Enlighten me on something..

you speak as if Canada has no drug problem or it's own drug trade

 

That's a good point, the schools are very nice in my neck of the woods. The situation you described is a bummer, but here's my question, aside from current education grants is more federal funding to local schools fair? Why should Virginians fund the epic failures (parents) in other states? I have no problem paying more in Virginia taxes which will flow to my fellow Virginians but why should I have to support kids in other states where I have no say in that state's policies?

 

No, it's called branding. For example, I'm assuming you didn't go to Harvard (excuse me if I'm mistaken) but you still hold it up as one of the best schools in the nation. Alternatively, can you name any average community colleges in Cambridge, Mass? Employers are subject to the same brand recognition.

Pretend you are an employer: If you are going to accept resumes from a pool of applicants would you rather have a group of Harvard resumes or back country community college resumes? Obviously you would want to select from the Harvard batch... right? Employers have a higher demand for Harvard graduates, therefore Harvard grads can charge more on the job market, and as a result Harvard can charge its students more.

Kids that go to Harvard are paying for the brand, not the education.

 

Ok, valid point I may be fooling myself, where should the money go?

How much should we pay the "epic failures" to be better parents? Should we start paying the kids to give more effort? Obviously the teachers don't need more money, they choose to work at the wage they are paid. In other words, if they wanted more money they could get a job in a higher paying school district.

So who is the beneficiary of this "more money"? How much more should we give? What happens if we dedicate a trillion dollars to education and we get the same results? ... people will still claim they need "more money." Do you disagree?

 

Because we have a legal precedent known as Posse Comitatus that requires VERY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS to be met before the US Military can be employed in an active role inside our borders.

But, yeah, more than a few of us "down yonder" have had the same thought.

ETA: Also, we can't even get the Congress and the President to pass a BUDGET, much less authorize the use of the Army to secure the southern border. The Marines and the Navy are not covered under PC, but are regulated against acting as a posse comitatus by Dept of the Navy regulations.

 

Sometimes its not necessarily the parents, for example my parents stressed education but couldn't help me on my studies 80% of the time. I didn't use that as an excuse to not do well as I've seen what people with no high school education or just that end up, no where fast. What im saying is that Teachers don't do their job for the Money, im surprised they don't get paid more honestly, because teachers/professors teach the future lawyers,engineers,doctors,ect(to name a few big ones). Im saying that if they added more qualified teachers, more study programs, harder schoolwork because goodness high school was nothing, then the quality of high thinking students would INCREASE, not a monumental jump but increase, and over time this would lead to more students pursuing higher education and more success to give back to their respective places. To be honest i couldnt tell you how much is needed as i dont make budgets for the education system, but more is needed that much i know. So many people struggle but the help simply isnt there physically so they are left unattended to just fail essentially. If your trillion dollar scenario actually happens then i guess you were right but we'll never know because by the time we figure out what people have been saying (conservatives anyway) that more money needs to be in education, we'll be dead last in math and science. We need to start from the bottom, education. That is all Im saying. If you find fault is this rebuttle please reply

 

Wow, well I think its been stated here but Posse Comitatus Act prevents the military from conducting counter drug operations on American soil. That said, many national guard units do conduct counter drug operations and are not constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act.

Bringing the Troops home:
Well that would overwhelm the already flooded job market and lead to greater unemployment, not to mention thousands of Military personnel who would quickly be kicked to the road since we are now downsizing the military (ask how I know).

I suppose its seems quite simple to someone who is not an American and whose country lives under the blanket of American freedom provided by the American Military. Canada will never need a large military as long as there is an American military. That said, Canada can afford to spend huge portions of its national budget on social programs where America can not.

So it was suggested that we pull back Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and give the money that we spend on the wars back to the American people. I am so sick of hearing that line. Here's the deal ALL defense spending (ALL) accounts for just shy of 20% of our national budget. Since the Constitution requires our government to provide for the common defense, 20% does not seem like a huge chunk to me. Consider for a moment that Social Security accounts for 20% and Medicare/Medicaid accounts for 21% and these two expenditures are not constitutionally required (they are enforced by amendments). that is 41% of our national budget that is handouts. I am not saying cut it all but the total war costs to the America is not the big fish its made out to be.

source
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

And then my last point. If we pull back from these two wars we will not be fighting the enemy overseas, we will be fighting them here on our own soil. What will America look like with daily VBIEDs on major highways?

Just my rant.

 

Holy thread revival

 

At least he used a well written arguement and provided a source for his view points.

I'll allow it.

 

"lives under the blanket of American freedom" haha.... get a grip, our guys are over there too.

 

lol, that part made me laugh too.

 

Yep, all three of them.

 

Fuck you ya disrespectful prick.

 

deploying federal troops against us citizens or on us soil is damn hard and designed that way by the constitution. Furthermore US soliders using force on American soil against Americans set an ungodly dangous precident.

 

Fear the dangous

 

I was just about to post the following, then I read that you beat me to it:

------------
The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies in using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. In this way, most use of the Army and the Air Force at the direction of the President does not offend the statute, even though it may be problematic for political reasons.


The statute only addresses the US Army and, since 1956, the US Air Force. It does not refer to, and thus does not restrict or apply to, the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor (in its federal capacity, the National Guard forms part of the Army or Air Force of the United States). The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive (self-regulation), but not by the Act itself. Although it is a military force, the U.S. Coast Guard, which now operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.

 

DrewH, I have no ill will towards you or your countrymen. And yes I know you have Troops in both theaters of war. This thread was started by a Canadian who suggested that the US bring our Troops home and use them for drug enforcement. Now if you find my comments harsh, there is nothing I can do to help you with that. Understand this, America is the reason there is still a Canada, Mexico, etc... The world would be a very different place without the US.

Canada will provide up to 950 Canadian Forces (CF) personnel to continue training the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and the Afghan National Army (ANA) until 2014.
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=4889

 

The constitution? Last I checked the American Government didn't follow the constitution. If anyone in American actually gave a damn about the constitution, then congress would be declaring war, and not the President.

 

is canada flawless?

 

No sir.