BF2S Forums $550 million dollars for jets.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'd argue that remaining more in touch with their constituents is more important.  To me, that's the biggest disconnect I see in our system.

And these jets will allow them to do that more. .. as well as do what is required in the capital.

I just don't see the necessity in having a central meeting place.

I support decentralized government both in separation of powers and in organization of officials.

I have to agree with Turquoise.  The only thing is that there are some things that must be done in-person like attend meetings that have classified information in them. 

If it can be transmitted over the internet then it can be intercepted and decoded by someone.


43 states in the United States have part-time legislatures.  There's a referendum going though California right now to make our full-time legislature part-time.

Maybe we should have a part-time Congress???

No seriously, a part-time congress would solve this problem.  Only 90 days of the year they would be in the Capital...the rest they would be in their districts.

Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500 (hmm...why does Nancy Pelosi make more???)
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400

Rank-and-File Members:
The current salary (2009) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.

Source: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongres … esspay.htm

President of the United States
=======================
Salary is $400,000 a year plus a $50,000 expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment.

So $569,000 with limitations on how $169,000 of it can be spent.

FEOS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Found it here.

Confirmed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacDill_Air_Force_Base

Seems like an odd place to host them but I guess since they frequent Centcom here in Tampa it makes a little sense.

My memory tis awsm

The Wing there might "own" the jets, but the jets "live" at the various Combatant Commanders' host bases. The extra jets Congress bought would probably be hosted at Andrews AFB MD by the 89th AW, which is the primary VIP airlift unit.

Welp.. they're fucking constantly flying over my house (like directly above my house)..lol. If I had a really good potato gun I'm pretty sure I could hit one.

Masques wrote:

Sort of OT, but I found this hi-fucking-larious bit in the WSJ article:

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said the Department of Defense didn't request the additional planes and doesn't need them. "We ask for what we need and only what we need," he told reporters Wednesday. "We've always frowned upon earmarks and additives that are above and beyond what we ask for."

The Pentagon...the fucking PENTAGON had the nerve...the baldfaced cheek to say that! Anyone who's had the (mis)fortune to explore the defense procurement process or the defense appropriations process knows what a large bit of bullshit that little statement is.

I'm sorry, but that really caught my attention.
[/tangent]

No kidding, but I think it's been evident that the military industrial complex lost any sense of shame a long time ago.

Masques wrote:

Sort of OT, but I found this hi-fucking-larious bit in the WSJ article:

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said the Department of Defense didn't request the additional planes and doesn't need them. "We ask for what we need and only what we need," he told reporters Wednesday. "We've always frowned upon earmarks and additives that are above and beyond what we ask for."

The Pentagon...the fucking PENTAGON had the nerve...the baldfaced cheek to say that! Anyone who's had the (mis)fortune to explore the defense procurement process or the defense appropriations process knows what a large bit of bullshit that little statement is.

I'm sorry, but that really caught my attention.
[/tangent]

Clearly you're not one of those who's had the "(mis)fortune to explore the defense procurement...or...appropriations process". Otherwise, you would understand why that statement is not at all "cheeky".

Everything that gets added as a required buy that you didn't want and didn't program for is now a sustainment bill that you have to pay for years. And it results in mis-directed attention of the acquisitions community because now they have to scramble to establish a sustainable program for additional assets that are neither wanted nor were planned for. It's a fucking mess, tbh.

FEOS wrote:

Masques wrote:

Sort of OT, but I found this hi-fucking-larious bit in the WSJ article:

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said the Department of Defense didn't request the additional planes and doesn't need them. "We ask for what we need and only what we need," he told reporters Wednesday. "We've always frowned upon earmarks and additives that are above and beyond what we ask for."

The Pentagon...the fucking PENTAGON had the nerve...the baldfaced cheek to say that! Anyone who's had the (mis)fortune to explore the defense procurement process or the defense appropriations process knows what a large bit of bullshit that little statement is.

I'm sorry, but that really caught my attention.
[/tangent]

Clearly you're not one of those who's had the "(mis)fortune to explore the defense procurement...or...appropriations process". Otherwise, you would understand why that statement is not at all "cheeky".

Everything that gets added as a required buy that you didn't want and didn't program for is now a sustainment bill that you have to pay for years. And it results in mis-directed attention of the acquisitions community because now they have to scramble to establish a sustainable program for additional assets that are neither wanted nor were planned for. It's a fucking mess, tbh.

How should we go about changing that?

apparently this just got shot down.  links to follow.

well done

FEOS wrote:

I win.

/thread over

One of the largest problems with government budgets is the use or lose philosophy.  If you don't use it one year, they assume you don't need as much next year, so much money is wasted spending budget money just so it isn't deducted from the following year's budget.  That wouldn't be so bad if they didn't make it so damn hard to get more money once a budget has been reduced.  Since it often takes a vast amount of time and energy to get additional funds, departments don't want to let the money go when they don't really need it, because getting it back when you do is damn near impossible.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Clearly you're not one of those who's had the "(mis)fortune to explore the defense procurement...or...appropriations process". Otherwise, you would understand why that statement is not at all "cheeky".

Everything that gets added as a required buy that you didn't want and didn't program for is now a sustainment bill that you have to pay for years. And it results in mis-directed attention of the acquisitions community because now they have to scramble to establish a sustainable program for additional assets that are neither wanted nor were planned for. It's a fucking mess, tbh.

How should we go about changing that?

Unfortunately, the ones who have to change it are the ones who benefit from it...the lawmakers.

I would think the easiest route (though wasteful) would be to just not plan for sustainment of that stuff. Congress forces the buy, then it stops being used when it has to be maintained. But the problem is that often Congress forces a program on the military then tells the military to offset that program with one that they actually wanted. As I said...it's a fucking mess.

Why not just give the military a set budget and let them work things out their own way?

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-08-11 16:23:36)

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Unfortunately, the ones who have to change it are the ones who benefit from it...the lawmakers.

I would think the easiest route (though wasteful) would be to just not plan for sustainment of that stuff. Congress forces the buy, then it stops being used when it has to be maintained. But the problem is that often Congress forces a program on the military then tells the military to offset that program with one that they actually wanted. As I said...it's a fucking mess.

Why not just give the military a set budget and let them work things out their own way?

That's generally the way it works...Congress just changes the law when it goes to appropriations to force the DoD to buy certain things.

Why?  Lemme guess...  pork, right?