4 ms·

Hmm...you want us to spend less on defense, and weaken our ability to protect from spies....You sound a lot like a chatbot whose purpose is to spread propaganda

by rhelz 2y ago

Hmm...you want us to spend less on defense, and weaken our ability to protect from spies....You sound a lot like a chatbot whose purpose is to spread propaganda which is not in our best interest. I hate that there is not way for me too tell whether you are even real or not. This business of having computers which can pass the Turing test really has its disadvantages. Paying somebody $200k? I think it should be obvious that a spy who slipped in because of weak vetting cost the U.S. more than $200k...an hour. E.G. a harpoon-class cruise missile costs almost $2 million---and compromised intelligence could have us firing one of those off at innocent people. E.G. the second gulf war and "weapons of mass destruction" We could have saved a couple of trillion dollars.

Jtsummers 2y ago
> you want us to spend less on defense, and weaken our ability to protect from spies What a remarkable misrepresentation of what I wrote. I don't want us to spend less (necessarily) I want us to waste less and spend effectively. If you aren't just trolling and really don't understand that, then I'm honestly surprised you successfully found and clicked the reply button. And since your reading comprehension is so bad, the $200k is not their pay, their pay is likely around $60-90k/year. The $200k was total cost to keep someone sitting in a desk producing nothing for a year, and a lowball. Quite frequently what happens, in high COL areas especially, they sit there for a year, get a Secret or TS clearance, and then bounce to a contractor for 2-4x the pay. US tax payers get nothing for it, but got to spend at least $60k on salary, another $30k on benefits, another $30-50k in other overhead, and $50k or more on the security clearance process itself. And in the end the position the person was hired for is vacant, has to be filled again, and the process repeats. This is not effective, it is not efficient, it's just wasteful.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  I wouldn’t even reply to that. It’s pretty obvious there’s a difference between being anti-defense and not wanting to spend an infinite amount of money on it.
janalsncm 2y ago
Come on. That’s a pretty unfair reading.
- rhelz 2y ago
  You'll never know when you've been persuaded by the best propaganda. That's why its the best propaganda. sigh and I don't like it either. I miss the days, not long ago, when if something was making reasonably grammatical and coherent sentences, that mean it was a person.

by rhelz 2y ago

Jtsummers 2y ago

> you want us to spend less on defense, and weaken our ability to protect from spies What a remarkable misrepresentation of what I wrote. I don't want us to spend less (necessarily) I want us to waste less and spend effectively. If you aren't just trolling and really don't understand that, then I'm honestly surprised you successfully found and clicked the reply button. And since your reading comprehension is so bad, the $200k is not their pay, their pay is likely around $60-90k/year. The $200k was total cost to keep someone sitting in a desk producing nothing for a year, and a lowball. Quite frequently what happens, in high COL areas especially, they sit there for a year, get a Secret or TS clearance, and then bounce to a contractor for 2-4x the pay. US tax payers get nothing for it, but got to spend at least $60k on salary, another $30k on benefits, another $30-50k in other overhead, and $50k or more on the security clearance process itself. And in the end the position the person was hired for is vacant, has to be filled again, and the process repeats. This is not effective, it is not efficient, it's just wasteful.

janalsncm 2y ago
I wouldn’t even reply to that. It’s pretty obvious there’s a difference between being anti-defense and not wanting to spend an infinite amount of money on it.

janalsncm 2y ago

Come on. That’s a pretty unfair reading.

rhelz 2y ago
You'll never know when you've been persuaded by the best propaganda. That's why its the best propaganda. sigh and I don't like it either. I miss the days, not long ago, when if something was making reasonably grammatical and coherent sentences, that mean it was a person.