The U.S Defense budget

Notwithstanding the argument over the fine points of education spending, are we overlooking a more primary question?

Why are we comparing defense spending to education spending in the first place? Is defense a federal responsibility....yes. Is education a federal, state, or local responsibility....it could be argued that the only money the federal government should be spending on education should be related to oversight, and ensuring that the states meet a baseline standard.

Instead of collecting $63 Billion from citizens of the states, and doling it back out to the states in an alphabet soup of federal programs, why shouldn't the money stay in the states, in the first place.

Anyway, I'm not convinced that education is a federal responsibility, and zero sum scenarios between defense and education aren't good examples to me.

I was wrong............. once, it was a cold, snowy, winter day, I remember it like it was yesterday.............

When I'm wrong, I'll be sure to let you know.

You know I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.

I think LM and JG are twins.

When I'm wrong, I'll be sure to let you know.

You know I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken. Originally Posted by john_galt

Not to worry, I will be sure to let you know. Do all of the kids and professors make fun of you at KU? Never mind, I think I already know the answer.

"You still can cut spending without reducing jobs- do we really need to be designing more billion dollar stealth planes? The F-15 fighter is an outdated plane by our standards but it's still superior to anything the Chinese have or the Russians and the F-15 is no longer our top plane- it's been replaced by the F-22 Stealth Raptor"

You need to get your facts straight, the Sukhoi SU 27 figher is superior to the F-15 and is an equal to the f-18 superhornet. The russians also have Stealth technology, why you assume no other country is improving their arms is crazy to me.

"I mean that is really widespread- no other country including China which has the biggest army based on soldiers has as many bases or troops in other countries."

Thats because we have a habit of rebuilding countries after we fight them, and we leave soldiers there for their protection and to allow us to respond quickly to a situation abroad.

China - Standing Army and Reserves - 3,455000
add in paramilitary - 4,100,000
total - 7,555.000

US - standing army and reserves - 2,932,000
add in paramilitary - 453,000
total - 3,385,400

"What about Republican Presidents who cut spending in Education? Do you really want Americans who can't read or write- heck do you want soliders men/women going into the military with an elementary school education???"

Apples and oranges, this thread is about military spending, your moving the goal post.

"Also, again to the gentlemen who said if we cut spending we would lose jobs- what if the U.S were to create drone soldiers that could do everything that a human could do and we wanted to employ let's say 15,000 of these "done soldiers" in the military. If those 15,000 could effectively replace 15,000 human soldiers would you complain that it's a bad idea because 15,000 soldiers won't have a job??? Isn't a Predator drone taking a place of a pilot? If they created drone airplanes and let's say hypothetically they were safe- wuld you say scratch the idea because it would mean airline pilots would lose jobs? Something has to give dude."

All these jobs your so happy to get rid of arnt going to save anything, because these unemployeed people wont be paying taxes so ya you might reduce the budget, but your going to have less money in the coffers anyway. Its not like a pilot can go to another airline, if all of them have been replaced by drones, so in effect you have eliminated these jobs for ever, then what, what if robots could dispense medication, would you like to be unemployeed and your industry eliminated, how many jobs can we eliminate before we have permanent unemployeed people, And no, unless you can replace the jobs with other jobs then no we shouldnt replace them with drones, something has to give dude, your right, unless your goal is for every american to be out of work and taken care of by the goverment then you cant keep losing jobs that are not being replace, you complain about jobs going over seas yet you have no problem getting rid of jobs so a drone can fly a plane. One day a computer or some form of technology is going to replace your job, then what. Originally Posted by dirty dog

I am very disappointed in you Dirty Dog! First thing first-ask anyone in the air force or any military expert and they will tell you that the F-22 Raptor is hands down the most superior fighter jet in the world bar none. The Su 27 is nothing more than a clone of the F-15 but at a cheaper price. The SU-27 was designed to compete with the F-15 which is now an outdated plane by our standards. I can produce numerous of sources heres one : http://www.futurefirepower.com/tag/f22 that shows what is the top jet in the world. The Soviets just last year introduced their first stealth jet- that's 15 years after the U.S introduced their first stealth fighter. I remember reading the article of the Soviets stealth fighter and actually all analyst stated they were not impressed because the Soviets stealth fighter was far inferior to the U.S stealth fighets.
***2nd- DirtyDog what is your problem with technology??? It's obvious that the purpose of technology is too improve lives and make things easier as a whole and quite naturally yes they can and do take the places of certain jobs, that is why you encourage people to get SKILLED jobs- yes technology may gave us self scan check out register that could take the place of a cashier, but do you really think their will be technology that will take the place of a Doctor??? Get my point? There are many jobs in the U.S where technology can't replace and the vast majority of them are skilled college degree occupations. Yes, technology can create instruments and devices that will help the doctor diagnose patients easier but they won't replace the doctor. Also, we have automated dispenser- have a large million dollar dispensing machine at my Pharmacy called a ScriptPro- I welcome the technology, but there still needs to be a Pharmacist to verify the prescription and to counsel patients and also to fill and operate the dispensing device.
DirtyDog if you are so worried about technology taking away jobs- I suggest you never email a person again because you could be taking a job away from a postal carrier. Please never use a self scan register at a supermarket because that could have been a job for a cashier. i am sure you use ATM's DD- better stop using them because that could have been a job that would have employed a teller. Stay away from those Red Box machines and all vending machines of all sources that's taking more jobs away DD. I can give you nemerous other examples.
DD you still have yet to answer the question about what makes the U.S so special that we can spend more than all other countries combined on defense- are we really that much in danger? france, Great Britian, Canada and Germany have the same amount of enemies that we have and they don't spend as much per captia as we do on defense. However, DD if you think it's logical and cost effective to keep designing billion dollar planes to drop bombs on a taliban insurgent carrying a $750 Ak-47 and a $500 dollar RPG and perhaps a cheap homemade improvised bomb if you do the math it's not difficult to see that it's not worth it.

Well first of all the f 22 amounts to 118 aircraft, in our arsnal, it is not our main battle aircraft, nor was the f117. Our main battle aircraft remains the F-15 and the F-18 Superhornet, so to say that Russia and China do not have aircraft that can compete with our is simply wrong, unless your betting your entire country's safety on 118 f-22's which by the way not all 118 have been built. If you think that the only countries we will be in conflict with are the taliban over the next 50 years then your simply foolish. The technology subject is not for the closed minded, so I am not going to get into that with you. Its not anti technology, its misapplied technology. But I would not expect a Gen X era individual to understand because it flys in the face of the me first mindset they possess. I am done with this subject so call someone else out. We can just agree to disagree.

Well first of all the f 22 amounts to 118 aircraft, in our arsnal, it is not our main battle aircraft, nor was the f117. Our main battle aircraft remains the F-15 and the F-18 Superhornet, so to say that Russia and China do not have aircraft that can compete with our is simply wrong, unless your betting your entire country's safety on 118 f-22's which by the way not all 118 have been built. If you think that the only countries we will be in conflict with are the taliban over the next 50 years then your simply foolish. The technology subject is not for the closed minded, so I am not going to get into that with you. Its not anti technology, its misapplied technology. But I would not expect a Gen X era individual to understand because it flys in the face of the me first mindset they possess. I am done with this subject so call someone else out. We can just agree to disagree. Originally Posted by dirty dog

well I will respect your right to disagree and move on, but there are only 118 because they are newly designed more expensive and have not been around for as long- lockheed is no longer building F-15's they have been replaced by the F-22. Also, you mention that the Taliban will not be our only enemy in next 50 years that's why we should spend as needed- in the 80's and 90's were matching the Soviets dollar for dollar in spending- whom are we matching now -Al-Queada, the somolian pirates, the Taliban? I don't think we should be matching Stealth bomber for rPG- doesn't make sense- why don't we just Spend 500 billion dollars more on the budget because who knows maybe in the next 50 years we will be fighting Aliens from mars- so we are going to need hi-tech weapons to shot down those advanced UFO's that will be attacking us in the next 50 years- that's politics for you!

"well I will respect your right to disagree and move on, but there are only 118 because they are newly designed more expensive and have not been around for as long- lockheed is no longer building F-15's they have been replaced by the F-22. "

Well no actually the congress decided that they were not going to build anymore so the dropped the funding at Gates request because the F35 JNS is a much better fighter. At least know whats up.

"I don't think we should be matching Stealth bomber for rPG- doesn't make sense- why don't we just Spend 500 billion dollars more on the budget because who knows maybe in the next 50 years we will be fighting Aliens from mars- so we are going to need hi-tech weapons to shot down those advanced UFO's that will be attacking us in the next 50 years- that's politics for you!"

Yeah your right the Soviets have stopped their R&D programs, so have the Chinese, lets just wait until they have better stuff and then we can click our heels together 3 times and a fighter further advanced than theirs will just fall out our asses. We have been in conflict with someone every decade since 1910 but we wont need weapons in the future. Oh and by the way, the bulk of Defense Department budget goes to maintaining our conventianal weapons, not to mention, paying the soldiers, providing medical, dental and mental health. But I guess we wont need conventinal weapons to fight the enemies of the future because our stealth planes will do it all. We wont need bullets, rifles, canteens, grenades, Javalin rockets, Howitsers, 105 rounds, motors, motor rounds, cooks, food, water, gasoline, desiel, maintenance facilities, helicoptors, mini guns, uniforms, boots, packs, etc etc etc

Cause we might be fighting Aliens wow JG eerr I mean Well that was so smart and funny LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

We've been down this road before...our military was kinda inadequate at the beginning of WW2...because we had already fought our last war.

Eisenhower thought conventional war was over (would defense ourselves with only nukes)...that didn't happen.

Remember the 'peace dividend' after the Soviet collapse...we've been in more than a few conflicts since then.

I am all for policing a corrupt procurement system...and I think there is great savings to be had...but I don't agree with any notion that we can just 'pull back' our military.

Well Well...1911,

A quick couple of things I know about, and let the other "stuff" go.

Item 1
Education of the troops: I was really awakened this last couple of months about the current great opportunity the service people have for education. Wow, it is fantastic. Many opportunities for both active and the reserves. I would have enrolled right in high school for the reserves, if I had this opportunity for college - and I would have missed Nam and the Marine Corps, and gone straight to medical school. I would have grabbed the opportunity in an instant. Have you seen (try Google) the great pay for service personnel? I got $62 per month as a private, a long time ago. Within, one year now kids are making E-5 in the reserve, and getting tuition assistance, books, etc. Wow! In addition, the military has always offered additional training while in service. It was great even when I was in, and I took all that I could get. Now, the kids have the opportunity to take college courses, while on active duty. Plus the military courses that you can take, even in a hot zone. Today, they have the electronic courses. I worked hard to pay for many years of college, and did without many times. To have the opportunity to learn while they earn is a fantastic opportunity for both men and women. For a young woman, from a poor background: I would recommend that they grab the military opportunity like a lifeline.

Today, the military just does not accept people with an elementary school education: you have to be better than that. Read up. Today the soldier is better educated, trained, and motivated than at any time in our history. I am proud of the time I spent in the military, and I am proud of the kids who are there today.


Item 2:
The F-15 still has a special place (hint - it is heavier) and the Raptor is different, and special. All of the planes in service have special uses, or are being evaluated for other improvements or replacements.

The predator does not do away with a pilot; the pilot(s) usually fly the remote plane in shifts - they may be on the ground, miles away and out of harms way, but they are still flying the plane. (DUH). Drone, does not mean unattended.

Enough for now before I start on economics. That is where I could really get hot and get critical of the lack of understanding by clinton (small c).

JR

I am all for policing a corrupt procurement system...and I think there is great savings to be had...but I don't agree with any notion that we can just 'pull back' our military. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Lacrew, we agree on something. I have mentioned before about defense contractor abuse and the need to fix it. Also, we don't need to cut back on spending in the military. I am all for a strong military. Helps me sleep well at night. I do think we should also increase the budget for CIA and NSA.

well 1911 was just a date I through out there, when did WW1 start oh yeah 1914, so "since 1914, yeah........................." LOL.