I realize that there is discretionary, but in the grand scheme of things, they’re all funded by taxes and it’s what the government spends it’s money on.

Looks like their priorities are the retired, sick and unemployed.

While it’s always important to know how much weapons systems cost, it’s frustrating when everyone talks about the cost when it’s used as if we are just now paying for it. Example: We just spent 16 million to drop a bomb!! No, actually that bomb was already paid for years ago and was part of the budget. If anything the…

And how do you quantify risk? By defining the likelihood and severity of impact. In this case, likelihood may have been low, but the impact could be potentially huge. If mitigating that risk requires implementing a ban at practically no cost, it’s a no brainer. My boss would call it cheap insurance.

When a person signs up for the military literally thousands and thousands of dollars are spent training them. In the case of the special forces it’s hundreds of thousands spent on each soldier. The military views each soldier as an expensive weapon. This is why the speed limits on base are so restrictive and why they…

That’s not how the armed forces work.

Except a fire on a sub could kill 130+ people and destroy a $2b piece of equipment, as well as dump a nuclear reactor in the ocean. You’re probably mad they banned the Samsung fire starters from airplanes, too.

When the risk of allowing something is losing equipment to the tune of tens of millions of dollars and who knows how many people, I don’t think the Navy cares about percentages.

I think 1 fire on a sub probably is enough.

Clearly we should have written another strongly worded letter. Won’t somebody think of the terrorists!

Obviously it doesn’t make much sense to talk about this as a precision weapon, but you seem to have a very flawed definition of a “megaton”

Lol. The MOAB probably costs less than the FOAB too. Not fair! We need gender neutral bombs! Don’t oppress transgender bombs either! They can’t help they were born with a bombdick but need a bombgina.

I know, I mean if you pushed my parents out of a cargo plane, it would be my mom that left the biggest crater.