$3B taxpayer’s money down the drain.

2011-03-27 02:15:14

#1

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6860|132 and Bush

The Pentagon has issued a stop work order for a controversial second engine for a futuristic jet fighter, calling the engine, which has already cost billions, a “waste of taxpayer money” – but General Electric has vowed to press forward with development using its own funds.

GE has taken a never-say-die approach to the engine. GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt wrote a note to aviation workers after the February House vote to stop funding that said, “GE will continue to press our case in the U.S. Senate and elsewhere.”

General Electric has already shelled out millions in relentless pursuit of the engine contract, and its most recent vow to fight on is the latest evidence of the company’s aggressive strategy for Washington influence. It is an approach that has helped GE become the nation’s top corporate spender on lobbying, spending more than $238 million on lobbyists over the past 12 years.

An ABC News review of General Electric lobbying found that the company has more than angels on its side — it has an arsenal of former congressional leaders from both parties, including such well-known figures as former Sen. Trent Lott and former Rep. Dick Gephardt.

Last year, GE also hired Barack Obama’s former campaign manager, David Plouffe, as a consultant, according to Plouffe’s recently filed financial disclosure forms. It is unclear what Plouffe was hired to do, though his relationship with the president and senior White House staff is close to unparalleled. Plouffe is now back working as a senior advisor to Obama.

The DOD doesn’t want it, saying the Lockheed fighter is fine with the Pratt & Whitney engine. Congress doesn’t want it, but GE is going to spend more millions lobbying to get the contract.

Why has Congress spent $3,000,000,000 on development of an engine the military says it doesn’t want?

GE made $14.2 billion in profits worldwide and $5.1 billion in the U.S. GE has claimed a tax credit of $3.2 billion. They don’t pay federal income tax. GE’s inhouse staff is considered “the best tax law firm in the world”. GE’s CEO was named the head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in January.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-03-27 02:23:47

#2

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6412|what

"They don’t pay federal income tax."

Well there's your problem.

2011-03-27 03:36:32

#3

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6860|132 and Bush

AussieReaper wrote:
"They don’t pay federal income tax."

Well there's your problem.

Well yea, one of many apparent problems. Pork loving Congressional leaders shoving military expenditures down our throat is another.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-03-27 03:43:32

#4

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

"The DOD doesn’t want it, saying the Lockheed fighter is fine with the Pratt & Whitney engine. Congress doesn’t want it, but GE is going to spend more millions lobbying to get the contract.

Why has Congress spent $3,000,000,000 on development of an engine the military says it doesn’t want?"

I have worked on P&W engines, believe me, if they are not installing JT8D's in those jets, they want GE's

2011-03-27 03:47:29

#5

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7030|PNW

The only serious answer I can give to this situation is 'ugh.'

2011-03-27 03:59:43

#6

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6860|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:
"The DOD doesn’t want it, saying the Lockheed fighter is fine with the Pratt & Whitney engine. Congress doesn’t want it, but GE is going to spend more millions lobbying to get the contract.

Why has Congress spent $3,000,000,000 on development of an engine the military says it doesn’t want?"

I have worked on P&W engines, believe me, if they are not installing JT8D's in those jets, they want GE's

Then why would the military turn down, in your personal opinion, a superior piece of equipment when it has already been granted funding?

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-03-27 04:02:23

#7

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

if you really wanna be disgusted

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_bar.php?title=Welfare&year=2011&sname=United_States&units=b&fed=495.588&xfer=-35.11526&state=155.158721&local=87.07014&total=702.701601

at least people are employed at GE, and technology is being developed. What has this welfare budget produced?

but nooo, can't have any outrage for the nanny state.

702,000,000,000 for nothing, compared to 3,000,000,000 that goes to Research and development of new technologies. Yes folks, even if the project is cancelled , what is learned from it does go toward other projects and technologies.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-27 04:08:42)

2011-03-27 04:03:13

#8

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

Kmar wrote:
lowing wrote:
"The DOD doesn’t want it, saying the Lockheed fighter is fine with the Pratt & Whitney engine. Congress doesn’t want it, but GE is going to spend more millions lobbying to get the contract.

Why has Congress spent $3,000,000,000 on development of an engine the military says it doesn’t want?"

I have worked on P&W engines, believe me, if they are not installing JT8D's in those jets, they want GE's
Then why would the military turn down, in your personal opinion, a superior piece of equipment when it has already been granted funding?

who knows, my guess is the want the money freed up for something else.

2011-03-27 04:05:59

#9

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6860|132 and Bush

Is the pentagon not interested in R&D? They stopped requesting the money for the project two years ago.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-03-27 04:06:17

#10

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6258|...

Probably to keep the price down because the jet has passed its original budget by at least 5x as much money

Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-27 04:06:58)

inane little opines

2011-03-27 04:07:54

#11

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

Kmar wrote:
Is the pentagon not interested in R&D? They stopped requesting the money for the project two years ago.

The pentagon can only play with the money congress gives them. They may have something else in the works that they deem more prudent now.

2011-03-27 04:10:04

#12

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6860|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:
Kmar wrote:
lowing wrote:
"The DOD doesn’t want it, saying the Lockheed fighter is fine with the Pratt & Whitney engine. Congress doesn’t want it, but GE is going to spend more millions lobbying to get the contract.

Why has Congress spent $3,000,000,000 on development of an engine the military says it doesn’t want?"

I have worked on P&W engines, believe me, if they are not installing JT8D's in those jets, they want GE's
Then why would the military turn down, in your personal opinion, a superior piece of equipment when it has already been granted funding?
who knows, my guess is the want the money freed up for something else.

Well congress seems commited. The only logical answer is that they are on the ge payroll. Yes, I realize i'm not breaking any news with this story. But we should always pay attention to these antics.. especially when they are so blatent.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-03-27 04:11:36

#13

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6412|what

Kmar wrote:
Is the pentagon not interested in R&D?

I heard funding to NASA is being cut. So I guess not.

2011-03-27 04:16:57

#14

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

Kmar wrote:
lowing wrote:
Kmar wrote:

Then why would the military turn down, in your personal opinion, a superior piece of equipment when it has already been granted funding?
who knows, my guess is the want the money freed up for something else.
Well congress seems commited. The only logical answer is that they are on the ge payroll. Yes, I realize i'm not breaking any news with this story. But we should always pay attention to these antics.. especially when they are so blatent.

I agree, we should be concerned with antics such as wasted 3 billion, should we not be even more concerned with antics that waste 702 billion.

I mean c'mon Kmar, if I had posted:

govt. spends 702 billion each year on project that produces nothing. Peoples first reaction would be that of outrage. When then told it is for welfare, then it would change to something of understanding.

Personally I would like them to free up money from welfare and carry on with R and D. It employs people and develops new technologies. Welfare does nothing except perpetuate and reward laziness, and stupid decisions.

2011-03-27 04:18:17

#15

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
Kmar wrote:
Is the pentagon not interested in R&D?
I heard funding to NASA is being cut. So I guess not.

This is a good thing, all of those people can take their talents to the private sector that will get shit done in more efficient, budgeted manner.

2011-03-27 04:18:58

#16

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6860|132 and Bush

AussieReaper wrote:
Kmar wrote:
Is the pentagon not interested in R&D?
I heard funding to NASA is being cut. So I guess not.

For scientific endeavours yes. But im pretty sure I saw a x37b go up the other day on top of a delta.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-03-27 04:19:31

#17

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7030|PNW

lowing wrote:
if you really wanna be disgusted
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usg … 702.701601

at least people are employed at GE, and technology is being developed. What has this welfare budget produced?

but nooo, can't have any outrage for the nanny state.

702,000,000,000 for nothing, compared to 3,000,000,000 that goes to Research and development of new technologies. Yes folks, even if the project is cancelled , what is learned from it does go toward other projects and technologies.

Putting aside the issue of welfare for the moment, if the military says it doesn't need or want this engine, why was money spent on it in the first place? Could make any number of viable guesses as to why, but it's just frustrating.

2011-03-27 04:21:58

#18

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6860|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Kmar wrote:
Is the pentagon not interested in R&D?
I heard funding to NASA is being cut. So I guess not.
This is a good thing, all of those people can take their talents to the private sector that will get shit done in more efficient, budgeted manner.

NASA is one of the few places where the money is used effectively (for the most part).. generating revenue even. Name me any other agency that does that operating on less than one half of one percent of the federal budget.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-03-27 04:22:48

#19

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
lowing wrote:
if you really wanna be disgusted
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usg … 702.701601

at least people are employed at GE, and technology is being developed. What has this welfare budget produced?

but nooo, can't have any outrage for the nanny state.

702,000,000,000 for nothing, compared to 3,000,000,000 that goes to Research and development of new technologies. Yes folks, even if the project is cancelled , what is learned from it does go toward other projects and technologies.
Putting aside the issue of welfare for the moment, if the military says it doesn't need or want this engine, why was money spent on it in the first place? Could make any number of viable guesses as to why, but it's just frustrating.

Is it just AS frustrating as wasted 702 billion A YEAR on welfare? As stated, the R and D did not go to waste. It will be utilized somewhere else, perhaps more fuel efficient engines that are more environmentally friendly?

2011-03-27 04:25:02

#20

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6860|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:
It will be utilized somewhere else, perhaps more fuel efficient engines that are more environmentally friendly?

You filthy liberal.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-03-27 04:26:40

#21

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

Kmar wrote:
lowing wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:

I heard funding to NASA is being cut. So I guess not.
This is a good thing, all of those people can take their talents to the private sector that will get shit done in more efficient, budgeted manner.
NASA is one of the few places where the money is used effectively (for the most part).. generating revenue even. Name me any other agency that does that operating on less than one half of one percent of the federal budget.

I can't, I assumed it was over budget and inefficient for one reason only. It was ran by the US govt. Still, that only tells me just how much revenue the private sector will generate also, NASA does not R and D. NASA hires contractors that do it. There is no such thing as a NASA built, anything.

2011-03-27 04:29:15

#22

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

Kmar wrote:
lowing wrote:
It will be utilized somewhere else, perhaps more fuel efficient engines that are more environmentally friendly?
You filthy liberal.

I know, I need a shower.

2011-03-27 04:32:48

#23

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6860|132 and Bush

You're right, they contract the labor out (maybe that is their secret?). Nasa builds ideas... and often sells the patents and designs they come up with. The tangible benifits are all around us, everyday. NASA is usually within budget. One exception was the orion program, which was promptly chopped.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-03-27 04:34:36

#24

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

Ya know several years ago Boeing and Sikorsky developed the Comanche helicopter for the army. It ran over budget ( of course) and was cancelled after dumping billions into the project. Hell they damn thing was flying. However the technologies that were developed, is being utilized in other aspects of existing helicopters in the form of upgrades. It is not like the money is just gone ( like welfare ), it has produced

2011-03-27 04:40:07

#25

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

Hell, look at all the money spent on airplanes that were never produced. technology is still there though. No, even though on the surface this looks like such a waste, in reality it does produce.

BF2S Forums $3B taxpayer’s money down the drain.

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

Board footer