Well sure. I know its like the least popular opinion on the planet, but we are planned to spent 65 billion on DoD R&D alone in 2015 (according to the president's planned proposal from last year). We could cut...I dunno, 3 billion from that maybe? It won't solve anything magically but it'll help.
We could get a lot done if we just reallocated like 2-3% of the defense budget each year. It's the largest discretionary outlay by far I think.
It would never happen.
The first thing the DOD would cut would be VA and personnel funding.
Well sure. I know its like the least popular opinion on the planet, but we are planned to spent 65 billion on DoD R&D alone in 2015 (according to the president's planned proposal from last year). We could cut...I dunno, 3 billion from that maybe? It won't solve anything magically but it'll help.
Honestly, education is defense spending, and we should both push for it as its own merit, but on those merits as well. Better education means a better economy, which allows for more defense spending at the same budgetary % rate, and more educated troops are better. This even filters down to grunts, as basic military tasks are not all that unsophisticated (which is why so many militaries are shit), doubly so when we start using computers for stuff. We've also made some attempts to push intelligence capabilities all the way down to basic infantry as well. And it definitely extends to elite positions like cyberwarfare, special operations, etc.
I'd argue that a bunch of what is traditionally "hippy bullshit" is also a smart part of hawkishness. Quality medical care and living a fit, active lifestyle with a good diet increases the amount of people who are physically eligible for service. Energy sustainability contributes to defense in numerous ways from logistics to supply chains to geopolitics. Ditto for the environment, as again, it ties in both with medical readiness, national wealth, global stability, etc. Social harmony and a diverse multicultural society gives free access to high value skills (native level language proficiency), as well as improving unit cohesion and reducing UCMJ violations. Having separate units based on racial or religious divides is absurd. Etc.
A lot of the above only sound weird because we already do them well, but we could do them better. Eyesight is staggering important part of military readiness, but many countries suffer from issues like cataracts, vitamin D induced eye damage, etc. much of which is either preventable, treatable, or both.
I think it's dangerous to only see things through the lens of national defense, but adding it on as a bonus to a moral and practical imperative to safeguard the environment, or whatever, is fine.
Well sure. I know its like the least popular opinion on the planet, but we are planned to spent 65 billion on DoD R&D alone in 2015 (according to the president's planned proposal from last year). We could cut...I dunno, 3 billion from that maybe? It won't solve anything magically but it'll help.
We could get a lot done if we just reallocated like 2-3% of the defense budget each year. It's the largest discretionary outlay by far I think.
If we did it right, I'd say we could trim 3% without any reduction in capability whatsoever. Or, alternatively, re-engineer a bit of it to be closer to dual use, though I'd want to look at possible pushing out effects for some of those ideas (higher medical tiers tend to be pretty busy, but Army side at least, many medics don't get enough patient access, so having a program to do that while simultaneously providing health providers at the DOD's cost might be something worth looking into)
programjunkie on
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Honestly there is a lot of our current politics that I have a solid "Burn it down and start over" opinion of. Tax code, medical billing, Veteran Benefits, Social Security, Education, Defense.
Probably around 10 more things. It just feels like so much of this is in shambles. If you open a box of christmas lights, and they are all tangled, you could spend hours untangeling them, or just go out and buy new ones.
I know this can't really work because of people who rely on those programs to live, but I'm constantly afraid there is too much red tape to cut through in order to run things how they should be running.
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
IIRC SS is working fine as-is, except the whole "let's use it as a bank account" bs. Kinda like the Post Office, which would be doing great except for the idiotic "fund the pension 70 years in advance" bill. 20, 30 years is fine. 70? We were still fighting the Nazis 70 years ago.
Ultimately, Social Security seems like an unnecessarily complicated way to take something that we should be giving to everyone and make it so that we only give it to some people instead.
+1
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
If you really wanted to do that ("free money to everyone") you'd lower taxes on working people, because SS is paid for by wage taxation.
Sure, except the purpose of Social Security is not about "taking" something from one group to give it to another. It's about preventing everyone in our country from being overwhelmed by a flood of destitute senior citizens.
Sure, except the purpose of Social Security is not about "taking" something from one group to give it to another. It's about preventing everyone in our country from being overwhelmed by a flood of destitute senior citizens.
It also was created in a time when politicians were actually serious and realized things like that if you give people with limited means money today, they will spend it today. That's not because they are frivolous, but because people of limited means always have more bills/debts to pay.
The entire point of Social Security is for the government to take hold back a little bit of money from people to ensure they have income in the latter years of their life. It's a realistic solution to a pervasive problem that can't be solved by lowering taxes.
If you were lucky (frugal is still lucky, since tons of frugal people find their life savings drained by things like job loss and cancer), your Social Security check is a nice bonus to fuck around with. If you weren't lucky, it ensures that you don't starve.
Is there any evidence that gifted programs do anything for elementary school kids? I say this as someone who went through a gifted program, btw.
All that really matters for "preparing for college" is to take a bunch of AP classes in high school, learning test-taking strategy/game theory for standardized tests, and spending your free time outside of school on resume-building extracurriculars (if you care about/can afford top-tier private schools, anyway). As long as you're on track for that in middle school, you're fine.
Let me ask you a question. Would you have been able to take your AP classes in high school, without having been through the gifted programs earlier?
My high school did not do the Advanced Placement curriculum, but since I tested out of Calculus 101 & 102 at college, the equivalent of 2 years of AP Calculus (AB and BC), I can comment that my high school used accelerated math classes starting in 9th grade. And the only kids who could handle the accelerated math classes, with just a handful of exceptions, had been in the gifted middle school program with me.
Aka, by 12th grade, you had a set of kids who finished at calculus 2, a set who finished at calculus 1, a set who finished in pre-calculus, and a set who finished in trigonometry. Where you ended up was almost entirely based upon how much math you already knew going into 9th grade.
Very few of the people who were in my middle school gifted program were in any of my high school AP classes. The only thing that set me up for AP calc was taking algebra 1 in 8th grade. Access to AP classes was only really gated by teacher recommendations in the previous year. The only real benefit I got from my gifted program was learning how to write a properly sourced research paper a couple years before it comes up in the "college prep" English classes.
Also, calc BC translating to Calc 2 is not a rock-solid rule. My college just let you use a 3 instead of a 4 to opt out of Calc 1 if you took BC.
Yeah, we didn't have a gifted program per se in high (though it was an arts magnet so it might not have been the norm) we just had AP classes people could take if they wanted.
In elementary school we had a gifted program, where basically once a week we'd spend the morning doing things like monthly field trips to the art museum, or research projects. Learning about random crap like logic puzzles, Pascal's triangles, stuff like that.
Sure, except the purpose of Social Security is not about "taking" something from one group to give it to another. It's about preventing everyone in our country from being overwhelmed by a flood of destitute senior citizens.
It also was created in a time when politicians were actually serious and realized things like that if you give people with limited means money today, they will spend it today. That's not because they are frivolous, but because people of limited means always have more bills/debts to pay.
The entire point of Social Security is for the government to take hold back a little bit of money from people to ensure they have income in the latter years of their life. It's a realistic solution to a pervasive problem that can't be solved by lowering taxes.
And then, of course, because Congress is made up of people, they turn around and do the very same thing themselves.
"Eh, let someone else pay for it. I'll by out of office, dead, or both by then!"
Sure, except the purpose of Social Security is not about "taking" something from one group to give it to another. It's about preventing everyone in our country from being overwhelmed by a flood of destitute senior citizens.
It also was created in a time when politicians were actually serious and realized things like that if you give people with limited means money today, they will spend it today. That's not because they are frivolous, but because people of limited means always have more bills/debts to pay.
The entire point of Social Security is for the government to take hold back a little bit of money from people to ensure they have income in the latter years of their life. It's a realistic solution to a pervasive problem that can't be solved by lowering taxes.
And then, of course, because Congress is made up of people, they turn around and do the very same thing themselves.
"Eh, let someone else pay for it. I'll by out of office, dead, or both by then!"
(Republican) Congress has set up a culture where giving is wrong. The government can loan or invest and expect return, but never ever give. Unless its Israel, a military contractor, and that ilk.
Wait DOD is in charge of VA funding? I thought VA was its own separate Cabinet position.
Sorry I mean veterans in general.
There are benefits that vets get that have little to nothing to do with the VA, especially those who are medically retired.
And that's just wrong, and should be fixed, it won't be, but should.
Benefits to servicemen and/or veterans should be automatic and non discretionary, paid from a fund not available for use by DoD for anything else.
Wait DOD is in charge of VA funding? I thought VA was its own separate Cabinet position.
Sorry I mean veterans in general.
There are benefits that vets get that have little to nothing to do with the VA, especially those who are medically retired.
And that's just wrong, and should be fixed, it won't be, but should.
Benefits to servicemen and/or veterans should be automatic and non discretionary, paid from a fund not available for use by DoD for anything else.
I'm unclear as to why exactly that extra level of protection is necessary for soldiers but not other government employees.
Every employer should honor the guarantees made to employees. No one has said otherwise.
That said, having the money for those guarantees be in a separate fund from the money for ongoing operations isn't an extra level of protection. It's simply good practice. One I would expect of any employer.
Wait DOD is in charge of VA funding? I thought VA was its own separate Cabinet position.
Sorry I mean veterans in general.
There are benefits that vets get that have little to nothing to do with the VA, especially those who are medically retired.
And that's just wrong, and should be fixed, it won't be, but should.
Benefits to servicemen and/or veterans should be automatic and non discretionary, paid from a fund not available for use by DoD for anything else.
I'm unclear as to why exactly that extra level of protection is necessary for soldiers but not other government employees.
I'm not sure where it is implied there should be?
If we tell some branch of government to cut spending, i would expect, even demand, they start from stuff they don't absolutely need to run operations, reducing or delaying purchases, even lowering the amount of staff they have, and leave actual employee benefits and entitlements as last resort.
Every employer should honor the guarantees made to employees. No one has said otherwise.
That said, having the money for those guarantees be in a separate fund from the money for ongoing operations isn't an extra level of protection. It's simply good practice. One I would expect of any employer.
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
So New York State assembly passed a bill to raise the state's minimum wage to $15. Sadly I don't think it will make it through the State Senate, but it's certainly a good effort.
So New York State assembly passed a bill to raise the state's minimum wage to $15. Sadly I don't think it will make it through the State Senate, but it's certainly a good effort.
I think $15 makes sense in individual metropolitan areas where the cost of living is extremely high. I don't know if $15 is necessary in upstate NY though.
My personal ideal would be the federal government would just tying minimum wage to cost of living in a given area.
They do this to a degree for every zip code for military and update it every year so it's not too crazy.
General Schedule too.
However, given the amounts that we are talking about, I don't really see how potentially going 'too high' for lower cost of living areas is such a terrible thing. It may well place a bit more of an upward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on staffing levels...but not by some ridiculous amount compared to $12 an hour instead. It's not like we're talking about vast differences, and given median income a $15 minimum wage places us well within the typical range for other OECD countries. Especially since everything I've seen about these proposals don't start on January 1, but stair step up over a 4 or 5 year span. Meaning that in real terms it isn't going to be $15 anyway.
Now, if the question was between $15 and $30/hr that'd be a different story. But the numbers being thrown around are really not that much of a difference at the margin from what economic studies I've seen. Hell, whether it will actually have any statistically noticeable downward pressure on staffing levels isn't even that certain for these levels. The CBO study for $12 has been criticized for being too conservative in its assumptions of spillover effects and the composition of wage earners affected being primarily in non-tradeable sectors.
My personal ideal would be the federal government would just tying minimum wage to cost of living in a given area.
They do this to a degree for every zip code for military and update it every year so it's not too crazy.
General Schedule too.
However, given the amounts that we are talking about, I don't really see how potentially going 'too high' for lower cost of living areas is such a terrible thing. It may well place a bit more of an upward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on staffing levels...but not by some ridiculous amount compared to $12 an hour instead. It's not like we're talking about vast differences, and given median income a $15 minimum wage places us well within the typical range for other OECD countries. Especially since everything I've seen about these proposals don't start on January 1, but stair step up over a 4 or 5 year span. Meaning that in real terms it isn't going to be $15 anyway.
Now, if the question was between $15 and $30/hr that'd be a different story. But the numbers being thrown around are really not that much of a difference at the margin from what economic studies I've seen. Hell, whether it will actually have any statistically noticeable downward pressure on staffing levels isn't even that certain for these levels. The CBO study for $12 has been criticized for being too conservative in its assumptions of spillover effects and the composition of wage earners affected being primarily in non-tradeable sectors.
If a state goes for $15, that will be a useful experiment.
Posts
This is an absolute truth and it makes me cry.
Honestly, education is defense spending, and we should both push for it as its own merit, but on those merits as well. Better education means a better economy, which allows for more defense spending at the same budgetary % rate, and more educated troops are better. This even filters down to grunts, as basic military tasks are not all that unsophisticated (which is why so many militaries are shit), doubly so when we start using computers for stuff. We've also made some attempts to push intelligence capabilities all the way down to basic infantry as well. And it definitely extends to elite positions like cyberwarfare, special operations, etc.
I'd argue that a bunch of what is traditionally "hippy bullshit" is also a smart part of hawkishness. Quality medical care and living a fit, active lifestyle with a good diet increases the amount of people who are physically eligible for service. Energy sustainability contributes to defense in numerous ways from logistics to supply chains to geopolitics. Ditto for the environment, as again, it ties in both with medical readiness, national wealth, global stability, etc. Social harmony and a diverse multicultural society gives free access to high value skills (native level language proficiency), as well as improving unit cohesion and reducing UCMJ violations. Having separate units based on racial or religious divides is absurd. Etc.
A lot of the above only sound weird because we already do them well, but we could do them better. Eyesight is staggering important part of military readiness, but many countries suffer from issues like cataracts, vitamin D induced eye damage, etc. much of which is either preventable, treatable, or both.
I think it's dangerous to only see things through the lens of national defense, but adding it on as a bonus to a moral and practical imperative to safeguard the environment, or whatever, is fine.
If we did it right, I'd say we could trim 3% without any reduction in capability whatsoever. Or, alternatively, re-engineer a bit of it to be closer to dual use, though I'd want to look at possible pushing out effects for some of those ideas (higher medical tiers tend to be pretty busy, but Army side at least, many medics don't get enough patient access, so having a program to do that while simultaneously providing health providers at the DOD's cost might be something worth looking into)
Sorry I mean veterans in general.
There are benefits that vets get that have little to nothing to do with the VA, especially those who are medically retired.
Probably around 10 more things. It just feels like so much of this is in shambles. If you open a box of christmas lights, and they are all tangled, you could spend hours untangeling them, or just go out and buy new ones.
I know this can't really work because of people who rely on those programs to live, but I'm constantly afraid there is too much red tape to cut through in order to run things how they should be running.
At least it has in the past, it might have gotten better recently and I just don't know about it.
It also was created in a time when politicians were actually serious and realized things like that if you give people with limited means money today, they will spend it today. That's not because they are frivolous, but because people of limited means always have more bills/debts to pay.
The entire point of Social Security is for the government to take hold back a little bit of money from people to ensure they have income in the latter years of their life. It's a realistic solution to a pervasive problem that can't be solved by lowering taxes.
If you were lucky (frugal is still lucky, since tons of frugal people find their life savings drained by things like job loss and cancer), your Social Security check is a nice bonus to fuck around with. If you weren't lucky, it ensures that you don't starve.
Yeah, we didn't have a gifted program per se in high (though it was an arts magnet so it might not have been the norm) we just had AP classes people could take if they wanted.
In elementary school we had a gifted program, where basically once a week we'd spend the morning doing things like monthly field trips to the art museum, or research projects. Learning about random crap like logic puzzles, Pascal's triangles, stuff like that.
And then, of course, because Congress is made up of people, they turn around and do the very same thing themselves.
"Eh, let someone else pay for it. I'll by out of office, dead, or both by then!"
(Republican) Congress has set up a culture where giving is wrong. The government can loan or invest and expect return, but never ever give. Unless its Israel, a military contractor, and that ilk.
And that's just wrong, and should be fixed, it won't be, but should.
Benefits to servicemen and/or veterans should be automatic and non discretionary, paid from a fund not available for use by DoD for anything else.
I'm unclear as to why exactly that extra level of protection is necessary for soldiers but not other government employees.
That said, having the money for those guarantees be in a separate fund from the money for ongoing operations isn't an extra level of protection. It's simply good practice. One I would expect of any employer.
I'm not sure where it is implied there should be?
If we tell some branch of government to cut spending, i would expect, even demand, they start from stuff they don't absolutely need to run operations, reducing or delaying purchases, even lowering the amount of staff they have, and leave actual employee benefits and entitlements as last resort.
Exactly.
I think $15 makes sense in individual metropolitan areas where the cost of living is extremely high. I don't know if $15 is necessary in upstate NY though.
They do this to a degree for every zip code for military and update it every year so it's not too crazy.
General Schedule too.
However, given the amounts that we are talking about, I don't really see how potentially going 'too high' for lower cost of living areas is such a terrible thing. It may well place a bit more of an upward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on staffing levels...but not by some ridiculous amount compared to $12 an hour instead. It's not like we're talking about vast differences, and given median income a $15 minimum wage places us well within the typical range for other OECD countries. Especially since everything I've seen about these proposals don't start on January 1, but stair step up over a 4 or 5 year span. Meaning that in real terms it isn't going to be $15 anyway.
Now, if the question was between $15 and $30/hr that'd be a different story. But the numbers being thrown around are really not that much of a difference at the margin from what economic studies I've seen. Hell, whether it will actually have any statistically noticeable downward pressure on staffing levels isn't even that certain for these levels. The CBO study for $12 has been criticized for being too conservative in its assumptions of spillover effects and the composition of wage earners affected being primarily in non-tradeable sectors.
If a state goes for $15, that will be a useful experiment.