Export thread
Let's see YOU do better :)
#1
Necronic
Necronic
Really liked this, although I realize it's not new (and there may already have been a thread for it), but it's still fun. Balance the budget, I dare you:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
also, link your solution back, here's mine:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=g0lud8p3
Edit: Woah, by total coincidence mine came out to 50% social cuts, 50% tax increase. I am moderate here me roar.
Also, there are a couple of boxes there that are the cowards way out (capping medicare for instance) or are massively speculative (usinga different inflation index). Don't be a coward and only select stuff you actually understand
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
also, link your solution back, here's mine:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=g0lud8p3
Edit: Woah, by total coincidence mine came out to 50% social cuts, 50% tax increase. I am moderate here me roar.
Also, there are a couple of boxes there that are the cowards way out (capping medicare for instance) or are massively speculative (usinga different inflation index). Don't be a coward and only select stuff you actually understand
#2
Krisken
Krisken
#3
Covar
Covar
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zyspc0s0
Aggressive cuts, minimal tax increases, and members of Congress are still scum of the earth.
Aggressive cuts, minimal tax increases, and members of Congress are still scum of the earth.
#4
Tress
Tress
I went for aggressive cuts of a different kind. About 40% taxes, 60% spending cuts... mostly from the military.
#5
Dave
Dave
I kept a lot of the military in tact. Because of the way we run our foreign policy, we can't afford to stop development of future weapons. Of course, I think we need to go leaner and meaner, but until we stop being the world's police force this is not possible.
#7
AshburnerX
-Future Force Warrior is roadblocked because all the extra equipment weighs too much or is too complicated for the average soldier.
-OICW failed because no one could make a gun for it that weighed around the same as a current gen weapon with similar accessories. The rifle component of the OICW (the XM8) was canceled because it offered no advantage over the current M4A1.
-The Universal Camo program gave us a pattern that doesn't work well ANYWHERE, but that we're using regardless because it's cheaper than printing up uniforms for different terrain.
-The Osprey took 20+ years to develop and resulted in an aircraft that is unsafe, unreliable, inadequate in it's role and hideously expensive... not to mention killed more than a few people and was notorious for it's unsafe development. We're STILL making 11+ a year.
- Military power suit programs are developing a product that will NEVER be mass produced due to price and isn't exactly designed for the kind of anti-insurgent actions we've been fighting lately.
We've spent billions of dollars on equipment that we're ether never going to use, was designed for the Cold War, or is actually less effective than what we already have. As a result, we had troops with ineffective body armor, underpowered weapons, and unready for the battles we are currently facing. I'm not saying we need to axe most of the programs because some of them (like the Raptor and Predator Drones) have bee astounding successes... but we do need to re-examine just exactly what we're buying and why we're making it.
AshburnerX
The biggest issue with our Future Weapons programs right now is that what we end up getting is crap. Here's a few examples:I kept a lot of the military in tact. Because of the way we run our foreign policy, we can't afford to stop development of future weapons. Of course, I think we need to go leaner and meaner, but until we stop being the world's police force this is not possible.
-Future Force Warrior is roadblocked because all the extra equipment weighs too much or is too complicated for the average soldier.
-OICW failed because no one could make a gun for it that weighed around the same as a current gen weapon with similar accessories. The rifle component of the OICW (the XM8) was canceled because it offered no advantage over the current M4A1.
-The Universal Camo program gave us a pattern that doesn't work well ANYWHERE, but that we're using regardless because it's cheaper than printing up uniforms for different terrain.
-The Osprey took 20+ years to develop and resulted in an aircraft that is unsafe, unreliable, inadequate in it's role and hideously expensive... not to mention killed more than a few people and was notorious for it's unsafe development. We're STILL making 11+ a year.
- Military power suit programs are developing a product that will NEVER be mass produced due to price and isn't exactly designed for the kind of anti-insurgent actions we've been fighting lately.
We've spent billions of dollars on equipment that we're ether never going to use, was designed for the Cold War, or is actually less effective than what we already have. As a result, we had troops with ineffective body armor, underpowered weapons, and unready for the battles we are currently facing. I'm not saying we need to axe most of the programs because some of them (like the Raptor and Predator Drones) have bee astounding successes... but we do need to re-examine just exactly what we're buying and why we're making it.
#8
SpecialKO
So it was canceled because unforeseen R&D needs, budget cuts and politicking, not the performance of the actual weapon.
SpecialKO
I don't disagree with your main point, but this doesn't seem to be quite correct. Going by wikipedia and its linked sources, the XM8 substantially outperformed the M4, but the battery life for the built-in, non-modular, sight tested very poorly, and it was just uncomfortable to hold. While H&K was working on it, Congress and the other arms makers got the Army to suspend, and then cancel, the project because the project under which the XM8 was being developed (the OICW) had changed its goals substantially since its inception.The rifle component of the OICW (the XM8) was canceled because it offered no advantage over the current M4A1.
So it was canceled because unforeseen R&D needs, budget cuts and politicking, not the performance of the actual weapon.
#9
AshburnerX
Anyway, H&K came out just fine... their HK416 is a redesign of the M4A1 design and seems to be doing well.
AshburnerX
Unforeseen? There's a reason we put iron sights or optical scopes as default on just about everything.I don't disagree with your main point, but this doesn't seem to be quite correct. Going by wikipedia and its linked sources, the XM8 substantially outperformed the M4, but the battery life for the built-in, non-modular, sight tested very poorly, and it was just uncomfortable to hold. While H&K was working on it, Congress and the other arms makers got the Army to suspend, and then cancel, the project because the project under which the XM8 was being developed (the OICW) had changed its goals substantially since its inception.
So it was canceled because unforeseen R&D needs, budget cuts and politicking, not the performance of the actual weapon.
Anyway, H&K came out just fine... their HK416 is a redesign of the M4A1 design and seems to be doing well.
#10
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Unforeseen in the sense that they didn't properly anticipate it, and it didn't show up until the second round of testing.Unforeseen? There's a reason we put iron sights or optical scopes as default on just about everything.
Anyway, H&K came out just fine... their HK416 is a redesign of the M4A1 design and seems to be doing well.