The Senate’s Military Spending Increase Alone Is Enough to Make Public College Free

[Danner]

Links wikipedia as his facts haha, come off it bro, in america there is no law to pay tax, we get to keep more of our money, the uk is irrelevant on world stage, our technology controls your military and your PM is piissed after finding out, your basically americas sheep.

Would you mind reiterating this without the wild and incorrect assumptions, attacks and ridicule? I am sure you have a point in there somewhere, but I am not able to find it.

I linked my source to Skroe because my impression of him is that he is the kind of person who doesn't make this kind of reply. He either tells why my data is wrong, or explains why my interpretation of it is wrong. Either way I get a new perspective on things. That is why he is worth listening to, despite the fact that I usually find myself on the very opposite end of the political table.

[Mormolyce]

If that is all it takes to make college tuition free how come no other President has proposed such a thing?

Or with $80 billion a year, you could make public colleges and universities in the U.S. tuition-free. In fact, Sanders’s proposal was only estimated to cost the federal government $47 billion per year.

I guess because you didn't vote Bernie. Kek.

[Themius]

The problem is that the military budget is huge however the military is also underfunded. We require more from the military than they’re budgeted for.

[Toppy]

If you take the money away from the military who will defend the defenseless Canadians, their government wont do it.

It's pretty tragic actually that the Canadian government hates their citizens so badly that they'd outsource their national defense to a country run by a talking cheeto.

Canada has no enemies.

[Blade Wolf]

The problem is that the military budget is huge however the military is also underfunded. We require more from the military than they’re budgeted for.

And where will that money come from? Will you pull more money from other programs?

[Grapemask]

Sports activities generates far more guaranteed revenue for the school than the college alumni patronage system it supplanted ever did. Which makes the infrastructure investment in college sports well worth the money. Likewise, grant money produces (or is at least capable of producing) usable research. Teaching does none of those things and the only reason it's done is because kids might go onto post-grad and doctoral work if they're taught stuff in undergrad.

In a roundabout way, intentionally or not, you describe the growing flaw in US college education systems. The assumed contract with the taxpayer is that they are paying for education, but under their noses, colleges have transformed into businesses - with a model primarily focused on research output and, of course, sports - rather than education.

Even as you admit, the only interest in teaching is that it may produce more researchers, and this is certainly accurate for how it plays out in the USG; professors are hired to conduct research, told they must bring in a minimum of X dollars in research opportunities per Y amount of time, and then told they must also teach a certain amount of classes as a condition for being able to conduct that research. The education side of public universities that taxpayers assume is the recipient of their tax dollars, then, has warped into something so poor that students at even the top USG public colleges are told during orientation, "you're going to do most of your learning on your own from your textbook and Youtube, because your professor is here to research, not to teach." And it all stems from the growing acceptance of what we've morphed our universities into.

Then, schools being businesses means that, like businesses, they become monetary black holes for "let's see what we can throw money at in order to make more money!" I have an infinite number of examples that I hold onto for laughs: this last year, UGA spent several million dollars to landscape a prominent lawn with new grass, some trees, the works. Looked really nice... until near the end of that same semester, when everything they planted died because it turns out you can't just shove stuff into the ground all willy-nilly.

[Seranthor]

Canada has no enemies.

As a member of NATO it agreed in 2014 to spend at least 2% of GDP for defense... it spends 1.02%... leaving it tied for 20th out of 28 nations, only 5 nations spend less. Thats called not living up to its international agreements. So one could say its one of the leaders in not living up to its NATO Obligations.

[Themius]

And where will that money come from? Will you pull more money from other programs?

I think we need to scale back to at least the budget. Like say we are budgeted for 700bn which is enormous yet Ye government demands the military functions as if they have 860bn. That’s the problem.

[Fugus]

I think we need to scale back to at least the budget. Like say we are budgeted for 700bn which is enormous yet Ye government demands the military functions as if they have 860bn. That’s the problem.

I personally think their problem isn't funding, it is money management.

They just were caught trying to buy a report trying to show how the pentagon wasted 25 billion per year. That is 25 billion that could go to other things.

The military over spends on its storage from a report I have looked into a while back where, while it is more expensive in the long run to store something, it is more expensive in the short run to dispose of stuff. So many officers will put stuff back up for storage that is beyond its use date, defective or just broken to keep their budget reports for that short term looking good for them personally.

The military also has a huge issue with waste. They have reports of it around and I have seen it first hand where the soldiers make it a point to use everything they are given whether they need it or not to justify their funding. Watched them go to the range and cut up firing off over a thousand rounds of Ammunition because they wanted to make sure it was all used to justify their funding for them afraid that if they are more efficient with them, they will get less next year on funding. I watched them use their vehicles and drive like they are trying to break them to take them to get fixed because it isn't coming out of their money and it helps them to justify their spending for next years budget.

Then you have issues with the contractors extracting money from them and using lobbyist to get more and then politicians trying to force them to buy from contractors in their states to get military money for their state. Much of the contractors should be removed and the military put in charge of making their own gear more. Having soldiers running those factories would be much more efficient use of the money and remove the lobbyists and the politicians trying to direct money to them as much.

We budgeted 700 billion, but how much of that 700 bill is just being pissed away from waste? I am guessing at least 80 billion every year.

[Blade Wolf]

I think we need to scale back to at least the budget. Like say we are budgeted for 700bn which is enormous yet Ye government demands the military functions as if they have 860bn. That’s the problem.

True but the military spending is something both the democrats and republicans unanimously agree on sadly.

[Antiganon]

There is a very easy solution to this issue: raise taxes.

Let's use a hypothetical example.

The military is tasked with guarding 100 transports worldwide. They would prefer to use "man-to-man" defense, with a guard unit assigned to each transport, as that does the best job of ensuring safety of the transports. The cost of each guard unit is 1 billion dollars. Congress has approved funding of 80 billion dollars, enough funding for 80 guard units.

Those 80 guard units now need to work in a "zone defense" pattern, with specific high-value transports getting their own units. Those 80 units are not able to as efficiently complete their duties, due to all the personnel being asked to work more hours, and all the equipment seeing more use. This means that new recruits need to be trained and deployed faster (as well as earning overtime), and equipment breaks down and needs to be replaced faster. New recruits is not a huge issue, there are always people looking to join up. New equipment, however, is expensive, and takes time to produce. This results in the same debate over funding next year, and the year after that, until the end of time.

We should either pay for 80 guard units, and ask them to guard 80 transports, or pay for 100 guard units, and ask them to guard 100 transports. We can worry about what to do with whatever money is left over afterwards, as well as where to get it from.

It's very simple.

What do you want to do?
How much does it cost?
How much can you spend?
What are you willing to compromise?

If your answers are "defend the entire world", "a metric fuckton", "not a metric fuckton, that's for damn sure", and "nothing, just do the job with less", you are going to have a bad time.

Design a reasonable defense strategy. Design a reasonable foreign policy with appropriate funding and support for diplomacy, not just military. Design a domestic policy where you cover the needs of the citizenry (including things like medicare/medicaid for all, public education through college, financial assistance for those in need, etc). Levy taxes according to what the stuff you want actually costs.

Not difficult. People just need to actually be willing to pay taxes.

[Nadiru]

In a roundabout way, intentionally or not, you describe the growing flaw in US college education systems. The assumed contract with the taxpayer is that they are paying for education, but under their noses, colleges have transformed into businesses - with a model primarily focused on research output and, of course, sports - rather than education.

Even as you admit, the only interest in teaching is that it may produce more researchers, and this is certainly accurate for how it plays out in the USG; professors are hired to conduct research, told they must bring in a minimum of X dollars in research opportunities per Y amount of time, and then told they must also teach a certain amount of classes as a condition for being able to conduct that research. The education side of public universities that taxpayers assume is the recipient of their tax dollars, then, has warped into something so poor that students at even the top USG public colleges are told during orientation, "you're going to do most of your learning on your own from your textbook and Youtube, because your professor is here to research, not to teach." And it all stems from the growing acceptance of what we've morphed our universities into.

Then, schools being businesses means that, like businesses, they become monetary black holes for "let's see what we can throw money at in order to make more money!" I have an infinite number of examples that I hold onto for laughs: this last year, UGA spent several million dollars to landscape a prominent lawn with new grass, some trees, the works. Looked really nice... until near the end of that same semester, when everything they planted died because it turns out you can't just shove stuff into the ground all willy-nilly.

The patronage system only works under specific contexts: high value per degree plus high levels of relationship and trust between student and faculty, which naturally segways into a high barrier of entry because you simply can't teach 200 students per class and maintain those variables. With the patronage system fundamentally broken in the US, can you give me an alternative to the College-as-Business model which presently dominates? Because I agree that it sucks, but the alternative is making 40-50 million people not go to college, which is a cost that Americans aren't willing to bear, even if the degrees don't get you what they once did.

"The state should pay for it" is an equally flawed position to take, because it opens up avenues for abuse along partisan lines, even assuming you could get the money for it.

[Kiri]

The patronage system only works under specific contexts: high value per degree plus high levels of relationship and trust between student and faculty, which naturally segways into a high barrier of entry because you simply can't teach 200 students per class and maintain those variables. With the patronage system fundamentally broken in the US, can you give me an alternative to the College-as-Business model which presently dominates? Because I agree that it sucks, but the alternative is making 40-50 million people not go to college, which is a cost that Americans aren't willing to bear, even if the degrees don't get you what they once did.

"The state should pay for it" is an equally flawed position to take, because it opens up avenues for abuse along partisan lines, even assuming you could get the money for it.

I think the problem with the state being in charge is less intrinsic to that notion, but more a result of having partisan lines willing to abuse it. I am from a country with 'free college' and it works out rather well. Having been to universities both following my native and the American system, I found that the my own is much stricter. Heck, all the A+ I got at the foreign uni did not translate into the best grade at home due to the differences in standard.
Which bogs down my GPA and will make me look worse than someone who graduated with the very same grades at the foreign uni in comparison.-.-

[A dot Ham]

Google how many women identify as feminists. Take the safe road and assume they all majored in a worthless degree, thus why now they spend all their time working fast food and complaining about the "wage gap."

[Infracted]

Actually this isn't where the wage gap exists at all. This is why I don't understand why so many people buy into this bullshit.

The wage gap DOES exist... it does really. But not anywhere the majority of people see it. The wage gap exists in the top 1% of earners in America

So why the fuck does anyone care? We're talking about upper management, CEOs and such.

Look to your left, and to your right do honestly think he makes more than you do? Probably not, he probably makes just as much if not less and YOU FUCKING KNOW IT...

How about her? Do you feel bad that she makes less than you do? NO! Because she doesn't... she got that job because she has tits. Now she happens to a damn good job now. But your friend (a male) interviewed for that job and you know his resume looked better why? Because you've seen it... and your boss said so. But diversity...

My point is, if you could ACTUALLY prove the wage gap, there would be a TON of lawsuits surround discrimination.

Why do we then believe something, that we don't actually experience?

[Deleted]

So Trump can now unban trans from military, when that "terrible cost" is no longer an issue, with 80 billion extra added to yearly budget. Or was the cost not the reason afterall?

Why? That's a waste of valuable resources. People can pay for their own sex changes outside of the military where they will not fuck with readiness

- - - Updated - - -

You all want so much more without ever thinking about why we have so much now. Funding the military is what keeps the world the way it is. If the world order that we made changes we lose. When we give up our mantle of defense China and Russia change the game, which will have massive effects on our economy. A huge defense budget is necessary to keep these adversaries at bay.

[Antiganon]

Why? That's a waste of valuable resources. People can pay for their own sex changes outside of the military where they will not fuck with readiness

- - - Updated - - -

You all want so much more without ever thinking about why we have so much now. Funding the military is what keeps the world the way it is. If the world order that we made changes we lose. When we give up our mantle of defense China and Russia change the game, which will have massive effects on our economy. A huge defense budget is necessary to keep these adversaries at bay.

We don't properly fund the military now...

Government: Okay military, go be the world police. We need to project US power everywhere. Democracy! Freedom!

Military: Okay cool. We need 300 ships to do that. Also maybe some planes that weren't made in the 80s would be nice.

Government: Here's funding for 180 ships. Make it work.

[Fugus]

We don't properly fund the military now...

Government: Okay military, go be the world police. We need to project US power everywhere. Democracy! Freedom!

Military: Okay cool. We need 300 ships to do that. Also maybe some planes that weren't made in the 80s would be nice.

Government: Here's funding for 180 ships. Make it work.

They don't have a funding problem from what I have seen and personally experienced. They have a money management problem where they intentionally blow it to justify their money and ask for more. Seen it personally at the ground level where they intentionally try to use everything they are given no matter how much they actually need and can blow thousands in a day just from a small group while driving their vehicles hard trying to break them.

Then at the upper levels the pentagon was caught trying to bury a report showing how they waste 25 billion every year already.

Then comes the private contractors mooching off them for money wasting billions more when the military could it them much more efficiently if they just dumped the contractors and starting making their own.

[Fenixhart]

What's the point in buying more Carriers and Aircrafts and weapons when people die from easily fixed things like lack of healthcare.

There's wasteful spending then there's the American Defense Budget.

[Deleted]

We don't properly fund the military now...

Government: Okay military, go be the world police. We need to project US power everywhere. Democracy! Freedom!

Military: Okay cool. We need 300 ships to do that. Also maybe some planes that weren't made in the 80s would be nice.

Government: Here's funding for 180 ships. Make it work.

Completely agree, I experience it everyday.

[Tijuana]

Shocking.
You really wonder about democracy these days.

How do you feel about this? I think we should spend more on education not the military.

We would be better served by booting half the morons that shouldn't be there, seeking degrees in nonsense, and spending the money on upgrades to the military.