The department of education. Let the states manage their own school systems. All the federal gov't does is send teachers money with huge strings attached to bogus plans like No Child Left Behind. Yes, the states would have to make up the gap for no more federal aid, but then maybe the schools would be run better as well. I'd gladly pay more if it actually meant people would get a better education.
Actually, they don't send money for No Child Left Behind. It's one of the many problems with that act.
the states would have to make up the gap for no more federal aid, but then maybe the schools would be run better as well.
The states that need the most help are the ones with the least money to do so. Cutting off federal aid would destroy most of the "red" states. They can't survive at all without federal money, let alone pay for education.
The concept of the Marine Corp is outdated. It used to make sense, back when naval battles were decided with boarding actions as well as cannon; Marines were soldiers who were paid and trained to stay on ships, distinct from landbound armies. The US went a step further, and wrote it into law that only Marines could fight outside of the US, and could not be used within the United States itself, so the Federal government would not be able to bully the states around with an army and would have limited ability to embark on foreign adventures. After the Civil War, however, the US got a proper federal army which had none of these restrictions and the Marines have had their role increasingly shrunk. About the last time Marines were useful was island hopping in the Pacific in WW2; since then, they have basically just been "Army, now with More Infantry and Less Armour!!!" While the doctrine and training of the Marines can be retained, keeping them as a seperate service branch just means there is two of everything infantry-related. Folding them into the Army or the Navy would allow for the elimination of a lot of red tape, bullshit, and second-guessing regarding equiptment and chains of command.
Additionally, mandating that the Navy and the Air Force have to use the same strike planes and making a single committee to decide these things would save billions upon billions of dollars every time you upgrade. Remember all that bullshit about the Joint Strike Fighter? It's because the Navy and Air Force like to bicker like fucking children over 1 engine verus 2 engine planes just to spite one another, and it cost your government more money than most countries spend on defense period.
The states that need the most help are the ones with the least money to do so. Cutting off federal aid would destroy most of the "red" states. They can't survive at all without federal money, let alone pay for education.
Not only that, but allowing states to determine their own standards for education allows for regional ignorance. Texas is already problematic enough with its impact on textbooks; imagine if West Virginia or Mississippi were allowed to determine its own educational standards.
The U.S. Marines take about 4% of the entire U.S. military budget. The real money loss is within the DoD Contractor sector. Cutting one branch is a lopsided way which will do nothing to actually reform the defense budget. Furthermore, the Marines are used for immediate force projection for international crisis. For example, Marine Expeditionary Units were deployed off the coast of Libya in case there was any sort of mass Genocide occurring. No other branch of the military is used for quick reactionary force capabilities.
Conceeded, I wasn't aware the Marines were so cheap to operate. (Then again, 4% of the US military budget is still something like 2% of all military spending worldwide...)
The U.S. Marines take about 4% of the entire U.S. military budget. The real money loss is within the DoD Contractor sector. Cutting one branch is a lopsided way which will do nothing to actually reform the defense budget. Furthermore, the Marines are used for immediate force projection for international crisis. For example, Marine Expeditionary Units were deployed off the coast of Libya in case there was any sort of mass Genocide occurring. No other branch of the military is used for quick reactionary force capabilities.
Cut defense by at least a third and raise the minimum retirement age.
Yeah, raising the retirement age would work. No sarcasm here. I really believe it would help. I mean, do any of us really think we're actually going to get SS retirement benefits? So, what effect would raising the retirement age really have other than saving lots of money?
When it first began, SS benefits that started being paid out at 65 might continue to be paid for ten years or so. Now, it can be paid put for 20 years or more.
BTW, this isn't even taking SSD and SSI into account.
Further, in general, people at age 65 in the thirties and forties were in much worse physical and mental shape than they are now. I see no reason not to raise SS retirement to 75 or even 80.
Without the Navy Marines don't get to go anywhere. The Navy is an essential part of force projection.
They Navy does not have the ability to place boots on the ground when needed. I honestly have no idea what you are trying to argue. There is more to force projection than carriers and ballistic missiles.
I don't think you guys who are suggesting all joint aircraft realize how much goes into designing a plane for use at sea. The runway on an aircraft carrier is laughably small compared to what you have at an airfield, and you also have to deal with incredibly corrosive salt fog. Yes it can be done with tweaks (see the joint strike fighter) but it shouldn't be the only way things get done.
The department of education.
Are you kidding?
Not kidding. Not trolling.
The states that need the most help are the ones with the least money to do so. Cutting off federal aid would destroy most of the "red" states. They can't survive at all without federal money, let alone pay for education.
Not only that, but allowing states to determine their own standards for education allows for regional ignorance. Texas is already problematic enough with its impact on textbooks; imagine if West Virginia or Mississippi were allowed to determine its own educational standards.
Now this is someone saying something that makes sense. The grim reality is that companies are going to cater to the lowest (dumbest) common denominator when writing their textbooks so they only need one version. I said I'd be willing to pay more for better education, but it'd be big bucks to convince the money-hungry textbook industry to make one for my state with real science. At what point does it just become prohibitively expensive.
Without the Navy Marines don't get to go anywhere. The Navy is an essential part of force projection.
They Navy does not have the ability to place boots on the ground when needed. I honestly have no idea what you are trying to argue. There is more to force projection than carriers and ballistic missiles.
"The Navy is an essential part of force projection."
The department of education. Let the states manage their own school systems. All the federal gov't does is send teachers money with huge strings attached to bogus plans like No Child Left Behind. Yes, the states would have to make up the gap for no more federal aid, but then maybe the schools would be run better as well. I'd gladly pay more if it actually meant people would get a better education.
This is a fucking terrible idea, and if you can't figure out why, then your STATE did a terrible job educating you. First of all, NCLB was a giant croc of shit to begin with, and was only meant as a scheme to de-fund public schools. It's terrible, makes no sense, isn't based in science, and allows the choking off of the arts, phys ed, music, theater and all other 'non-core' courses if testing isn't going well. Second, if you let states run education as they see fit with no federal regulations, you get things like Texas and Florida, only all over. Hell, Florida would probably be reduced to no public schools at all because the old people there are greedy and hate children. Giving each state free reign over what they want taught is a terrible idea because you would then have a country divided on what was fact and what was not. You'd have entire states that would be teaching children creationism or teaching that correcting an error in a textbook is 'censorship'. Facts become meaningless. Third, I would gladly pay more taxes if it went to education as well. The problem is that we have a huge portion of our economy tied up with "job creators" (read as 'rich people') who are enjoying tax cuts to the tune of billions a year for no other reason than existing. This puts greater pressure on the middle and lower classes to pay even more money, which NCLB conveniently strips away when test scores are not at their highest.
Now this is someone saying something that makes sense. The grim reality is that companies are going to cater to the lowest (dumbest) common denominator when writing their textbooks so they only need one version. I said I'd be willing to pay more for better education, but it'd be big bucks to convince the money-hungry textbook industry to make one for my state with real science. At what point does it just become prohibitively expensive.
In a society with proper education, we wouldn't have textbooks. We would use exclusively primary sources and excerpts there from chosen by teachers.
Now this is someone saying something that makes sense. The grim reality is that companies are going to cater to the lowest (dumbest) common denominator when writing their textbooks so they only need one version. I said I'd be willing to pay more for better education, but it'd be big bucks to convince the money-hungry textbook industry to make one for my state with real science. At what point does it just become prohibitively expensive.
In a society with proper education, we wouldn't have textbooks. We would use exclusively primary sources and excerpts there from chosen by teachers.
I think they cater to the biggest purchaser of textbooks. Which in our case is Texas.
We would use exclusively primary sources and excerpts there from chosen by teachers.
lolwut?
Ever seen the amount of research and reading that goes into writing a single scientific paper?
Textbooks are good collections of what we've learned until this point. The problem with textbooks is with publishers who release new editions without good reason and who charge absolutely exorbitant prices for them.
Your point being? I don't think anyone was arguing that it wasn't.
Matt suggested eliminating the Department of Education. The only other people stupid enough to suggest that have been Ron Paul or The Heritage Foundation.
I've had to read research papers and journals for some stuff I do and I'm telling you if I had to do this when I was 13 I'd have completely failed every subject. However I used to read the shit out of my Textbooks.
Matt suggested eliminating the Department of Education. The only other people stupid enough to suggest that have been Ron Paul or The Heritage Foundation.
You're all going to hate me when I say this: NASA.
Already in theworks. A friend working for NASA has said all funding has been cut for any future space endeavors. At this point NASA is a consulting agency that exists to transition the national space program into a private one.
The war on drugs.
The DEA is the only federal agency that actually makes a profit (all the drug money they confiscate fills their coffers), and as the head of the movement, it isn't going anywhere.
Additionally, mandating that the Navy and the Air Force have to use the same strike planes and making a single committee to decide these things would save billions upon billions of dollars every time you upgrade.
You're funny. Seriously though, the military branches hate each other and have a culture of not working together in these ways. You want to meet some people who believe the Old Ways are the Good Ways and that change is abominable, talk to some Generals. It's crazy.
The real money loss is within the DoD Contractor sector.
In the words of Professor Lockhart (the real person, not the HP character), "If I was asked to design a way to systematically eliminate a child's love for education, I could not do it better than the current system." Textbooks over simplify every subject they come near. I'm not saying that you assign entire scientific papers to middle-school students -- there is an amount of abridging that would be necessary -- but my Algebra II teacher assigned us a 25 page essay about mathematics, and I learned more from that than any other assignment in all of my education, and more than some courses I've taken. Textbooks take that 25 page essay, and reduce it to 3 sentences. The best example of this is in history. The causes of the Fall of Rome get reduced to 2 paragraphs, the causes of World War I become half a page. In the words of my 8th Grade History Teacher, Ms. Arnold, "It's like being forced to summarize all the effects of 9/11 in one paragraph."
Honestly sometimes I think that the wars where just an excuse to extract money from the United States.
Most of that money didn't leave the United States, and I think the excuse was to extract black currency from the Middle East. So like ... if we did secure the Middle East, wouldn't we then get to sell all that oil and make money money money?
Big Oil has been on the side of America the entire time.
I wasn't talking about big oil, I was talking about the army of defense contractors that where making like $800,000 a month for one guy to do the job a Soldier could do.
I'm talking: Fraud, Waste and Abuse. I'm talking, Ole Donny Rumsfeld's Privatizing the war initiative.
No, people at their finest, regardless of the system in which they operate.
Fair enough, but the system in which it operates has the profit motive. Fraud and Abuse are key to the profit motive. I challenge you to find something more profitable. If capitalism was "profit motive, but with ethics" built keenly into its system, then okay. However, the ethics are supposed to arise out of the free market itself. Yet, once again, what is more profitable than fraud and abuse?
The DEA is the only federal agency that actually makes a profit (all the drug money they confiscate fills their coffers), and as the head of the movement, it isn't going anywhere.
The DEA is the only federal agency that actually makes a profit (all the drug money they confiscate fills their coffers), and as the head of the movement, it isn't going anywhere.
Source?
I seem to remember it as part of a talk given by government folks at my old work place. But now I'll do some research, because this is wikipedia.
According to the DEA, they seize $1 billion every year. According to this academic paper, "one significant impetus for this transformation has been the enactment of forfeiture laws which allow law enforcement agencies to keep the lion's share of the drug-related assets they seize." That paper is partly titled "Policing for Profit."
There is probably more, but I tire of this research. More conjecture!
Comments
Additionally, mandating that the Navy and the Air Force have to use the same strike planes and making a single committee to decide these things would save billions upon billions of dollars every time you upgrade. Remember all that bullshit about the Joint Strike Fighter? It's because the Navy and Air Force like to bicker like fucking children over 1 engine verus 2 engine planes just to spite one another, and it cost your government more money than most countries spend on defense period.
Also
Without the Navy Marines don't get to go anywhere. The Navy is an essential part of force projection.
Oh and Fuck these guys:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-july-14-2011/armadebtdon-2011---the-end-of-the-world-as-we-owe-it
When it first began, SS benefits that started being paid out at 65 might continue to be paid for ten years or so. Now, it can be paid put for 20 years or more.
BTW, this isn't even taking SSD and SSI into account.
Further, in general, people at age 65 in the thirties and forties were in much worse physical and mental shape than they are now. I see no reason not to raise SS retirement to 75 or even 80.
First of all, NCLB was a giant croc of shit to begin with, and was only meant as a scheme to de-fund public schools. It's terrible, makes no sense, isn't based in science, and allows the choking off of the arts, phys ed, music, theater and all other 'non-core' courses if testing isn't going well.
Second, if you let states run education as they see fit with no federal regulations, you get things like Texas and Florida, only all over. Hell, Florida would probably be reduced to no public schools at all because the old people there are greedy and hate children. Giving each state free reign over what they want taught is a terrible idea because you would then have a country divided on what was fact and what was not. You'd have entire states that would be teaching children creationism or teaching that correcting an error in a textbook is 'censorship'. Facts become meaningless.
Third, I would gladly pay more taxes if it went to education as well. The problem is that we have a huge portion of our economy tied up with "job creators" (read as 'rich people') who are enjoying tax cuts to the tune of billions a year for no other reason than existing. This puts greater pressure on the middle and lower classes to pay even more money, which NCLB conveniently strips away when test scores are not at their highest.
Ever seen the amount of research and reading that goes into writing a single scientific paper?
Textbooks are good collections of what we've learned until this point. The problem with textbooks is with publishers who release new editions without good reason and who charge absolutely exorbitant prices for them.
@Shadow: I don't even...
Textbooks take that 25 page essay, and reduce it to 3 sentences. The best example of this is in history. The causes of the Fall of Rome get reduced to 2 paragraphs, the causes of World War I become half a page. In the words of my 8th Grade History Teacher, Ms. Arnold, "It's like being forced to summarize all the effects of 9/11 in one paragraph."
Honestly sometimes I think that the wars where just an excuse to extract money from the United States.
Big Oil has been on the side of America the entire time.
I'm talking: Fraud, Waste and Abuse. I'm talking, Ole Donny Rumsfeld's Privatizing the war initiative.
According to the DEA, they seize $1 billion every year. According to this academic paper, "one significant impetus for this transformation has been the enactment of forfeiture laws which allow law enforcement agencies to keep the lion's share of the drug-related assets they seize." That paper is partly titled "Policing for Profit."
There is probably more, but I tire of this research. More conjecture!