If Bush spent on education what he spends on the military, ever citizen here could have a Harvard level education for free. If we spent on health what he spent on the military, our working poor wouldn't have to avoid doctors visits until it's too late. Where should our money really be right now? Do we really need that much money spent on the military? Is all the money helping the military become stronger?

Originally posted by jillianjiggs
If Bush spent on education what he spends on the military, ever citizen here could have a Harvard level education for free. If we spent on health what he spent on the military, our working poor wouldn't have to avoid doctors visits until it's too late. Where should our money really be right now? Do we really need that much money spent on the military? Is all the money helping the military become stronger?

IMO Education and social responsibilities belong to the church and state, I'd like to see the feds get out of all social programs all together ... let the state operate as was intended. The Feds only responsibility should be National security IMO.

Originally posted by jillianjiggs
If Bush spent on education what he spends on the military, ever citizen here could have a Harvard level education for free. If we spent on health what he spent on the military, our working poor wouldn't have to avoid doctors visits until it's too late. Where should our money really be right now? Do we really need that much money spent on the military? Is all the money helping the military become stronger? I tend to agree with 92 here. There is no constitutional mandate for federal healthcare spending or federal education spending. But there IS a clear and explicit constitutional mandate for federal spending on defense.

The other thing to think about is this...what good is education if you can't defend yourself from the evils out there? What good is healthcare if your country is too weak to protect itself from foreign invasion?

I'm not advocating no money on the military. :) I just am curious about the differences in opinion here.

I'd have to concur with Soy there that there is no constitiutional call for the government to provide health or education, and that there is explicity a call for it to provide for the defense of the nation.

Also, we've tried throwing money at the problem of education for decades and by and large it isn't helping- because it's not the cause. The education system needs an overhaul of how it is managed in order to get better results.

If it were just money, how can it be $2400 per kid in one state, and $6000 per kid in another and they end up with roughly the same education? Because that's what we have right now.

What I've always found interesting is the huge difference in federal tax compared to my state tax.

Isn't the federal government supposed to be more limited than the state government? Aside from the military and commerce regulations the federal government is supposed to be miniscule, but I pay in the hundreds to state taxes and thousands to federal taxes... What gives?

But, one thing, if the fed shifts all subsidizing of educational and welfare programs to the state, state taxes would need to go up. (rightfully so, I think)

The military spending is too high, in my opinion. Along with many programs that the federalis run, of course.

We spend more on our military than the next 5 most wealthiest nations COMBINED and we're still like 1.5 times over them. Thats too much. If it means we get out of UN peacekeeping, so be it. If it means we scale back our flights along the 'no fly zone' in Iraq, so be it. If it means a recall of troops along the Korean DMZ, so be it. If it means we retract troops from Japan, Germany, the mid east (on bases) so be it. Thats not our role and not what I want to pay for.

Our military accounts for like 1/4 of our budget, doens't it? 300ish billion, compared to 1.2 trillion? Thats ridiculous.

Even if we cut our military by 1/3, at 200 billion, it would be about the same as the 5 wealthiest countries COMBINED. That is 100 billion that could go back to the American people or go directly to something like education.

I'm assuming you're talking about the re-allocating of funds, as there are certain amounts that already go to places like the NSA, FBI, interstate construction, etc. and that won't be changed (much).

Education - 60% to 80%

Other than that, I don't think it matters much. But I think some funding should definately go towards having impartial (foreign) guards in certain cities to make sure everybody who's registered to vote gets to and doesn't get turned away *cough cough FLORIDA cough cough BLACKS cough hack gag*

Originally posted by Stage Monster
(foreign) guards in certain cities to make sure everybody who's registered to vote gets to and doesn't get turned away *cough cough FLORIDA cough cough BLACKS cough hack gag*

After all the investigations I think this urban myth has been thoroughly debunked.

The government says to the citizen: "Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide."

As Ilana Mercer says, It?s time to repeal the 16th Amendment. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29716



And i am tired of people tacking the word free onto federal violations of the constitution in reguard to education and health care.NOTHG! I REPEAT,NOTHING IS FREE! some one always pays.

Whoever said that the US military spends more than the next 5 nations combined should consider the fact that most of the military budget in the US is spent on salaries and the well being of servicemen. Servicemen in the US military have a very high standard of pay compared to other nations. Our military budget is largely spent on servicemen, not on procuring weapons or maintaining bases or fleets.

I never knew that. Interesting.

Although I suppose it makes sense, what with 'weapons research' and 'armed forces' often being referred to separately. Any way we could get the actual figures?

And then you have to figure that other countries spend a lot less on the "labor" side of procuring weapons. Americans working on producing Tomahawk missiles make damn good money relative to a Chinaman working on producing Chinas missiles.

I am sorry, I am a bit off from my facts, here is the article I posted...

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3094&highlight=military+spending

Please take the time to read it.

I do not refute that we continue to pay our servicemen/women fairly well and a lot of our increases do with their well being and salaries.

but that does NOT bar the fact that us military accounts for one third of all military worldwide.

And considering this was written at a time when we DID not have an 'active' involvement in a war (that was our own) that is shocking and apalling.

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5102&highlight=military+spending

Please also take the time to read this article, as it quite nicely highlights the WASTE of military spending.

Originally posted by TheFrog Also, we've tried throwing money at the problem of education for decades and by and large it isn't helping- because it's not the cause.This is an excellent point. I would venture to say that America spends as much or more on education than any other nation...yet our students consistantly show poor results when compared to students in other industrialized nations. Certainly money isn't the main problem.

I think the military should also be made more efficient. They should be forced to do more with less...just like private business.

I agree with SG, we need to do more with less. However, our military expenses are so high partly do to the fact that it was primarily our miliary that defended half the free world, at least until the fall of the evil empire, and we still have almost 35k troops in Korea.

Do the Koreans even want them there?

I'm honestly asking, I don't know. But it seems to me if they're asking for our servicemen and women to be there, they might chip in to cover some of the expenses...

Again, tho, I don't know the sit over there, maybe they are already and I'm talkin' outta my donkey :p.

Cosmo-

Definately agree on a lot of that.

Our education system is a joke. Not by quiality neccessarily, but by design. Passing people who don't deserve to pass, no national or state wide controls on material and ensuring the material is learned. A focus away from education and right/wrong to more subjective matter.

the 9/11 attack is a legacy of American liberal soft-minded thinking that since the Soviet empire collapsed we no longer live in a hostile world. We've restricted covert and undercover activities of our national security forces to infiltrate and gain information on foreign groups who'd do us harm. We've decided that handout spending is the legitimate function of the federal government and, if military spending threatens it, then military spending has to go.{See the initial thread starter**.

Right now, there are no inbound missile threat on a scale of russia,despite chinas growing desire to nuke us -- that means a defense system is not only uncalled for, and all this other defence spendding, but is a threat to prescription drugs, food stamps, corporate welfare and other handouts. With this vision, defense spending has fallen from 24 percent of the federal budget (5.2 percent of the GDP) in 1990 to 16 percent of the federal budget (3 percent of the GDP) in 2000.

That's on top of our ongoing social experiment, where we're attempting to prove that there are no combat ability differences between men and women. In important ways, the 9/11 attack can be seen as a small part of Clinton's legacy.Now when the defence is needed,its chastized as a waste.

>If Bush spent on education what he spends on the military, ever citizen here could have a Harvard level education for free.<


Hey when did tax money = free?
Last I checked they were taking a LOT of money outta my check every month.

1 On health care
2 On education, Make safer public schools
3 On the elderly
4 On programs to provide jobs for the unemployed
5 On improving jails and prisons and making them more humane places. Emphasise rehabilitation rather than torture.

Cyllon-

The funny thing is that military spending does NOT make us safer from terrorist attacks.

If Bush had a 50 billion (or whatever it was) increase for CIA/FBI operations, maybe it would make sense...

But increase military spending does NOT make us safer from terrorist attacks.

Originally posted by Manu
Cyllon-

The funny thing is that military spending does NOT make us safer from terrorist attacks.

If Bush had a 50 billion (or whatever it was) increase for CIA/FBI operations, maybe it would make sense...

But increase military spending does NOT make us safer from terrorist attacks.

No, but this is a more recent phenomenon isn't it? The new security agency should help but leaving out the FBI was a little short sighted.

It does not hurt it either when you nip it at the source.The FBI should have been adressed more.

Criminal should move to Canada:

http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id=3B270089-BAC7-428D-91A0-785CF30C08D7

"The Bush administration, particularly through Paul Cellucci, its ambassador to Canada, has been calling on Canada to increase defence spending and to purchase new heavy-lift aircraft so it does not have to rely on the U.S. to transport Canadian troops.

Mr. McCallum said yesterday he is fed up with the Americans hectoring Canada about its low defence expenditures, even though he himself has been publicly lobbying for greater military spending."
{I see,the press was right but we dont want anyone eles telling us th etruth,you dirty old mean American you.Arnt these the guys who tell others they should join the I.C.C.?Surrender to the will of the U.N.?**.

"The president did not directly name Canada, but it has the third-lowest military budget in the NATO alliance, spending more than only Luxembourg and Iceland, which does not have a military.

"NATO forces must be better able to fight side by side. Those forces must be more mobile and more swiftly deployed," he told the Atlantic Youth Council. "For some alliance members, this will require higher defence spending. For all of us, it will require more effective defence spending with each nation having the tools and technology to fight and win a new kind of war.

At a later news conference, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien would not comment on Mr. Bush's appeal, other than to say he would like to pump more money into the military, but the government has many other priorities."

"NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson and the Liberal-dominated defence committees of the House of Commons and the Senate have all deplored Canada's $12-billion military budget, which represents only 1.1 per cent of gross domestic product spending, half the NATO average of 2.13.

But Canadian officials argued the "pure GDP numbers is a pretty crude indicator" of Canada's military capabilities, noting the Canadian military has played a role in almost every major United Nations or NATO operation from Bosnia to the war in Afghanistan."
{So what.So have a lot of third rate militaries.That hardly makes them very good at soldiering.In Aphgan., the few there were excelent.But they were few.**

"The Senate defence committee recently called for a $4-billion annual increase in the Armed Forces budget, while Liberal MPs on the Commons defence committee have urged the prime minister not to sacrifice Canada's military to fund a social agenda.

But officials close to Mr. Chrétien say he's reluctant to approve a substantial boost in spending for Canada's Armed Forces, preferring to pump money from the federal surplus into social programs and infrastructure improvements for cities.

Since 1994, the government has reduced defence spending by 23 per cent and cut the Forces' regular personnel to 57,000 from 87,600 in 1990. Canada has the world's 54th-largest military and 77th-largest reserve force, even though it has the 34th-largest population and is a member of the Group of Seven industrialized nations.

A bevy of military analysts, most recently the Council on Canadian Security in the 21st Century and the Atlantic Institute, have also warned Canada is at risk of being unable to defend itself unless it increases spending. Military experts say Canada needs to double its equipment budget to $3.5 billion annually just to replace aging equipment.

Behind the scenes, Defence department officials readily acknowledge that military capability has suffered while other allies, in particular the United States, have made substantial improvements."
{They dont care because they know you know who from the south would be the first to come to their aid.So they feel they can throw away more money at failed social programs**.

If Bush spent on education what he spends on the military, ever citizen here could have a Harvard level education for free. If we spent on health what he spent on the military, our working poor wouldn't have to avoid doctors visits until it's too late. Where should our money really be right now? Do we really need that much money spent on the military? Is all the money helping the military become stronger?

Where did you get the notion that the FedGov is even ALLOWED to spend money on education?

Also, what part of the Constitution permits the FedGov to spend money on healthcare?

Where should our money really be right now?

Um. what do you mean by "our money"? I do not even know who in the hell you are, let alone share my money with you. I don't know what the hell you are talking about when you write "our money".

The money which you earn belongs to you.

The money which I earn belongs to me.

The government may not take any money from any taxpayer unless it is for Constitutional purposes.