Education or guns?

[YoUDeeMan]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 4Dj04.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"If you've heard a number for how much the US spends on the military, it's probably in the neighborhood of $530 billion. That's the Pentagon's base budget for fiscal 2013, and represents a 2.5% cut from 2012. But that $530 billion is merely the beginning of what the US spends on national security. Let's dig a little deeper.

The Pentagon's base budget doesn't include war funding, which in recent years has been well over $100 billion. With US troops withdrawn from Iraq and troop levels falling in Afghanistan, you might think that war funding would be plummeting as well. In fact, it will drop to a mere $88 billion in fiscal 2013. By way of comparison, the federal government will spend around $64 billion on education that same year.

Add in war funding, and our national security total jumps to $618 billion. And we're still just getting started..."



We don't need no education...we just need to stick a missile up someone's azz.

On a side note...Asia Times has some interesting articles about world politics...obviously written from a different point of view.

[AZGrizFan]

Personally I wish the Federal government education spending was ZERO.

[Chizzang]

We're NEVER going to reduce spending on the Pentagon in any significant way
We are a military society - a Military Industrial Complex - PERIOD

We'd sooner burn down every school in America and use the books in a bonfire than fix the Military Ideological Mindset
Too late

Next...

[youngterrier]

I'm all for spending more on education, but I'm 99% sure there is a statistic out there about how the federal funding on education has gone up since the inception of the DOE, while the grades of students has inversely gone down. The problem with education is probably the federalization of certain standards. The only thing I think should be federalized are certain standards that should be taught and relief funding for education. Let's face it, the primary/second education system is broken, and though funds have increased, many school districts are still underfunded. Getting rid of the DOE won't solve any problems, in fact I'd wager that it would start more. Education just isn't a priority in some states. If there's one "entitlement" that most efficiently lifts people out of poverty, it's education. If we cut the DOE, states won't receive federal funding, they will have to cut back more, and we all suffer as a result, if not now, then in the near future.

I hope I'm stating the obvious here.......

[Chizzang]

I'm all for spending more on education, but I'm 99% sure there is a statistic out there about how the federal funding on education has gone up since the inception of the DOE, while the grades of students has inversely gone down. The problem with education is probably the federalization of certain standards. The only thing I think should be federalized are certain standards that should be taught and relief funding for education. Let's face it, the primary/second education system is broken, and though funds have increased, many school districts are still underfunded. Getting rid of the DOE won't solve any problems, in fact I'd wager that it would start more. Education just isn't a priority in some states. If there's one "entitlement" that most efficiently lifts people out of poverty, it's education. If we cut the DOE, states won't receive federal funding, they will have to cut back more, and we all suffer as a result, if not now, then in the near future.

I hope I'm stating the obvious here.......

Indeed,
Government departments don't disband themselves
They don't give back the wasted funds
They don't seek less influence and look to streamline processes
They do not ask for less and willingly diminish their perceived importance

They - like all Federal "departments" grow
Seek to grow further
and always ask for more

This is the way of National Governments since they began
This is what will continue to happen here in the USA
Electing a Republican (or another Democrat) will not change this process

facts

[AZGrizFan]

I'm all for spending more on education, but I'm 99% sure there is a statistic out there about how the federal funding on education has gone up since the inception of the DOE, while the grades of students has inversely gone down. The problem with education is probably the federalization of certain standards. The only thing I think should be federalized are certain standards that should be taught and relief funding for education. Let's face it, the primary/second education system is broken, and though funds have increased, many school districts are still underfunded. Getting rid of the DOE won't solve any problems, in fact I'd wager that it would start more. Education just isn't a priority in some states. If there's one "entitlement" that most efficiently lifts people out of poverty, it's education. If we cut the DOE, states won't receive federal funding, they will have to cut back more, and we all suffer as a result, if not now, then in the near future.

I hope I'm stating the obvious here.......

Does not compute. You've contradicted yourself.

[AZGrizFan]

I'm all for spending more on education, but I'm 99% sure there is a statistic out there about how the federal funding on education has gone up since the inception of the DOE, while the grades of students has inversely gone down. The problem with education is probably the federalization of certain standards. The only thing I think should be federalized are certain standards that should be taught and relief funding for education. Let's face it, the primary/second education system is broken, and though funds have increased, many school districts are still underfunded. Getting rid of the DOE won't solve any problems, in fact I'd wager that it would start more. Education just isn't a priority in some states. If there's one "entitlement" that most efficiently lifts people out of poverty, it's education. If we cut the DOE, states won't receive federal funding, they will have to cut back more, and we all suffer as a result, if not now, then in the near future.

I hope I'm stating the obvious here.......

Indeed,
Government departments don't disband themselves
They don't give back the wasted funds
They don't seek less influence and look to streamline processes
They do not ask for less and willingly diminish their perceived importance

They - like all Federal "departments" grow
Seek to grow further
and always ask for more

This is the way of National Governments since they began
This is what will continue to happen here in the USA
Electing a Republican (or another Democrat) will not change this process

facts

Precisely what scares the living fuck out of me about Obamacare.

[youngterrier]

I'm all for spending more on education, but I'm 99% sure there is a statistic out there about how the federal funding on education has gone up since the inception of the DOE, while the grades of students has inversely gone down. The problem with education is probably the federalization of certain standards. The only thing I think should be federalized are certain standards that should be taught and relief funding for education. Let's face it, the primary/second education system is broken, and though funds have increased, many school districts are still underfunded. Getting rid of the DOE won't solve any problems, in fact I'd wager that it would start more. Education just isn't a priority in some states. If there's one "entitlement" that most efficiently lifts people out of poverty, it's education. If we cut the DOE, states won't receive federal funding, they will have to cut back more, and we all suffer as a result, if not now, then in the near future.

I hope I'm stating the obvious here.......

Does not compute. You've contradicted yourself.

It's a failure of policy and bureaucracy, not funding. Funding=/= policy. It plays a big part, no doubt, but throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. How it is spent on the other hand is another issue, and that is the problem in education right now, not that we've spent too much, but rather how we have spent it is the issue.

[AZGrizFan]

Does not compute. You've contradicted yourself.

It's a failure of policy and bureaucracy, not funding. Funding=/= policy. It plays a big part, no doubt, but throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. How it is spent on the other hand is another issue, and that is the problem in education right now, not that we've spent too much, but rather how we have spent it is the issue.

But flawed policy and more money is just about the ONLY solution the federal government knows. They've proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Put the money back in the LOCALS hands. Keep it micro, not macro.

[youngterrier]

It's a failure of policy and bureaucracy, not funding. Funding=/= policy. It plays a big part, no doubt, but throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. How it is spent on the other hand is another issue, and that is the problem in education right now, not that we've spent too much, but rather how we have spent it is the issue.

But flawed policy and more money is just about the ONLY solution the federal government knows. They've proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Put the money back in the LOCALS hands. Keep it micro, not macro.

Exactly.....I'm not against that, I'm for that. I just feel that there are some standards that need to be met, or at least taught (because a lot of states hate things like science, or will find a way to spin history), and that needs to be a federal standard. But the Fed doesn't need to mandate beyond that. Federal aid isn't bad in this sense or in the sense of providing extra funding to states and districts, but it goes way beyond that and that's the problem.

[AZGrizFan]

But flawed policy and more money is just about the ONLY solution the federal government knows. They've proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Put the money back in the LOCALS hands. Keep it micro, not macro.

Exactly.....I'm not against that, I'm for that. I just feel that there are some standards that need to be met, or at least taught (because a lot of states hate things like science, or will find a way to spin history), and that needs to be a federal standard. But the Fed doesn't need to mandate beyond that. Federal aid isn't bad in this sense or in the sense of providing extra funding to states and districts, but it goes way beyond that and that's the problem.

Newsflash: even with $65 billion in federal spending states STILL spin history and avoid things like science if they really want.

[youngterrier]

Exactly.....I'm not against that, I'm for that. I just feel that there are some standards that need to be met, or at least taught (because a lot of states hate things like science, or will find a way to spin history), and that needs to be a federal standard. But the Fed doesn't need to mandate beyond that. Federal aid isn't bad in this sense or in the sense of providing extra funding to states and districts, but it goes way beyond that and that's the problem.

Newsflash: even with $65 billion in federal spending states STILL spin history and avoid things like science if they really want.

Kind of makes you wonder what the hell they're doing up there on capitol hill doesn't it?

[AZGrizFan]

Newsflash: even with $65 billion in federal spending states STILL spin history and avoid things like science if they really want.

Kind of makes you wonder what the hell they're doing up there on capitol hill doesn't it?

Ya think?

Now envision 10x that amount of $$ dedicated to an equally fucked up government healthcare program....

[Seahawks08]

Now envision 10x that amount of $$ dedicated to an equally **** up government healthcare program....

right...so we should scrap it and replace it with what exactly?

[SuperHornet]

We're NEVER going to reduce spending on the Pentagon in any significant way
We are a military society - a Military Industrial Complex - PERIOD

Somebody doesn't know his history. What happened after every freaking war we've ever had? We've drawn down FAR below what is safe, cashing in the so-called "peace dividend." The result was having to rely on massive (not to mention EXPENSIVE) buildups the next time the poop hit the fan.

Look it up in the history books. That's the truth.

[SuperHornet]

YT: Where do you fit the GI Bill? Education or military?

Ha ha! Gotcha!

[Chizzang]

We're NEVER going to reduce spending on the Pentagon in any significant way
We are a military society - a Military Industrial Complex - PERIOD

Somebody doesn't know his history. What happened after every freaking war we've ever had? We've drawn down FAR below what is safe, cashing in the so-called "peace dividend." The result was having to rely on massive (not to mention EXPENSIVE) buildups the next time the poop hit the fan.

Look it up in the history books. That's the truth.

So you're suggesting we're not a Military Industrial Complex..?
And that we will reduce our Military in similar proportion to other industrialized nations..?
So... Um... Really..?

So you do realize that:
A) $250 billion per year is used to maintain some 865 U.S. military facilities in more than forty countries
B) During the cold war U.S. military spending accounted for 26% of the worlds total Military expenditures
C) Today we have historically low number of Enemies: The CIA claims "we have fewer enemies then ever in our nations history" and we're spending more money...
D) $708 billion military spending called for by the Obama administration for fiscal 2011 will be equivalent to the military spending of all other nations in the world combined.


Please explain..?

[Baldy]

Now envision 10x that amount of $$ dedicated to an equally **** up government healthcare program....

right...so we should scrap it and replace it with what exactly?

Ummm Nothing.
How about you being responsible for your own fucking healthcare, and I'll be responsible for mine. Deal?

The sad truth is that healthcare costs didn't start exploding until the government introduced Medicare and Medicaid.

[Ibanez]

We're NEVER going to reduce spending on the Pentagon in any significant way
We are a military society - a Military Industrial Complex - PERIOD

Somebody doesn't know his history. What happened after every freaking war we've ever had? We've drawn down FAR below what is safe, cashing in the so-called "peace dividend." The result was having to rely on massive (not to mention EXPENSIVE) buildups the next time the poop hit the fan.

Look it up in the history books. That's the truth.

Have you heard of the Cold War? You do realize that all those war were fought with conscripted men who were released after the threat was gone. We learned a lesson after WW2 and had to assume the role of superpower. We had to keep spending, thus the build up in the 1950's and the MIC. Also, you need to understand how staffing levels changed when we went to a Volunteer military. We maintain sufficient levels for peace time. I figured a former sailor would at least realize(remember) that the fighting force is the SMALLEST component of a military branch.

Also, don't forgot all the coups and covert opts that were funded and executed throughough the 50's, 60's and 70's.

[AZGrizFan]

Now envision 10x that amount of $$ dedicated to an equally **** up government healthcare program....

right...so we should scrap it and replace it with what exactly?

I have no idea. I DO know, however, that anything the government touches turns to crap, it never goes away, and it ends up costing more and more and more. That's no solution, that's just a means for the government to reach deeper and deeper into my pocket under the guise of "helping people".

[Ibanez]

right...so we should scrap it and replace it with what exactly?

I have no idea. I DO know, however, that anything the government touches turns to crap, it never goes away, and it ends up costing more and more and more. That's no solution, that's just a means for the government to reach deeper and deeper into my pocket under the guise of "helping people".

I am all for certain public assistance. I draw the line at entitlements. There is a difference.

[Chizzang]

right...so we should scrap it and replace it with what exactly?

I have no idea. I DO know, however, that anything the government touches turns to crap, it never goes away, and it ends up costing more and more and more. That's no solution, that's just a means for the government to reach deeper and deeper into my pocket under the guise of "helping people".

I present to you: The TSA
Probably the most poorly run, bloated organization ever created in the modern world
I gotta agree with AZ (as much as that pains me)
The Fat (literally obese) nation that we're becoming we cannot have the Government step in a"take care" of people who will not even take care of themselves

we're 35% Obese - let 'em die I say... (I wish I were kidding) but these fat people are expensive

[Pwns]

At least you can reasonably expect that being number 1 in military spending translates to actually having the best military in the world. On a per capita basis the US is behind only behind Switzerland in education spending and we aren't anywhere near #2.

As long as we continue with this "no child left behind" mindset that every freaking kid is a potential orthopedic surgeon, as long as we continue to get our collective panties in a wad over irrelevant issues like evolution/intelligent design while not caring one bit about how dismal physics, engineering, and computer science education (i.e. subjects that actually MATTER) is in high schools, as long as we stupidly continue to insist that middle school gym teachers make double the salary of adjuncts teaching Calculus to engineering majors, we will be stuck in a rut no matter what the DOE budget is.

[SuperHornet]

Mark and Chizzang:

I don't dispute the Cold War or the presence of an industrial complex. The presence of the industrial complex eliminated in-house production, thereby gouging the government on things it could have made for itself cheaper.

I'm saying that despite all of that, one only has to look at what has happened after EVERY war. After the Revolutionary War, just about EVERYTHING was cut down to cadre status (as was the custom of the time). It took quite a while to build back up for the War of 1812, after which there was ANOTHER huge cut. There was a build up to the Civil War. (One reason the CSA lost was that they didn't have the cash to keep up; they had people fighting barefoot because the government couldn't afford shoes.) Things were drastically cut after that.

There was ANOTHER buildup to the Spanish-American War (with its requisite draw-down). WWI was even more blatant as we played the neutrality card for as long as we were able. And then we cut to the bone after, harshly affected by the Washington Naval Treaty which affected what we were ALLOWED to have (remember the "treaty cruisers"?). It wasn't until the mid-'30s when Japan and Germany started violating that treaty that we started the WWII buildup. When Japan hit Pearl Harbor, they took out most of our Naval strength, particularly in the area where we THOUGHT the war would be mainly fought: line-of-battle ships. We were fortunate that carriers proved more important. Despite the industrial complex, there was ANOTHER cycle of draw-down/buildup after WWII and the start of Korea. After the Korea drawdown (which admittedly wasn't as draconian as the others), it took awhile to build up for Vietnam. There was a HUGE cut across the board after Vietnam, which was compounded by the way our country mistreated veterans who were only following the orders given them by POLITICIANS.

It's more difficult now to see "cuts" in terms of $$ because everything is so bloody expensive. But when one looks at infrastructure and manning levels, we've been cutting back for ten years now, expecting materiel and personnel to do more with less. And then we look on in wonder that people who have done five or seven deployments in as many years, having seen horrors "over there", come back and do stupid stuff.

Yes, Mark, there WAS something of a buildup in the '80s in support of the Cold War. Reagan did tout a "600-ship Navy," though I doubt that he actually made it. That concept didn't last too long after him, though. Every year, the stupid BRAC cuts infrastructure, making it harder to cover missions that haven't changed. The so-called "smart manning" on today's ships is only good until someone gets sick and has to be helo'ed off.

Conclusion: despite increasing budget numbers, our military is FAR short of where it should be to protect us. Chizzang's precious MIC exacerbated that by forcing huge numbers down the government's throat, resulting in record profits over time while decreasing our overall capability. And, yes, some of the leadership is to blame for that for buying into the mentality that bigger and "more capable" is always better. That puts more missions on one platform than it can readily handle.

And back to the original question of the thread: It should NOT be an either/or here. Especially nowadays with the technology of planes and radars, one cannot be simply a bum off the street to be successful in the military. Plus, outgoing servicemembers MUST be able to contribute to society. Education is needed, too. The GI Bill helps with that. K-12 funding does as well. We must have BOTH.

[HI54UNI]

The feds should probably set some minimum standards because otherwise we have states like Mississippi that will decide that an 8th grade education is sufficient. Once those standards are set the feds need to get out of the way and that includes no money. If the feds give out money the bureaucracy kicks in and they attach more and more strings to get the money but they don't give the option to say screw you and not take the money. You still have to meet the standards so you might as well take the money. Education funding should be a local issue.

No Child Left Behind does have some good things about it. It attempts to hold teachers accountable. It also requires that all kids be proficient in basics such as reading and math. 100% of kids will never be proficient because the special needs kid with Downs syndrome, for example, will probably never do math to their level. But 15-20% of graduates aren't proficient which means there is 10-15% that aren't that should be. That is not acceptable. And for holding teachers accountable the rules need to be adjusted but it needs to stay. You can't base a teacher's evaluation on one or even two years worth of students because classes do vary. However if you look at classes and they flat line on their test scores in a grade every year for 5 years there is either something wrong with your teacher or your curriculum or both and the problem needs to be fixed.

School boards need to step up and pay attention. They need to hold their administrators responsible. They need to worry about test scores and student performance as much as they do about new athletic facilities.

And as Pwns noted we need to be able to have flexibility to pay certain teachers like math and science more than a PE teacher. But the unions fight that like crazy.