Oreo Cookies...

[Hand Sword]

They are not any fun without the milk to go with them!

 

[Andrew Green]

They are not any fun without the milk to go with them!

unless you're lactose intolerant, then they are not any fun with milk

 

[Hand Sword]

unless you're lactose intolerant, then they are not any fun with milk

Good point! That wouldn't be a pleasant experince. Just have fun licking the cream filling then.

 

[Don Roley]

The 'Entitlement Programs' are not part of our Federal Income Tax.

Some are, some are not. And the fact that some are not part of the federal income tax and are in addition to the story should be a worrying point since they are in for all practical purposes impossible to reduce or eliminate and the numbers for the future are growing.

 

[michaeledward]

Some are, some are not. And the fact that some are not part of the federal income tax and are in addition to the story should be a worrying point since they are in for all practical purposes impossible to reduce or eliminate and the numbers for the future are growing.

In the future, can we expect that you will more clearly identify which 'entitlement programs' included in the federal budget you are railing against in a discussion about military spending v education?

While I certainly agree that there are 'entitlement programs' that are problems, I wonder how many of them could be solved by taking a couple of oreo cookies away from Donald (Oops we've seemed to lose that money in Iraq somehow) Rumsfeld?

 

[ginshun]

While I tend to agree that we put too much money into military stuff, don't we already spend more per capita on education than pretty much any other country in the world? Are our schools putting out the best students in the world? I pesonally think that the problems with the American education system are a lot more complicated than just "we don't spend enough money on education"

What the original animation says does make sense, but I tend to agree with Don in that just throwing money at things isn't going to solve the problems. Things are a lot more complicated than that.

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, things are more complicated than "just throwing money at things".

I'm wondering if you have any "things" you can throw at education to improve it that cost no money?

I'll wait.

 

[Kacey]

Yes, things are more complicated than "just throwing money at things".

I'm wondering if you have any "things" you can throw at education to improve it that cost no money?

I'll wait.

Yes. Good parenting. A society that values education (and before you say the US values education, look at what pro sports players get paid, in comparison to fields that require advanced education). A government that takes societal pressures into account when looking at differences in the educational level of students with varying socio-economic, cultural, and religious backgounds, as well as those with physical, mental (learning differences and cognitive delay), and/or emotional handicaps. A society that uniformly values education - many subsets of US society do not, or don't have the resources to put their kids' education first (as an example, one of my current students misses school at least once a week, to babysit her 3 year-old brother, so mom can work and they don't get evicted).

I'm sure others have other ideas to add.

 

[michaeledward]

Yes. Good parenting. A society that values education (and before you say the US values education, look at what pro sports players get paid, in comparison to fields that require advanced education). A government that takes societal pressures into account when looking at differences in the educational level of students with varying socio-economic, cultural, and religious backgounds, as well as those with physical, mental (learning differences and cognitive delay), and/or emotional handicaps. A society that uniformly values education - many subsets of US society do not, or don't have the resources to put their kids' education first (as an example, one of my current students misses school at least once a week, to babysit her 3 year-old brother, so mom can work and they don't get evicted)..

It seems to me that a mother that is working to ensure she and her family have a place to live is an example of "Good Parenting". In the situation you describe, that comes at the cost of a child missing school. Is there a 'no-cost' solution to this problem?

I don't see one.

 

[Kacey]

Sorry... I tried to edit this and ended up accidentally posting twice. Please ignore this post and read the second one.

 

[Kacey]

It seems to me that a mother that is working to ensure she and her family have a place to live is an example of "Good Parenting".

In the short term, perhaps. In the long term, this child (my student) is being set up for a life of reduced potential because of her mother's actions. This girl is now at a much-greater risk of school failure, and therefore of dropping out, than she would be if her mother took another option for childcare. If she drops out, she is then at a much greater risk of having a low-income job (like her mother) and falling into a poverty cycle that will be difficult, if not impossible, for her to get out of, especially if she does drop out and remains undereducated.

In the situation you describe, that comes at the cost of a child missing school. Is there a 'no-cost' solution to this problem?

I don't see one.

Actually, there is... but the mother won't use the daycare vouchers with which she has been provided (won't take 'charity' and doesn't trust the daycare that takes the vouchers)

Is there a 'no-cost' solution? Quite likely not, for this particular case. But as I said, much of the problem with education is societal, which is the point I was trying to make - until this country makes education a priority, on all levels (societal, cultural, economic, etc.) this problem will continue, and neither money nor legislation are likely to change it - something the government (which is fond of throwing money and laws at problems, instead of finding real solutions) does not seem to understand. Nor is education the only issue facing this problem.

 

[michaeledward]

So, those 'Day Care Vouchers' are no cost? Wow, I think back to all the checks I wrote for day care providers.

 

[Kacey]

So, those 'Day Care Vouchers' are no cost? Wow, I think back to all the checks I wrote for day care providers.

Only for low-income parents who are trying to re-enter the work force as a means of getting them off Welfare.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

How much of the federal dime winds up at your school? It seems to me that my local taxes are always going up to pay for schools. That escrow payment bothers me more than my W2's.

 

[michaeledward]

I thought the Federal contributions to Education amounted to about 7 percent of the education budget.

That leaves 93 percent coming from local property taxes.

So, very little of the money listed on your W-2 ends up at the local school. Which is where Ben Cohen started this thing. How much of that W-2 tax money goes toward buying unusuable weapons (like missle defense programs, and space based lasers).

And yes, our local property taxes will continue to escalate until we can get some control over health care costs. While the school budget tends to be the biggest chunk of local budgets, health care for municple employees is probably the fasted growing area of local budgets.

Oh, and, you can have your town bill your property taxes directly, you know. You don't have to have that escrow payment. (although, I'm not sure that will lessen the discomfort).

On a positive note, Yesterday, two of the local schools were awarded 'Best in the State' by the State of New Hampshire; The alternative Academy of Learning and Technology middle school, and Nashua High School North. My daughter spent three years at ALT and is now at NHSN. I knew they were great schools from my experience with them; it's nice to see the public recognition.

And just last week, our budget committee was (again) trying to take the funding away from ALT. Hopefully, this will put that fight off for another year.

 

[Don Roley]

" Don't pay any attention to the fact the United States spends 50% of all military funds on the planet. The man behind the curtian is not the Great and Powerful Oz".

Remember when I talked about things being too simple to merely deal with in regards to cookies? I don't know if your figures are accurate or not, but the underlying thinking goes straight to the problem.

Well, what about Darfur?

Remember that place? I was reminded of it reading an article about trouble at a refugee camp in Chad where the people were chanting praises of the US and begging for troops to be sent in to protect them.

The figures I have seen are from November, but the best estimates at that time seem to be over 700,000 people killed in the killing by the Janjaweed militias and rebels. Of course, that was a while ago and before the Sudanese government pressed the drive into Chad. The figures are probably much higher now.

So, should we help out, or not?

What does this has to do with military spending? Well, as I said, it is a bit complicated.

Up until now the lead has been the UN in dealing with this. Oh, and the US pays a lot more than any other Security Council member- more than the rest combined IIRC. Japan pays more than any other than the US. People who point to how much we pay in comparison to other countries never seem to mention that as well, even though military might and diplomatic activities seem to go together so much.

Oh, it would be nice if we could let the UN deal with things with only words. But China gets oil from Sudan and won't even let the UN call the deaths of 700,000 people genocide.

Even if the UN did act, who would they expect to send international troops? The African troops have turned out to be useless.

There is a saying that countries should speak softly and carry a big stick. Who has a big stick? Do you think the butchers in Khartoum will listen to folks that merely can tisk tisk at them? Japan spends a lot at the UN, but they would only get giggles if they tried to take the Sudanese to task. They don't fear things like international blockades thanks to their oil deals with China.

Yes we could nuke them. Many nations could nuke them. Nukes are relatively cheap compared to the carrier fleets, etc we have. But do you think that there is a chance that we would be so concerned with the deaths of innocents that we would kill every man, woman and child in their capital? Think about that.

Nukes are useful. If you have them you can tell other people not to invade you or fear their use. If you are scum like the rulers of North Korea you can use them to get what you want by the threat of their use. But if you want to help the children dying in the refugee camps, they are not much use.

There is different types of military power. There are military trainers, planting a carrier group off shore and using selected strikes and then there is putting an 18 year old with a rifle on the ground with all the support and supply that entails.

So, who can do that? France has led limited rescue missions in Africa. Britain sailed half way across the world to take back an island from Argentina. How many nations do you think can sit down at the table with the Sudanese government and have them know that they can put a wide variety of options on the table? That type of variety costs money- Carrier groups, overseas bases, pre- positioned supplies in Diego Garcia, etc.

Is all of the above needed to just protect ourselves? That is another debate that is swept aside in this animation. Should we care about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Africans or concentrate on just the US? Again, not dealt with. There are some folks that argue that the US can't solve every problem and the US president should work only for the interests of the country that elected him. That is a debate that is not dealt with here. But if we cut back enough so that we spend only enough to protect ourselves, then we take any chance of getting the guys in Khartoum to listen to us. Scum like that will not listen to pleas for humanity or calls to do the right thing. Some folks respect power and nothing else.

Some folks will tell you that, as sad as it is, we should keep our noses out of things like the Darfur mess and just try to work for America. They make some valid points. But do you think the ice cream guy thinks we should turn our back on the deaths of all those hundreds of thousands of children at risk? I can't seem to think so.

Oh, and that is just one aspect of this.

Here is just one more. I live in Japan where the Seventh Fleet is based, nominally to protect Japan.

But the presence of that military might has a far reaching effect on the entire region. Maybe that should be debated before we talk about cookies and cutting back on the budget enough to cause the ships, troops and supplies to be pulled back.

The presence of that fleet is a big power in itself. But it also makes pulling more power into the region quickly a possibility. If you play the game of go you may think of how having a few stones in an otherwise empty corner can be a huge advantage to later plays and the influence you have over that corner. You don't need to slap your stones next to the other guy's stones, just having them there goes a long way.

And having the seventh fleet and the marines in place kind of serves as a check on a lot of ambitions and troubles. If we pull back, some folks probably will move in. China still seeks to be the big player in Asia. They would not need to invade other countries. As I said, just sitting down to the table with other nations with the possibility that you could invade goes a long way in diplomacy. They may increase their spending- which would freak me out, or other nations like Japan might try to increase their spending to avoid being Finlandized- which would freak out a lot of nations in Asia.

But whoever moves in to fill the void left, things would change here in Asia. How it would turn out is up in the air. Should that not be debated a little more seriously than with animations about cookies?

So, should we help the children in Dafur? Do you think that the Sudanese government would take seriously anyone would could not deal with them militarily? That is the type of thing that should be discussed I think. And it is a far more wide reaching debate than simply talking about how much America spends in relation to others.

 

[Makalakumu]

Good post Don. Here are two observations.

1. It seems as if the US is spending a huge amount of money to protect alot of very well off people. Why can't they take that responsibility for themselves? For example, a rich country like Japan could invest more in its military to protect itself and secure the immediate region.

2. The US is currently building a military that can handle three regional conflicts at the same time. This is a much higher level then it was during the Cold War. What change in priorities could account for this? The threat posed by terrorism is not that dangerous.

While I agree that this animation has simplified the issue...perhaps this may be due to the fact that this issue really is simple. The US really would have enough to take care of its military responibilities and enough to take care of social problems if five cookies were reallocated.

 

[michaeledward]

Just a couple of thoughts ..

The entire budget for the United Nations is twenty billion dollars annually. That is not the budget for peace-keeping, but for everything they do. It works out to three dollars per person per planet. Or the entire budget is twenty cookies.

Member nation dues to the United Nations are Progressive. Those that have the ability to pay more, are expected to pay more. That the United States and Japan have the highest contribution requirements should seem obvious when one looks at the two most productive and wealthy economic states on the planet.

The United States seems, despite its wealth and productivity, always to be late in making its payments to the United Nations. By one chart, throughout 2005, the United States unpaid dues was the cause for 50% of the UN's member debt. So, while we have a larger responsibility, it seems we aren't quite making good on that responsibility.

I will also point out, that we seldom hear of United States citizens serving as members of United Nations Peacekeeping Forces. As I understand it, many of those Peacekeepers come from the very poor economies on the planet. What they can't contribute in cash, they make up for with personnel.

Why on earth does the United States still keep military stationed in Japan? Yes, it has far reaching consequences. As does the military stationed in (West Germany). Could it be to remind the local goverments that the United States expects them to be subservient, client states? Did you hear how our President addressed the new leader of Germany? "Angela", not "Chancellor", but "Angela" ... I don't think that's 'folksy'.

Okay, that's enough for now.

 

[FearlessFreep]

1. It seems as if the US is spending a huge amount of money to protect alot of very well off people. Why can't they take that responsibility for themselves?

Because, like it or not, we have vested interest in what's going on in a lot of places. It does impact and affact us what happens in other places, probably moreso than any other country right now. So if Japan or some other country doesn't step up and do what we think they should, we can't just not have it get done, we have to do it it ourselves.

The US is currently building a military that can handle three regional conflicts at the same time. This is a much higher level then it was during the Cold War. What change in priorities could account for this?

In the Cold War, the main threat was just the Soviet Union as a asingular target and most other 'threats' were just offshoots of that one threat, so we could focus on a potential conflict with the Soviet Union as the primary focus of our military needs. With the collapse of the Soviet Union as an immediate military threat, all those 'offshoots' have come into their own as legitimate independent threats. The world changes and nations change..the world was a different place 20 years ago then it is today...just as after World War II we had to go from actually fighting the Gramans to preparing to fight the Soviets, we had to go from preparing to fight the Soviets to preapring to fight...someone else.

 

[PatMunk]

How much of the federal dime winds up at your school? It seems to me that my local taxes are always going up to pay for schools. That escrow payment bothers me more than my W2's.

If the government would apply the school tax as a school tax and not tack it onto the property tax everyone could pay less and they get more.

Around here probably 60 to 75 percent of the students live in apartments and their parents don't pay anything towards school taxes. Everyone should help pay for the schools not just those who own property.