Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There was another one I saw like this that showed the budget, but it was rich vs poor, it showed that the rich were not getting taxed enough, but based it on moms vs dads. anybody seen that one?

KingCracker wrote:Well obviously you cant really compare a household to an entire nation, that much I wont argue with. But spending THAT MUCH over what they actually make?

My senior year of college I spent something like 50 times my income.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Psssst Melissa, the Defense budget is in the 10%-15% of the overal budget already.

That's my point. As it is, this 10-15% of budget will increase by 13% every year. By the time we've reached sixteen years, unless military budget was capped at where it is right now, it would increase to 106% of the total US budget.

We can't even manage to reduce the increase in spending. But STOP the increase in spending? That is politically impossible right now, both parties would find that hard to swallow. AustonT's suggestion sounds nice, but it's pretty much impossible to achieve.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Psssst Melissa, the Defense budget is in the 10%-15% of the overal budget already.

Its more like 15-20%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:People complain left and right they do not want the kids tested to a national standard...

They do?

@ Joey - again a local schools budget gets about 10% from the ED. Most of the poor areas you are talking about, also have much lower standards of living, so you can live the same lifestyle on lower wages. An example, in Eugene Oregon a 3 bedroom 2 bath house sells for about $180,000. You buy a comparable house in many places around the country for $50,000. So no, less money in a lower cost area does not translate to worse education. More money for education certainly has not translated to better education as a whole in this country.

Total spending on education for each child per year has doubled in constant dollars (meaning counting for inflation etc) since the ED was established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter. But you could hardly argue that public school education has gotten to be twice as good as it was in 1979. In fact quite the opposite, we have a lesser % of graduates on the whole, and we have much less educated graduates.

Having several friends who are middle and highschool teachers, I learned directly, that much of the process is just to pass the children along even if they can barely read, write, do math, etc. Keeping children with their peers is often cited as more important.

Yes, take a chunk. I know they are spending some of the money on salaries and whatnot at the department, but every department it goes through, ends up with less going to where it is "needed". My phrasing seems offensive, because that's what the level of bureaucracy is, offensive.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

dogma wrote:Its more like 15-20%.

Just shy of a quarter of the budget, yes..

Honestly, our defense budget needs to be looked at under a goddamned electron microscope and picked dry of anything unnecessary, cleaned up and removed of the corruption and the gaming of the system that defense contractors constantly do. It should be amongst the FIRST things we look at, not the last.

But that's not gonna happen, because nobody wants to be seen as a softie on defense.

@dogma - yes, I heard no end of compaining about the "no child left behind" act. It's primary goal was to test all children to the same standard nationally, and if a school failed to do so, those children could transfer to other schools in their area.

From the PTA/Teacher's Unions, or from real, actual people (Ie discluding those who are directly associated with the PTA/Teacher's Unions)?

[edit: no, that wasn't a gaffe. PTAs/Teacher's Unions need reform as much as anything in the education system, if not more than most things.]

@ Melissa - the DoD budget has increased about 4% per year in recent years, in inflation adjusted dollars 2.1%

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf


From public school teachers, which are by default, union members.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:From public school teachers, which are by default, union members.

In 2010 compared to 2009, it increased 13%. This number includes overseas contingency operations.

edit: ah, I see where the numbers are odd. The numbers I'm looking at refer to the increase in defense spending as a percentage of government discretionary spending, not increase in actual spending.

edit 2: Though that said, that just increases the time it would take before defense spending would overtake our budget from 16 years to 42 years assuming a balanced budget like AustonT suggested. It'll still happen within our (or at least my) lifetime.

Melissia wrote:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Psssst Melissa, the Defense budget is in the 10%-15% of the overal budget already.

That's my point. As it is, this 10-15% of budget will increase by 13% every year. By the time we've reached sixteen years, unless military budget was capped at where it is right now, it would increase to 106% of the total US budget.

You keep saying this. What is your source?

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:So no, less money in a lower cost area does not translate to worse education. More money for education certainly has not translated to better education as a whole in this country.

Yes and no. Its certainly not a case of expense equating to quality, you're right in that sense. But, especially at the high school level, there is a certain threshold which has to be crossed in order to ensure sufficient resources for a quality education.

For example, my high school had to choose between an auto shop and a physics lab. Thankfully physics won out, but you see the point.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Total spending on education for each child per year has doubled in constant dollars (meaning counting for inflation etc) since the ED was established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter.

They also doubled, roughly, between 1960-1 and 1980-1.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
But you could hardly argue that public school education has gotten to be twice as good as it was in 1979. In fact quite the opposite, we have a lesser % of graduates on the whole, and we have much less educated graduates.

Actually, you could make that argument, and fairly easily. When my father, a man with an MBA and an M.Div, graduated high school in the late 60s (When the graduation rate was highest.) calculus was not commonly available at the HS level, now it is. Physics wasn't commonly available at the HS level, now it is. Advanced chemistry wasn't commonly available at the HS level, now it is. And on, and on, and on.

There are issues with the system itself, but the most pronounced issues are cultural. Academia is, by its nature, hierarchical, and Americans don't seem to like that.

Or rather, American teenagers don't like the fact that the hierarchy of academia is based on values which they aren't taught by their parents to have? Because teenagers certainly have a tendency to develop hierarchies of their own. It just isn't based on smarts.

AustonT wrote:You keep saying this. What is your source?

Read the edit.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:@dogma - yes, I heard no end of compaining about the "no child left behind" act. It's primary goal was to test all children to the same standard nationally, and if a school failed to do so, those children could transfer to other schools in their area.

Again, that's only partially correct.

NCLB wasn't about standardized testing per se, it was about making funding contingent upon standardized testing. National, standardized tests had existed long before NCLB, and the primary objection was to the contingent funding, and more properly the way in which it was made contingent.

whitedragon wrote:Those really expensive fighter planes support a whole lot of jobs I heard.

You heard wrong. Infrastructure, education and all kinds of other expenditure support more jobs than high military development, because you get a lot more road construction guys or teachers for a million dollars than you get aircraft engineers.

You also missed the point in what a budget, long term, is there to do. Any spending, private of government, increases jobs, and in the long term, with a balanced budget, any government spending will need tax revenue to offset it, which means reduced public spending, which means in terms of job creation you're basically back at square one.

As such, you can't make an argument for government job creation for a long term program. The argument only works as part of a short term government program to spend more than it taxes, to provide a temporary boost to economic activity (such as in a recession).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Agree to disagree, I hold this as a fundamental belief in both private and public debt.

This isn't a thing to agree to disagree on. It's a fundamental point of economics. It'd be like 'agreeing to disagree' on whether the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa.

Short term deficits can stimulate aggregate demand and thereby reduce the flow on effects of a system shock in the economy. There is plenty to be discussed in specific instances, if the deficit was too much or too little, or if it was too late, or maybe not even needed at all. But to deny that such a thing can ever happen is just not a viable argument.

@dogma - I enjoyed your most recent comments, and I agree that some of the things offered in public schools are much better than they were many decades ago, sadly the overall results are still lacking.

I think there is a serious need for people to learn some basic craft and tool skills, as well as cooking and running a home budget, especially considering there is no need for more than about 30% of highschool students to continue on to getting a University degree. It also is not realistic to expect all children to go on to get a degree from college, and in many places we are leaving those non-college going children twisting in the wind when it comes to education.

My Highschool at the time I entered it, had to make the choice between Woodshop, Metalshop, Autoshop, Home Ec, Art, and Putting in Turf sports fields. Sadly, they chose sports fields, and Art. And when I say the chose art, cutting the overall budget for art while at the same time hiring a second art teacher was not the way to go.

I was lucky enough to take those classes in Middle School in New Hampshire. Sad how my overall level and quality of education in New Hampshire in Middle School was superior to the High School education I got in Oregon in every subject.

I just do not think that the "Let's throw more money at it" is the correct approach anymore.

Melissia wrote:Honestly, our defense budget needs to be looked at under a goddamned electron microscope and picked dry of anything unnecessary, cleaned up and removed of the corruption and the gaming of the system that defense contractors constantly do. It should be amongst the FIRST things we look at, not the last.

But that's not gonna happen, because nobody wants to be seen as a softie on defense.

Honestly, I don't think it's good for government to go sifting through national defence budgets, picking out things to cut. That just leads to more politicisation, as the process will inevitably lead to people protecting the bits that are in their electorates, or happen to poll well with voters, or are just plain cool.

I think you're better off just picking a number, and saying that's the base budget for the defence of the nation and its economic interests overseas (in the event of a major operation you'd issue more funds to cover expenses). The you leave it up to the defence professionals to decide how much they want to spend on new toys, compared to how much they want to spend on boots.

This has the added advantage of giving you a number that defence is to cost, each year. You then do the same for social security, health and everything else, and end up with an actual figure for what it costs the government to provide the services needed, and that gives you the number you'd actually need to raise in taxes for a balanced budget. Suddenly everything would become so much clearer.

No. This is no an earth/sun World is round/flat argument. Deficit spending is a choice, not a constant.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:From public school teachers, which are by default, union members.

Actually, just 34% of teachers are union members. Which is quite a high proportion relative to other professions, but most definitely means you cannot assume a teacher is a union member.

@sebster - All public school teachers in Oregon are members of the teachers union. It is jus how things are run here.

AustonT wrote:No. This is no an earth/sun World is round/flat argument. Deficit spending is a choice, not a constant.

You miss the point of the analogy. Thing is, just like the Earth orbiting the sun, the impact of deficit spending is undeniable. We simply know that government deficit spending can offset reductions in consumer spending. It's a given, known thing, studied heavily in quanititative economics.

And we know that stable economic conditions produce the highest rate of long term economic growth. This is, again, well established in quanititative economics, and just plain common sense - no-one wants to invest in an economy that going gangbusters in January, is absolutely dead in April, booming again in August before collapsing again in Novermber. So, it becomes a simple, obvious statement that if government can take action to maintain a stable economy, it should do so.

At which point it becomes a basic, impossible to argue point that government should maintain short term deficits in recession, in order to maintain aggregate demand and keep economic activity as stable as possible.

There's plenty of scope for debate when it comes to individual responses to recessions or possible future recessions (how much, how soon, is it really needed and so on) but the general policy is just not up for debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:@sebster - All public school teachers in Oregon are members of the teachers union. It is jus how things are run here.

Yeah, there are some states that are all union teaching. But Oregan, nor any other union state, does not comprise the whole of the union, and given we weren't talking purely about Oregan I think the 34% figure is the important one.



I agree with your point on increasing the teaching of trades in highschools by the way. The drive to make everyone a university educated white collar employee has been very foolish, in my opinion.

Everyone arguing that we should stop buying expensive fighter jets and new aircraft carriers and stop R&D on new systems, etc. should do some fact checking, the total military personnel budget is approx. 62% of the military budget. The problem lies there, the rate of increase in personnel funding is unsustainable. Military pay alone has risen 11% above the rate of inflation between 2001 and 2011. The fact of the matter is we need those procurement funds more than anything. To those not familiar with current going-ons in the military, our Air Force is basically running out of aircraft, and the Marines and Army aren't doing too hot either. The Navy (which has purchased newer planes more recently) is in a slightly better spot. We are flying aircraft well past their designed service lives, and its actually becoming more expensive to operate them than it would to buy new ones. Our options are basically keep the planes flying as they get into "flying deathtrap" territory (the marines have been there for a long time with their lawn darts (Harriers)) or start retiring them which will put our offensive and defensive warfighting capabilities in jeopardy. Similarly, the Army/Marines HUMVEE fleet is in need of recapitalization,t he engines and other parts are wearing out, we either need to replace them or send them into the manufacturer for recapitalization. These are just a few examples of whats going on, we're slowly heading into end of the USSR territory here where our military strength exists on paper and all that holds our ships, planes, tanks, etc. together is the rust.*

*Dramatic exaggeration and emphasis my own

Just going to point out: the original numbers are skewed to make it look worse than it is (no, I am not saying the situation is good). It is assuming that the entirety of the US' income is from taxes, which is not the case.

The US economy is in better shape than ours. If you made ours look like a grocery bill you would think the family ate diamonds for each and every meal.

chaos0xomega wrote:Everyone arguing that we should stop buying expensive fighter jets and new aircraft carriers and stop R&D on new systems, etc. should do some fact checking, the total military personnel budget is approx. 62% of the military budget. The problem lies there, the rate of increase in personnel funding is unsustainable. Military pay alone has risen 11% above the rate of inflation between 2001 and 2011. The fact of the matter is we need those procurement funds more than anything. To those not familiar with current going-ons in the military, our Air Force is basically running out of aircraft, and the Marines and Army aren't doing too hot either. The Navy (which has purchased newer planes more recently) is in a slightly better spot. We are flying aircraft well past their designed service lives, and its actually becoming more expensive to operate them than it would to buy new ones. Our options are basically keep the planes flying as they get into "flying deathtrap" territory (the marines have been there for a long time with their lawn darts (Harriers)) or start retiring them which will put our offensive and defensive warfighting capabilities in jeopardy. Similarly, the Army/Marines HUMVEE fleet is in need of recapitalization,t he engines and other parts are wearing out, we either need to replace them or send them into the manufacturer for recapitalization. These are just a few examples of whats going on, we're slowly heading into end of the USSR territory here where our military strength exists on paper and all that holds our ships, planes, tanks, etc. together is the rust.*

*Dramatic exaggeration and emphasis my own

The amount of graft in the defense industry is ridiculous. The F-35 is at I believe 3 trillion dollars and the plane is garbage, it has failed almost every test, the thing can't even land on a carrier! I recently drove by one of the U.S.'s largest aircraft graveyards the other day, tens of thousands of aircraft just sitting there. Is that really the best use of those aircraft? When I see a couple thousand Hercules sitting around in the desert I just think, couldn't we be selling those or recycle them?

We do. I assume you're talking about AMARC in Arizona. The planes that are sitting there are either in 'cold storage' (rare), are being used for target drones (in the case of older airframes that are basically unserviceable, ala the F-4), or are being cannibalized for parts (basically any aircraft that is still in actual inventory). So those C-130s you saw lying around are older airframes or were damaged and are beyond flyable condition, and are being cut up for spare/replacement parts all the time.

As for the F-35, yeah, i think its a rather garbage aircraft myself, all things considered, but it doesn't change the fact that the Air Force needs to start retiring F-15s and F-16s now, and we need a replacement for them... now....

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:@dogma - I enjoyed your most recent comments, and I agree that some of the things offered in public schools are much better than they were many decades ago, sadly the overall results are still lacking.

But they've always been lacking. One thing I can't stress enough is that, while American education may be disappointing, it isn't bad. By most reasonable measures we are in the top 10 nations in terms of overall quality, and at worst we're still top 25. There is room for improvement, absolutely, but there always is.

And, critically, always note that the highest HS graduation rate in American history was 77%, in 1969.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
I think there is a serious need for people to learn some basic craft and tool skills, as well as cooking and running a home budget, especially considering there is no need for more than about 30% of highschool students to continue on to getting a University degree.

Believe me, if I was given carte blanche to revamp the American system of education, it would look nothing like what it currently does. I like the freedom of it, but there are a lot of concepts that I think are introduced too early, and others that are introduced too late. Science, in particular, is something we're really bad at teaching (but so is everyone else).

The problem is that having a peerless education system is largely about having peerless educators, and that is a much more complicated issue. Not many people are willing to go from being PhD caliber minds to teaching high school, let alone grade school.

I'm not trying to toot my own horn (much), but I would demand an extremely high salary to teach at any level.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
It also is not realistic to expect all children to go on to get a degree from college, and in many places we are leaving those non-college going children twisting in the wind when it comes to education.

I agree with that, and think trades are both underfunded and under-appreciated. My school allowed kids to "opt out" of normal education at 16 in order to pursue a trade at a number of community colleges, and general trade schools; we need more of that.

I also think that many jobs have unrealistic demands in terms of credentials for their employees. Your average secretary doesn't need a 4 year degree.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
My Highschool at the time I entered it, had to make the choice between Woodshop, Metalshop, Autoshop, Home Ec, Art, and Putting in Turf sports fields. Sadly, they chose sports fields, and Art.

Hey now, don't hate on my field turf, that stuff is ace.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Deficit spending is a choice, not a constant.

So is not spending in deficit.

Once you get beyond behaviorism, everything is a choice.

chaos0xomega wrote:We do. I assume you're talking about AMARC in Arizona. The planes that are sitting there are either in 'cold storage' (rare), are being used for target drones (in the case of older airframes that are basically unserviceable, ala the F-4), or are being cannibalized for parts (basically any aircraft that is still in actual inventory). So those C-130s you saw lying around are older airframes or were damaged and are beyond flyable condition, and are being cut up for spare/replacement parts all the time.

As for the F-35, yeah, i think its a rather garbage aircraft myself, all things considered, but it doesn't change the fact that the Air Force needs to start retiring F-15s and F-16s now, and we need a replacement for them... now....

Could be, I saw it when I was driving from San Diego to Alabama and took a look see. Didn't see too many fighters some, but nothing compared to the acres and acres of Galaxies and Hercules, as far as the eye can see. Thousands probably millions of tons of military grade aluminum just sitting there. Most still had their engines, stress test those frames and sell them to some third world mail service or something.

The f-35 is a fail, and a very expensive one. We would be better off canceling it and upgrading and redesigning current aircraft.

UK better find another source for your carriers wing.

I'm not going to get into the f-35 debate here, but I've been of the opinion that given the fiscal issues we are faced with at present, we should instead buy upgraded versions of existing systems en masse (since you can get 3 or so f-15s for the price of a single f-35) and make do with what we got til we have some spare cash in the future.

chaos0xomega wrote:Everyone arguing that we should stop buying expensive fighter jets and new aircraft carriers and stop R&D on new systems, etc. should do some fact checking, the total military personnel budget is approx. 62% of the military budget. The problem lies there, the rate of increase in personnel funding is unsustainable. Military pay alone has risen 11% above the rate of inflation between 2001 and 2011.

Well, that's what happens when you go and have a couple of wars, people don't want to get shot in Afghanistan so you have to increase the pay to maintain recruitment.

The fact of the matter is we need those procurement funds more than anything. To those not familiar with current going-ons in the military, our Air Force is basically running out of aircraft, and the Marines and Army aren't doing too hot either. The Navy (which has purchased newer planes more recently) is in a slightly better spot. We are flying aircraft well past their designed service lives, and its actually becoming more expensive to operate them than it would to buy new ones. Our options are basically keep the planes flying as they get into "flying deathtrap" territory (the marines have been there for a long time with their lawn darts (Harriers)) or start retiring them which will put our offensive and defensive warfighting capabilities in jeopardy. Similarly, the Army/Marines HUMVEE fleet is in need of recapitalization,t he engines and other parts are wearing out, we either need to replace them or send them into the manufacturer for recapitalization. These are just a few examples of whats going on, we're slowly heading into end of the USSR territory here where our military strength exists on paper and all that holds our ships, planes, tanks, etc. together is the rust.*

That's the money needed to procure new equipment to sustain the military at its present level, and sure, the proportion spent on personnel funding compared to weapons platforms is probably about right. The point is that the total level of funding is completely whacky. The US spends about 4.7% of its total GDP on defence, or roughly $650 billion dollars. The only countries that spend more are ones that are deeply crazy, surrounded by deeply crazy neighbours, or both (Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Georgia and a few others). They’re also much smaller, and generally much poorer countries. Compare the US to other wealthy, developed, stable countries that you get a perspective of the US position. The UK spends 2.7%, France spends 2.5%, Canada spends 1.5%, and Germany spends 1.4%. The only two nations in the top 15 you wouldn’t consider an ally are China and Russia. China spends less than half, as a proportion of GDP, at 2.2% (and about one fifth in total dollars), while famously militant Russia still spends less of their GDP on defence than the US at 4.3% (and with their vastly smaller GDP, their total dollar spend is about a twelfth of US spending).

What this means, all up, is that of roughly $1.5 trillion spent on militaries around the world, the US spends roughly 45% of it. So maybe procurement at present isn’t enough to maintain your present levels of aircraft, ships and total ground troops. But then maybe the real question is whether you really need to maintain such a vast armed forces?