Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    Daft Punk built my hotrod
    Reputation: PaxRomana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,747

    MILITARY SPENDING: National Defense is essentially a welfare system

    Bipartisan support for spending another half billion or so upgrading the Abrams tank, DESPITE the fact that the Army doesn't want to do so.

    Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists

  2. #2
    We're All Going To Die!!!
    Reputation: TerminatorX91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    14,742

    National Defense is essentially a welfare system

    Quote Originally Posted by PaxRomana View Post
    Bipartisan support for spending another half billion or so upgrading the Abrams tank, DESPITE the fact that the Army doesn't want to do so.

    Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists
    Will this put me any closer to getting my Second Amendment on with my very own surplus Abrams tank?

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bahueh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    15,289
    Quote Originally Posted by PaxRomana View Post
    Bipartisan support for spending another half billion or so upgrading the Abrams tank, DESPITE the fact that the Army doesn't want to do so.

    Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists
    of course it is...it essentially promises a job to anyone who wants to sign up, no skill set required really. I mean, seriously, receiving unemployment benefits have more strings attached...I mean at least you have to prove you're looking for work...if you want to stay and do a good job, you're guaranteed training and a job for the good majority of life, with substantial pension benefits afterwards...thank you, taxpayers.
    Not banned yet.

  4. #4
    Idiot at large
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,367
    Quote Originally Posted by bahueh View Post
    of course it is...it essentially promises a job to anyone who wants to sign up, no skill set required really. I mean, seriously, receiving unemployment benefits have more strings attached...I mean at least you have to prove you're looking for work...if you want to stay and do a good job, you're guaranteed training and a job for the good majority of life, with substantial pension benefits afterwards...thank you, taxpayers.
    WTF are you talking about?
    2010 Specialized Secteur Elite upgraded with 32T cassette and does not have Stan's (yet)
    2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp 29er upgraded with 36T cassette and Stan's Arch EX rims and tubeless. Considering a 1x10 upgrade
    2013 Cannondale CAADX-6 Tiagra upgraded to 32T cassette and Stan's Alpha 400 rims and tubeless
    2008/2009 Burton T6 156cm with Burton Triad Bindings & DC Judge boots

  5. #5
    Moderatus Puisne
    Reputation: Argentius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    16,088
    I think Bahueh is talking about the compensation package for those who work in the armed services .

    The article in the OP seems to be about procurement...

  6. #6
    Idiot at large
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Argentius View Post
    I think Bahueh is talking about the compensation package for those who work in the armed services .

    The article in the OP seems to be about procurement...
    Yes, he missed the point about GD-OTS runs the plant, which includes hiring (and letting go) of the employees. They got General Dynamics paychecks, General Dynamics health insurance coverage, etc.
    2010 Specialized Secteur Elite upgraded with 32T cassette and does not have Stan's (yet)
    2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp 29er upgraded with 36T cassette and Stan's Arch EX rims and tubeless. Considering a 1x10 upgrade
    2013 Cannondale CAADX-6 Tiagra upgraded to 32T cassette and Stan's Alpha 400 rims and tubeless
    2008/2009 Burton T6 156cm with Burton Triad Bindings & DC Judge boots

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Bill2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    9,400
    In 2014 refuse to vote for congressional candidates who will not close your local defense plants/bases.

    This is why sequester is the only way to reduce spending. Every congressman and senator has defense contractors in their district, and can't/won't cut jobs by cutting defense spending. So we borrow money to buy unwanted tanks which will likely be mothballed and parked in a corner of an army post somewhere. The same happens with ships and aircraft and munitions, base closures and all the rest. This make-work seems almost manageable when interest rates are at record lows, but eventually they must rise and the cost of servicing the debt will rise. Bad plan.

  8. #8
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    14,925
    Quote Originally Posted by PaxRomana View Post
    Bipartisan support for spending another half billion or so upgrading the Abrams tank, DESPITE the fact that the Army doesn't want to do so.

    Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists
    you're just now coming to that conclusion?
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    9,926

    Re: MILITARY SPENDING: National Defense is essentially a welfare system

    Quote Originally Posted by PaxRomana View Post
    Bipartisan support for spending another half billion or so upgrading the Abrams tank, DESPITE the fact that the Army doesn't want to do so.

    Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists
    No defense is not welfare. These tanks are. But they are not what I would call defense if even the military doesn't want them.

    Classic military-industrial complex.

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    10,904
    As verified by many public surveys, the American public are again demonstrating they know what to do and Congress does not ... reduce military spending which has nearly doubled since 9-11.

    Pentagon Base Budget - 2001 $290 Billion*
    Pentagon Base Budget - 2011 $526 Billion*

    Even former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen agree. “In previous eras, increased defense spending may have been required to maintain security,” the group wrote in a joint statement in December. “That is no longer the case. In our judgment, advances in technological capabilities and the changing nature of threats make it possible, if properly done, to spend less on a more intelligent, efficient and contemporary defense strategy that maintains our military superiority and national security.”

    As mentioned above, one reason Congress does not follow the wishes of the public is the fear of backlash when local jobs are cut --- this translates into greater risk of losing the next election. Some believe this was part of Eisenhower's "beware the military-industrial complex" speech from 1961.

    * The Pentagon’s “base” budget is the Pentagon’s annual budget (Function 051) – not including war costs or DoE’s nuclear weapons activities
    Last edited by troutmd; 04-30-2013 at 04:23 AM.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

    John Kenneth Galbraith

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    52,913
    Quote Originally Posted by PaxRomana View Post
    Bipartisan support for spending another half billion or so upgrading the Abrams tank, DESPITE the fact that the Army doesn't want to do so.

    Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists
    It sounds like there are concerns outside the Abrams community. If the line shuts down the chain of events would close some of the suppliers which would make it very difficult to restart the program in the event of a need. The army is not planning to save the money, rather the plan is to redirect the spending into a new tank to replace this Abrams. Surprisingly enough that would still be defense spending and by 2017 when the new tank is scheduled to go into production the money spent would likely dwarf the half billion (which ain't all that much anyhow) that upgrading current tanks would cost.

  12. #12
    AM999's Liberal Facist
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    17,482
    And the $400bn+ boondoggle F-35 continues to not be effected by the sequester...and continues to not be close to operational.
    Man. You are all stuped.
    ~RUFUSPHOTO

  13. #13
    Daft Punk built my hotrod
    Reputation: PaxRomana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    you're just now coming to that conclusion?
    No, just reminding you.

  14. #14
    Daft Punk built my hotrod
    Reputation: PaxRomana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    It sounds like there are concerns outside the Abrams community. If the line shuts down the chain of events would close some of the suppliers which would make it very difficult to restart the program in the event of a need.
    False excuse. If that's the logic, then we would never stop procuring any weapon. Moreover, you'd think the Army would realize this better than the knuckleheads in Congress.

    This is 100% politics.

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Bill2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    9,400
    It sounds like there are concerns outside the Abrams community. If the line shuts down the chain of events would close some of the suppliers which would make it very difficult to restart the program in the event of a need.
    Which is inside the Abrams community.

  16. #16
    Daft Punk built my hotrod
    Reputation: PaxRomana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill2 View Post
    Which is inside the Abrams community.
    LOL.

    10 chars

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    52,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill2 View Post
    Which is inside the Abrams community.
    The people who are involved in building it, supplying the parts for it and those in the community that would be damaged if the program were shut down. I thought thinking was your long suit?

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bahueh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    15,289
    Quote Originally Posted by tednugent View Post
    WTF are you talking about?
    you really need me to walk you through it?
    honestly?
    Not banned yet.

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bahueh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    15,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    The people who are involved in building it, supplying the parts for it and those in the community that would be damaged if the program were shut down. I thought thinking was your long suit?
    "So Be It!" - John Boehner
    Not banned yet.

  20. #20
    Big is relative
    Reputation: bigbill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,509
    There are points on both sides. The Navy has three Seawolf class submarines because the program was cancelled at three hulls. At any one time, only two of the class can be at sea due to shared spare parts. If you shut down production which requires numerous vendors, then those vendors will either go out of business or shift to another product and stop producing any parts for the cancelled production. Unfortunately you have to have some production to maintain product support.

    On the other side, Congress approved the Littoral Combat Ship (Little Crappy Ship) even though the Navy doesn't want them. They are less capable than the ships they are replacing, can't operate in the same environment, and are plagued with problems concerning hull cracking. One version has a steel hull which cracks, the other has an aluminum hull that corrodes. It's a complete boondoggle for the shipbuilding industry.
    Retired sailor

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Bill2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    9,400
    If the line shuts down the chain of events would close some of the suppliers which would make it very difficult to restart the program in the event of a need.
    Keeping plants open making unneeded tank parts because someday we might need someone to make tank parts is just a politician rationalizing how to keep jobs in his district.

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    10,904
    Quote Originally Posted by bigbill View Post
    There are points on both sides. The Navy has three Seawolf class submarines because the program was cancelled at three hulls. At any one time, only two of the class can be at sea due to shared spare parts. If you shut down production which requires numerous vendors, then those vendors will either go out of business or shift to another product and stop producing any parts for the cancelled production. Unfortunately you have to have some production to maintain product support.

    On the other side, Congress approved the Littoral Combat Ship (Little Crappy Ship) even though the Navy doesn't want them. They are less capable than the ships they are replacing, can't operate in the same environment, and are plagued with problems concerning hull cracking. One version has a steel hull which cracks, the other has an aluminum hull that corrodes. It's a complete boondoggle for the shipbuilding industry.
    As former Sec. of Defense Robert Gates said in my town the other day --- "Let the military decide what needs cutting."

    Crony capitalism is just another phrase to describe the military-industrial linkage to Congress and the public's checkbook.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

    John Kenneth Galbraith

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: jwl325's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    963
    There's a serious issue here in terms of our budget woes, but I doubt anyone is willing to take on what it would mean, at this particular point in history, to change the model.

    Our military today is still largely planned and budgeted in terms of warfare strategies and methods that were last effective in WWII...and perhaps the even bigger irony is that "those budgets of WWII" were still largely based on strategies that were last effective at Gettysburg. I mean, FFS, 4 years after Pearl Harbor, we were still building "new" battleships.

    A serious approach to redefining Defense expenditures would tread on tremendous amounts of holy turf in terms of culture--think ground forces decreasing dramatically, air and sea forces, emphasizing technology over manpower, exploding exponentially.

    I don't see that kind of reversal happening anytime soon....

    JMHO.
    Bill

    “You can change or stay the same, there are no rules to this thing...We can make the best or the worst of it."

  24. #24
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    41,966
    it's the biggest by volume waste of taxpayer dollars
    it is a welfare program for the M.I.C. who sends part of their profits back to the election coffers
    They put plants in every district to insulate themselves

    meanwhile veterans programs get cut because 'we don't have the $'
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

Similar Threads

  1. Maybe the missile defense system wasn't a bad idea
    By ridenfish39 in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 11-07-2009, 09:48 PM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-02-2009, 11:23 AM
  3. Pelosi, the stimulus, and welfare......
    By physasst in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 03:54 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-06-2006, 09:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Hot Deals

Contest

Tour De France

Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook