Real Change

[Saryctos]

Pretty much any measure of academic achievement you can think of. Texas was ranked 48th in the states in education recently, I believe.

Isn't there a large latino population in TX aswell? I believe the language barrier probably isn't helping those scores.

 

 

On military spending. How much of those billions are going into the economy? I am under the assumption that almost every dollar spent on defense is purchasing American made goods or services.

[Phi for All]

Listen, the idea is not to take the bullets away from the soldiers. I'm not arguing for a depleted military, but a more efficient, streamlined military.

 

And really, the idea is to do as many smart, efficient things as possible so it totals up to some real savings. Pay for what works, and cut loose the superfluous and inefficient ways we've been clinging to, mostly because we funded it and forgot about it.

 

I'd like to hear more from outside the US. You all have been sitting in pubs for years bantering this around, haven't you?

[npts2020]

Maybe Mr. Obama will audit the DoD himself now that he has a high enough security clearance to view any relevant documents. This is where the vast majority of all of our money goes. IMO much of the secrecy involved is to cover up what is basically ripping off the government.

[Riogho]

Our countries education system is terrible not because teachers don't care, but because the government cares too much. If someone wants to fail, let them fail, it's not the schools fault. Just give parents and students a choice of what school to go to. If you gave them that choice the shitty schools would try to get better, and the good schools would be rewarded.

 

If the kid is failing major by like 8th grade, do what they do in China - Send them to a sweat shop, that's all they would end up doing in the end anyway.

[Saryctos]

Our countries education system is terrible not because teachers don't care, but because the government cares too much. If someone wants to fail, let them fail, it's not the schools fault. Just give parents and students a choice of what school to go to. If you gave them that choice the shitty schools would try to get better, and the good schools would be rewarded.

 

If the kid is failing major by like 8th grade, do what they do in China - Send them to a sweat shop, that's all they would end up doing in the end anyway.

Nah, they'd work in a union shop for $28/hour =P

[bascule]

Listen, the idea is not to take the bullets away from the soldiers. I'm not arguing for a depleted military, but a more efficient, streamlined military.

 

Anyone suggesting that we can't decrease US military spending without taking away bullets, body armor, paychecks, etc. from soldiers is full of sh*t.

 

The Pentagon is a big black hole we pour hundreds of billions of dollars into and they can't even tell us where it's going.

 

It's the only federal department exempt from auditing.

 

I'd be happy if we could just audit the Pentagon. If they could actually get their horrible accounting practices cleaned up, I foresee being able to drastically reduce their budget without directly affecting soldiers.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Our countries education system is terrible not because teachers don't care, but because the government cares too much. If someone wants to fail, let them fail, it's not the schools fault. Just give parents and students a choice of what school to go to. If you gave them that choice the shitty schools would try to get better, and the good schools would be rewarded.

 

If the kid is failing major by like 8th grade, do what they do in China - Send them to a sweat shop, that's all they would end up doing in the end anyway.

The trouble isn't in competition. The problem with this scheme is that it leaves out how exactly one could make schools good. They don't automagically improve themselves when competition arises. What about a school or a teacher makes it good?

 

You can't say "pay them more money" or "give them competition so they have to improve". You have to explain how they can improve. What can teachers do differently? That's what I try to figure out.

[ecoli]

You can't say "pay them more money" or "give them competition so they have to improve". You have to explain how they can improve. What can teachers do differently? That's what I try to figure out.

This competition could be coming anyway. The economic crises means every level of government is going to have to deal with budget cuts. Schools are definitely going to have to absorb at least some of this. Schools can come up with their own criteria for what makes a a good teacher, and make cuts where the teachers don't meet the standards... It's no different that downsizing at any other company or institution. It's a rather simple thing to come up with a standard through student grades, direct teacher evaluations, peer-review, etc.

 

Schools could definitely benefit from trying to do more with less. If they can improve with less money, it'll prove that throwing money at schools won't fix them. Demanding excellence and leaving behind those that don't give it is one way to do that... On the plus side, there's going to be a lot of college graduates who can't get jobs anywhere else, to choose from.

[Pangloss]

You're right about the farm bill being spread out over five years -- I apologize for that.

 

But the point I was trying to make was that dropping $250 from next year's budget is going to make a very small ripple is a very large pond. I support the idea of cutting defense spending, and I will support a lot of specifics in that department.

 

But what I'm afraid of is that Democrats will cut defense spending a bit and call it a day. That just isn't going to cut it. Even if you cut every single dime we spend on the military you STILL won't have a balanced budget.

[bascule]

Even if you cut every single dime we spend on the military you STILL won't have a balanced budget.

 

The FY2009 projected budget deficit is $482 billion. The FY2009 DOD budget (without the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) is $515 billion. Sorry, you're wrong.

[Pangloss]

Bascule you just got through pointing out to me that that deficit figure was incorrect. You can't have it both ways -- is it $482 billion, or over a trillion?

[bascule]

Huh? I just got through pointing out to you that the combined military spending of the US amounts to approximately $1 trillion per year, not the deficit.

 

I don't have figures for the FY2008 deficit which will include the bailout.

[Pangloss]

I misread, but the GAO just came forward a couple of weeks ago saying that the deficit would top a trillion even before considering the full ramifications of the bailout packages.

 

But fine, let's ignore all non-budgetary spending and deficits, and focus entirely for the moment on what is in the budget. Here's the 2009 budget, which is already in effect. Under this budget the Department of Defense, which got about 515 billion, is only 13.34% of the total budget.

 

Yes, that's more than the deficit, but you're not going to be able to cut $404 billion from defense spending. Salaries alone are something like 40 or 50 billion, and you have all that equipment to run and training to do. Even if you cut defense spending in HALF, which would be *radical change*, you've only cut 250 billion or so.

 

And we know the deficit is going to be a lot more than that, because of Iraq and Afghanistan, which Obama has NOT pledged to leave right away.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

[Phi for All]

Anyone suggesting that we can't decrease US military spending without taking away bullets, body armor, paychecks, etc. from soldiers is full of sh*t.

Amen. I get so tired of every criticism of the military being reduced to troop level. It's like arguing with creationists.

 

Again though, we have to nip and tuck where we can. It's not going to be any one idea that saves us money, it's going to be many ideas together that add up. We need a lot of analysis on where we can pare down stupid spending that has always been hobbling us and which is now crippling us.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd say there are several changes that should be made:

 

Schooling -- get rid of the special treatment for public schools. Give an education credit that can be spent at any school, public or private. Schools that don't live up to their cost will be left in the dust. Lots of stupid policies will die out with some competition, and there shouldn't be any increases in cost, just in quality. After all, if the public school is cheap/effective, people could still choose to go there. If not, they would abandon it for a better one.

 

Testing could be left up to the school, or maybe make a big standardized test. The test I'm thinking up would be designed by colleges and relevant businesses, and could be divided into general knowledge portions and more specialized knowledge portions, with students required to do OK in areas of their choice, so that they have some leeway and aren't just studying what will be on the exam.

 

Another thing that might be cost effective would be to give some money based on grades to the student and parents. That would increase the most important aspect of learning -- student effort -- but would be dangerous since it would encourage cheating students and grade-inflated schools. However, it could be avoided by giving out the money based on the student's rank as compared to other students.

 

Also, I'd say that the department of education should spend some of its billions on building/improving web-knowledge sites like wikipedia.

 

----

 

Law making -- there should be a law outlawing riders on bills. They are too dangerous. Laws should be passed individually, not pagefulls at a time. Also, obsolete laws need to be removed. Our legal system is a mess!

 

----

 

Voting -- We need to change our voting system so that we can pick between more than two people. There are better voting systems available . As it is, our two party system generates mediocrity and animosity, because they just need to be better than the other guy. Whenever both parties agree on something we don't like, we're screwed. In case you want to look it up, ours (USA) is called simple plurality, first past the post, or winner-takes-all, except that it is complicated by districts and parties, and it's got some serious problems.

 

Duverger's Law explains why we have a two party system as a result from our voting system.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Mr Skeptic
Duverger's Law added

[bascule]

Under this budget the Department of Defense, which got about 515 billion, is only 13.34% of the total budget.

 

Yes, that's more than the deficit, but you're not going to be able to cut $404 billion from defense spending.

 

I think you're having trouble reading the chart. It says the DOD makes up 16.85% of the budget, and the "global war on terror" makes up 4.75%

 

Together they comprise 21.6%, topping Social Security's 21.05%

 

Even if you cut defense spending in HALF, which would be *radical change*, you've only cut 250 billion or so.

 

Even if we "only" managed to cut $250 billion out of DOD spending, that's still a 52% reduction in the projected $482 billion FY2009 deficit. It will more than halve the current deficit.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Another thing that might be cost effective would be to give some money based on grades to the student and parents. That would increase the most important aspect of learning -- student effort -- but would be dangerous since it would encourage cheating students and grade-inflated schools. However, it could be avoided by giving out the money based on the student's rank as compared to other students.

Bad idea. In the state of Texas, the top 10% of every graduating class is guaranteed admission into any Texas public college. The valedictorian gets his or her first year free.

 

What does that do? It means competition is incredibly fierce and people get into fancy class-juggling where they adjust their schedules to give them the best possible GPAs. You wouldn't believe the angst people get over their grades.

 

I'm of the view that grades are a really dumb idea in general. Rather than repeat my arguments, I'll just shamelessly plug my blog.

[Mr Skeptic]

Right, I forgot to mention that any reward for good grades should be small enough not to be in any way the primary objective. Say, if the reward were $100 for high school students getting perfect grades. It is enough to be an incentive, yet not enough for the student to focus on that (he would be better off getting a job if he wanted money).

 

If the way we measure success is inaccurate, then the measure needs to be updated, not eliminated. If a student never does any homework but knows all the stuff, he should get an F for effort, and an A for everything else. There is no reason that "effort" should be part of the measure of "how much you learned".

 

Your idea in your blog seems interesting, but I need some time to digest it.

[Pangloss]

I think you're having trouble reading the chart. It says the DOD makes up 16.85% of the budget, and the "global war on terror" makes up 4.75%

...

 

It will more than halve the current deficit.

 

Bleh, they're pretty close in color. I'm not exactly on my game today, and as usual you're having a hard time finding common ground with me. Whatever.

 

As I said above I agree with cutting defense spending, and as you say that would reduce the deficit if you could cut it by that much.

 

Don't expect a cut of more than 200 billion or so from defense, and even that is an extreme outside chance at best. Even at that level you'd have to lay off tens of thousands of military personnel at a time when job losses are already a serious issue.

 

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I'm saying it's not going to be easy or popular.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Right, I forgot to mention that any reward for good grades should be small enough not to be in any way the primary objective. Say, if the reward were $100 for high school students getting perfect grades. It is enough to be an incentive, yet not enough for the student to focus on that (he would be better off getting a job if he wanted money).

An incentive makes a student focus on achieving something. What you're describing is simultaneously an incentive and not.

 

If the way we measure success is inaccurate, then the measure needs to be updated, not eliminated. If a student never does any homework but knows all the stuff, he should get an F for effort, and an A for everything else. There is no reason that "effort" should be part of the measure of "how much you learned".

Why should effort even be part of this? Find ways of accurately judging how well a student has learned and can use material -- not just through regurgitation, but through thinking. Effort is included by default: it takes effort to understand and be able to use new knowledge.

 

Even at that level you'd have to lay off tens of thousands of military personnel at a time when job losses are already a serious issue.

 

Although we don't really know, because nobody can audit their budget to see what can be cut.

[Pangloss]

Indeed there are quite a lot of problems with military spending. The audit discussion held earlier on this board makes it sound like there's no oversight at all, which is not the case -- there's quite a lot of oversight. But there's only so much they can do and congress has an agenda of its own (and reducing spending isn't really on it).

 

What is clear is that cutting the budget alone won't solve the problem. As Phi suggests, we need some real, intelligent process overhaul. I don't know about the merge suggestion -- it's interesting, but I don't think we really have the knowledge level here to state whether that would be a positive step. More information is needed.

[Mr Skeptic]

An incentive makes a student focus on achieving something. What you're describing is simultaneously an incentive and not.

 

I'm suggesting a small incentive. Too big an incentive would have an effect like you pointed out, where students are working specifically for the incentive, rather than to learn.

 

Why should effort even be part of this? Find ways of accurately judging how well a student has learned and can use material -- not just through regurgitation, but through thinking. Effort is included by default: it takes effort to understand and be able to use new knowledge.

 

That is what I am saying. Effort should not be part of the grade, but in the current system you could fail a course for not doing all the busywork. If effort is so important, it should get its own grade separate from grades in real subject matters. Giving someone who knows the material an F because he didn't do any of the homework makes as much sense as giving him an F because he dresses funny.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm suggesting a small incentive. Too big an incentive would have an effect like you pointed out, where students are working specifically for the incentive, rather than to learn.

So it's an incentive designed to not make students want it? I don't really see the point. If it's an effective incentive -- meaning people will want to get the money -- then you instantly get the "ooh, money, must get good grades" effect. You can't have the incentive without it.

 

Learning has enough benefits by itself. It should be able to serve as its own reward.

 

That is what I am saying. Effort should not be part of the grade, but in the current system you could fail a course for not doing all the busywork. If effort is so important, it should get its own grade separate from grades in real subject matters. Giving someone who knows the material an F because he didn't do any of the homework makes as much sense as giving him an F because he dresses funny.

Indeed. But I still think there's a better system possible beyond straight-up grades.

[Mr Skeptic]

Grades should measure how much the student has learned, and as such would be useful feedback. I don't see how you could disagree with that.

[Phi for All]

What is clear is that cutting the budget alone won't solve the problem. As Phi suggests, we need some real, intelligent process overhaul. I don't know about the merge suggestion -- it's interesting, but I don't think we really have the knowledge level here to state whether that would be a positive step. More information is needed.

The only semi-good argument I've ever heard for keeping the separate commands is security, but I never bought into it. A unified command should actually be better at keeping the lid on secrets than a compartmentalized one (less lips sinking ships). What we get with compartmentalization is commands sometimes working at cross-purposes and rivalry for attention, funding and support.

 

Kennedy's SecDef, Robert McNamara, squashed the proposal by Symington's group back in the 60s because he had no practical defense experience (he'd been prez of Ford Motor Co, where he'd conceived the Mustang) and relied heavily on the JCS advice not to do anything too radical. He adapted his office to oversee a single defense policy but left the organizational structures of the four branches intact.

 

I'm just arguing that we need to drop the compartmentalization. It isolates too many administrative decisions and dissociates what should be a fighting force with a common overall objective. The sailors and the air jockeys and the grunts can still get in fights in bars over who is better, but everyone will benefit from having just one big old roll of red tape instead of four. Everyone except the old guard who will argue about tradition, that is.