New Paul Ryan Budget

[UpaLoompa]

You asked if anyone really believed that 50 billion in defense spending could be more impactful than 50 billion in education spending. I think it is a reasonable opinion to believe it is. Education spending is peaking while test scores are much lower than when fewer dollars were spent on it.

Defense is always a judgment call. If we knew there would be no wars in the next century, having an army bigger than Swedens would be a waste of money. Defense is like insurance- its hard to measure how valuable it really is.

Defense constitutes 650 billion, more than half of our discretionary spending. Total military spending (DHS, VA, DOD) is 822 billion. Remaining discretionary spending is around 615b.
Education has a budget less than 50b. Most of the non-defense executive departments have budgets less than 50b.
Labeling defense spending sacrosanct while shrieking about spending is beyond moronic. Pretending like 50 billion can't have a bigger effect in other areas of spending is ignoring the numbers.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You asked if anyone really believed that 50 billion in defense spending could be more impactful than 50 billion in education spending. I think it is a reasonable opinion to believe it is. Education spending is peaking while test scores are much lower than when fewer dollars were spent on it.

I asked about educational aid, which may have been a little unclear. That was a reference to Ryan's Pell Grant cuts, which were one of the things that jumped out at me as being indefensible. The GOP should just openly come out in favor of going to an aristocracy.

Defense is always a judgment call. If we knew there would be no wars in the next century, having an army bigger than Swedens would be a waste of money. Defense is like insurance- its hard to measure how valuable it really is.

That's great, but we spend so much more than everyone else and have so much better "defense" that I can't see how additional spending or small cuts would make much of a difference. It's like Clayton Kershaw against the Midland Rockhounds.

 

[Denter]

Defense constitutes 650 billion, more than half of our discretionary spending. Total military spending (DHS, VA, DOD) is 822 billion. Remaining discretionary spending is around 615b.
Education has a budget less than 50b. Most of the non-defense executive departments have budgets less than 50b.
Labeling defense spending sacrosanct while shrieking about spending is beyond moronic. Pretending like 50 billion can't have a bigger effect in other areas of spending is ignoring the numbers.

That is the federal education budget. The states spend much, much more on education, as they should. My state, Texas, spends about 20 billion per year on education, and we spend very little per pupil compared to other states in the Union. I would estimate that all of the states put together spend at least 300 billion on education, plus the 50 or so that the fed spends.

On the other hand, defense is pretty much solely a federal perogative, so states will spend very little on that.

So cutting 50 billion from 650 billion is like a 7 or 8 percent cut, right?

Adding 50 billion to an education budget of 350 is like a 15 or so percent increase?

Is there any evidence that a 15% increase in education spending improves the quality of education in this country?

 

[Denter]

That's great, but we spend so much more than everyone else and have so much better "defense" that I can't see how additional spending or small cuts would make much of a difference. It's like Clayton Kershaw against the Midland Rockhounds.

That's way over my head.

 

[UpaLoompa]

That is the federal education budget. The states spend much, much more on education, as they should. My state, Texas, spends about 20 billion per year on education, and we spend very little per pupil compared to other states in the Union. I would estimate that all of the states put together spend at least 300 billion on education, plus the 50 or so that the fed spends.

On the other hand, defense is pretty much solely a federal perogative, so states will spend very little on that.

So cutting 50 billion from 650 billion is like a 7 or 8 percent cut, right?

Adding 50 billion to an education budget of 350 is like a 15 or so percent increase?

Is there any evidence that a 15% increase in education spending improves the quality of education in this country?

The point, which you are oddly actively avoiding, is that when talking about the federal budget, defense has to be talked about. Defense is also the area of discretionary spending where there is the most play.

 

[UpaLoompa]

That's way over my head.

I had to google that one. I forgot JVS is a baseball fan.

 

[Uchi Mata]

That is the federal education budget. The states spend much, much more on education, as they should. My state, Texas, spends about 20 billion per year on education, and we spend very little per pupil compared to other states in the Union. I would estimate that all of the states put together spend at least 300 billion on education, plus the 50 or so that the fed spends.

On the other hand, defense is pretty much solely a federal perogative, so states will spend very little on that.

So cutting 50 billion from 650 billion is like a 7 or 8 percent cut, right?

Adding 50 billion to an education budget of 350 is like a 15 or so percent increase?

Is there any evidence that a 15% increase in education spending improves the quality of education in this country?

We'd probably have to try it first to get evidence. There's reason to believe it would be beneficial, since actions that we have empirical reason to believe would help education broadly speaking like year round school (poor kids do most of their falling behind wealthier kids during summer breaks) and extended school days cost money. You could also throw that money at universal pre-K, which based upon research in other 1st world countries that provide it (France being the big one) is very helpful for raising educational attainment across the board and would have the added benefit of greatly decreasing the financial burden on families with two working parents.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's way over my head.

Best pitcher in the world against a AA team I thought you might be familiar with (Texas town both president Bushes lived in for a time).

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Why haven't they developed the appropriate class-conciousness? :icon_conf

Fucking retarded, brainwashed, child-like mentality, believe in fairy-tales.

Take your pick.

 

[Madmick]

He wants us to give Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae back to the same assholes who ran up a debt with egregiously irresponsibly lending policies (a debt that the American people paid down, effectively)? So explain to me how this works. Those rich assholes take unsustainable risks, live the fat life off those risks when they go well, or live it anyway and outright hide the red for as long as they can while the ship goes down, then the American taxpayer swoops in, dumps his already skinny wallet to make sure the whole system doesn't flush down the toilet, and after all that...he wants us to give this gangraped piggy bank back to those same suits?

LOL, fuck off, Ryan.

 

[GhostZ06]

Paul Ryan is an annoying son of bitch who comes up with some of the worst "budget" plans ive ever fucking seen. Someone needs to throw a pile of horse shit in his face

 

[Denter]

The point, which you are oddly actively avoiding, is that when talking about the federal budget, defense has to be talked about. Defense is also the area of discretionary spending where there is the most play.

True. It should be in play, but Jack seems to think that cutting defense has fewer consequences than other programs. My point is that the utility of defense is subjective and only really knowable in hindsight.

 

[Denter]

I had to google that one. I forgot JVS is a baseball fan.

I had no idea.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Paul Ryan is an annoying son of bitch who comes up with some of the worst "budget" plans ive ever fucking seen. Someone needs to throw a pile of horse shit in his face

LOL. Harsh but fair:

 

[drowningidiot]

It's really fitting that a sociopathic trustfund baby like Paul Ryan is the intellectual face of the GOP. That budget is absolute shit.

 

[Strychnine]

this isn't a starting point in any way, it's just a train wreck to constrict an already constricted economy.

Paul Ryan is a joke. Who in the BLUE FUDGE lifts making a face like that?!?! :icon_lol:

 

[kpt018]

Paul Ryan is a joke. Who in the BLUE FUDGE lifts making a face like that?!?! :icon_lol:

That photo is representative of his thinking (like a college student), lol.

40lbs isn't that impressive either.

 

[Bay Area]

He doesn't have any lips

 

[UpaLoompa]

Well, in his defense, once you're in your late 30's and beyond you'll always look awkward in a gym.
This is something that, at 37, I'm coming to terms with.

 

[MeatheadMike]

True. It should be in play, but Jack seems to think that cutting defense has fewer consequences than other programs. My point is that the utility of defense is subjective and only really knowable in hindsight.

I think dollar for dollar, there actually are fewer consequences to cutting military spending than any other program due to having exponentially more dollars to cut than anything else.

To put in perspective, Paul Ryan's budget proposal of cutting medicare and welfare would only save $5 billion over 10 years and would have large impacts on many people's lives. But just eliminating the A-10 Thunderbolt II program (a program which the DoD itself proposed to eliminate) would save $3.5 billion in 5 years. That's over half the money in half the time while having no impact on peoples lives, and a minimal impact on the military's overall airpower.