one we are not cutting edge in our education or health care...and we dont outspend the next 3-5 nations combined...
There is very little correlation between spending on education, and educational results. Typically educational results are more determined by the focus of education on important topics, and the effect of consumer demand for results.
For example, the Slovak Republic spends just $15,000 and has an average student score just below 500. Whereas, the US spends about $80,000 and averages 475. Sweden is possibly the only country that spends as much as the US, but their students do considerably better on tests.
Even in the US, private schools routinely spend less money on education, and have far better results than overly funded public schools. In Washington D.C. for example, the total cost per student is roughly $25,000/yr. In other words, the same as the elite private school Chelsea Clinton went to. Yet D.C. has one of the worst test results of any district in the US. Most expensive, least results?
And that trend isn't rare either. Here locally in Ohio, not too long ago a report surfaced about several school districts that had their funding greatly increased, yet a year later, the test scores dropped noticeably. Just in Columbus Public alone, the cost per student is $9,500 per year. Yet an elite private school, within Columbus Public area, is only $7,000 per year and they vastly better results.
Main point is this... increasing funding for education doesn't work.
2. Spending just to be cutting adge, and having no real use for them, does not make for a good military, its makes for bloated budgets. Spend billions for a new air superiority fighter? would it be better ? sure, but thing the current ones are so far advanced no one even uses there air force to fight us anymore so its a waste.
Not true. We have ignorant in believing that the world has not advanced simply because we haven't. In 2004, we engaged in a military exercise with Indian Air Force.
In comparison to Russian built, modern Su-30MKI, our F-16s designed in the 70s are aging and getting quickly outdated. The Su-30 has better weapon payloads, better aerodynamic efficiency, have better radar detection and jamming, and has an increased attack angle that reaches nearly 180 degrees, as opposed to the F-16 40 degree angle of attack. In point of fact, the Su-30 surpasses the F-16 in nearly every possible area.
Not to say we don't have some rough equals, like the F-18E/F is which more update though still behind. The problem is, those are rarities. Most of our fleet is made up of F-15 and F-16 jets from the 70s. Which is why they were used against the IAF in the above article, and were shot down 90% of the time.
Of course, with Bailout-Barack in charge, you won't see us updating our military to keep up with the rest of the world. We've been lulled into a stupor by the pacifist left, into thinking we're greater than we are. The rest of the world isn't smoking pot and having Woodstock get togethers. They are building better weapons and preparing for war. We sadly, won't likely wake up to this until a major military action crushes us.
You dont need to spend just to spend, so you can have the best buy 2000 times and fail at so many other areas.
Oh I agree with that. Let's cut spending on every unconstitutional program in the federal budget. Then we can focus on the things our government is supposed to do... like defense.