0
   

Military Spending

 
 
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 10:29 am
http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/09/country-distribution-2008.png


what do you think of this?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,177 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 04:50 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;71656 wrote:
http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/09/country-distribution-2008.png


what do you think of this?


It confirms that we are; the most powerful nation on earth; in position to distribute aid to other countries throughout the world at a moments notice; looked to for settling disputes between neighboring countries; able to come to the defense of our allies when needed;and above all able protect and promote interests of the united states.

This also demonstrates that the military is the largest employer in the world. Shrink back the military and Americans lose jobs.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 10:08 pm
@Anton Artaud,
It shows that we SPEND the most on the military, by a very significant margin. Don't you think this money could be better spent on education?
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 11:37 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;71771 wrote:
It shows that we SPEND the most on the military, by a very significant margin. Don't you think this money could be better spent on education?


No and hell no.

That is a joke. For the past 80 years every political candidate has said, "education is my top priority," gets elected and makes it worse.

Education is a pawn they use to get our votes--nothing more. Yet, as education gets worse, all the teachers vote in the same Democrats--when will they ever learn?

The efficiency of the education system hit it's peak in the late 1950's. With Liberal politicians continuing to lower education standards since then, our world ranking is now at the bottom 1/3. And we spend more money on education than any country in the world.

So, counter to what the Democrats claim, money has never cured the ills of education.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 03:00 pm
@Anton Artaud,
Anton Artaud;71773 wrote:
No and hell no.

That is a joke. For the past 80 years every political candidate has said, "education is my top priority," gets elected and makes it worse.

Education is a pawn they use to get our votes--nothing more. Yet, as education gets worse, all the teachers vote in the same Democrats--when will they ever learn?


I'm not asking if we should vote politicians who "say" that want to improve education. The question was "Don't you think the money would be better spent on education?"


Quote:
The efficiency of the education system hit it's peak in the late 1950's. With Liberal politicians continuing to lower education standards since then, our world ranking is now at the bottom 1/3. And we spend more money on education than any country in the world.

So, counter to what the Democrats claim, money has never cured the ills of education.


I would disagree and say our educational system hit it's peak in the 1960's when there was a huge increase in science and mathematics, in order to compete with soviet space programs. We haven't made any educational advancements since then, and other countries have started to surpass us while we sit stagnant.

And as far as the US spending the most on education, this simply isn't true. Not sure where you heard that but it is false.


Sources:

Education spending (% of total government expenditure) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Education spending (% of GDP) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster



Perhaps if we weren't so militaristic, we wouldn't need to spend so much and we could focus on other more important things, like education.


This is absurd:

http://emergent-culture.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/us-military-bases-around-the-world.jpg
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 11:44 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;71785 wrote:
I'm not asking if we should vote politicians who "say" that want to improve education. The question was "Don't you think the money would be better spent on education?"

I said no and hell no. What else do you want?


I would disagree and say our educational system hit it's peak in the 1960's when there was a huge increase in science and mathematics, in order to compete with soviet space programs. We haven't made any educational advancements since then, and other countries have started to surpass us while we sit stagnant.

There is no argument from me because I said the 1950's and that includes 1959. The point is we are both right because professional analysts site 1950 to 1963.


Also, we are talking about the overall quality of education not just mathematics.


And as far as the US spending the most on education, this simply isn't true. Not sure where you heard that but it is false.

Ah! This is not comparing GNP between countries. We spend over 400 billion dollars in education and there are countries that do not generate that much in total GNP for the entire country. I said we spend the most money. I did not say compared to our GNP.


Sources:

Education spending (% of total government expenditure) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Education spending (% of GDP) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Your sources miss the point.

Perhaps if we weren't so militaristic, we wouldn't need to spend so much and we could focus on other more important things, like education.

This is absurd:

So again, more money toward education is what's absurd. And, money has been proven not to be a major influence on student performance.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 04:19 pm
@Anton Artaud,
Anton Artaud;71789 wrote:

So again, more money toward education is what's absurd. And, money has been proven not to be a major influence on student performance.


Shows your priorities.


Okay, I'll bite. How do we improve education without spending money?
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 10:21 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;71794 wrote:
Shows your priorities.


Okay, I'll bite. How do we improve education without spending money?



It is not MY priorities but rather a response to what is really going on.

Ten years after graduating high school, I met one of my old instructors at a local eatery. He explained that within 5 years of my graduation, most of the instructors left as student test scores plummeted along with students attitude.

The state government had implemented a program to reduce the standards for buying a home, so that the lower middle income families could afford it. Our area was heaviest hit. And I mean hit.

The families came from 3rd world agriculturally based countries, where children are raised thinking that education is for the very rich and no one needs it.Then, they come to this country where education is usually a stepping stone to even a moderate income, yet they didn't care. They have been desensitized to the value of education.

My former teacher told me that if he had given me an "F" for anything, my parents would make sure it never happened again. Before he left he found himself giving "F's" by the dozens and no parents ever showed up to protest. When there was a confrontation, the parents shrugged off their parental responsibilities and blamed the school.

Where you find pockets of poor, there is always an anti-education attitude. And any teacher will tell you that this and not aptitude is the reason for low scores.

Any teacher will say...

"Give me 10 children who want to learn, the lowest funding in the districts, and as adults they will turn the world around."

"Give me 10 children who couldn't care less about education, the highest funding in the districts, and as adults they will find success always beyond their grasp"

So, politicians also know this. It's not about the money--it is about the parents. It's not about the teachers, it's about the parents. It is not about the system, it is about the parents. So, to get elected, they side with the parents, " yea, it's all the school's fault--you (the parents) are just victims. Don't worry, I'll get those incompetent teachers back in line--elect me." And it works.

Then, the elected officials ignore it all because it can't be fixed and raise more money to pay themselves increased salaries.

Today, many kids from these families don't know any other way to make a living than joining gangs and selling drugs.

Again, throwing money at them is useless--and everyone in system knows it.

This is just like crime--"we need more education" was the mantra of the 1970's. It is now 2010 and crime has worsened. We've been educating these criminals for decades and what has it gotten us--nothing. There are exceptions but not enough to offset the billions of dollars taken away from addressing other badly needed social ills.

Attitude not money is and will always be the issue.
kynaston
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 01:51 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
It seems to me that you pay an awful lot of tax to back big companies in attacking places like Iraq to make profits for them. Wouldn't it make more sense to spend it on yourselves?
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 07:17 pm
@Anton Artaud,
Anton Artaud;71797 wrote:
It is not MY priorities but rather a response to what is really going on.

Ten years after graduating high school, I met one of my old instructors at a local eatery. He explained that within 5 years of my graduation, most of the instructors left as student test scores plummeted along with students attitude.

The state government had implemented a program to reduce the standards for buying a home, so that the lower middle income families could afford it. Our area was heaviest hit. And I mean hit.


The families came from 3rd world agriculturally based countries, where children are raised thinking that education is for the very rich and no one needs it.Then, they come to this country where education is usually a stepping stone to even a moderate income, yet they didn't care. They have been desensitized to the value of education.

My former teacher told me that if he had given me an "F" for anything, my parents would make sure it never happened again. Before he left he found himself giving "F's" by the dozens and no parents ever showed up to protest. When there was a confrontation, the parents shrugged off their parental responsibilities and blamed the school.

Where you find pockets of poor, there is always an anti-education attitude. And any teacher will tell you that this and not aptitude is the reason for low scores.

Any teacher will say...

"Give me 10 children who want to learn, the lowest funding in the districts, and as adults they will turn the world around."

"Give me 10 children who couldn't care less about education, the highest funding in the districts, and as adults they will find success always beyond their grasp"

So, politicians also know this. It's not about the money--it is about the parents. It's not about the teachers, it's about the parents. It is not about the system, it is about the parents. So, to get elected, they side with the parents, " yea, it's all the school's fault--you (the parents) are just victims. Don't worry, I'll get those incompetent teachers back in line--elect me." And it works.

Then, the elected officials ignore it all because it can't be fixed and raise more money to pay themselves increased salaries.

Today, many kids from these families don't know any other way to make a living than joining gangs and selling drugs.

Again, throwing money at them is useless--and everyone in system knows it.

This is just like crime--"we need more education" was the mantra of the 1970's. It is now 2010 and crime has worsened. We've been educating these criminals for decades and what has it gotten us--nothing. There are exceptions but not enough to offset the billions of dollars taken away from addressing other badly needed social ills.

Attitude not money is and will always be the issue.


Oh NO, lower middle class families moved in, how terrible! :rollinglaugh:


So when I asked you how do you improve education without spending money, you basically responded by saying "parents". Okay so what about the parents? How do you get the parents more involved?

Are you saying it's impossible to improve education?

Of course throwing money at a problem isn't always going to make it better, but don't tell me no program has never improved test scores. We know this isn't true. If money played no factor at all in education, then why fund education at all? Why give any money to schools?

We need to understand WHY kids don't pay attention in school. And yes how effectively we use funding is probably more important than how much funding we get.


If anything this is just a convoluted excuse used to justify higher priority in militaristic imperialism than in our future (children).
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 08:02 pm
@kynaston,
kynaston;71800 wrote:
It seems to me that you pay an awful lot of tax to back big companies in attacking places like Iraq to make profits for them. Wouldn't it make more sense to spend it on yourselves?


Remember, corporations employ people.Corporations need profits to hire more people. Take money away from corporations through taxes and all that happens is employees become unemployed.

And you never got a job from a poor man.
kynaston
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 05:32 am
@Anton Artaud,
Anton Artaud;71804 wrote:
Remember, corporations employ people.Corporations need profits to hire more people. Take money away from corporations through taxes and all that happens is employees become unemployed.

And you never got a job from a poor man.


Hitler probably used the same argument for the death camps - and they cut down on over-population! Take back all the corporations have stolen from the poor and we wouldn't need to work more than a few hours a day.
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 10:54 am
@kynaston,
kynaston;71805 wrote:
Hitler probably used the same argument for the death camps - and they cut down on over-population! Take back all the corporations have stolen from the poor and we wouldn't need to work more than a few hours a day.



This is economics 101. Hitler was for Nationalism which has nothing to do with our topic.

Money is circulated. No one eats or drinks money. Money goes into banks and investments that lowers the interest rates in lending to the middle classes and assists business in growth. That growth creates jobs.

There is nothing inherently wrong with corporations. Now, the Liberals are against corporations because they want socialism at any cost. They don't like the fact that we are all different. Some of us earn our way toward a wealthy life, while others live a less luxurious life. This isn't fair? Who said life is fair? Nevertheless, let's punish those who worked hard to get what they have and give it those who never invested in self improvement. That's called taxes. Eliminating independently owned corporations is the way to control the dispersion of money.

Notice that a corporate Vice President who ears 20million a year is evil.
Also, notice that Oprah Winfrey can be worth a billion dollars--but that's OK.
Then there are the Liberal actors and sports figures who can make millions each year--that's also OK. This is Liberal Propaganda and nothing more.

Also, corporations don't make money off of the poor, minority representatives do. They keep people down and tell them they are the answer. Support me and you will see all your dreams come true. Of course they will need MONEY.

Again, you don't get a job from a poor man.
kynaston
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 05:02 am
@Anton Artaud,
Anton Artaud;71806 wrote:
This is economics 101. Hitler was for Nationalism which has nothing to do with our topic.

Money is circulated. No one eats or drinks money. Money goes into banks and investments that lowers the interest rates in lending to the middle classes and assists business in growth. That growth creates jobs.

There is nothing inherently wrong with corporations. Now, the Liberals are against corporations because they want socialism at any cost. They don't like the fact that we are all different. Some of us earn our way toward a wealthy life, while others live a less luxurious life. This isn't fair? Who said life is fair? Nevertheless, let's punish those who worked hard to get what they have and give it those who never invested in self improvement. That's called taxes. Eliminating independently owned corporations is the way to control the dispersion of money.

Notice that a corporate Vice President who ears 20million a year is evil.
Also, notice that Oprah Winfrey can be worth a billion dollars--but that's OK.
Then there are the Liberal actors and sports figures who can make millions each year--that's also OK. This is Liberal Propaganda and nothing more.

Also, corporations don't make money off of the poor, minority representatives do. They keep people down and tell them they are the answer. Support me and you will see all your dreams come true. Of course they will need MONEY.

Again, you don't get a job from a poor man.


If you dont know the difference between Liberalism and Socialism I can't see much point in this discussion. Liberalism, everywhere except in crisis, when it turns to fascism, is the ideology of capitalism. Right-wing Americans have got so far off into dreamtime that they are hardly in contact with the real world at all now, alas.
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 09:41 am
@kynaston,
kynaston;71809 wrote:
If you dont know the difference between Liberalism and Socialism I can't see much point in this discussion. Liberalism, everywhere except in crisis, when it turns to fascism, is the ideology of capitalism. Right-wing Americans have got so far off into dreamtime that they are hardly in contact with the real world at all now, alas.


I said, "Now, the Liberals are against corporations because they want socialism at any cost." I said that because they are different. That should have been understood by the construction of the sentence. How could someone want what they have?

A Liberal today is fundamentally after social construction based on the theory of Social Egalitarianism and an anti-establishment attitude. Egalitarianism, is a fatally wrong interpretation of the human condition that in practice is counterproductive and unnatural.

Socialism is a specifically structured political system with built in flexibility, designed to control the national economy and dispersion of services. The goal of Socialism is the attempt to improve the quality of life for the lower glasses at the expense of those at the top.

Liberalism is a philosophy whereas Socialism is the tool that is expected to bring that philosophy into reality.

Liberalisms is not everywhere--look at China. They would shoot our brand of Liberals.

I didn't see the connection between crisis and Liberalism. Except, in crisis our democratic system would resemble totalitarianism as a result of Marshall Law.

Liberalism today is nothing like liberalism of the 1960's. Liberal simply meant change with conservationism meaning the status quo. Today, liberalism means "forced" change which is reminiscent of Italy's fascism of the 1940's. Fascism is the manifestation of liberalism today in this country.

On the whole, this sentence "Liberalism, everywhere except in crisis, when it turns to fascism, is the ideology of capitalism," doesn't make much sense.

This is just an emotional outburst without any validation: "Right-wing Americans have got so far off into dreamtime that they are hardly in contact with the real world at all now, alas."
0 Replies
 
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 05:47 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Peace through superior firepower.
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 09:54 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;71803 wrote:
Oh NO, lower middle class families moved in, how terrible! :rollinglaugh:


So when I asked you how do you improve education without spending money, you basically responded by saying "parents". Okay so what about the parents? How do you get the parents more involved?

Are you saying it's impossible to improve education?

Of course throwing money at a problem isn't always going to make it better, but don't tell me no program has never improved test scores. We know this isn't true. If money played no factor at all in education, then why fund education at all? Why give any money to schools?

We need to understand WHY kids don't pay attention in school. And yes how effectively we use funding is probably more important than how much funding we get.


If anything this is just a convoluted excuse used to justify higher priority in militaristic imperialism than in our future (children).


no response?
0 Replies
 
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 01:04 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;71803 wrote:
Oh NO, lower middle class families moved in, how terrible! :rollinglaugh:


So when I asked you how do you improve education without spending money, you basically responded by saying "parents". Okay so what about the parents? How do you get the parents more involved?

That is the 60K question. You can't. Either they are interested or they are not. With all of the illegal immigration, often the children are more educated than the parents at just the 5th grade. This was not the case 50 years ago.


Are you saying it's impossible to improve education?

It is possible to improve the education system--oh yes. Return to all of the standards we had in 1960. That also means that if a student earned an "F", fail the student. Have them repeat a grade. That was done until the Liberals got a hold of the system.

Again, between the 1950's and 1960's there was nothing wrong with education.


Of course throwing money at a problem isn't always going to make it better, but don't tell me no program has never improved test scores.

You got a bingo--no test--no course--no program can get anyone to want to learn.


We know this isn't true. If money played no factor at all in education, then why fund education at all? Why give any money to schools?

OK--no changing the topic criteria. It is one thing to say money will not improve poor grades and another not to give them money at all--that's silly. Education had money in the 1960's and satisfied the basics.

Look if "Bob" does not want to learn to read, offering him a new improved library isn't going to matter.


We need to understand WHY kids don't pay attention in school.

Educators know this--I said it's the parents but then there are many cultures teaching that education is not important. Some live in ghettos and feel that good grades is "buying" into the evil system. Others find that drugs is a more practical and easiest way to make big money. Joining gangs offers security and will ensure a better life than doing it only own.

There are many reasons for poor grades and none can be changed by money.

And yes how effectively we use funding is probably more important than how much funding we get.

Now, this is hitting the target. Return to the 1960's and while huge numbers of students will fail, those who are retained in school will excel. Also, this will stop frivolously spending money on those who simply don't care.


If anything this is just a convoluted excuse used to justify higher priority in militaristic imperialism than in our future (children).


Remember the topic. There is no cause and effect here. You said rather than spending money on the military, we should devote this money toward education. No one said, they were ever linked.

I responded by saying, money is not the reason why some students get good grades and others don't--and that's a fact.

Now, if you said let's put this money into health care--I would listen.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 08:34 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Throwing bad money after bad money is a waste if the parents are not going to get involved in their children's education. No amount of money is going to make a school more successful. Look to Belgium for answers to school problems. If schools do not produce successful students they get no funding, they most certainly do not get MORE money thrown at them to waste. Our emotional call to "save the children" does the children no good. Teachers unions should be dissolved immediately, they cause more waste and problems in education than bad parents do.
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 09:06 am
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;71863 wrote:
Throwing bad money after bad money is a waste if the parents are not going to get involved in their children's education. No amount of money is going to make a school more successful. Look to Belgium for answers to school problems. If schools do not produce successful students they get no funding, they most certainly do not get MORE money thrown at them to waste. Our emotional call to "save the children" does the children no good. Teachers unions should be dissolved immediately, they cause more waste and problems in education than bad parents do.


Yes, the school boards, unions and subcommittees, continue going in the wrong direction with the high school diploma meaning less and less.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Military Spending
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/03/2023 at 11:08:48