Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-02-2018, 03:54 PM
 
34,278 posts, read 19,358,607 times
Reputation: 17261

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Suppose we take the number of people at State as 70,000. This comes from the book HRC about Hillary's tenure at State, by Allen and Parnes, so I believe it is not inaccurate.


US population in 1800 was 5.3 million so population has grown by a factor of 61. The number of people at state as grown by a factor of 7778.
And? As has been pointed out-we had NINE employees. no overseas embassies etc.

The world is more complex then 1800. This is just a dumb thread.

Hey! How big was the FCC back then?
Quote:
As for Benghazi, the real problem for Hillary was not the spending on security, but her whole modus operandi. As is pointed out in HRC, Hilllary pursued a deliberate policy of having state dept people on the ground in the world's most dangerous places. It was all her pet theory of 'smart power' that was developed by a guy named Joseph Nye from the Bill Clinton admin.


Moreover, as pointed out in the book Stonewalled by Sharyl Attkisson, there was plenty of military/security response available--they just were not allowed to respond until way too late. Also if I recall from '13 hours,' the guys from the CIA annex at Benghazi actually had to disobey orders when they finally responded. The CIA team leader, known only as 'Bob' did not want them to go. They went anyway, and two of them were killed.
So you're going to just make arguments from hit piece books? You (like them) will ignore that they asked for more funding for security?

Sorry but Benghazi is just nonsense. Im not even going to argue that idiocy with you-we're talking about funding. If you want a Benghazi thread go make one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2018, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,352,042 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00 View Post
US population in 1800: 5.3 million
US population in 2010: 309.3 million

US diplomatic missions in first decade of 1800: a handful, including London, Liverpool, Paris, Amsterdam, Calcutta, Tangier
US diplomatic missions today: 307

US foreign trade interests in 1801: a little
US foreign trade interests today: a lot

I hear there are a lot more computer technicians and a lot less scribes, too!

US involvement overseas today: way, way too much. I personally know even many liberals who would agree with that. I could be wrong, but I don't think the Dept of state has much to do with trade. That is handled by other entities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Florida
23,795 posts, read 13,250,882 times
Reputation: 19952
....and?

1801? Give me break.

And the airlines and car manufacturers have waaaayyyy more people than they had then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,352,042 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
And? As has been pointed out-we had NINE employees. no overseas embassies etc.

The world is more complex then 1800. This is just a dumb thread.

Hey! How big was the FCC back then?

So you're going to just make arguments from hit piece books? You (like them) will ignore that they asked for more funding for security?

Sorry but Benghazi is just nonsense. Im not even going to argue that idiocy with you-we're talking about funding. If you want a Benghazi thread go make one.


Huh? You were the one who first brought up Benghazi. Did you not want a reply to your comment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,352,042 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
....and?

1801? Give me break.

And the airlines and car manufacturers have waaaayyyy more people than they had then.
apples/oranges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 04:01 PM
 
45,201 posts, read 26,417,923 times
Reputation: 24964
Given all the damage the state department has done, I'd say it has 30,266 too many employees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 04:02 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
5,509 posts, read 9,486,726 times
Reputation: 5616
So, how many positions should there be? What positions would you cut, and why? And, there needs to be a reason beyond: "government is too big, and needs to be smaller."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 04:03 PM
 
11,988 posts, read 5,289,311 times
Reputation: 7284
Methinks some of the posters here would be happier back in 1801.

1. A tiny federal government
2. Slavery was thriving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 04:06 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,356 posts, read 26,481,472 times
Reputation: 11349
We have a much higher population, a much more complicated and dangerous world too. I mean we have multiple countries with weapons that could wipe out entire cities or countries at a time. We can no longer pretend that the ocean can protect us as it did 100 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2018, 04:07 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,905,438 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Suppose we take the number of people at State as 70,000. This comes from the book HRC about Hillary's tenure at State, by Allen and Parnes, so I believe it is not inaccurate.


US population in 1800 was 5.3 million so population has grown by a factor of 61. The number of people at state as grown by a factor of 7778.
Is your implication that the only difference or variable between 1800 and now is population?

I'm not arguing that 30k is the right number... But that's also the point. This is a meaningless discussion without the proper context.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:21 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top