Re: Ever wonder why there are no $ for education?
 

You may have missed it, but once upon a time there was this thing called the "Cold War", where we thought we would go to war with the Soviet Union. Based on this we and our allies, built a big military with which to fight this war with a chance of winning. When the threat went away, all the hardware didn't go with it. It isn't just airplanes, we have a lot of warships in storage around the country as well. The silly thing about fighters, bombers and warships is they aren't really good for anything else.

You think we should put them on ebay, and use the cash to buy textbooks?

Let's see what we have here.....
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1138688661.jpg

OK, we have from left to right, F4s, which first flew in 1958 and the were only retired a few years ago, the Air force flew the last F4G "Wild Weasel" variants. Next are F-15s, which entered active service in 1976, and are still our primary air superiority fighter. My assumprion is these are "A" or early "C" models, or are simply the planes from fighter squadrons that were disbanded after the cold war. On the right are Navy F-14s, which entered the fleet in 1973, when the primary threat was assumed to be Soviet Bears/Backfires with cruise missiles. They are being replaced in Navy service by F/A-18s, which are more suited to current needs. On the far right are still more F-4s, not suprising, considering how many of them we built during the cold war.

.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1138688690.jpg

B-52s, first entered service in 1955, and is still in inventory. We built a ton of these during the cold war, and as was mentioned chop a lot of them up to comply with arms reduction treaties with the Soviets. Obviousely we don't need as many heavy bomber squadrons now as we did during the cold war.


.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1138688707.jpg

Hard to tell, but look like F-8s and/or A-7s, which served from 1955 to 1987, and 1964 to ~1992 respectively. Both are interesting planes in that the F8 was the last fighter built as a gun dogfighter, and the A7 was the first plane with a Heads-up display. I can't tell what the helos are.


. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1138688733.jpg
More B-52s. See above.

So of the planes in these photos, the ones with the shortest service life is what, 28 years? Yeah, you are right, them lobbyists of the military industrial complex been earning their money, screwing over The Children (TM) .:rolleyes:

I don't buy the "makes a profit" bit either. "generates income" sure, but no way they are profitable. I suppose if you depreciate the cost of their "product" over 40 odd years, their cost could concievable reach zero, but I still don't buy it.

Here is the Google sattelite view:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&q=Davis-Monthan+AFB&near=Tucson,AZ&t=k&ll=32.160064,-110.838232&spn=0.0505,0.080338&t=k

Tom

Info gleaned from the same school board chairman...over 90% of the Lebanon, OR Government schools budget goes to salary & benefits, including retired personnel. Benefits usually run 35% of a teacher's annual cost to the taxpayers. Living expenses vary from area to area of the USA. Somebody making $50K per year in pre-tax salary is firmly into this area's upper middle class, life style wise. When you take the ALL FUNDS state budget for government education in Oregon, divide it by the number of students, you come up at a cost level of $10,000 per student, per year. How much more do they want? Especially out of a community where most people are making $10 per hour or less?
It's time the myth of school teachers being underpaid gets exposed.

I went to law school in Tucson and drove by Davis Monthan daily. The stats that I heard were that IF Arizona were to secede from the United States, based upon the number of planes stored, it would have the second largest airforce in the world. Also heard that the planes could be returned to service in under one day if necessary. I'm not an aircraft mechanic, nor in the airforce, so take this with a grain of salt

JP

pwd72s,
Well you guys are well above CA at $7649 per student.
Can you post salaries from local district?

I did it for my local district in a different thread and they do not make that much in relation to my area.

Give them a book and they will each want their own computer at the State's / taxpayers' expense.

Fullerton School District sued for not providing all students with $1,500 computers.

As to the military planes, if you stop spending on those school will have no reason to have more than 1 or 2 books since the government will limit the books that may be used in school.

Am I missing something?

The article states Fullerton School District was threatened by a lawsuit for dictating that all parents must pay $1500 for the schools to provide a laptop for their child.

I don't see where the district was being asked to use taxpayer money to buy laptops for the students. Just that it was claimed to be unconstitutional for the school district to dictate that students must have laptops, and dictate that they buy the laptops through the district.

I don't see how laptops in schools are going to improve the quality of education in CA.

Cold war doesn't appear to be over....
 

Lobbyists are indeed, still hard at it. One could argue that they are at the top of their game as military and arms spending is the world's top form of spending.

Military spending in 2004 ($ Billions, and percent of total) Country Dollars (billions) Percentage of total

Figures are for latest year available, usually 2004. Expenditures are used in a few cases where official budgets are significantly lower than actual spending.
* 2003 Figure.
** Joined NATO in March 2004.
Source uses FY 2006 for US figure. 2004 used to try and keep in line with other countries listed.

Due to rounding, some percentages may appear as zero.

United States 399.1 43%
Russia* 65.2 7%
China* 56 6%
United Kingdom 49 5%
Japan 45.1 5%
France 40 4%
Germany 29.7 3%
Saudi Arabia 19.3 2%
India 19.1 2%
Italy 17.5 2%
South Korea 16.4 2%
Australia 1 1.7 1%
Turkey* 11.7 1%
Israel* 10.8 1%
Canada 10.1 1%
Spain* 9.9 1%
Brazil 9.2 1%
Netherlands 7.6 1%
Taiwan 7.5 1%
Greece* 7.2 1%
Indonesia* 6.4 1%
Sweden 5.9 1%
North Korea* 5.5 1%
Ukraine* 5.5 1%
Singapore 5 1%
Poland 4.4 0%
Norway 4.2 0%
Kuwait 4 0%
Iran 3.5 0%

Source: U.S. Military Spending vs. the World, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, February 7, 2005

The US figure does not seem to be a proportional response to whatever threats (real or imagined) exist. Rather it seems to be gradual buildup of legitimate need burdened by dubious programs, initiatives, pork barrelling and other military flavour-of-the-month nonsense.

"Yeah, you are right, them lobbyists of the military industrial complex been earning their money, screwing over The Children (TM) ."
- The pictures of the planes above are indeed old but you can't argue that current expeditures are at best questionable.

"As to the military planes, if you stop spending on those school will have no reason to have more than 1 or 2 books since the government will limit the books that may be used in school."
- Not sure what you are trying to say here, if we cut back to a reasonable (MY word) level of military spending we will suddenly be overrun by by jihadists or commies? Give me a break.

Our spending is disproportionate.

Why?

Whenever there is a problem, anywhere, the world expects the U.S. to take care of it.

BTW, I'm sure you would be much safer in B.C. if the U.S. reduced military spending.

BTW - the figures from my last post DON'T include budgets for Homeland Security or current Iraq and Afgan operations.

I heard about this on the local new. The link wasthe only article I could find.

The issueof state funded laptop computers is going to be basis for the suit. The ACLU is going to argue that children from low income families must be provided with their own laptop computer at the State's expense to have an equal education opportunity as those children whose parents can afford to purchase the laptops.

Just pile on the court-created entitlements.

They fix everything, everytime, like a charm.

Re: Cold war doesn't appear to be over....
 

What is questionable is the math used in coming up with those numbers. Here is a hint for you, the federal budget for 2004 was 2.2 Trillion dollars, so assuming their 399.1 number is correct, when they say 43% what they reallly mean is ~18%.

I guess those math skills prove your point about public education.......

Tom

Yup, Oregon as a whole, pays higher teacher salaries than California. WHOLE budget, federal, state, and local sources used to reach that $10,000 per student statewide figure. School systems are good at cooking the books to try to make per pupil spending less. I got my salary cost figures from the current board chairman of the Lebanon, Oregon school district. His name Rick Alexander, a proponent of charter schools. The local superintendent doesn't like him. He does terrible things in the Super's opinion...like walking unannounced into the head offices and asking to see ALL the checks written that day. In the eyes of the educationalist establishment here, Rick is bad news. You see, he answers questions directly & honestly when a taxpayer asks, and if he doesn't know, he finds out. Can you imagine this? He even went to the Linn County D.A., who then ordered that the Superintendent open ALL financial records to Rick or be prepared to suffer legal action. It's been quite a tempest in a teapot here since Rick got elected...with well over 60% of the vote. Voters here were obviously getting tired of "biz as usual".

The fed. gov't. provides a whopping 7% of the money spent on public schools in the US and I think that's 100% too much. Can anyone in the US say schools have gotten better here since the creation of the Dept. of Education? It was created by Jimmy Carter as a payback to the NEA for their support for him in the '76 election. State and local, not federal, government is responsible for public schools. Defense spending has NOTHING to do with it, other than keep us and much of the rest of the world free to learn or continue to be ignorant. If it weren't for US military spending, we'd be speaking Russian now.

The avg. private school in DC costs $4k per pupil per year. The city spends $10k per pupil per year and has the WORST schools in the country with above 50% dropout rates. Clearly, money is not the problem here.

Plenty of the countries low on that list of military spending are there because the US covers their a$ses. Ditto for Canada. Canada can spend all it wants on "free" healthcare and schools because it knows damn well the US would never ever let anyone touch its northern neighbor.

"What is questionable is the math used in coming up with those numbers. Here is a hint for you, the federal budget for 2004 was 2.2 Trillion dollars, so assuming their 399.1 number is correct, when they say 43% what they reallly mean is ~18%"

The 43% relates to the WORLD'S spending not the US budget. Have a look at the post before you get smart. Or don't - I got your back anyway.;)

Actually, it seems to be the total of the top 55 spenders, making it possibly the least meaningfull statistic ever created, disguised as something relevant. May as well be the average number of buttermilk pancakes required to shingle a doghouse.

Excellent use of Obfuscation though. It is interesting that the source they cited, only has the numbers, not the percentages, and they don't make it clear what "Percentage of total" refers to. Total what? The table heading "Military spending in 2004 ($ Billions, and percent of total)" implies percent of total budget spent on military. It is also interesting that you chose not to show the entire chart, I assume you got it here:
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp?p=1

The "globalissues" version includes such military powerhouses as Luxembourg and Estonia. After all, their military needs must be comperable to that of the USA. :rolleyes:

Why not link something meaningfull, like military spending as a percentage of GDP? Oh, yeah, that doesn't really support their thesis......

Here is the readers digest version of that link:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1138760682.jpg

The United States, with defense spending at 3.3% of GDP in 2002 would come in at #47 on this chart. Canada spent 1.1% the same year.

From the same report, we can find spending for 169 countries for 1999 and 2002, the percentages are close to 33% and 39% of world spending respectively (which is still a meaningless statistic).

Tom

It's okay Jorian...we realize that liberals don't think, they feel . Meaning you don't really crunch numbers or gauge performance using numbers...If it feels good to say, you just say it...the facts don't really matter.

It's OK boys...we realize neocons don't think or feel. Meaning when confronted with unpleasant facts they attack the science and the scientists or economics and the economists....spin to win. I guess all the planes in the desert is a good thing.

Such as?

"Such as?"

Military waste, global warming, illegal govt wiretaps.... take your pick. Lots to defend there. Also the beginning of this thread - the low priority of public education.