Obama to "raise" taxes on the middle class...

[Y2HH]

How many F-22's are being used for Haiti relief?

 

So are you claiming that the only planes we've EVER ordered that we didn't need were F22's?

 

You do realize in war, when we deliver ammo, etc...to our troops, we don't do it in F22's, right?

 

Similarly, the same planes are used to deliver food, supplies, etc.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

So are you claiming that the only planes we've EVER ordered that we didn't need were F22's?

 

You do realize in war, when we deliver ammo, etc...to our troops, we don't do it in F22's, right?

 

Similarly, the same planes are used to deliver food, supplies, etc.

So you're arguing that the F-22 is useless and we need more cargo planes. I'm game. Even using conservative estimates for the cost of a C-130, you get 3.5 of them for the price of 1 F-22.

[Y2HH]

So you're arguing that the F-22 is useless and we need more cargo planes. I'm game. Even using conservative estimates for the cost of a C-130, you get 3.5 of them for the price of 1 F-22.

 

Still stands that the government wastes on a lot of things, why we point at one single thing and b**** about it is beyond me.

 

And no, F22's are not useless, they have a very specific and sometimes necessary use.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

And no, F22's are not useless, they have a very specific and sometimes necessary use.

When?

 

(The reason why I'm pointing at the F-22 is that its a $100 billion program that I find very useless as an air superiority fighter when there's no need for an expensive air superiority fighter right now.)

 

(also, if the government were to waste $1 billion on helping Unions, I bet you'd find a lot of complaints about that. Yet you're finding fault with me focusing on a very large program of very limited use. This is why I keep using the joke "Defense spending doesn't really count.")

[Y2HH]

When?

 

(The reason why I'm pointing at the F-22 is that its a $100 billion program that I find very useless as an air superiority fighter when there's no need for an expensive air superiority fighter right now.)

 

In case the need ever were to arise -- then we have them. That's why. It's pretty simple.

 

In terms of defense, getting caught without something when the need arises makes you the one that lost.

 

I know in your Utopian world where no war exists and butterfly wings create unlimited free power there is no need for them, but here, on Earth, in reality...having them in case the need arises is very important.

[BigSqwert]

In case the need ever were to arise -- then we have them. That's why. It's pretty simple.

 

In terms of defense, getting caught without something when the need arises makes you the one that lost.

 

I know in your Utopian world where no war exists and butterfly wings create unlimited free power there is no need for them, but here, on Earth, in reality...having them in case the need arises is very important.

LOL. Who has an army even remotely as big as ours? And with our nuclear capabilities who would ever think invading the US is a good idea?

[Y2HH]

LOL. Who has an army even remotely as big as ours? And with our nuclear capabilities who would ever think invading the US is a good idea?

 

But that's the reason it's NOT a good idea...because we have a means to combat it.

 

Chinas army is bigger than ours, by about 1 billion, they just have no way to deploy. That said, it doesn't matter...if they ever did find a way to deploy, air superiority is what will set us apart from them, because we will never match them in sheer numbers.

 

It's not about the "need", its about the "just in case". National defense is a game of chess, and we have to stay moves ahead of everyone else...and I really wish we didn't, but we do. Would I rather we spend the money on better things...yes. But I also want to avoid the next Pearl Harbor, too.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

China can destroy us without ever shooting a single bullet or missile.

[bmags]

In case the need ever were to arise -- then we have them. That's why. It's pretty simple.

 

In terms of defense, getting caught without something when the need arises makes you the one that lost.

 

I know in your Utopian world where no war exists and butterfly wings create unlimited free power there is no need for them, but here, on Earth, in reality...having them in case the need arises is very important.

 

The great part about this is we can just defer to military management and Robert Gates. What you are arguing for doesn't actually make the army better, it just keeps preparing them for the cold war, when we need an army smaller and more mobile for threats that are usually non-nation. And further what you are arguing for is really just welfare-like subsidies for southern states. The reason why it's so hard to cut the f-22s, aircraft carriers, etc is because it's money leaving someones district. But it has so much momentum now that if it doesn't change, it will never change, and we'll just be building things to keep congressman getting elected.

[Y2HH]

China can destroy us without ever shooting a single bullet or missile.

 

That would destroy them, too. Nobody is interested in going nuclear, because then nobody wins.

 

Wars will continue to be fought despite post-nuclear capabilities.

[BigSqwert]

That would destroy them, too. Nobody is interested in going nuclear, because then nobody wins.

 

Wars will continue to be fought despite post-nuclear capabilities.

I'm not talking nuclear. I'm talking financially.

[GoSox05]

I think we spend more on military every year than the rest of the world combined.

[Y2HH]

The great part about this is we can just defer to military management and Robert Gates. What you are arguing for doesn't actually make the army better, it just keeps preparing them for the cold war, when we need an army smaller and more mobile for threats that are usually non-nation. And further what you are arguing for is really just welfare-like subsidies for southern states. The reason why it's so hard to cut the f-22s, aircraft carriers, etc is because it's money leaving someones district. But it has so much momentum now that if it doesn't change, it will never change, and we'll just be building things to keep congressman getting elected.

 

Unfortunately there is indeed a lot of truth to this, and I don't think it surprises anyone here.

 

I'm not arguing that we should be doing these things, just that it's better to be safe than sorry in terms of national defense. Apparently, Obama agrees for the most part (who many of you elected), hence the wars he never ended, refunded, and pumped even more trooped into.

[Y2HH]

I'm not talking nuclear. I'm talking financially.

 

Again, that'd destroy them, too. And no, they really can't. They only own about 1T of our debt...and that wouldn't quite do much. We'd emerge and persevere like always.

 

You know, it really amazes me when people say things like this. I'm not even going further into it.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Y2HH

[southsider2k5]

China can destroy us without ever shooting a single bullet or missile.

 

We can destroy them even quicker.

[BigSqwert]

We can destroy them even quicker.

How so? they make 98% of the things we use.

[southsider2k5]

How so? they make 98% of the things we use.

 

We still have manufacturing and industrial capability. They are utterly dependent on the dollar. If we default on our debt, their government collapses.

[GoSox05]

I don't think the U.S or China wanna kill each other.

[southsider2k5]

I don't think the U.S or China wanna kill each other.

 

Its not about killing each other, think of it more like economic MAD.

[Balta1701]

Unfortunately there is indeed a lot of truth to this, and I don't think it surprises anyone here.

 

I'm not arguing that we should be doing these things, just that it's better to be safe than sorry in terms of national defense. Apparently, Obama agrees for the most part (who many of you elected), hence the wars he never ended, refunded, and pumped even more trooped into.

But this is where we come to the "Defense spending doesn't count!" issue.

 

We're spending $700 billion dollars on the DOD this year, and even as we wind down the wars, that's going up at almost the rate at which healthcare costs increase. $30-50 billion a year.

 

You can't spend to infinity just because it's on defense. It's a huge slice of the budget, and being safe rather than sorry on defense is the attitude that has given us a large part of this debt that people keep telling me is so terrible.

[JorgeFabregas]

A big chunk of the defense budget goes to expensive weapons systems that have nothing to do with the war on terror.

 

Fighter jets and that sort of thing. Those costs continue to go up.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=18764753

 

RAZ: Christopher Hellman notes that Lockheed's projects are just a part of what drives the defense budget. There's missile defense, new jet fighters, a new naval destroyer, Virginia class submarines, the list goes on. And budget analysts estimate that these big-ticket items now make up almost half of the Pentagon's regular budget. According to Miriam Pemberton, a researcher with the Institute for Policy Studies, many of these programs…

 

Ms. MIRIAM PEMBERTON (Researcher, Institute for Policy Studies): …have no real value for any, you know, counter-terrorism operations. You know, al-Qaida and the Taliban don't have any fighter jets and are never going get any. So, these big-ticket items drive the budget and become de facto our security priorities when they don't in fact enhance our security.

 

RAZ: And defense spending, she says, is no longer a controversial issue on Capitol Hill. But it wasn't always that way.

 

Unidentified Male: Members of the Congress, I have the distinguished honor of presenting to you the president of the United States.

 

RAZ: Just a few days after his inauguration in 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower, who was the first general to serve as president in the 20th century, stunned Congress by promoting deep cuts in defense spending.

 

President Dwight Eisenhower (Former President): To a mass military power without regard to our economic capacity, would be to defend ourselves against one kind of disaster by inviting another.

 

Mr. WHEELER: What Eisenhower said was true then, it's just that now it's 10 times more true.

 

RAZ: And as Winslow Wheeler points out, today, Congress usually adds more money to the Pentagon's budget requests. Wheeler was forced to step down from his job as a Republican staffer on the Senate budget committee in 2002 after he wrote an article blasting bloated defense spending. He explains that every year, members of Congress figure out which defense projects will benefit their own districts, and then they add it to the defense budget.

Edited February 3, 2010 by JorgeFabregas

[lostfan]

Come on, he has no choice? How about getting out of Iraq/Afghanistan like he promised he would do? How about reforming Medicare/Medicaid entitlements, revamping welfare, etc. There's a ton of spending he could cut, it's just not a popular thing to do.

Not picking on you Jenks but I have to use your post as a springboard - I'm getting really tired of people saying this. I don't really know why people deluded themselves into thinking it was even possible for the president to end the war in Iraq overnight, but it's not. Iraq IS ending, and pretty close to the pace he (and Hillary, there wasn't a whole lot of practical difference) campaigned on. Just because you don't see it on the news every day doesn't mean it's not happening, the military is in the middle of a major reorganization of troop levels and they can't really move troops out of Iraq any faster than they are now. I think it's later this year, or early next year, they have to be down to 50k per the agreement with the Iraqi government... a couple of years ago they were at about 160k. It's a major logistical hurdle, to move that much equipment and personnel that fast. They didn't get into theater overnight and they won't get out that way either.

 

On Afghanistan, he never, not once, said he was going to end the war there either while he was campaigning or while he was president and last year before he announced his decision he even flatly rejected the idea of pulling troops out. But that is eventually going to end, too. For the past few years the Army's just been at a completely unsustainable operating pace and it's kind of miraculous the whole deal hasn't just fallen apart yet.

[lostfan]

Revamping Welfare? Um, they did that 10 years ago.

 

Getting out of Iraq? That'll be done this year.

 

He promised to "Win" in Afghanistan, not to get out of it.

 

We've been told that reforming Medicare/Medicaid = Nazism and Communism and so we're not allowed to do that and it can't possibly save money no matter how many studies say it will.

 

The idea that there's a lot of un-cut discretionary spending out there is a flat out myth that pols use to get elected every cycle because it's easy to believe that the money being spent that I don't directly see myself is wasted. About the only place that's true is in the DOD, and as we all know, defense spending doesn't count.

Yup. Obama too, he had to one-up McCain. It always gets brought into the picture all the time, it's never going to happen though. It's just not that easy to do.

[lostfan]

Clearly defense spending isn't going anywhere, but there are costs that can be cut within the defense/security budget. You hear stories all the time about the Pentagon ordering up planes/weapons that are never going to be used. Absolute waste.

The current Secretary of Defense isn't really a fan of doing that, but even a strong one like him can only push the Pentagon bureaucracy so far.

[Balta1701]

Yup. Obama too, he had to one-up McCain. It always gets brought into the picture all the time, it's never going to happen though. It's just not that easy to do.

Frankly, the $10 billion or so his admin. came up with last year really wasn't bad.