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

[BuckSparkles]

Republicans don't have a problem with higher education. We have a problem with people being forced into paying for and taking nonsensical courses that have no bearing whatsoever on a degree program. If you think that is a good thing, then maybe you need some real life education.

Also, you should check your facts before you comment. I will concede that there are plenty of stupid Republicans. However, you made a comment about education, yet 22% of the Democratic Party are recipients of food stamps, while only 10% of Republicans are recipients of food stamps... unless of course you don't trust the PEW Research Center. What's especially funny is that no matter how you slice that entire research, Democrats seem to be the dumber party. Strange how facts come back to bite you in the ass. Maybe Democrats should stop spending so much time and money at Universities studying underwater basket weaving with Bambi!

I am so behind on the times. I thought transgender muslim feminist dance theory was the hottest major.

[Fugus]

I completely agree. However, removing funds from the military is going to hurt the men and women that are fighting for our safety and rescuing us, not the bureaucrats that your complaint is about.

I'll never forget at my first unit where September came and they came around and told everyone that we need to come up with a list of shit we wanted because we had to get a bunch of PR's put in by October 1st or we would lose money for next year. The worst is that it wasn't even shit we needed, it was basically toys we could play with. This shouldn't be happening, but it does. Like I said already, though... if you take money away from the military, you won't be hurting the assholes at the top who grant the funds, we would be hurting the people at the bottom that are fighting the bureaucrats wars.

Oh, I agree that we shouldn't just cut funding out of the blue. I would not give them any more funding though as that just makes the issue worse.

I would create a group who's job it was to go into the military and evaluate and fixes these issues and reduce the costs and make it more efficient and then go from there but also do everything I could to avoid any regulatory capture to prevent them from going too easy on them.

I would force them to look into the 25 billion they are caught wasting not even included in what you mentioned and have them fix that, I would have them look into each unit and evaluate their expenses and force them to be more efficient.

These are things that need to be done but the military has already shown they are unwilling or incapable to do themselves.

That extra 80 billion could be better spent on the public college or healthcare plan of Sanders, or going to Veteran Affairs which is actually underfunded and also needs a shakeup as well for mistreating of veterans (also personal experience) or just send it to help restore the 2.4 trillion stolen from Social Security to help it fund till after the boomers are gone to fix that problem entirely.

But to give 80 billion to them now is just pissing into the wind at best while ignoring actual problems.

[Azadina]

I am so behind on the times. I thought transgender muslim feminist dance theory was the hottest major.

Feel free to provide sources for your claims.

[Tennis]

You know there are ways to get free college, serving your country in the military is one... besides, if you were all in for free college why dont you run for President and make it happen?

Bernie was running so why would I need to run?

[petej0]

I think this is an interesting topic to discuss and it really requires a multi-level approach. It's really not as simple as Good vs Bad. I'm actually on my phone right now so I can't discuss it very well, unfortunately (especially when we start breaking posts up responding line by line). I'm going to throw up a few points and resign until I can get back to a computer.

Kennedy was also a president who also had a public opinion vs a private opinion. That's entirely normal in politics. That's actually why I support Kamala Harris: we need someone who doesn't negotiate until campaigning is over. Otherwise I would support Amy Klobuchar but she's just not able to get your vote. She would have zero chance of getting millennials to.. talk about her.. on imgur.. or whatever you people do on social media like you did with Obama and Bernie.

You're still viewing politics as an on/off switch. Like she doesn't care about education because she didn't go full Bernie, before Bernie, before *everyone*, on education *while running for president*. How many people refused to vote for Bernie because he wasn't electable? There's actually governing and then there's the psychology of politics. You're taking Hillary's politics and then judging her governance, which is a fallacy in my opinion.

The silver bullet is anti-trust law. I call it a silver bullet because it really is priority number one and has far reaching consequences for change in this country on every level of politics. People should be worshipping Hillary for this. But it died with the rest of her genius.

Look at the thread on the German general election. The final page. That's what political discourse looks like. In America we're stuck with this.. trying to convince people that Republicans are certifiably insane and that Democrats are nowhere near their equal. Fuck, I would love to live in Germany's political landscape. Such an amazing country. The Louis Vuitton of industry but somehow over 80% of their country votes for socialists. And guess what: their Chancellor is the European Hillary Clinton! Because Germans don't play politics. Just good governing. Just good knowledge. Like Hillary.

It's not cute to play the "man our government is so corrupt and everyone sucks" card. It's ignorant and childish. My task to you is to wipe your slate clean and actually give every politician a fair shake. Listen to their interviews and speeches. Don't worry about how many likes you'll get calling Hillary a crook: actually judge her policy. And if you don't have the fortitude to follow politics enough to grow that level of knowledge then figure out how to humble your politic. Because "progressives" bitching about Democrats is perhaps the most frustrating demographic to talk politics with.

Anyways I appreciate the dialogue.

Let me state where I am coming from. I am 40 year old black man who identifies as independent/libertarian. I dont think that puts me in the millennial basket, lol. Anyways, I am very open and do listen to various speeches interviews etc... I like many Republicans and Democrats, I actually think Cory Booker is a good candidate. I know about Harris and do think she is ok. I dont know about Klobuchar, she is new to me.

Hillary doesnt seem to be genuine to me, sorry. What really ticked me off with her is he cavelier attitude with the Server thing. When asked if she wiped the server she responded with "What, like with a cloth?" There are times to joke I dont think that was that time. The contempt that she showed, it just didnt sit well with me.

Yes, this was a good discussion, refreshing to not be called names and talked down to.

[BuckSparkles]

Feel free to provide sources for your claims.

So you are saying all those fish-faced rainbow haired fat feminists don't major in stupid things then complain about the mythical wage gap or the patriarchy?

[Azadina]

So you are saying all those fish-faced rainbow haired fat feminists don't major in stupid things then complain about the mythical wage gap or the patriarchy?

This seems to be what I was saying:

Feel free to provide sources for your claims.

[joeymagz]

Oh, I agree that we shouldn't just cut funding out of the blue. I would not give them any more funding though as that just makes the issue worse.

I would create a group who's job it was to go into the military and evaluate and fixes these issues and reduce the costs and make it more efficient and then go from there but also do everything I could to avoid any regulatory capture to prevent them from going too easy on them.

I would force them to look into the 25 billion they are caught wasting not even included in what you mentioned and have them fix that, I would have them look into each unit and evaluate their expenses and force them to be more efficient.

These are things that need to be done but the military has already shown they are unwilling or incapable to do themselves.

That extra 80 billion could be better spent on the public college or healthcare plan of Sanders, or going to Veteran Affairs which is actually underfunded and also needs a shakeup as well for mistreating of veterans (also personal experience) or just send it to help restore the 2.4 trillion stolen from Social Security to help it fund till after the boomers are gone to fix that problem entirely.

But to give 80 billion to them now is just pissing into the wind at best while ignoring actual problems.

What's really sad is that there are already House Budget Committees that are supposed to investigate this shit. They aren't doing their damn jobs and that's a massive issue! They aren't doing their jobs, yet the American tax payers are still paying them. The only way I see this getting better is if term limits are imposed on Congress. Maybe then they would actually stop fighting and find ways to work this shit out properly to give the American people solutions to our problems. You know, the job we elected them to do.

You definitely bring up a lot of good points, though.

[Fugus]

What's really sad is that there are already House Budget Committees that are supposed to investigate this shit. They aren't doing their damn jobs and that's a massive issue! They aren't doing their jobs, yet the American tax payers are still paying them. The only way I see this getting better is if term limits are imposed on Congress. Maybe then they would actually stop fighting and find ways to work this shit out properly to give the American people solutions to our problems. You know, the job we elected them to do.

You definitely bring up a lot of good points, though.

Yeah, sad.

But term limits wouldn't fix the issue. All it would do is get people in knowing they are on the clock and had to sell out to donors to even get there and would be even more willing to sell out in the future because they aren't looking to stay in, especially on that last term.

To fix it, you have to get money out of politics entirely to get people more interested in doing their jobs then having to worry about selling out to stay in or selling out just to make more money. Or have a cushy consulting or lobbyist job on their way out.

And would also have to remove government contracts from these companies and force the military to make it themselves. Would both cut down on the costs of it and remove the lobbyist from the equation trying to get the military to purchase more from them. We actually have the military required to buy stuff even they say they don't need.

Also, with how this contractors are in virtually every state it has the congressmen pushing for them to increase spending to the contractors in their state to help them locally which helps to give them even more money.

But so long as the congressmen still require money to get elected, stay elected and get paid much more than their paycheck is, they will continue to sell out. And so long as their are contractors in their state, they will continue to push for more stuff from those companies to direct military spending to their state.

[BuckSparkles]

This seems to be what I was saying:

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]

[Tennis]

Oh please the reason Canada spends so little on defense is because its big brother below them will protect them.

Who is going to attack Canada? Greenland?

Canada is fine.

[Kellhound]

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.

I think it is not enough money for the military, it needs too much equipment repaired or replaced. Besides, education spending is a state and local issue, not a federal issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Who is going to attack Canada? Greenland?

Canada is fine.

Well besides the obvious reasoning that no one would want to take over most of Canada, the Canadian military has actually become concerned about its general inability to defend its Arctic regions properly in light of the receding ice.


A better question would be to ask why college is so expensive in some cases, like why the University of Oregon, despite being in a lower cost of living area than Portland State, charges $3000 more per year for the same education. And Portland State is $3k more per year than Portland CC.

[Seranthor]

Bernie was running so why would I need to run?

Cause the next time around will be 2020... Make it happen.

[Skroe]

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.

The military is underfunded, to the order of $150 billion.

[Tennis]

The military is underfunded, to the order of $150 billion.

No it's not. We need to downsize the military.

[Seranthor]

No it's not. We need to downsize the military.

I'll go with Skroe on this, compared to him you know nothing.

[Skroe]

No it's not. We need to downsize the military.

It is. The armed forces are too small and their equipment and facilities are aging. The 1970s/1980s/1990s stuff is all being phased out between 2020 and 2035. And more to the point, for what the US population ASKS of its armed forces, we under resource it. We spend $608 billion on an enormous set of requirements that requires $750 billion a year. What we pay should be the uncontroversial part. When the military says we need X to do what we ask, we have a responsibility to delivery 100 of X, or we should not ask them of it.

To put it another way, the policy debate is the relevant debate. That's a legitimate discussion. There should be no question that we should pay for the policies we set forth for them to carry out in full. Not doing so is nothing but bad governance.

Also what's this "we" stuff. You're Canadian. And don't even start with this "sales tax" shit you goddamn poseur. My federal income tax bill last year was around $20,000. Did you spend more than $500 on State sales tax while visiting? Sales tax that doesn't go to the armed forces? Oh yeah that's right. We have no Federal sales tax (we should, and cut income tax).

And this taxpayer says, more guns, less butter. Because we ask our military to do a lot more than we resource them for. So we either ask less or we pay in full. No more "have our cake and eat it too" crap. That's irresponsible.

Remember: US troops have done 3 or 4 tours in Afghanistan, 9 to 12 months long, before they're 30 years old, because the United States nickle and dimed the war effort (believe it or not). Instead, it needed a force of 700,000 Active Duty Army, to send people over there for 6 months tours. Once or twice tops. That this situation happened is the wrongness of your position and the rightness of mine. US civilians could have not asked the Army to do that mission. But since it did, the fact that we did it the way we did just screwed a lot of people who didn't need to be, if we actually resourced what we asked in full.

You want to have a money talk? That's stupid, pointless and again, irresponsible. Policy comes first. Money just enables the execution of the policy.

[Tennis]

I'll go with Skroe on this, compared to him you know nothing.

Proof? I disagree with you.

[Garnier Fructis]

Proof? I disagree with you.

You can demonstrate that you know a lot by giving a detailed rebuttal of the post right above yours.

[Seranthor]

Proof? I disagree with you.

the proof you seek is your rank inability to demonstrate even a passing knowledge of the military's mission, how its accomplished, its cost in manpower, equipment and time.