A curious conservative contradiction about spending

[burythehatchet]

The right seems to measure the strength of the military in terms of how big the defense budget is. i.e., their mantra is that President Clinton "decimated" the military by cutting its budget. That Bush restored the cuts and so the military os strong (that of course does NOT include veterans benefits).

When it comes to education though, that logic stream drys up and they talk about "accountability". That school districts should be held accountable. That throwing money at it does not fix or improve education.

What hypocrisy!

[supernova]

1. We're all liberal and conservative

It's just that liberals and conservatives disagree about what to be liberal and conservative about. ;-)

edit: it's a well known tactic of the right to cut social services budgets to the bone in hopes that they will disappear completely. Since they think the goverment shouldn't be providing those services in the first place.

[burythehatchet]

2. Ain't that the truf

[laura888]

3. Excellent point! I hadn't thought of this...

To use their logic about defense spending, throwing money at education WOULD result in a strong education system.

[TexasProgresive]

4. They plan to spend the govenment broke

so they can destroy any social programs the don't agree with- they will say we don't have the money for (fill in the blank). We have to spend what we have to maintain defense against turists. This has been the plan from the beginning-declare that govenment is incapable of doing anything right and then set up the programs to fail-spend all the money and give tax breaks to the rich so that there is nothing to disburse and blame it all on welfare queens in their Caddilacs. The only government that is incapable of doing anything right is a repunant govenment.

[laura888]

6. The results of which would be the elimination of the middle class

how could anyone agree that this is a good thing?

[supernova]

8. The super rich

don't want a middle class. It means more competitors for the $$$.

The super rich want themselves and serfs, that's the natural order of things, after all.

[burythehatchet]

9. you raise a very important point

which was illustrated in this weeks Reagan circus. A large portion of Americans need a royal class. They want to look up to a king. That's what Raygun was to them.

Since their numbers are shrinking, I think that the problem is that they see it and they will lash out to try and maintain their classist structure. They ARE doomed. Question is will they take all of us down as they go.

[supernova]

11. Yes,

A large portion of Americans need a royal class.

In fact I refer to extreme right wingers as monarchists or royalists. Jefferson and Franklin would recognize them as such.

edit: in fact, I'll go so far as to say these royalists really do believe that the people in power are their "betters," ergo the need for submission to athority and conformity.

[TahitiNut]

5. The US spends 47% of the world's total spending on militarism.

What would happen if education received such a priority? Easy. There'd be far fewer neofascists - and those would be in "institutional settings" only.

[burythehatchet]

7. "The US spends 47% of the world's total spending on militarism."

...and look where it gets us!

[OHdem10]

10. It was under Reagan that

our Miliary that is the human beings who fight--were put on food stamps.

Republicans give to Military to buy equipment--Tanks, Planes etc.
(Contracts for Big contributors to Republican Party.)

Small equipment such as flack jackets and body armour and bullets for the soldiers to use in their guns----Oh woe is me. Poor Parents put togther whatever they can to get the equipment to their child.

Bill Clinton raised the Miltary pay twice, but who so very often do they(Military) praise??

Ronald Reagan put them on food stamps. He wanted to build up our Nuclear Arsenal to scare the Russians

With this war, however, I think the rank and file are beginning to see the light.