4 ms·

If the crux of your argument is the number of employees and funding are disproportionate to the number of deaths, you have to extract the number of employees an

by raleec 13y ago

If the crux of your argument is the number of employees and funding are disproportionate to the number of deaths, you have to extract the number of employees and monies dedicated to terrorism specifically (If any). Most of the DHS employees are part of pre-existing agencies that were combined to form DHS. "187 federal agencies and departments, including the United States National Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the United States Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the United States Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the 14 agencies that constitute the U.S. intelligence community and Civil Air Patrol" Edit: removed FBI reference, posted subsumed agencies as per Wikipedia...

300bps 13y ago
Read the disclaimer. I refuse to spend enough time on this to bring it to the level of PhD thesis. The numbers are so unbelievably heavy toward terrorism spending that it is not even necessary. You are nitpicking. The TSA budget is $7.91 billion per year. Again, that's $7.91 billion toward stopping something that has killed 5,000 people in the last 148 years vs. Spending about $1.5 billion toward stopping something that kills 35,000 per year. Or does the TSA rescue puppies in addition to preventing terrorism? I'm starting to think I'm on reddit with comments like yours.
- raleec 13y ago
  My apologies, I didn't realize that a disclaimer meant that everything preceding it could be ignored. If you truly believe that the proportionality is not debatable, then feel free to cease debating it. I'm sorry to inform you, but I'll need to see something at least on the level of a 12th grade essay to concisely consider your argument. Simply yelling "It's Too Much!" is not helpful. DISCLAIMER: I didn't realize that a disclaimer meant that everything preceding it could be ignored. If you truly believe that the proportionality is not debatable, then feel free to cease debating it. Simply yelling "It's Too Much!" is not helpful.

by raleec 13y ago

300bps 13y ago

Read the disclaimer. I refuse to spend enough time on this to bring it to the level of PhD thesis. The numbers are so unbelievably heavy toward terrorism spending that it is not even necessary. You are nitpicking. The TSA budget is $7.91 billion per year. Again, that's $7.91 billion toward stopping something that has killed 5,000 people in the last 148 years vs. Spending about $1.5 billion toward stopping something that kills 35,000 per year. Or does the TSA rescue puppies in addition to preventing terrorism? I'm starting to think I'm on reddit with comments like yours.

raleec 13y ago
My apologies, I didn't realize that a disclaimer meant that everything preceding it could be ignored. If you truly believe that the proportionality is not debatable, then feel free to cease debating it. I'm sorry to inform you, but I'll need to see something at least on the level of a 12th grade essay to concisely consider your argument. Simply yelling "It's Too Much!" is not helpful. DISCLAIMER: I didn't realize that a disclaimer meant that everything preceding it could be ignored. If you truly believe that the proportionality is not debatable, then feel free to cease debating it. Simply yelling "It's Too Much!" is not helpful.