liam76: More_Like_A_Stain: liam76: I am not saying it is nice there. I am pointing out that money isn't going to make the kids (or parents) in that are that are dragging the schools down suddenly care.



I'm not arguing for or against. I'm just asking...

DC public schools are shiat.

I said money isn't the problem as they get 25k per student per year. I was then told I didn't understand how bad it is in DC. My point is that if it is that shiatty there more money in schools isn;t going to help because the kids and/or their parents still won;t care.

25k per student per year may well be the problem if it takes 30k per student per year to do the job. Then again, if 15k per student per year is sufficient, 25k may be overkill. How about instead of looking at the number, and only the number, we take a look at how we're spending that number? Are we paying for 3 administrators for every ten teachers? Are we paying off legal costs resulting from lawsuits brought by church ladies that are upset that there isn't enough Jesus in science class? Are we buying "company" cars for admins rather than books for students? The question isn't how much money is being spent. The only valid question is; where is it being spent.

And by the way, my comment was aimed at what you *actually* wrote, as I could not determine what you meant to write. It appears as if you may be a product of the schools that you rail against.

Gangs in America are far more dangerous than the Al Qaeda in the US.

liam76:

I said money isn't the problem as they get 25k per student per year. I was then told I didn't understand how bad it is in DC. My point is that if it is that shiatty there more money in schools isn;t going to help because the kids and/or their parents still won;t care.

It's a tough situation and difficult to fix. Simple de-unionization isn't going to give teachers a deeper skillset, so privatizing the entire affair isn't likely to work better than say, privatizing prisons. You're going to get varying results. We probably need some modification to the union structure and some national standards. If that's right, then something useful and beneficial, not the "no child left behind" oxymoron.

NumberFiveIsAlive: A country that's struggling to provide for over a billion citizens is spending massive amounts of money exponentially increasing their annual military budget and capabilities, many of which are SPECIFICALLY designed to counter US influence in the western Pacific and Indian oceans IS NOT PLANNING for those capabilities to actually be used.

Correct. They're spending because a mudfarmer at the ass end of nowhere has no voice, while military manufacturers with billions of Yuan can direct plenty of spending their way. You assume the Chinese government cares about providing for their citizens.

NumberFiveIsAlive: It's not like China is actually doing anything but beating the nationalism drum to keep its peons' chubby going

FTFY.

NumberFiveIsAlive: But keep dreaming the world is now at peace and the US is the only one starting shiat.

The world is not at peace. But out of every route towards peace, stealth fighters and attack subs have part in only one solution: the nuclear option.

Guidette Frankentits: Gangs in America are far more dangerous than the Al Qaeda in the US.

You mean to tell me Laura Bush didn't curb gang activity in America at all?! This will definitely leave a black eye on the legacy of the Bush cabal's dazzling hires.

WhyteRaven [Eisenhower.Military-Industrial Complex.jpg]

What's scary is that Republican President Dwight Eisenhower would be considered far to the left of even Barack Obama today.

Yes, let's not worry about the dangers of the world and pretend that Islam is as peaceful as the MSM wants us to believe... and while the rest of the world builds a bigger military.
And this might sound crazy, but maybe parents should get involved with their kids schooling and actually CARE about their education instead of wanting the gov't to raise their kids.

Guidette Frankentits: Gangs in America are far more dangerous than the Al Qaeda in the US.

Especially this guy

DarwiOdrade: Bob16: From the national security archive.

More "good" things those nice joint chiefs gave us.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

49 year old document?

snerk

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah history is stupid. Why would anyone waste their time on it.

49 year old invasions / wars based on lies are so old and it's not that could ever happen again.

krackpipe: liam76:

I said money isn't the problem as they get 25k per student per year. I was then told I didn't understand how bad it is in DC. My point is that if it is that shiatty there more money in schools isn;t going to help because the kids and/or their parents still won;t care.

It's a tough situation and difficult to fix. Simple de-unionization isn't going to give teachers a deeper skillset, so privatizing the entire affair isn't likely to work better than say, privatizing prisons. You're going to get varying results. We probably need some modification to the union structure and some national standards. If that's right, then something useful and beneficial, not the "no child left behind" oxymoron.


Do you have a link to that budget?

HitokiriCraig: Yes, let's not worry about the dangers of the world and pretend that Islam is as peaceful as the MSM wants us to believe... and while the rest of the world builds a bigger military.
And this might sound crazy, but maybe parents should get involved with their kids schooling and actually CARE about their education instead of wanting the gov't to raise their kids.

Yes, please, let's take our cue from other countries military spending

Link (new window)

Bob16: 49 year old imaginary invasions

Change your Huggies.

Schlock: NumberFiveIsAlive: I never said that. There does need to be cuts, but smartly. However, who do you think is going to ensure our safety the next time someone gets uppity? Hillary sure isn't making much progress on placating North Best Korea or China.
So when diplomacy fails, ya gotta have a big stick in order to beat the enemy back. Otherwise, we'll just have a modern example of the Maginot Line (new window) where static defenses were counted on to defend against an enemy that gets a decade to figure out how to make that expensive fortification completely useless.
Huh, I wonder what history is if not a teacher for letting us know how not to be complete asshats and repeat the mistakes of those that came before us.


Has it occurred to you that if we were to withdraw somewhat from military intervention all over the place we wouldn't necessarily have so many people looking to pick fights with us? That a change of policy along with a reduction of forces could make it so we don't actually NEED to worry about dealing with people getting "uppity"? Cause pretty much all the other developed countries don't feel the need to piss quite so large a portion of their money away on "defense", and you don't see the huns knocking on their door.

I don't recall us having a military force actively engaged in Panama before Noriega declared war against us. I don't recall us being engaged in Afghanistan before OBL used it as a base to strike us nearly 10 years ago. You're idea that nobody wants to fight us unless we go there first is foolish at best, and dangerous at worst.

And most of the developed nations in the world are the economic powerhouses they are today because the US had held the defense umbrella over them since 1945, and still does today. We spend the money on military might, they spend it on development. That was the tradeoff. I agree, we need to pull back from our cold war stance and spend more on domestic programs. But you're dreaming if you think the 'huns' won't come knocking here and there if we decide to tear up those mutual defense treaties.

sprawl15: Schlock: Has it occurred to you that if we were to withdraw somewhat from military intervention all over the place we wouldn't necessarily have so many people looking to pick fights with us?

What he doesn't realize is that the Chinese are just as corrupt (well, more corrupt) as us. Nobody has anything to gain from war with the other, but that doesn't stop the military industrial complex from flag waving and fearmongering to demand more spending. They're building subs because Admiral Ching Chong put his kids through an American college by way of a sub manufacturer.

China is very corrupt. But that doesn't mean they don't plan to use what they're buying/building. When greed is limited by borders, expansion is required. See my above post regarding their claims to the South China Sea. Their new military will enforce these claims if they aren't countered.

/Unicorn farts and rainbows guys, unicorn farts and rainbows

Schlock: HitokiriCraig: Yes, let's not worry about the dangers of the world and pretend that Islam is as peaceful as the MSM wants us to believe... and while the rest of the world builds a bigger military.
And this might sound crazy, but maybe parents should get involved with their kids schooling and actually CARE about their education instead of wanting the gov't to raise their kids.

Yes, please, let's take our cue from other countries military spending

Link (new window)

Also, holy fark saudi arabia spends a large portion of their GDP on military

Bah! What do these ACTUAL military minds know? I'd like to hear from some chickenhawk with a down-home, Southern-fried accent before I'll make up MY mind.

heinekenftw: wrestler79: Defense budget is $685 billion and yes we can cut some of that but the deficit is $1.8 trillion, if we cut all the defense budget we can still not cover the deficit. Next idea?

Are you farking stupid enough to think that just one budget cut will save us 1.8 trillion in one fell swoop?

Are you farking stupid enough to think that all 1.8 trillion are recurring expenses? We have two budget problems. The first is the huge socialist bail-out of the capitalist free-market, which totally benefited the rich. The second is the cost of our two unfunded wars, which totally benefited the rich. The rest is doable. There are no free wars, pay up you warpervs, the warnographer wants his check.

spacely_sprocket: WhyteRaven [Eisenhower.Military-Industrial Complex.jpg]

What's scary is that Republican President Dwight Eisenhower would be considered far to the left of even Barack Obama today.

QFT

NumberFiveIsAlive: But that doesn't mean they don't plan to use what they're buying/building.

Buying/building it is the use, you shortsighted xenophobe.

sprawl15: The world is not at peace. But out of every route towards peace, stealth fighters and attack subs have part in only one solution: the nuclear option.

Besides delivering smart bombs within 3 feet of a target, Navy SEALs clandestinely to their objectives, and basically projecting non-nuclear power all across the globe since 1991.

What's the matter? Is that narrow viewpoint of yours too small to see the big picture? Not everything in the military has but one use to it. We adapt very well actually to changing threats. It's people like you who see a change and want to kill a platform.

More_Like_A_Stain: 25k per student per year may well be the problem if it takes 30k per student per year to do the job. Then again, if 15k per student per year is sufficient, 25k may be overkill. How about instead of looking at the number, and only the number, we take a look at how we're spending that number? Are we paying for 3 administrators for every ten teachers? Are we paying off legal costs resulting from lawsuits brought by church ladies that are upset that there isn't enough Jesus in science class? Are we buying "company" cars for admins rather than books for students? The question isn't how much money is being spent. The only valid question is; where is it being spent.

The amount is too much as they have proven that schools with similiar student bodies can do much better whith less.

Check out waiting for superman.


More_Like_A_Stain: And by the way, my comment was aimed at what you *actually* wrote, as I could not determine what you meant to write. It appears as if you may be a product of the schools that you rail against

It appears you are incapable of following a thread.

I don't know if it is because you are lazy or stupid. either way I am not going to bother epxlaining myslef to you in the future cause wither way, you are a dick.

WhyteRaven74: Why is it that people will cry about teachers being paid "too much" but won't lift a finger to protest most incomes not rising for a couple decades? Of course these are the same people who accuse anyone who questions certain CEO salaries of just being jealous. Cognitive dissonance, it's what for breakfast.

It's pretty amazing that this argument became about teachers, another example of the poison Fox and their Republican base have injected into America. Here we have top brass telling us to spend more on education and infrastructure and immediately the poison takes affect and the conversation is turned into the Republican talking points. This country is truly farked and I just hope I can get out of it before she completely implodes. There's just no saving us when the solution is viewed as the problem and the problem is completely ignored, for decades.

/and the rich get richer laughing at our stupidity

So, has anyone posted the graph of how defense spending is a small portion of the government compared to entitlements?

Also, this:

Running two and 1/2 wars for less than half what we were spending in Vietnam? Not a bad bargain in my book.

/support defense cuts as part of an across the board reduction

fracto73: krackpipe: liam76:

I said money isn't the problem as they get 25k per student per year. I was then told I didn't understand how bad it is in DC. My point is that if it is that shiatty there more money in schools isn;t going to help because the kids and/or their parents still won;t care.

It's a tough situation and difficult to fix. Simple de-unionization isn't going to give teachers a deeper skillset, so privatizing the entire affair isn't likely to work better than say, privatizing prisons. You're going to get varying results. We probably need some modification to the union structure and some national standards. If that's right, then something useful and beneficial, not the "no child left behind" oxymoron.


Do you have a link to that budget?

Fracto -- that's my fault. I quoted liam76 without italizing his/her paragraph at the top (no preview). So the top paragraph is liam76's. I don't know where liam76 got his/her "$25K" number.

Schlock: Guidette Frankentits: Gangs in America are far more dangerous than the Al Qaeda in the US.

Especially this guy

Yeah, but the joint chiefs even addressed that. It's almost as if they know something congress doesn't.

Father_Jack: Schlock:

I wish you were kidding but know this kind of crap is your schtick.

yup. thats why that boy is the one and only person on my ignore list.

Yet, you both farking quoted him, dipshiats. You gave him what he wanted, attention.

sprawl15: NumberFiveIsAlive: But that doesn't mean they don't plan to use what they're buying/building.

Buying/building it is the use, you shortsighted xenophobe.

Buying or building it is not using it. That's preparing it for use.
As for xenophobe.... ack!
Hell, I'd love to be as hunky dory with the Chinese as we are with Japan right now. I'd love to go visit a country with over 5,000 years of cultural history. Their isolation for so long actually preserved many historical sites (most of which are still offlimits to non-Chinese).
You have no idea who I am. All I'm saying is it's better to have your sidearm on you than in your locker 2 miles away if some guy you're trying to befriend decides to go after your wallet and shoes instead.
Xenophobe, HAH!

Gleeman: So, has anyone posted the graph of how defense spending is a small portion of the government compared to entitlements?

Also, this:

Running two and 1/2 wars for less than half what we were spending in Vietnam? Not a bad bargain in my book.

/support defense cuts as part of an across the board reduction

Misleading chart is misleading. As a percentage of GDP, sure, as a percentage of tax receipts? You'll come to a VERY different conclusion.

NumberFiveIsAlive: Besides delivering smart bombs within 3 feet of a target, Navy SEALs clandestinely to their objectives, and basically projecting non-nuclear power all across the globe since 1991.

You don't need stealth to drop smart bombs, you don't need attack subs to deliver SEALS.

NumberFiveIsAlive: Is that narrow viewpoint of yours too small to see the big picture? Not everything in the military has but one use to it.

When the purported primary use is ridiculously farking expensive and goes unused, and the actual primary use can be filled by something at fractions of a percent in costs, one can switch to something cheaper and maintain the same effective capability.

Any situation that requires top of the line attack subs and stealth aircraft will go nuclear. Period.

NumberFiveIsAlive: It's people like you who see a change and want to kill a platform.

It's people like you who blow shiatloads of money on something because it gives you a war boner, which farks over not just the economy but the actual military. The KC-X program is a perfect example of someone like you running around shouting WE NEED SOMETHING SHINY AND NEW TO FIGHT COMMIES OR YOU HATE AMERICA.

Dear Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pentagon,

LALALALALALALALALALLALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALLALALALALLALAA WE CANT HEAR YOU

Love,
~Republicans

NumberFiveIsAlive: Buying or building it is not using it.

When the purpose is to inflate the self-importance of the state, simply having it is use enough. They could care less if they ever bomb something with their planes, they just want to appear a superpower.

NumberFiveIsAlive: All I'm saying is it's better to have your sidearm on you than in your locker 2 miles away if some guy you're trying to befriend decides to go after your wallet and shoes instead.

Authentic frontier gibberish is so rare to see in the wild.

NumberFiveIsAlive: You have no idea who I am.

OH MY GOD YOU ARE RIGHT YOU MIGHT BE ELVIS LET ME FIND A PEN

As a military wife whose husband is now spanning a military career of almost 20 years...

I couldn't agree with this more...

BUT.... It needs to be done intelligently. This means that we have to have a foreign policy that responds in proportion as well. We can't be coming to the rescue of every country or nation that we see fit to help or fix. This puts undo stress on our armed forces and they will end up suffering in the end as well. Back when Bush Sr. started his cuts and then when they were furthered under Clinton, we saw the military scramble to save what it had in resources. This meant diverting much of what make up forces and resources we had and shifting those burdens to the National Guard. This caused the creation of federally funded Guard units, usually separate infantry brigades (SIB). These units were used to fill rotation spots in Bosnia and other theaters around the world as well as playing a key roll in our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was never the intent of the National Guard and because our foreign policy hasn't change, many guardsmen and their families have paid the price over it by being activated for numerous deployments for areas that were better suited for our active and reserve armed forces. The long term ramifications of this has also added to our domestic issues with jobs and stability at home. Many guardsmen cannot find a civilian job because employers do not want to hire a "part-time" soldier who could be deployed numerous times over the course of their employment. So, unless our government changes its practices on foreign policy, the burden of our defense won't necessarily lessen by decreasing spending, it will only shift the responsibilities and money sink hole to someone else's shoulders.

That being said, our military spending is only the tip of the iceberg and is a symptom of a larger problem. We don't need additional government programs. We surely don't need a broken healthcare system that will burden future generations especially when the government has done a piss poor job managing its existing programs. We need better regulation of our industries and financial system. Deregulation has allowed big business and banks to circumvent and cheat the system. We've allowed collective bargaining to go by the way side and allowed big business to invest in a workforce overseas. We allow illegal immigrants to remain in our country cheating our citizens our of jobs and resources. We don't need new laws in this area. We need to enforce the ones we already have.

I could go on...

Fixing military spending goes hand in hand with our foreign policy. But fixing this is only one thing in a long line of issues we need to address as a nation.

sprawl15: The world is not at peace. But out of every route towards peace, stealth fighters and attack subs have part in only one solution: the nuclear option.

LOLWUT.jpg

First of all, you're thinking of ballistic missile subs not attack subs, they carry the nukes.

But attack subs that can deliver special forces, conduct clandestine listening ops, and put tomahawk missiles on target, not to mention their ability to sink ships are obviously worthless in this age, right?

And a stealthy bomber that can fly over enemy territory with virtual immunity while dropping dozens of conventional GPS guided bombs or missiles is worthless also?

Know how I know you don't know anything about today's military?

imashark: wrestler79: Defense budget is $685 billion and yes we can cut some of that but the deficit is $1.8 trillion, if we cut all the defense budget we can still not cover the deficit. Next idea?

I know I'm late to the party, but I love this talking point. It's like "Well, cutting everything in this budget item won't take care of the whole problem we have, so let's not touch it."

That's like saying, "Well, cutting all of social security won't really solve the budget deficit, so let's not touch it."

You've got to pair down on places of the largest spending to even BEGIN getting somewhere. Defense, social security, and medicare are the three largest budget spending areas, and thus are ripe for pairing down.

SS is not to be touched. It is not the governments money. Fix health care costs and America will survive, until then we are doomed...

/Destroy for-profit health care insurance companies, destroy them

DarwiOdrade: Gleeman: So, has anyone posted the graph of how defense spending is a small portion of the government compared to entitlements?

Also, this:

Running two and 1/2 wars for less than half what we were spending in Vietnam? Not a bad bargain in my book.

You lie. (new window)

But I thought Obama is responsible for running up the debt? At least that's what the Internet tells me...

Gleeman: So, has anyone posted the graph of how defense spending is a small portion of the government compared to entitlements?

Also, this:

Running two and 1/2 wars for less than half what we were spending in Vietnam? Not a bad bargain in my book.

/support defense cuts as part of an across the board reduction

Err GDP was 14.7 trillion in 2010, military budget was 668 billion. That's more like 11% than 4.

Schlock: Gleeman: So, has anyone posted the graph of how defense spending is a small portion of the government compared to entitlements?

Also, this:

Running two and 1/2 wars for less than half what we were spending in Vietnam? Not a bad bargain in my book.

/support defense cuts as part of an across the board reduction

Err GDP was 14.7 trillion in 2010, military budget was 668 billion. That's more like 11% than 4.

Wait, no...I math good

ib_thinkin: Gleeman: So, has anyone posted the graph of how defense spending is a small portion of the government compared to entitlements?

Also, this:

Running two and 1/2 wars for less than half what we were spending in Vietnam? Not a bad bargain in my book.

/support defense cuts as part of an across the board reduction

2.5 wars and a tax cut! It's like we're aiming to be fiscally worse off than we were in Vietnam.

/in the Vietnam War, sorry
//from CT

Can't argue with the tax cuts, but that does not effect only the military.

Lazy losers jealous of people who work hard and make money. Lazy losers want to steal that money to punish hard workers.

Welcome to Fark.

Thunderpipes: Lazy losers jealous of people who work hard and make money. Lazy losers want to steal that money to punish hard workers.

Welcome to Fark.

In this case the lazy losers would be the...schools? With the people who work hard being the...military? Seriously, you could at least try and tailor your trolling to the topic at hand

phoxxy: As a military wife whose husband is now spanning a military career of almost 20 years...

I couldn't agree with this more...

BUT.... It needs to be done intelligently. [snip]

Good points, phoxxy. And thanks for your husband's service.

Gleeman:

I can see why you would get confused, the point flew over your head by about a mile and a half.

Any nation's military that requires us to use stealth aircraft and attack subs to defeat will have nuclear weaponry. Any situation dire enough to put us in a war against such a nation will be so severe that nuclear weapons will be on the table, and likely used by the loser. There are very few militaries out there where we can't wipe out their air defenses early without a single stealth aircraft.

We don't need attack subs to function as billion dollar taxis. We don't need stealth aircraft to lob HARMs and JSOWs at air defense sites.

Gleeman: So, has anyone posted the graph of how defense spending is a small portion of the government compared to entitlements?

Also, this:

Running two and 1/2 wars for less than half what we were spending in Vietnam? Not a bad bargain in my book.

/support defense cuts as part of an across the board reduction

You do know the wars were paid for and run off the books and weren't put back on the books until Obama took the presidency, along with Medicare D and that is a large part of the reason why the national deficit increased so much under Obama, right?

Of course you did, you just chose to ignore that, how silly of me.

But I digress, I agree with you, I would absolutely equate paying for health care and retirement for seniors with paying for bombs. These things are the same, it's not like we should be spending magnitudes more money on health care for our citizens as we spend on putting tanks on the ground in middle eastern countries. No, that's crazy! These things should be about the same and the fact that we spend less on the military than things like health care for citizens and everything else combined suggests we need to spend more on the military. I agree with you.

Gleeman: So, has anyone posted the graph of how defense spending is a small portion of the government compared to entitlements?

Also, this:

Running two and 1/2 wars for less than half what we were spending in Vietnam? Not a bad bargain in my book.

/support defense cuts as part of an across the board reduction

Misleading chart is misleading. As a percentage of GDP, sure, as a percentage of tax receipts? You'll come to a VERY different conclusion.Gleeman: sprawl15: The world is not at peace. But out of every route towards peace, stealth fighters and attack subs have part in only one solution: the nuclear option.

LOLWUT.jpg

First of all, you're thinking of ballistic missile subs not attack subs, they carry the nukes.

But attack subs that can deliver special forces, conduct clandestine listening ops, and put tomahawk missiles on target, not to mention their ability to sink ships are obviously worthless in this age, right?

Know how I know you don't know anything about today's military?

The truth is somewhere between your two arguments with regards to our sub surface fleet. Yes, our current boats are amazing and can engage targets in ways most laymen thought impossible a few years ago. We saw some of that in Libya. The Cheyenne class is an amazing boat. It has every buzzer and whistle a bubble head could imagine. It's also farkING EXPENSIVE!

That said, all of it's capabilities have already been done by the good old 688 class in combat for half the price. All these years later, and the 688 is still the lifeblood of our fleet. No non American boat can touch it in combat and it has virtually all the capabilities of the Cheyenne. In the end, the Cheyenne is financially impractical.