Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5365|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Defense contractors are job creators...

Why not invest in education? Why not build domestically rather than destroy internationally?
We already spend enough on education. Throwing more money at the problem hasn't produced better students or teachers, just wealthier teachers. It sounds good and makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside to believe that increasing education spending is a good thing, but it has almost zero impact on output. Whenever you hear a politician talking about increasing education spending, he'll talk about the skills gap or how we're falling behind in math and science etc. It's a sop to the teachers unions and a way to buy their vote. They're a special interest just like everyone else.
You already spend enough on education, but to spend more on the military is justified?

Forget education. How about public works and infrastructure? Defense isn't the only program that can create jobs, the problem is what do you then do with all the military equipment? Let it sit in the output yard?

Domestic spending is an investment you'll see a return on into the future when you improve roads, bridges, internet, sanitation, etc
Right, but it's not the governments job to create jobs. It doesn't matter if it's a defense contractor, or a school teacher, or a soldier, or a construction worker. Yes, infrastructure projects need to be completed, roads need to be maintained, soldiers need to be employed to keep the borders safe etc. But we've gotten to the point where our government creates permanent jobs just to say they've done something. Spending money just to spend money is not the right answer. Throwing money around willy nilly at infrastructure projects without actually looking to see if they make sense is not the answer. That is the approach that Congress took when they passed the stimulus package and it did nothing. They spent a trillion dollars and my roads are still full of potholes. My hometown took the stimulus money and created ugly black brick islands in the middle of the road leading into town that serve no one because the road is too busy to walk across anyway.

I'm not saying that all government spending is bad, but the vast, vast majority of it is wasteful. Jobs that can be done by the private sector without undermining the foundation of the purpose behind a government should be privatized. If you break it down to a basic level, the sole reason we formed governments in the first place was to set up a common defense and a justice system to keep people from stealing and murdering each other without repercussion. That's our base, beyond that, let's talk about privatization. It's not nearly as evil as people think it is.

Last edited by Jay (2012-10-11 20:18:17)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6160|what

The government has a justice system and defense system that is doing fine.

You're off in a little libertarian wet dream if you think privatization is the best way to build infrastructure.

You can't have competing sewer systems. You can't have competing road ways.

I don't understand how you justify the military spending by saying, well it creates jobs! Then argue that domestic spending creates jobs, sure, but the governments job isn't to create jobs! That's totally contradictory.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5365|London, England
I wasn't justifying military spending. I was justifying some defense spending. I want a very modest military, enough to defend our borders from immediate attacks. Keep a sizeable reserve force in case of something bigger, reserves are cheap.

But here's how the American political system has worked since FDR: elections are bought. Every one of them. Neither party will take the money saved on defense spending and pare down the overall federal budget. It won't be used to pay off the debt. The Dems want the defense cuts because it would be an attack on the Republicans base. They would take that money and buy off other special interest groups, preferably in battleground states, to shore up their numbers. Republicans fight defense cuts tooth and nail because that money is spent in their own districts and buys their own votes. Same goes for agriculture subsidies, oil company subsidies etc.

Our government doesn't give a fuck about actually governing the country, they care about reelection and making sure their own team wins as often as possible. Our infrastructure is on its deathbed, well past its life expectancy, but they spend that money on extra tanks, or on keeping teachers employed in school districts that can't afford them, because they are reliable votes. FDR taught our politicians that they don't need all of the votes to win an election, just enough, and that 'just enough' can be bought.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6418|'Murka

Jay wrote:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/

Highlighted part is the important stuff but the whole article is worth reading and will shed light on why Congress likes defense spending so much. Most defense contractors and military bases also happen to be housed inside of red states which contributes heavily to why the Republicans are so hawkish.
Also why we have more C-17s than we want/need, and why we have the C-130J--we didn't want either of them, but they were forced upon us.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5365|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/

Highlighted part is the important stuff but the whole article is worth reading and will shed light on why Congress likes defense spending so much. Most defense contractors and military bases also happen to be housed inside of red states which contributes heavily to why the Republicans are so hawkish.
Also why we have more C-17s than we want/need, and why we have the C-130J--we didn't want either of them, but they were forced upon us.
Along with F-22s, the JSF, the Osprey, destroyers etc. The justification is always "But we need the defense contractors in case we go to war and need mass production in a hurry" Yeah, ok. We turned car factories into tank and airplane factories not all that long ago and it worked out fine
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6418|'Murka

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/

Highlighted part is the important stuff but the whole article is worth reading and will shed light on why Congress likes defense spending so much. Most defense contractors and military bases also happen to be housed inside of red states which contributes heavily to why the Republicans are so hawkish.
Also why we have more C-17s than we want/need, and why we have the C-130J--we didn't want either of them, but they were forced upon us.
Along with F-22s, the JSF, the Osprey, destroyers etc. The justification is always "But we need the defense contractors in case we go to war and need mass production in a hurry" Yeah, ok. We turned car factories into tank and airplane factories not all that long ago and it worked out fine
Not really the F-22 or the JSF. The arguments to keep the F-22 line open, maybe. The F-22 and JSF were designed to counter/beat specific threats--poor program management and Congressional directives drove the costs through the roof.

Various ships: yes, but not all. The Osprey: I don't know; I'm not familiar with the requirements behind it. I know the AF's version was supposed to replace both the MH-53 and some SOF versions of the C-130 (old, worn-out airframes). Looks like it only replaced the MH-53.

The AF had a plan to modernize the C-5 fleet, which is so old it takes almost three jets to guarantee one will launch. The intent was to have heavy intertheater lift (C-5), medium inter/intra-theater lift (C-17), light intratheater lift (C-130)--mostly matched to Army mobility plans.

But specific programs aren't really the issue--they're a symptom of the problem: Congress deciding programmatics, as opposed to appropriations.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6722|US
Well, the F-22 is not exactly a "forced on the military" idea.  The AF wanted twice as many as it got, and rumor has it the Chief of Staff of the AF and the Secretary of the AF were fired by Gates partly for their dogged determination to get more, rather than buy more COIN-friendly assets like Predators.
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5186|Sydney
https://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/12727_484991874855162_782307942_n.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5365|London, England
The Romney-Ryan campaign has seized on Vice President Joe Biden's assertion during Thursday's debate that Ohio-made M1 Abrams tanks are no longer needed. The GOP ticket began running radio ads and making automated phone calls in Ohio on Friday featuring the vice president's quote, according to Republican state communications director Chris Maloney.
"The military says we need a smaller, leaner Army. We need more special forces. ...We don’t need more M1 tanks. What we need is more UAVs,” Biden said while he sat opposite of Republican vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan, at the debate in Lexington, Ky. The vice president's words, which broke no new policy ground, were a reminder of the Pentagon's decision this year to halt the production line from 2014 to 2017 as the vehicle is redesigned.
Ohio is home to the only tank production site in the country, and M1 tanks were spotlighted during Ryan's first joint appearance with Mitt Romney after the vice presidential debate.
"When you say it's OK to impose these devastating cuts on our military…that we don't need any more Lima-built M1 tanks, what we are doing is we're projecting weakness, and when we project weakness abroad our enemies become more brazen," Ryan said to a crowd of thousands in the town of Lancaster. The critique, made in conjunction with more blistering remarks about President Obama's handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, tied Ohio jobs with U.S. foreign policy.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who introduced the two candidates, made M1 tanks the central focus of his remarks.
"Joe Biden said a lot of interesting things, one was at a time of increasing danger all around the world," he said. "He said we ought to be cutting our military. Specifically, he said that we don't need any more M1 tanks. Did you hear that? Guess where those tanks are made, folks -- right here in the state of Ohio. We need M1 tanks because they're part of the greatest military on the face of the earth. They will ensure that we have a military second to none so that we can keep the peace. We need M1 tanks."
When Ryan campaigned in Lima, Ohio, in September, he called the Pentagon's tank proposal a "budget gimmick." The military has calculated that idling the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center would save up to $3 billion, but General Dynamics Corp. and Ohio members of Congress say it would cost more money to idle production than to keep it going at a slow click. House and Senate committees have passed measures to restore funding but critics accuse lawmakers of falling prey to political donations, pointing to the thousands of tanks being stored in California and their vulnerability to IED attacks.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 … z29C3AEf4A
le sigh. See? They don't care about reality, they care about votes in a battleground state. I hate this shit.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6113|eXtreme to the maX
General Dynamics Corp. and Ohio members of Congress say it would cost more money to idle production than to keep it going at a slow click.
Even I can see this is stupid.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5186|Sydney
It's going to save more than $3 billion by keeping production going... can someone explain how this is even possible?
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6723
So retarded not even funny. There's a lot of M1 Chassis that are just sitting around ready to be built up if it comes to war, same with a lot of US battleships.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6160|what

Jaekus wrote:

It's going to save more than $3 billion by keeping production going... can someone explain how this is even possible?
You've already ordered parts and they are on their way / sitting in the warehouses. Transport and storage costs.

If you halt production, you've now got parts unused. What do you do with those? Sell them? Who to? There's cost involved in either selling, or decomissioning these. And removing ammunition from your stock isn't easy. It's quite dangerous infact when you've got depleted uranium shells. Armour piercing rounds. All of which need to be safely desposed of. Even simply storing that sort of dangerous ammunition is a large safety concern.

So now you've got staff sitting around doing nothing. Plus extra staff who are needed for the storage and decomission.

Costs of the plants are continuing, because they haven't been decomissioned. There's still water/gas/electricity costs that happen when a plant is idle or moving to decomission.

It's not like you're flipping a switch here. A gradual reduction in production means you can forego a lot of the above worries.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5186|Sydney
*You may not karma the same person in a 24 hour period.

That makes sense. Thanks.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6113|eXtreme to the maX

AussieReaper wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

It's going to save more than $3 billion by keeping production going... can someone explain how this is even possible?
You've already ordered parts and they are on their way / sitting in the warehouses. Transport and storage costs.

If you halt production, you've now got parts unused. What do you do with those? Sell them? Who to? There's cost involved in either selling, or decomissioning these. And removing ammunition from your stock isn't easy. It's quite dangerous infact when you've got depleted uranium shells. Armour piercing rounds. All of which need to be safely desposed of. Even simply storing that sort of dangerous ammunition is a large safety concern.

So now you've got staff sitting around doing nothing. Plus extra staff who are needed for the storage and decomission.

Costs of the plants are continuing, because they haven't been decomissioned. There's still water/gas/electricity costs that happen when a plant is idle or moving to decomission.

It's not like you're flipping a switch here. A gradual reduction in production means you can forego a lot of the above worries.
All the parts are paid for, storing them would cost next to nothing, less than assembling them into tanks and then maintaining the tanks - with all their fluid systems and the assembly/disassembly required to do very regular maintanence.
Plus the regular operation of the vehicles to be sure they haven't seized up and still work - far far more effort than leaving parts in grease in crates where they'll be fine for half a century - there are many MIL-STDs which cover exactly that.

Ammunition - Unless there's a war in the planning then they're going to be stored no matter what, so that point is moot.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
lavadisk
I am a cat ¦ 3
+369|6837|Denver colorado
We don't need a military if a single nuke gets used. it will all come to an end very quickly.

VOTE OBAMA OR DIE.

People like you all are making the world hate us. No offense.
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|5396|Fuck this.
You know Obama and Rmoney are both jokes right? Democrat or Republican, full on asshat.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
west-phoenix-az
Guns don't kill people. . . joe bidens advice does
+632|6396
fact
https://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p123/west-phoenix-az/BF2S/bf2s_sig_9mmbrass.jpg
BVC
Member
+325|6703
Military forces aren't just used to blow shit up and shoot people, they're also a way for some of societies shitbags to get their lives back on track, not to mention the military is also suited to disaster relief.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6723

BVC wrote:

Military forces aren't just used to blow shit up and shoot people, they're also a way for some of societies shitbags to get their lives back on track, not to mention the military is also suited to disaster relief.
Only part of the military that does heavy disaster relief in the US are National Guard units. Those guys don't really need high speed low drag equipment.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6700
Airforce, Navy, and National Guard came through in Rockaway.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6723

Superior Mind wrote:

Airforce, Navy, and National Guard came through in Rockaway.
I was thinking more Army. Ya'll niggas don't need no M1's during natural disasters. Trucks and Helicopters would be fine.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6113|eXtreme to the maX

BVC wrote:

Military forces aren't just used to blow shit up and shoot people, they're also a way for some of societies shitbags to get their lives back on track,
Shhh.

More ships, thats what the military needs.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6504

https://i.imgur.com/HH7z0.jpg
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6697|Tampa Bay Florida
So..... this thing is ripe for conspiracy.  Was he used as a pawn by the Obama administration?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard