Illustration of Federal Budget

[a completely inoffensive name]

Thought it was interesting enough to share.

https://img297.imageshack.us/img297/...tsdatlarge.jpg

[Vuk]

I love it, what makes the US so powerful is that we are always one leap ahead in tech, and they are cutting funding to that instead of increasing it. Also, we should be putting a lot more money into the Abrams. There is not a tank out there that can match it, and we are dismanteling them because we cannot afford to take care of the ones we have!

[a completely inoffensive name]

I love it, what makes the US so powerful is that we are always one leap ahead in tech, and they are cutting funding to that instead of increasing it. Also, we should be putting a lot more money into the Abrams. There is not a tank out there that can match it, and we are dismanteling them because we cannot afford to take care of the ones we have!

AP would disagree with you and has argued about that with AS multiple times.

[Vuk]

AP would disagree with you and has argued about that with AS multiple times.

The suspension system on that thing lets you take it anywhere, and they are darned near indestructable. What experience has AP had with them?

[a completely inoffensive name]

The suspension system on that thing lets you take it anywhere, and they are darned near indestructable. What experience has AP had with them?

Just ask AP about his conversation with AS about tanks and about how the new Russian tanks are so much better. Unless you don't feel like having an argument with him.

[Vuk]

Just ask AP about his conversation with AS about tanks and about how the new Russian tanks are so much better. Unless you don't feel like having an argument with him.

Who is AP? :P I know several Armoured Cavalry guys who are quite familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of both who would disagree with him. (I mean guys who have actually had experience with them :P)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Just another thing I want to say. I don't understand the concept of being a fiscal conservative and wanting smaller government when at the same time praising the massive defense and military spending and wanting an increase in its budget. Thats not fiscal conservatism, thats just hating government services and it creates massive debt and deficits. So can someone tell me how this situation is possible for so many "fiscal conservatives"?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Just another thing I want to say. I don't understand the concept of being a fiscal conservative and wanting smaller government when at the same time praising the massive defense and military spending and wanting an increase in its budget. Thats not fiscal conservatism, thats just hating government services and it creates massive debt and deficits. So can someone tell me how this situation is possible for so many "fiscal conservatives"?

I assume it's at least partly rooted in jingoism and nostalgia for Reagan's defensive spending.

I'd prefer it if we referred to the DoD by its original name.

Amen.

[CountArach]

Department of Defence - $515.440 Billion (+7%)
Department of Education - $59.210 Billion (-0%)

...What?

[Xiahou]

Department of Defence - $515.440 Billion (+7%)
Department of Education - $59.210 Billion (-0%)

...What?

I know, right? How can the federal government be spending $59bn on something that isn't even it's duty?

[CountArach]

I know, right? How can the federal government be spending $59bn on something that isn't even it's duty?

Why did I get the feeling someone would make this reply?

Not all States can afford to educate their citizens as well as each other. As such why shouldn't the Federal Government take an active role in education?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why did I get the feeling someone would make this reply?

Not all States can afford to educate their citizens as well as each other. As such why shouldn't the Federal Government take an active role in education?

The State governments under the Tenth Amendment are required to take care of the education for their state, if they are having a rough time finding enough money to take care of their citizens, it should not fall upon the Federal government to take of them. The States need to realize they have a budget and that they can't just overspend and when education is cut to the breaking point they can just call upon Uncle Sam to pay their check. They need to trim their government or go bankrupt which helps keep government from getting too big and wasteful (at least that is how it is supposed to work). Also it allows for each state population to decide their own education standards rather having the citizens in California paying the most out of anyone into the Federal budget having any say in the education standards in Alabama.

If the citizens of one state decide to throw out evolution, that is their decision and it is not good for any other state or the Federal gov to tell them how to run their own state or teach their own children.

[CountArach]

The State governments under the Tenth Amendment are required to take care of the education for their state, if they are having a rough time finding enough money to take care of their citizens, it should not fall upon the Federal government to take of them.

We clearly have vastly differing views of citizenship. I am both a citizen of a State, but also of a Federation of States (ie - The Federal Government). If one of my citizenships is insufficient to supply my basic needs then my other State should be there to pick up the slack.

The States need to realize they have a budget and that they can't just overspend and when education is cut to the breaking point they can just call upon Uncle Sam to pay their check.

The earning potential of a State is far inferior to that of the Federal Govt.

They need to trim their government or go bankrupt which helps keep government from getting too big and wasteful (at least that is how it is supposed to work). Also it allows for each state population to decide their own education standards rather having the citizens in California paying the most out of anyone into the Federal budget having any say in the education standards in Alabama.

Who says that standards have to change between States? That is not within the scope of this debate.

If the citizens of one state decide to throw out evolution, that is their decision and it is not good for any other state or the Federal gov to tell them how to run their own state or teach their own children.

Again, this is just an irrelevancy.

Because then states don't need to be as competitive when they are receiving the money from the federal government.

So States are competing with each other now? That's just brutal. No child gets to pick their school and most parents would be unwilling to change what State they live in simply because education is inadequate.
I

t is not the place of the federal government to interfere with education. States are supposed to be their own independent bodies in as many ways as possible, and take care of themselves.

I understand that idea... but what about when their resources are insufficient?

EDIT: And who do you think ends up paying for it in the long run? The taxpayers.

Unless you propose complete privatisation (Or even majority privatisation) then nothing is going to change... State-level taxes would have to raise by a lot to pick up the slack from a lack of an interventionist Fed.

Further to all of this, there are unequal earning potentials between States. New York, with it's proliferation of big businesses and wealthy citizens, would (and does) have a far superior earning potential compared to Montana, with it's proliferation of rural communities. This means that when it comes to educating their citizens, a citizen of New York is going to have an advantage... despite the fact that a citizen of Montana is still an American...

Also in regards to government becoming too bloated by spending highly on education at a federal level - surely economies of scale would dictate that a federal government can do the job much cheaper?

[Vuk]

Why did I get the feeling someone would make this reply?

Not all States can afford to educate their citizens as well as each other. As such why shouldn't the Federal Government take an active role in education?

Because then states don't need to be as competitive when they are receiving the money from the federal government. It is not the place of the federal government to interfere with education. States are supposed to be their own independent bodies in as many ways as possible, and take care of themselves. You know what? If the federal government stopped enabling them with money for education, then maybe the States would have to stop some of their corrupt, BS, pork barrel spending to pay for it themselves. So much of tax payer's money is spent on garbage. The States need to take some responsibility, and the individual politicians need to take responsibility.


EDIT: And who do you think ends up paying for it in the long run? The taxpayers. Only now other states who do not spend as recklessly are going to have to pay the burden of those who do. Things need to be competitive for the system to work, and each state has to shoulder the responsibility of its own education system.