I see that you do love straw.

But to answer the real piece in your reply. In many cases indeed it is a failure of education -- our education system (like out health care system) is VERY inefficient (I'm not an advocate of the way union teachers or school boards or politicians or parents for that matter) deal with the responsibility of educating our youth.

Indeed, democracy is a lousy way to run a school system. It essentially forces the lowest common denominator upon all. I won't say what I think of educator unions, but it is not positive. As to who is failing, it is the parents. They have been taught that professionals can do it all. They can't. Someone needs to put a burning desire to learn in the child, without that failure is 100%, and someone else will have to feed them for life. Don't blame me for not wanting to clean up someone else's mess.

Regarding straw men, in this thread, well I'd suggest you started it with what I suspect was a deliberate gauntlet of 'and why is that bad' - regarding hungry homeless children. I actually believe you have the capacity for a compassionate response but suppressed it for the safe of the dialectic.

Compassion does not come at the point of a gun even if it is an IRS agent.

One could, I suppose make the argument that the reason people are unemployed is because they are not working. Just as the reason people are poor is they don't have enough money. And the reason Republicans don't care is because they are Republicans. (tossed that last one in, you might have noticed -- to play within the dialectic goad for the sake of argument instead of discussion).

I do so love straw

Please explain how a large number seem able to not make decisions that put themselves into the bad position?

---

By the way, while sometimes that failure of education is 'on the student' for a lack of effort, bad attitude, etc., often enough it is a system and/or cultural failure that the student is saddled with. While blaming the individual is a simple solution, I'd not much of an advocate for blaming the victim. That sort of thing has tended to lose credence (we no longer presume a rape victim deserved it as an example).

Indeed, the blame belongs on parents, teacher unions, "professional educators" and the like.

---

Fair enough, so you are quite understanding (bringing this back to the thread subject) of the response to the demand for vast resources via taxes to be diverted to the Military Industrial Complex.

Compassion does not come at the point of a gun even if it is an IRS agent.

Not a bad neutrally fiscal budget today. But, it think the tax demand on pensioners (for the first time) will stop me buying that Apache Helicopter gunship I always craved.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Any major empire have self destructing factors 100 years ago british empire and todays britain are totally different countries.

For current economic approaches with most countries I'd say 1% supportive tax policy is the major self destruct factor for any nation.

---

Mandtugai!

Don't forget we transitioned onto a Commonwealth which we still have.

Yes on the paper you have but in real life americans has crown for several decades. But now no one is sure where is the crown.

---

Mandtugai!

Personally I think the latest cuts are a step too far, and for that reason I will oppose them.

Latest cuts

Agree.

---

And here I thought budget balance and austerity was the sine qua non. In the US, advocates of massive budget cuts also talk about sustaining the growth of the US military which has doubled in the past 10 years. It is a ledger they can not balance.

According to this CIA fair income distribution metrics america is in worst position from top 25 countries which proves that 1% there own more than 50% of nations wealth. That is why top 500 american billionares plus 3 million millionares live happily along with 1.5 million homeless hungry american children.

And this is bad WHY?

Gary, this is a good thing if one wants power confined to a small class of people. The majority of the population is not considered in this plutocratic model.

---

Chris, I understand that the UK is quite a bit different regarding their defense budget. In the US, the defense budget pretty much doubled from 2001 to 2011. The sequestration cuts included in the debt ceiling deal (since the stupor committee as expected could not come up with a revised functional plan), amount largely to perhaps a 3 to 5% reduction in that doubled budget over the course of 10 years.

Folks are railing against that -- folks are confused.

I don't think the UK budget military budget doubled from 2001 to 2011. Further the proposed cuts appear in the order of 10% to 15% within a five year time frame.

So I can understand that the cuts might well be too deep, and likely are not in the right places. Isn't there a replacement carrier in the plans -- or did that get shelved as well. How much more life in the existing Tornado jet is there?

According to this CIA fair income distribution metrics america is in worst position from top 25 countries which proves that 1% there own more than 50% of nations wealth. That is why top 500 american billionares plus 3 million millionares live happily along with 1.5 million homeless hungry american children.

And this is bad WHY?

Gary, this is a good thing if one wants power confined to a small class of people. The majority of the population is not considered in this plutocratic model.

And this is bad WHY?

You did not state a reason that is is bad that the wealthy have control. Try and articulate some and something better than "it isn't fair." Life isn't fair.

Also you state they aren't considered. I submit they must be considered if the wealthy wish to retain power. They must keep them reasonably happy or they loose power, to keep them happy they must consider them.

---

Gary, where did I state a plutocracy is bad? I'm not whining I'm merely observing.
I contend that a large enough military can control the malcontents.

---

Gary, where did I state a plutocracy is bad? I'm not whining I'm merely observing.
I contend that a large enough military can control the malcontents.

Thought that was your contention in quoting the other person's post.

---

Certainly a plutocracy at the very least is good for the plutocrats...

Further cuts

I find this hard to justify.

Agreed. however, if done right as suggested in this report....

17 units cut

"The changes will form part of plans to implement a new structure, which will see the army split into three; reaction forces, adaptable forces, and force troops.

The reaction forces will be the army's spearhead and will be trained, equipped and prepared for speedy intervention operations anywhere in the world.

The adaptable forces will take over from the reaction forces, but will take 18 months to prepare for combat. They will be made up of existing full-time regiments and reserves.

Underpinning both will be the force troops, or "theatre troops", which will comprise all the units required to support the front line – such as the artillery, engineers, signals, intelligence and medical corps".


If they succeed in doing this, then we will still have an effective force....

..The question is...Will it happen?

---

As I have said before and I will say again, the way that the MOD is run, and it's shambles of a procurement activity, is the prime cause of the spending problems.
I will not support the Government upon these cuts.
Latest cuts comment

My oh my, are you sure that shambles is the right word to use? I would be more inclined to use "incompetent", but I know you hate that word - shame as it's in the English dictionary!

---