backtop

Print 184 comment(s) - last by Belard.. on Apr 19 at 5:45 AM

  (Source: Villagers with Torches)
The discussion and possible ramifications of ending the F-22 Raptor program continues to ripple through the industry

An op-ed piece written by Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz defended the decision to effectively end the F-22 Raptor program, with an emphasis on future aircraft.   

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the surprising news earlier in the month, which has caused a political backlash forcing the Air Force to defend its decision.

"We support the final four F-22s proposed in the fiscal 2009 supplemental request, as this will aid the long-term viability of the F-22 fleet," it was written.  "But the time has come to close out production.  That is why we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget.  Make no mistake:  Air dominance remains an essential capability for joint warfighting.  The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come.  But the time has come to move on."

There are still 187 F-22 fighter jets that are being produced or must be delivered, but the Pentagon will not place any new orders for the $140 million aircraft.  Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin have lobbied and launched ad campaigns to try and keep their contracts alive, but the Pentagon said it's near impossible that the program will receive an additional life line.

Both Donley and Schwartz admitted they wanted up to 243 jets in its F-22 fleet, but there are numerous other projects the $13 billion can be used to fund.

The Pentagon plans to shift its focus on the smaller, more versatile Lockheed F-35 fighter jet, and this is the right time to do it, according to the Air Force.  Military officials expect to have 2,443 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and 187 F-22 jets, which should be able to keep the Air Force's air superiority over other nations.

It was possible F-22 production would overlap with F-35 production, but it was believed to be unneeded and overly expensive, which is why it was struck down.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By fiskov on 4/14/2009 10:06:27 AM , Rating: 3
Don't get me wrong, i love the Raptor.. But think just how much better fighters could be without the limitations of the pilot sitting in the seat of the aircraft..
- Less weight, longer distances
- Much more aggressive maneuvers
- A much sleaker, efficient design.
And that's just to name a few..
The day of the pilot is over, let the joystick generation take over from a trailer/carrier miles away from the battle field.




RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Steve1981 on 4/14/2009 10:28:50 AM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't a remote controlled UAV be susceptible to jamming?


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2009 10:33:15 AM , Rating: 5
Short answer : yes.

Long answer : No matter how encrypted it is, or what exotic super secret frequency is being used, if we relied on 100% remote control air force we would be morons. It would be a simple matter, really, for an enemy to put such high levels of frequency jamming energy into the atmosphere that any uplink between UAV and base would be interrupted.


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Etsp on 4/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2009 11:06:23 AM , Rating: 4
So wait, did I read this right ?

Your plan would be to put all the UAV controllers in a "prop aircraft" near the battlefield ?

Do I even have to go into how tactically stupid that would be?


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Amiga500 on 4/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By akosixiv on 4/14/2009 1:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
that's until you have a "Insert Enemy Fighter Here" on your tail hurling missiles at your prop ship.


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Danish1 on 4/14/2009 2:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
You miss the point though, which is that "Insert Enemy Fighter Here" isn't supposed to get to the mothership anymore than they are supposed to be able to get to your AWACS, or your carriers.


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Steve1981 on 4/14/2009 2:28:41 PM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately in an actual war against real opponents, "isn't supposed to" does occasionally happen.

In the case of motherships operating drones behind the line of battle, a hidden SAM site or a lucky fighter could bring an entire operation to a grinding halt.


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Danish1 on 4/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Steve1981 on 4/14/2009 3:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
I won't deny the advantages of a mothership/drone setup and I understand how they could be used to supplement a manned air force.

However, replacement is another matter. To put it another way: no navy relies solely upon carriers.

And of course, there is an important difference between carriers and mothership/drones: if the carrier is destroyed, what aircraft it has deployed are still deadly. If a mothership is destroyed, the drones are useless.


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Danish1 on 4/14/2009 3:43:36 PM , Rating: 4
Obviously a full drone airforce won't happen from one day to another, if ever.

As for you claim about drones being useless if the mothership is destroyed then you really haven't thought it through.

You can have more than one mothership and more than one way to control a drone. I mean it would be pretty stupid to marry drones to one ship only and then have them self destruct if they lose communications with it...


By Steve1981 on 4/14/2009 4:44:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Obviously a full drone airforce won't happen from one day to another, if ever.


That's the context of my remarks, given the original line of "The day of the pilot is over, let the joystick generation take over from a trailer/carrier miles away from the battle field."

quote:
As for you claim about drones being useless if the mothership is destroyed then you really haven't thought it through.


Depends on how autonomous the drones are. Given that fully autonomous combat drones are not exactly anywhere near prime time, nor necessarily desirable, I'm framing my comments around drones that would be piloted by actual people from the mothership.

In that instance, while a drone might be able to establish contact with another mothership (if one were available) and be able to return to base, unless the other mothership had available pilots (which would generally be a waste of manpower to have as a matter of normal operations), its combat usefulness for the operation would be negligible, and it would be a major sitting duck.

In either case, given the first part of your comment, the rest of this is more or less moot.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2009 3:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That scenario is no different to a lurking sub taking a carrier out and yet carriers are still worth it.


Actually, if you thought about it, that's very different.


By Spazmodian on 4/14/2009 5:32:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Err... actually the idea of a mothership with deployable MAVs or UAVs is quite well developed, and is definitely in the pipeline.


In what psychotic universe? Are you using cocaine right now?

The Reaper has a wing span twice that of an F-16. The vast majority of an airframe is not designed around the pilot, it's designed around the weapons and propulsion systems. If you use 'fun size' UAVs then they can only use 'fun size' ordnance. The mother ship would have to carry the aircraft, the ordnance, the maintainers and everything required to launch and receive the aircraft as well as the support for those functions. Basically you just said we have plans for flying aircraft carriers. Yeah lets lash some helos to the deck of the USS Ronald Reagan.

Did you just watch Tail Spin and get a hard-on at seeing Don Carnage?


By Amiga500 on 4/15/2009 2:14:34 AM , Rating: 2
Folks you don't seem to realise, this isn't an opinion post, its fact.

Go google "mothership UAV".


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By MrBungle123 on 4/14/09, Rating: 0
By FingerMeElmo87 on 4/14/2009 6:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
That makes perfect sense until said enemy shows up in the middle of the night with a B2 type stealth bomber/fighter and blows your shit oblivion.


By MrBungle123 on 4/14/2009 7:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
omni-sensor FTW!


By ggordonliddy on 4/14/2009 10:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
What is "rediculous"?


By SlyNine on 4/15/2009 4:16:33 AM , Rating: 2
SomeBody must be playing supreme commander alittle much.


By MrPoletski on 4/15/2009 6:21:02 AM , Rating: 2
Umm, eve reference? I haven't seen any T3 artillery shells yet tho;)


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Curelom on 4/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2009 11:11:03 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's why smarter UAVs are needed that can operate on their own.


Yeah because there are such HUGE advances made in A.I, that it would be a really good idea to have an autonomous aircraft roaming around with missiles and air to ground munitions on board...


By Teh Interwebz on 4/14/2009 1:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
We already have auto pilots. Flying a plane is a pretty specific task and there are very few obstacles to avoid or objects to detect and identify so large amounts of general AI is not needed like it is on the ground. All you need to be able to do is fly the plane, detect and avoid the ground, and detect and either avoid or track another aircraft. I would imagine it would be fairly easy relatively speaking to program the auto pilot with counter manuevers when the radar detects another aircraft manuevering. It would take some time to make it sophisticated enough to compete with a human but that is a development issue not an AI limitation. At the minimum you'd only need the controller to verify the aircraft is hostile and authorize the use of the weapons unless the other aircraft shoots first, which is what pilots already have to do if I'm not mistaken.
If the programming was refined enough and a drone was made especially for pilotless dogfighting, I could easily see a drone being far superior to a human pilot any day. It could make decisions much faster and would make far fewer basic flight mistakes. It would be much faster and more agile because you wouldnt need all the weight of lifesupport systems and you could make turns at much higher G forces than a human could. In addition it would be cheaper because you dont have the cost of pilot training or it is drastically reduced.


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Nfarce on 4/14/2009 1:37:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
All you need to be able to do is fly the plane, detect and avoid the ground, and detect and either avoid or track another aircraft. I would imagine it would be fairly easy relatively speaking to program the auto pilot with counter manuevers when the radar detects another aircraft manuevering. It would take some time to make it sophisticated enough to compete with a human but that is a development issue not an AI limitation.


Following a programmed flight plan and flying wings level with the occasional turn and climb or decent to altitude is not that big of a deal. We've had 4 axis autopilots for nearly a half century. You ever read NTSB aviation accident reports? Every crash is different and under different circumstances although the cause may be the same: human or mechanical error. You cannot program AI to every perceived situation, because a lot of them are not even thought of - until after they happen.

A computer would not have been able to do what Scully did on the Hudson River any more than what USAF Capt. Steve Ritchie did with an F-4 in Vietnam against overwhelming odds.

Me personally? I don't want to risk my life (or my nation's security) on a computer that wasn't programmed to handle a certain event.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2009 2:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A computer would not have been able to do what Scully did on the Hudson River any more than what USAF Capt. Steve Ritchie did with an F-4 in Vietnam against overwhelming odds.


A-freaking-men to that.


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By MrPoletski on 4/15/2009 6:23:24 AM , Rating: 1
not to mention that modern fighter jets already fly themselves pretty much, the pilot just tells the computer where he wants to fly to.


By MrPoletski on 4/17/2009 6:45:04 AM , Rating: 2
yes they do, downraters, just try flying the eurofighter, for example, without its flight control computer... impossible.


By Steve1981 on 4/14/2009 11:26:25 AM , Rating: 3
It would be a heck of a note if we had a wing of UAVs deployed and about to engage manned enemy fighters and jamming kicks in which causes the UAVs to switch priorities from the immediate threat to hunting jammers.


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By TheFace on 4/14/2009 11:39:21 AM , Rating: 1
Couldn't you just code them with parameters stating this is the 'box' you fly in, kill anything you encounter?


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Steve1981 on 4/14/2009 11:49:13 AM , Rating: 3
For a few ethical and technical reasons, probably not.

Suppose the enemy wants to surrender? Suppose you have friendlies in the field unbeknown to base?


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By MrBungle123 on 4/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By Steve1981 on 4/14/2009 12:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
Still doesn't deal with the problem of enemies surrendering. Moreover, such a transponder could be duplicated by an enemy.


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By MrBungle123 on 4/14/2009 12:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
Well I guess they shouldn't try to surrender to UAV's then huh? :)


By Steve1981 on 4/14/2009 12:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Not ones that are programmed to kill anything in a predefined box at least.


By yomamafor1 on 4/14/2009 12:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
But for aircrafts that want to operate in secrecy, such as the MH-53 Pave Lows, they will turn the transponder off to reduce visibility on the radar.

UAV will probably replace the pilots someday, but now is not the time.


By OoklaTheMok on 4/14/2009 12:55:11 PM , Rating: 3
These friendly transponders already exist and have been in use for many, many years. It is called IFF Mode 4. The problem is that if the aircraft's transponder breaksdown, a intelligent UAV would not be "smart" enough to figure it out.


By Aloonatic on 4/15/2009 4:58:13 AM , Rating: 1
Do none of you ready or watch anything to do with what actually happens in actual conflicts rather the Hollywood produced, DoD sanctioned video spectaculars of bunkers being "busted" etc? Instead, try watching programs or read accounts that actually show the utter chaos that happens in real conflicts.

Transponders and such just don't work even when people are in charge of what is going on, let alone AI. I seem to recall an RAF jet was shot down in the early days of the Iraq invasion by a US anti aircraft/scud missile missile battery when it was mistaken for a scud missile and I'm assuming that there were plenty of opportunities for the "system" to know who was who then automatically, amongst many other mistaken identities and such then when tagging and tracking systems have been tried.

These things are never that simple and the complications of the real world and real world conflicts are so immense that they are virtually impossible to program for.


RE: Shame, but a step in the right direction..
By AnnihilatorX on 4/14/2009 11:48:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
No matter how encrypted it is, or what exotic super secret frequency is being used,


Not necessarily, it is only practical to jam a specific frequency range since there is a limit to the power output of the jammer equipment. If you have multiple redundancies of frequency channels well separated and is unknown to the enemy, it is possible to evade jamming.


By Fritzr on 4/14/2009 12:22:12 PM , Rating: 3
Add to that military communications do not rely on single frequency connection. splitting the signal across multiple frequencies was developed in WWII for torpedo control and has been vastly improved since then.

The current crop of UAVs serve nicely as a testbed for the concept. The military will know when one finally goes down to jamming and will work on specific countermeasures ... that's why war is so effective at driving R&D :D


By Steve1981 on 4/14/2009 12:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and is unknown to the enemy


I would think thats a lot to hope for in and of itself.


By MrPoletski on 4/15/2009 6:16:16 AM , Rating: 2
On a cloud free day, a modulated laser beam from a satellite would be very hard to jam.

Only problem for the remote pilot... laaaggggg..


By Nfarce on 4/14/2009 11:03:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The day of the pilot is over, let the joystick generation take over


Aviation analysts have been saying this for decades for both airliners and fighter/bombers. There will never be a better replacement for the cockpit than the human brain, be it a civilian or military cockpit.

Studies have been done for some time now, and in everything from cockpit emergencies to situational awareness in dogfighting (both short and long range), the computers of today, with all our wonderful technology, can't replicate the human brain's capability.

And as someone else here stated, we'd have to be utter morons to go completely remote in combat military aviation, not the least of which is the threat of hacking or satellite disruptions.


By rippleyaliens on 4/14/2009 7:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
1. The drawback to a UAV is that for every uav=2 pilots. with f22=1 pilot
2. A uav with all its optics, CANNOT see as much as a pilot.
3. A F22 pilot, is designated to defeat enemy aircraft. PERIOD first and for-most. UAV (today) CANNOT preform those tasks...

The F22 was and is designed to be an air superior!! aircraft. Todays battle field, we are fighting against army's without airforces, BUT as history has shown, things change. $122mil is ALOT for a aircraft, BUT we needs it. The F15 is still TOP dog, but over 20 years old, so new plane is needed. I hate paying for it, personally, BUT it is indeed needed..
CHINA's Airforce is HUGE,, SO we need to be ready.. USSR's Airforce is huge as well.. WE NEED TO BE READY..

People who say that the day of the pilot is over, obviously are arm chair warriors.. This isnt terminator... This isnt stealth.. THIS is today, here and now.
The f35, is no way capable of 1:1 against a f22.. the f35 is the equivalent of a f16.. A general purpose fighter.. the F22 is air superiority.
I was there in desert storm, and THANK GOODNESS for REAGAN NOMICS.. Money that was sceen as a waste in the 80's WERE a GODSCEND in the 90's...

ALSO UAV, at max can only cary 8 hell fires, and 2 bombs.. VERSUS the F22 can carry much more.. YAH the UAV is cheaper, yet SLOWER.. When you are getting straffed by a mig, you kinda want something to take it out.. EASY for armchair warriors to reference games, or silly ideas like motherships, versus the hard fact, of Reality versus fantasy


By Pryde on 4/15/2009 2:49:14 AM , Rating: 2
I think what a lot of people are misunderstanding unmanned, they still have a human controller just not in the aircraft. Aircraft that choose their own targets and fire is very unlikely to happen anytime in the near future.

There are huge bonuses to UAVs
Size - They are a lot smaller but they could make larger versions, smaller size is harder to locate and target, there is not always the need for a huge payload.
Cost - The cost of not just the aircraft but training the pilots etc.
Manpower - 1 person could possibly control more than 1 UAV
UAVs could be controlled from the ground soldiers giving them very close air support.

There are just so many roles that UAVs could be used for that tradition manned aircraft just would not be able to capable off.


Great posts guys except for the OP
By suryad on 4/14/2009 9:44:13 AM , Rating: 3
It still is sad to see the F-22 being discontinued. One of my favorite machines ever. Though I must say I liked the YF-23 prototypes much better. I am not as knowledgeable on the F-35 so maybe some googling is necessary. Is it as versatile and as powerful as the F-22? I guess not because that would be the reason why they are producing so many F-35s?




RE: Great posts guys except for the OP
By TheFace on 4/14/2009 11:41:49 AM , Rating: 3
smaller, less range, single engine. There is a vertical takeoff variation. It's really just less cool. No American 'exclusivity' club on the F35 Joint Strike Fighter either.


RE: Great posts guys except for the OP
By Fireshade on 4/15/2009 11:33:24 AM , Rating: 1
There are some significant drawbacks to the F-22.

Compared to the JSF, the F-22 Raptor is indeed larger in size and internal volume. Nevertheless, the F-22 suffers from one key limitation. Its center bays were designed around the AIM-120 AMRAAM that is only about 12 ft (3.65 m) in length and has a maximum fin span of about 1.5 ft (0.45 m). These dimensions are quite sufficient for the aircraft's primary role as an air superiority fighter. However, the end of the Cold War forced the Air Force to change priorities and give the F-22 a stronger ground attack capability. Unfortunately, most air-to-ground weapons are significantly longer, wider, taller, and heavier than the AIM-120, making it difficult to integrate such weapons into the F-22 bays. The only weapon that has been integrated so far is the GBU-32 JDAM, a GPS-guided bomb that is about 10 ft (3.05 m) in length and is based on the 1,000 lb (455 kg) Mk-83 general purpose bomb.
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163....

I'd say scrap the F-22.
The F-35 is by far a sounder choice.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/15/2009 11:57:44 AM , Rating: 3
I say, you're an idiot. Scrap the F-22 because it can't carry bombs that it wasn't designed to carry ?

It's an air superiority fighter. We have dozens of planes that can drop bombs !


RE: Great posts guys except for the OP
By dgingeri on 4/14/2009 11:55:24 AM , Rating: 1
In addition to the disadvantages named above, there is also:

F-35 parts are not entirely American made, as the F-22 is. The production of the F-35 is spread all around the world. When it comes to the security of the country, I'd rather not rely on parts from France or Germany to keep our air force working. If we get cut off from receiving supplies (the French pretty much hate us already, plus they have a sizable Muslim population that might turn on us) Our air force would become useless pretty quickly.

F-35 is not as stealthy. it has nearly double the radar cross-section compared to the F-22.

F-35 is not as fast. the F-22 can reach Mach 2.5 without afterburners. the F-35 needs to burn more fuel, in the form of afterburners, in order to reach these speeds, despite the single engine. It ends up being less fuel efficient in combat, which cuts the useful range even further.


RE: Great posts guys except for the OP
By Mojo the Monkey on 4/14/2009 12:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(the French pretty much hate us already, plus they have a sizable Muslim population that might turn on us)


are you actually suggesting an Islamic revolution in France as your "uh-oh" scenario? And other relations have been normalized as of late. This isnt 2002, fearmonger.


RE: Great posts guys except for the OP
By phxfreddy on 4/14/2009 2:33:13 PM , Rating: 1
Anyone who can not see what is coming in France is willfully ignorant or just plain stupid. Check the demographics. The moslems are having children. The real Europeans are not.

There will come a day when France is Islamic. Plain and simple.


By Danish1 on 4/14/2009 2:48:52 PM , Rating: 4
Well by then the US will be mainly hispanic and chances are US President Carlos will be best friends with French President Hussain, who knows. ;p


By Klober on 4/14/2009 3:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
So much wrong with this post.

First, the F-22 was not meant to be our main home defense force, the F-35 is for that role. You can tell this by the number of each the USAF plans to deploy (originally 750 F-22s now cut to <200, compared to somewhere up around 2000 F-35s) and the characteristics of each aircraft. Through Operation Noble Eagle we have fighters in the sky above the US 24/7 for security - does <200 aircraft sound like enough to patrol the entire US? No. Next, why would we need the most stealthy fighter ever made to patrol and protect our own territory? We wouldn't, the stealth is for offensive operations over enemy territory - the stealthiness of the F-35 is plenty for home defense, and plenty for offensive operations once the F-22 has achieved air superiority. While I agree that having everything "Made in USA" would be best so we can't be cutoff from necessary repair parts in a time of conflict, I feel pretty safe that we'll have sufficient quantities stockpiled for everything except a major war.

As for being less stealthy, it's true, it is, but at what cost exactly? The F-22 is regarded as having approximately the radar signature of a steel marble, so even twice that isn't significant. The F-22 has less than 1% of the radar signature of the old F-117, so the F-35 has likely between 1-1.5% the signature of the F-117. Still pretty darn sexy stealth-wise I'd say.

The F-35 is definitely nowhere near as fast as the F-22. The mistake you make here is the F-22 can only supercruise at up to about Mach 1.8. Mach 2.5 is only theoretically possible with full afterburners.

Please do some reading up and use some common sense before making comments. :)


RE: Great posts guys except for the OP
By eggman on 4/14/2009 4:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
"F-22 can reach Mach 2.5 without afterburners"

Sorry, slightly above Mach 1 without the fire, which is still impressive?

Cheers


By MrPoletski on 4/17/2009 6:53:24 AM , Rating: 2
anything can reach mach 2.5 when dropped from high enough...


By Belard on 4/14/2009 4:23:27 PM , Rating: 3
The French don't hate us... they hated Bush and the rest of his team, as does most of the world.

And for the general Americans, a lot of people looks a down at us for being dumb enough to elect bush in 2004.

Your points about the F22 are agreed... but the F-35 is still a shared project among our allies. Those other countries are in the same boat and it has advantages. With that in mind, if we were to go to war with Germany in 2020, the USA could still change production of whatever parts to the USA.

The F15, F16 and most other US Jet fighters have been built and sold to other nations in the world. Look at the Japanese F2, which is still basiclly a bigger version of the F16.


By Belard on 4/14/2009 4:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
The French don't hate us... they hated Bush and the rest of his team, as does most of the world.

And for the general Americans, a lot of people looks a down at us for being dumb enough to elect bush in 2004.

Your points about the F22 are agreed... but the F-35 is still a shared project among our allies. Those other countries are in the same boat and it has advantages. With that in mind, if we were to go to war with Germany in 2020, the USA could still change production of whatever parts to the USA.

The F15, F16 and most other US Jet fighters have been built and sold to other nations in the world. Look at the Japanese F2, which is still basiclly a bigger version of the F16.


RE: Great posts guys except for the OP
By Noya on 4/14/2009 11:00:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
F-35 is not as fast. the F-22 can reach Mach 2.5 without afterburners.


WRONG.


By Belard on 4/14/2009 5:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Though I must say I liked the YF-23 prototypes much better


Well thats the thing... the YF-23 is cooler looking but that is not why to choose a combat aircraft. Now, it did get some votes against it because it was more radical. But there are many factors into why the YF-22 won... agility over speed and stealth.

Either way, taking 15 year to go from prototype flight/awarded contract to Deployment is BAD BAD BAD and raised the costs of the jet. The F15 went from 1st flight to deployment was less than 3 years. The EF2000 was about 9 years. The F35 seems to be doing better, should be active in 2011/12 making it 6 years.


Carter did the same
By tarpon on 4/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Carter did the same
By ClownPuncher on 4/14/2009 12:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
And we all died?


RE: Carter did the same
By Belard on 4/14/2009 4:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, he wasn't. That was the last guy who couldn't read, much less speak and walk at the same time. No matter how much FOX news butters up his ass, he is now and forever known as the worst idiot president, ever.

And for anyone who blindly belive that drible, lies and corruption can't be any smarter.

The B1 was a POS. The B1B redesign fixed the problems.

As stated, the F22 numbers were brought down long before Obama came into office. The project wasn't extended beyond the ordered planes. With cost overruns and bloat, the F22 is already 20years old. We know how the math works, the more units = less cost per plane... and getting the price of $140m per bird hurts and as stated by the AirForce and Gates (appointed by Bush, but the bi-partison President kept him in... notice the laws broken by team bush and how they are in trouble before the election and more so now?)

Get real. The military budget you love so much has increased. Welfare? Oh Oh.. yeah, give multi-millionaires millions of "WELFARE" money to re-do their offices and have parties, but not help someone on to their feet and get a job so they are productive to the country. (And I'm not talking about the druggy mom with 6 kids sitting on her ass eating cheetos getting her welfare checks and tryin to POP out another one for an extra $200 whatever a month)

You sound like the typical moron... "American" Flag-waving like a retard. Thats why the N.Koreans and other simular countries do.... Fearless leader... yeah, yeah! N.Korea sucks as a country because of their "leaders" and much of the population is brain washed to believe what they are told... Bush is not god... and keep in mind, he was too stupid to read the reports about terrorist and 9-11 happened because other things were far more imporant. Yeah, before 9-11, the guy was on vacation a lot. Interviews, not many of those, thats like a deer caught in the headlights. But we forget, it was cheny who had his hand up in that puppet... so we can't blame everything on mentally challenged.

The 3400+ Americans killed by the Iraq war based on lies... Every single one of them is on your Bush's hands. From his own mouth, the retard said he'd still invade Iraq if someone told him publicly that the intel was crap. One reason, "They tried to kill my daddy!" - get over it, there are thousands of dead American daddies, thank you bush, cheney, rove, rumsfield and powell.


RE: Carter did the same
By MrBungle123 on 4/14/2009 5:03:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That was the last guy who couldn't read, much less speak and walk at the same time.


Obama can talk from a teleprompter... thats pretty much it, have you ever heard him try it shoot from the hip? Its.. uh.. uh.. not.. uh.. uh.. its.. uh.. its.. uh.. its painfull.

quote:
No matter how much FOX news butters up his ass, he is now and forever known as the worst idiot president, ever.

This is probably going to get me rated down but I don't care...

Bush was bad, I'll give you that. But I'd take another 8 years of Bush/Cheney over 4 of what we have now. Bush got so unpopular that he became wholely uneffective as a president, he lacked the political capital to really do much. The damage that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are poised to do is going to take decades to undo, if it can be at all.


RE: Carter did the same
By erple2 on 4/14/2009 6:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yawn. Honestly, you need to see how this pans out before you place judgement. Obama may wind up being the worst president in history by some series of benchmarks. He may wind up being one of the best ones. We don't know at this time. We can't know at this time. Anything else is simply conjecture piled on by whatever agenda the reporting group has (pro or con).

Let history prove itself Chicken Little.


RE: Carter did the same
By MrBungle123 on 4/14/2009 7:08:11 PM , Rating: 1
Lets see we have Obama an outright socialist/marxist/radical leftist as president, with the radical leftist Pelosi as speaker of the house running congress, and the radical leftist Hairy Reid as senate majority leader to keep him in check.

The only place where there is any chance of stopping them from implementing their socialist agenda (which will add even more unsustainable entitlement programs to the federal government) is in the senate with a filibuster, which requires liberal "republicans" like Arlen Specter, and Susan Collins to hold their ground and after their voting for the “stimulus” I have absolutely no faith in them.

To make matters worse the mainstream media in this country is in bed with the leftist wing of the democrat party and the majority of American are such political ignoramuses that they will have no idea what is happening until about 20 years after its happened... by that time it will be too late. To say "let’s wait and see what happens" is nothing more than the same ignorance I mentioned earlier on parade. I don't need to wait and see what history says, I’m watching it happen right now.


RE: Carter did the same
By Belard on 4/15/2009 3:19:00 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Lets see we have Obama an outright socialist/marxist/radical leftist as president,


And your proof of this is....? You really don't understand what you're talking about do you? Remember the McCarthy Era? Peoples careers and lives were ruined over political fantasies. Tsk Tsk... The earth is round and we orbit around a star (Its the big ball of fire in the sky - don't stare at it).

We have socialism... go to your wallet get out your white and blue card that says "SOCIAL SECURITY". When you see people repairing the roads you drive your car on... think how that comes about. Its not magic.

quote:
there is any chance of stopping them from implementing their socialist agenda
Okay, and bush/cheny were easily our dictators.

Please provide proof. Not ramblings of entertainers. Sorry, its a fact, the Diebold's O'Dell, CEO of the company that makes the voting machines, promised to deliver Ohio to Bush.

And all your "republican" goveners who were against the stimulas turn around and take most, if not all the money. Some areas where THEY are trying to NOT take the money is for unemployment ! As less bills get paid/homes loss, the worse we get.

Keep in mind, under your facists Neo-Cons, they de-regulated Wallstreet and created the same problems that causes the Great Depression! The USGovt after that put things in place to prevent this from happening again, guess who removed these safeguards. Folks like McCain, etc... and were are we today? Or howabout the $400million in pork that was signed last month, with Republican yelling about it and voting against those special intrests projects (which in turn is funds spent and does create stimulas) - funny how the those same guys ACTUALLY had the most expensive pork, one of them at $50million! But he voted against it... why? He gets the money he wants and at the same time - folks like you will go "hey's my guy - he voted against it".

quote:
To make matters worse the mainstream media in this country is in bed


uh no. Were was the media about the fake intel on Iraq. yes, it was known that the WMDs info was fake before the bombs were dropped... but the "We're going to war" was more exciting to your mainstream media. It's a fact, the majority of the USA voted to have change in the USA.

quote:
I don't need to wait and see what history says, I’m watching it happen right now.


So the facisit like govt you love is prefered? Provide actual proof to your fantasies. Bush/Cheney's track record is already done. They screwed us and used the "We Love Jesus" to do it. Obama has already made the Govt. more transparent (meaning corruption is harder to get away with), lowered the taxes for most Americans and repairing the damaged reputation as a warmongering country.

The F22 wasn't cancelled by Obama. The 187 Jets ordered before Obama are going to be built and delivered, nothing has been cancelled.

Remember, on Sept 11, 2001 - Bush sat there for 7 minutes crapping his pants with the book "The Pet Goat", while the World Trade Centers crumbled to the ground. On March 20, 2003 - Team Bush invades a country based on lies to the Amerian people and the UN. Over 4000 Americans lives lost based on a lie. That's not just criminal, thats what we call a traitor.

The USA isn't the country it should be. But relgious nuts, morons, greed oil barons and neo-cons are not the way to make America the respected country it once was. Even thou, the USA has always had a rather diry underbelly, we hope to get past such ugly things and GROW UP as a nation.


RE: Carter did the same
By Nfarce on 4/15/2009 1:23:33 PM , Rating: 1
And your proof of this is....? You really don't understand what you're talking about do you? Remember the McCarthy Era?


We've got a Daily Kos winner here! Why the VERY people he hung around with for starters, and then his discontent for corporations and profits as well as increasingly progressive taxation. What part of Karl Marx in the latter two do you NOT understand, moonbat? Oh, and yes, we know you liberals use the McCarthy example all the time to shut up voice of dissent against your neo-Marxist policies.

We have socialism... go to your wallet get out your white and blue card that says "SOCIAL SECURITY".

Yeah, and it’s a real rip roaring success, isn’t it? Take from our paychecks MANDITORILY, put it in a collective pool that the government dips into, and give us a return at retirement who’s age keeps rising to qualify for. What a deal, huh?

Diebold's O'Dell, CEO of the company that makes the voting machines, promised to deliver Ohio to Bush.

Oh get over yourself. Guess what machines were STILL being used in last year’s election? Funny, I don’t hear you moonbat liberals bitchin' about it THIS time around, especially in that Wisconsin congressional election fiasco where your wonderboy Al Franken "won" by not even 200 votes.

Keep in mind, under your facists Neo-Cons, they de-regulated Wallstreet and created the same problems that causes the Great Depression!

WRONG! Guess who went up against the Bush Administration’s wishes to INCREASE regulation of Fannie & Freddie? Need some help there, ace? Because I will gladly help you out. Barney Frank is one of them. I’ve got quotes from your beloved Democrats if you want ‘em.

Remember, on Sept 11, 2001 - Bush sat there for 7 minutes crapping his pants with the book "The Pet Goat",

Yeah, he was supposed to just JUMP UP AND DOWN AND SCREAM in front of children. Every time I read this from you aholes on the radical left it makes me SICK. WTF was he SUPPOSED to do otherwise? None of you moonbats can EVER seem to answer that question.

On March 20, 2003 - Team Bush invades a country based on lies to the Amerian people and the UN

It was INTELLIGENCE WE HAD AT THE TIME, numbnuts. And DEMOCRATS looked at the EXACT SAME intel as well and VOTED FOR AUTHORITY to remove Saddam.

The rest of your drivel is just the same old tired bullphuck that we are way beyond over. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Daily Kook blog.


RE: Carter did the same
By Belard on 4/19/2009 5:40:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Oh get over yourself. Guess what machines were STILL being used in last year’s election?


And those machines are STILL shit. There is no paper trail and those machines (especially in OHIO) were proven to be easily re-programmed/hacked.

Your issue with Social Security. And you blame Obama for that? Its been talked about for over 12 years that SS has problems. Nobody wants to talk about it or how to fix it.

quote:
Yeah, he was supposed to just JUMP UP AND DOWN AND SCREAM in front of children. Every time I read this from you aholes on the radical left it makes me SICK. WTF was he SUPPOSED to do otherwise? None of you moonbats can EVER seem to answer that question.


Well, if YOU can't figure out what to do... then obviously nobody has bothered to TELL YOU. So, you're saying that YOU'd sit there for 7 minutes and shit your pants too? How brave of you. Hope your not ever in the armed services. But yeah, what leader does is this:

Sorry children, I need to go. I'll come back another day. Why? BECAUSE I'M THE LEADER OF A MAJOR COUNTRY THAT HAS NUKES AND PEOPLE ARE DYING. Okay, that last part, keep that to yourself... But yeah. When you're under attack, a bunch of 8 year olds are NOT going be tramatized by the retard shitting his pants. No, theres more trama of the 3000+ dead Americans. The police and firefighters who RAN into those BUILDINGS trying to save lives. No, they were not shitting their pants for 7 minutes waiting for some assistance to say "its okay to get up".

Provide links to the quotes you're refering to. Regarding Democrates and whatever. Perhaps you should be looking at the failures of your team... 8~12 years in power. Not the guy whose been in office for a few months cleaning up YOUR mess.

quote:
n March 20, 2003 - Team Bush invades a country based on lies to the Amerian people and the UN It was INTELLIGENCE WE HAD AT THE TIME, numbnuts. And DEMOCRATS looked at the EXACT SAME intel as well and VOTED FOR AUTHORITY to remove Saddam.


Uh... not true.
1 - People in the CIA were pressured by Cheney for any excuse to go to war. Thats a FACT.

2 - When a CIA agent found no WMD, the office of your beloved Bush/Cheney outted her because they didn't get the anwser they wanted. Destoryed her cover and endangered lives. We'd call such people TRAITORS. FACT!

3 - Bush himself said he'd bomb Iraq anyway. FACT from his OWN MOUTH.

4 - Before going to WAR, you BETTER BY DAMN make sure your INTEL is correct and not an AGENDA. But yeah, Europe was telling the USA "your intel is shaky" - guess what, duh!

5 - Democrates were being both pussies and scared to NOT vote for war... The bullshit from FOX and republicans "be a patriot! Vote for War!" Watch the old videos and news articles. Freedom Fries? Team bush forced the investigation into the "intel" to be finished AFTER the 2004 elections. Besides the republicans had the POWER to vote for war.... but I notice you are blaming the democrates, not your party. You're funny. You don't take responsibility for your own mistakes do ya?

I am ASKING you.
Have you ever considered that you've been lied to?
And if it ever becomes clear to you that you have bindly followed a retard and help cause the deaths of thousands of Americans... that you have some sort of remorse?

This is how YOU are not much different from an Islamic Terrorist. No ability to think "Hey, maybe this guy is full of shit? What if those 70 virgins are guys?"

I'm a real Texan. Many of us knew bush was a retard and hoped for the best, perhaps you should do the same? Trust me, thousands of white folks down here DID vote for a black man to be our president. Most major cities in Texas, Obama won. Bush is not a Texan and never will be a Texan.


RE: Carter did the same
By MrBungle123 on 4/15/2009 2:12:50 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you Belard,

Thank you for only further proving my point. You, like so many others fit perfectly into that group I made mention of that would only figure out what was happening 20 years after the fact.

It’s not entirely your fault though. I imagine that like many of those in this group you have gained your knowledge of current political events through the mainstream media. This is evidenced by your contesting of me calling Obama a Marxist. You tell me that I “don’t understand” what I’m talking about and yet the one who does not understand is not me… it is you.

We need to look no further back than October 15, 2008 and reference a conversation between Obama and a man named Joe Wurzelbacher. Wurzelbacher, told Obama that he works hard, 10 to 12 hours a day and that he was getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream. Obama’s response: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” The relevant portion of this quote the “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Is ideologically so close to the beliefs of Karl Marx (the father of communism) that it would be intellectually dishonest to call these ideas anything other than “Marxist” in nature. Marx is quoted as saying, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The end result of such a policy would be nothing less than spreading the wealth.

When conservatives attack politicians calling them “socialists” it’s not because they believe or think that all things done on the public dime for the good of the public in general are necessarily bad. They are against the government doing things which take responsibility away from the individual and/or things which the government does not have a constitutional obligation to do. These ideas are fought against not because the conservative doesn’t care about the poor or the weak (charitable donations show quite the opposite) it is because whoever pays for the services picks the service that is purchased. Anytime the government takes over something like health care (one of Obama’s agenda items) you lose freedom. In this case you lose the freedom to pick your coverage level (limiting your treatment options) you lose the freedom to try things which may be life extending but not necessarily life saving. It is the loss of freedom that makes socialism bad. Obama’s calls for nationalized health care, free college education, and transportation are socialist in nature. Oh and just to make things clear it is my belief that social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are socialist programs that should be stopped before they consume our economy, they are unsustainable in the long term and are nothing more than a government run Ponzi scheme.

You for some reason seem to think that Republican = Conservative (likely because this is how they are portrayed in mainstream media outlets) this is simply not true. Sure conservatives generally tend to vote for republicans, but this is not because the republicans are conservative. It is because they are less liberal than most of the democrats. George W. Bush is a perfect example. He infuriated conservatives when he pushed for “comprehensive immigration reform” which amounted to nothing more than amnesty. He infuriated conservatives when he ran up huge deficits by signing off on virtually everything that the then republican controlled congress sent to his desk. The immigration anger can also be directed at John Mc Cain, it was he that wrote the amnesty bill with Ted Kennedy, and it was often he that accused conservatives of being “nativist” because they did not want to grant blanket amnesty to illegal aliens and allow the importation of millions more through chain migration. (and yes I consider any policy that allows illegal aliens to stay in this country fines or not amnesty)

You seem to think that the mainstream media (read national TV news networks and most newspapers) has been honest in their portrayal of Obama and the democrats. You really think that when news outlets like the Washington post can trusted when they put out things like “The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week” when talking about Obama?… or how about the trill that went up Chris Matthews (of MSNBC) leg when he heard Obama speak? Perhaps you believe that the portrayal of the war in Iraq and how badly it was going? Every day seemingly the only stories coming out of Iraq were the number of troops killed or injured, followed by democrats condemning the war, saying it was another Vietnam. 58,913 service members were killed in Vietnam over 7 years, 4266 have service members have died in Iraq in the last 6 years. There is no comparison the numbers are not even close. Does the media report facts… yes they do, do they report all the facts, no they don’t and that is what makes them dishonest. Selective reporting to make a case is not honest journalism.

You seem to think that Obama’s government is more “transparent” and there has been or will be some sort of reduction in corruption. This is laughable. How many tax cheats were nominated or are currently working in the administration? How many of the people that had their fingers in the current banking mess are still working in Washington? Do Chris Dodd and Barney Frank ring any bells?

You have somehow got it in your head that I would be in favor of fascism, again, not true. If anything the Obama administration is the closest thing to fascism that has ever arisen in this country. A fascist would want to control virtually every aspect of our society taking over corporations (as Tim Gietner Obama’s treasury secretary has requested the power to do) Indoctrinating the people through education and media ( limiting the dissent put out by talk radio by promoting ideas like “localism” as Obama did back in 2007) and controlling your life and what you can do on a daily basis ( see “smart grid technology” which discourages energy use, nationalized health care, and cap and trade carbon policies all advocated by Obama). You throw terms around, yet you really don’t understand what they mean and make no connections between current events and the past.

I could go on but I’ve spent too much time on this post as it is.


RE: Carter did the same
By Belard on 4/15/2009 8:47:07 PM , Rating: 3
When you think that "Joe the plumber" is a real plumber... you're done. Yeah, he's complaining about a company he can't afford to buy, not licenced to be a plumber and the business he was "going to buy" doesn't make over $200,000 a year... soo as typical, FUD.

LOL... The guy was a tool and if thats the best the RNC can do, besides running with their tales between their legs whenever they piss of Rush Limdenberg.... you guy are simply weak. Yeah, the Conservative party is Replublicans, white guys, Jesus freaks (not talking about Christians), Oil and energy companies (who continue to make record profits) and people with generally low intelligence. It should be embarrsing for you guys to attack people because they have the ability of thought and communications. Just like the stupid jocks and preps making kids who are A-Students feel like losers. Why?

Because stupid people simply HATE smart people. Why do you think GWB & Palin was so attractive to your base?

Obviously YOU don't watch any news... you only watch FOX/Limbaugh and whatever they say is Gospel to the likes of you, nothing more than that. Not much different from the people living in the middle east believing that was Osama bin laden says is true (and true to Islam). Terrorist, like anything else, pervert religion to enrage the massess.

The crap that Beck does appeals to the idiot nuts in this country. Most people who hate Bush are not like that, just want Team bush to be charged with the crimes against the USA. Not for him to be killed.

And yes, it's going to take Obama and others to fix the damages caused by all these years of abuse. Its not going to happen over night.

Seriously, watch something else other than FAKENews and maybe get a clue and make your own opinion based on other forms of information.

Be truthful, were you tramatized when you found out Santa wasn't real?


RE: Carter did the same
By Nfarce on 4/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Carter did the same
By MrBungle123 on 4/16/2009 12:10:22 PM , Rating: 1
You really just don't get it do you?


RE: Carter did the same
By Belard on 4/19/2009 5:14:25 AM , Rating: 2
Seems to me... if bush or cheny took a dump, you'd happily make a sandwhich out of it.

And yeah, thats all your guys have is rush, hannity and joke "the fake" plumber and the MILF that reads all magazines that can't name one. Yeah, you betcha.

YOU really don't get it.

The bush failures are facts, we've all seen them. Can't exactly lie about the dead there ya know.


RE: Carter did the same
By Belard on 4/15/2009 2:42:36 AM , Rating: 2
Uh... us grown ups or people with 3points IQ knows that EVERYONE doing speeches uses a teleprompter. Note: the ONLY "news" agency that talked about teleprompters... USES teleprompters. When they talk to the camera, theres a prompter right next to it.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.

Come on, the moron can't even say the popular Texas saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Full me twice, shame on me" - he farked it up. Perhaps his earpeice failed?

And your proof of damage is.....? What, the damages that bush/cheny has done in the past 8 years wasn't enough?

Things that Bush did:
9/11 = FAIL
Osama bin ladin = FAIL
Afgan = FAIL
IRAQ = FAIL
WMDs = FAIL
Taliban = FAIL
Freedom of Speach = FAIL
Katrina = FAIL
No Child left Behind = FAIL
Smaller government = FAIL
US economy = FAIL
US Military Personal = FAIL
Upheld the Consitution = FAIL
The Enviroment = FAIL (bad enviroment = we die)
Followed American Laws = FAIL
Spying on Americans = SUCCESS

Seriously dude, listen to yourself. Really consider this thought. What if someone has been lying to you...? Think about that.

quote:
Bush got so unpopular that he became wholely uneffective as a president, he lacked the political capital to really do much.


Because for more than 10 years, Republicans controlled the house and senate and 8 years the white house.... so with all the abuse to the American people by them was a fantasy?

We are easily in worse shape now, than 8 years ago.
Thank you for your support.


RE: Carter did the same
By Nfarce on 4/15/2009 1:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uh... us grown ups or people with 3points IQ knows that EVERYONE doing speeches uses a teleprompter.


Not like this guy, bud.

9/11 = FAIL

Planned well before Bush took office. The last words of the 9/11 Commission Report: “Nothing could have prevented 9/11 from happening.” Besides, it’s not like you mindless hysterics on the radical fringe left would have allowed RACIAL profiling of Arabs or anything, RIGHT?

Afgan = FAIL

Your Democrats have been in charge of Congress, and that includes the SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE for over TWO YEARS now. WTF have THEY been doing besides investigating Bush & cronies?

IRAQ = FAIL

See above.

WMDs = FAIL

WTF are you, a parrot?

Taliban = FAIL

Guess so.

Freedom of Speach [sic]= FAIL

PROVE IT. Yeah like you moonbats attempting to paint any right wingers as anarchists and domestic terrorists that should be WATCHED.

Katrina = FAIL

The CITY responds first to emergency PREPAREDNESS (keyword, PREPAREDNESS), then it’s the STATE government (read: NEW ORLEANS), and finally the federal government steps in. Guess who FAILED in the first two levels? Both leaders were DEMOCRATS. If you lived anywhere near hurricane zones like the gulf coast & Florida, you'd have known that. Finally, Bush DID offer early assistance to Gov. Blanco, and she REFUSED IT. Guess who's no longer Governor of Louisiana and guess what political party they elected their new Governor from? Read much or do you just mindlessly froth at the mouth?

No Child left Behind = FAIL

Part of Bush’s education reform drawn up in conjunction with TED KENNEDY in the spirit of bi-partisanship.

Spying on Americans = SUCCESS

Guess who is now wanting to CONTINUE to wiretap now? OBAMA. Bet you didn’t even know that. As for the rest of your moonbat rant, it’s not even worth responding to any more. I’ve read enough Daily Kos Huff & Puff Post poppycrock for one day.


RE: Carter did the same
By Belard on 4/15/2009 8:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
9/11 = FAIL Planned well before Bush took office.


When Team bush took office, they canceled planned attacks to hunt down Bid Laden. Programs and plans to beef up our security against terrorist where thrown out the window and Team Bush sat on their asses. Rice admit that they ignored the warning... but "it wasn't specific" - funny, the warning were about airplanes being used.

quote:
Afgan = FAIL Your Democrats have been in charge of Congress, and that includes the SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE for over TWO YEARS now. WTF have THEY been doing besides investigating Bush & cronies?


And as you notice, the DEMO don't have as much power because their majority isn't great. Them being in power in two years meant they've slowed down bush... not stop the damage that has already been done. Bush had already LEFT Afan and went into Iraw before the republicans lost congress. DUH FACT.

quote:
WTF have THEY been doing besides investigating Bush & cronies?
And WTF did the republicans do with Clinton? Sorry, a BJ on a blue dress is nothing compared to thousands of DEAD Americans in a fake war and the corruption (illegal mind you) by the AG under Bush. Many of those investigations were started before, but were stopped by republicans... Hmmm... Nice that ROVE was able to not follow the LAW and come to court when subpoenaed ... what happens if that is you or me? We go to JAIL.

quote:
Taliban = FAIL Guess so.


Uh yeah... that why we are in a mess again and again. We manage to piss off the whole world over stupidity.


RE: Carter did the same
By Nfarce on 4/15/2009 11:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing to say about Katrina and those other comments I pointed out, eh you little mindless libtard bich?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

BTW f^ckstick: how come your heroes have STFU about getting Osama?

Yep, no. Won't waste any more time with you, asshat.


RE: Carter did the same
By Belard on 4/19/2009 5:45:40 AM , Rating: 2
Ah such limited understanding of language. Does your knickles drag the ground? (Sorry Apes).

Cursing names?

You guys talk about "liberty and freedom", but don't know what "liberal" is... its about freedom. So if its something YOU want, its your freedom... otherwise, it needs to be controlled or destroyed.

Sleep with your gun, don't you?


RE: Carter did the same
By Ringold on 4/15/2009 2:51:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No matter how much FOX news butters up his ass, he is now and forever known as the worst idiot president, ever.

quote:
You sound like the typical moron...


Oh really? You sound like a typical liberal, forgetting all Presidents prior to roughly your teenage years.

How about Franklin Pierce? His pro-states rights views endear him to me, but he's pure evil to most. James Buchanan was apparently voted by historians in 2006 and 2009 to have made the worst Presidential mistake in history with his failure to maintain the integrity of the union. Andrew Johnson, again depending on your politics, was either not bad or a racist pig, and regardless he managed to allow the sham called Reconstruction to be perpetrated on what amounted to conquered territories that hadn't yet had their voices restored to Congress.

And here's a crazy suggestion. How about Lincoln? Communication was maintained throughout the Civil War as negotiators tried to reach an accord, even the idea of declaring war on Mexico was floated as a way to restore common purpose. Lincoln failed as a negotiator; are all those hundreds of thousands dead his fault? Do you even want to open the can of worms that is his constitutional issues? Lincoln makes Bush look like a saint in terms of respecting the law, if you doubt that you don't know your US history at all. (Roosevelt and the constitution also some times didn't get along either)

Another odd ball one; Woodrow Wilson. After WW1, the US had men in Russia, at Archangel and at least one other place I know off hand. If he'd had the proper foresight and political courage, and a little luck, we could've possibly stopped the Bolshevik's from taking Russia. No Bolshevik's, no Soviet Union, no Soviet Union, no Cold War. No Cold War, possibly no Vietnam and Korea. Maybe China wouldn't of even gone red, I'd have to research how organic all those countries communist movements were, but still.

Compared to them, Bush responded with a ham-fist to a legitimate issue (terrorism) that had been ignored by the previous president (Clinton), but did no permanent damage to the US in the process. He oversaw an economy that he didn't know was dangerously overleveraged -- but ultimate responsibiltiy for that is obviously shared with the independent Federal Reserve and Greenspan. He had some good ideas that got no where (border security, Social Security reform), bad ones that unfortunately did (Democrat-like spending with Republican tax cuts). For that, he's the worst president ever?

Hey, maybe he is, but its definitely not so clear cut. IMHO, 100 years down the road, all those guys above will still have question mark looming over their heads. Iraq and Afghanistan will be distant memories. Bush will never get the Truman treatment (unless Iraq becomes some absolutely amazing prosperous democracy), going from widely hated at the time to now being considered great, but I think he'll end up being considered just plain mediocre.


By 91TTZ on 4/14/2009 11:46:41 AM , Rating: 5
I have no idea why Dailytech even attempts to report on news like this when the articles are so misleading. I feel bad for the readers because from reading the posts, it's clear that they're operating under the wrong assumptions.

Let me spell this out for people clearly:

1. The F-22 program was NOT canceled, it completed.
2. The Obama administration did NOT choose to cancel it or cut the number of fighters procured.
3. The F-35 is NOT a more advanced aircraft than the F-22.

Let me elaborate:

1. The F-22 program will come to an end soon because all the fighters that have been ordered will have been produced. If you pay a guy to make you 100 widgets, and he makes you 100 widgets, would you say that you canceled your order or would you say that he successfully fulfilled the contract by producing all the units that have been ordered? That's what happened in this case.

2. The number of F-22's that will be ordered was cut years ago, long before Obama took office. In fact, the final cut in the order came under the Bush administration. The Obama administration ordered 4 *additional* units above and beyond what Bush wanted to order. Those units will have been produced and the production lines will be shut down. This is not a surprise at all, I don't know why it's considered "news".

3. The F-35 is not in any way superior to the F-22. It's a cheaper aircraft that's in the same capacity as the F-16 was to the F-15. If anything, I think the F-35 is the waste of money because it's not an air dominance fighter, yet it's still in the price range of one at $80+ million dollars. At least for the F-22's $135 million you got air dominance. With the F-35 you get an aircraft that's more expensive than the Eurofighter Typhoon yet is less capable.




By 91TTZ on 4/14/2009 12:10:53 PM , Rating: 2
^
Mods, please delete this post. I meant to preview this one, not post it. I have a full post below.


By Mojo the Monkey on 4/14/2009 12:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you must preview before you post, by virtue of the site setup.


By ClownPuncher on 4/14/2009 12:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
Amen


By yomamafor1 on 4/14/2009 12:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
Bravo!

Too bad I don't have any vote left.


By gaakf on 4/14/2009 1:36:53 PM , Rating: 3
Even though I slightly disagree with your 3rd point, overall I think you made a very good post.

In the past I've read posts from others about the quality of editing and misleading headlines, but never put much thought into it. Lately however, these posts have become much more consistent and Dailytech is beginning to anger me as a dedicated reader. Dailytech has been creating headlines that are so far reaching that they flat out lie to get you to click on a link.

Thank you for clearing up this mess. I might become just another statistic of those who stopped reading this site if Dailytech doesn't change their ways.


By FITCamaro on 4/14/2009 4:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's news because the original order was for far more than 183. And many people believe that original number should be met. Now they can't get that many approved so they want to continue production at a smaller scale until its importance can be looked at again (read: someone who actually cares about defense spending gets into office).

Also, before Obama took office, there was some legislation that I read had been passed in December that another 20 F22s would be built to keep the line going. People here at work have been looking at this for 6 months. Not just the past month. More F22s getting built doesn't mean more business for us, but it certainly doesn't hurt things.


By 91TTZ on 4/14/2009 12:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
I have no idea why Dailytech even attempts to report on news like this when the articles are so misleading. I feel bad for the readers because from reading the posts, it's clear that they're operating under the wrong assumptions.

Let me spell this out for people clearly:

1. The F-22 program was NOT canceled, production is continuing to completion.
2. The Obama administration did NOT choose to cancel it or cut the number of fighters procured.
3. The F-35 is NOT a more advanced aircraft than the F-22.

Let me elaborate:

1. The F-22 program will come to an end soon because all the fighters that have been ordered will have been produced. If you pay a guy to make you 100 widgets, and he makes you 100 widgets, would you say that you canceled your order or would you say that he successfully fulfilled the contract by producing all the units that have been ordered? That's what happened in this case.

2. The number of F-22's that the government chose to procure was cut years ago, long before Obama took office. In fact, the final cut in the order came under the Bush administration in 2006. The Obama administration ordered 4 *additional* units above and beyond what Bush wanted to order. Soon, all ordered units will have been produced and the production lines will be shut down. This is not a surprise at all, I don't know why it's considered "news". It's exactly what was expected to happen once the orders were fulfilled.

3. The F-35 is not in any way superior to the F-22. It's a cheaper, less capable aircraft that's in the same capacity as the F-16 was to the F-15. If anything, I think the F-35 is overpriced because it's not an air dominance fighter yet it's still in the price range of one at $80+ million dollars. At least for the F-22's $135 million you got air dominance with no aircraft that could compare. For the F-35's price you could buy a Eurofighter Typhoon, which isn't quite as good as the F-22 but probably better than the F-35.




By Nfarce on 4/14/2009 12:19:10 PM , Rating: 4
For the most part what you say is true, but it was cut not only under Bush. The Clinton administration was involved as well, and had the majority of the cuts under its watch. You are also wrong on the 4 additional aircraft under Obama:

1989 - 750 units initially ordered
1990 - 648 units contracted
1994 - 442 units reduced to
1997 - 339 units reduced to
2003 - 277 units reduced to
2006 - 183 units reduced to
2008 - 187 units increased by the Pentagon on 11/12/2008 as four part planes and leaving the program under the Obama administration as 187 planes.

The Obama administration had nothing to that additional four.


By gaakf on 4/14/2009 1:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
Please post your source for this information.


By Nfarce on 4/14/2009 2:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
Your wish is my command. Here's the link about the additional 4 birds approved in 2008 by the Pentagon:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTR...

As for the history of procurement and downsizing the F-22 program over the last 18 years, there are many informative sites to link here.

Here's one of them:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air...


By Griswold on 4/15/2009 5:47:48 AM , Rating: 2
Up until point three your post is good. But in number three, you made some huge mistakes (like so many others here). You cant compare the F-22 and F-35 for the simple fact that they serve entirely different mission profiles. The raptor is a air dominance fighter. A plane you need to surpress an technically advanced enemy. For anyone else, you can easily use the fleet of F-15 and F-18. The culprit is, there is no enemy on the horizon with that level of technology as of now. Or do you expect a war between the US and europe, russia or even china (in case of china, its probably quantity not quality)?

The F-35 on the other hand is a multi-role plane. It can do things the F-22 cant or at the very least much better. And thats not just VTOL. It is designed to outperform the F-22 in ground strike scenarios. It can land and take-off where other planes, the Raptor included, cant. There is a reason why not a single F-22 has ever been on a mission in iraq or afghanistan. You just dont need this masterpiece of aerial combat for hunting terrorists. Even the old an trusty F-15E or the Super Hornet does a better job at that.

In todays world, what you need is planes that can carry out multiple mission types, not just one role. Thats what the F-35 will be doing. It doesnt hurt to have a fleet of F-22, but you wont need hundreds of them. Its a waste of money. The cold war is over.

That is also why comparing the F-22 to the Typhoon is illegitimate. The Typhoon is, like the F-35, a multi-role plane with a strong focus on air to ground operations but at the same time very good air superiority properties (much more than the F-35, though) and, without deliberately being designed for it, decent stealth properties. By the way, the UK will be putting both the Typhoon as well as the F-35 into service because they complement each other very well, just like the Tornado did with the Harrier.


Nothing new
By sugmullon on 4/14/2009 11:50:44 AM , Rating: 1
If 20 years ago one could have predicted which party would rule America after 2008, one could have killed the F22 back i the early Ninties and saved a lot of time and money.
American military people will die in the future specifically because of this decision and more like it to follow. Wait and see.




RE: Nothing new
By 91TTZ on 4/14/2009 12:08:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If 20 years ago one could have predicted which party would rule America after 2008, one could have killed the F22 back i the early Ninties and saved a lot of time and money. American military people will die in the future specifically because of this decision and more like it to follow. Wait and see.


Huh?

Bush cut the F-22's procurement numbers, not Obama. Bush ordered 183, Obama upped it to 187.


RE: Nothing new
By Nfarce on 4/14/2009 12:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bush cut the F-22's procurement numbers, not Obama. Bush ordered 183, Obama upped it to 187.


Not true. See my reply to you below.


RE: Nothing new
By 91TTZ on 4/14/2009 3:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
The OP said:
quote:
If 20 years ago one could have predicted which party would rule America after 2008, one could have killed the F22 back i the early Ninties and saved a lot of time and money.


He's saying that Obama's to blame. I know that Clinton decreased the number pretty substantially, I agree on that part.


RE: Nothing new
By sugmullon on 4/16/2009 10:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
If anyones still reading this:
Bush cut procurement, Obama's killing the program and will kill many "expensive" programs. Quality costs. Keeping Americans alive costs.
Compare the cost and capability of the F22 to that of the f15 30 years ago....adjusting for inflation.


future air dominance?
By ikkeman2 on 4/14/2009 10:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
China already has 300+ flankers on order, India builds them to.
Sure the F-22 is superior to the flanker (now), and the US has some 400 eagles as backup. But the eagles are ageing and flanker development is ongoing.
Are the US top brass really so arrogant to think 187 F-22's will safeguard air dominance in the future or is the US giving up it's "master of the universe" claims?




RE: future air dominance?
By Nfarce on 4/14/2009 3:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are the US top brass really so arrogant to think 187 F-22's will safeguard air dominance in the future or is the US giving up it's "master of the universe" claims?


That is a very good point that was overlooked by me here. What bothers me about this decision is that it is about as forward thinking as designing the F-4 concept in the late 1950s and early 1960s with no guns because the so-called "experts" in the Pentagon said that the future of air-to-air was beyond visual range.

Today for the most part, that is true. Now the big question is, are they going to be wrong again this time around in their so called forward vision? I certainly hope not, but time will tell. We can probably ramp up some of those old mothballed F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s parked out at Davis-Montham, which is really what they are there for - a future national emergency.

Sign me up if that happens. I've got 10 years Cessna experience LOL.


RE: future air dominance?
By Danish1 on 4/14/2009 4:36:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sign me up if that happens. I've got 10 years Cessna experience LOL.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116629/


The Playing Field Has Changed
By lancito on 4/14/2009 12:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
The F-22 was designed at a time when we assumed we would be fighting a "superpower" such as the USSR. Now we fight cave and mutt hut dwellers.

They don't have radar and we don't need a stealthy aircraft that does Mach 2.5 to kill or engage them.

The A-10 has turned into one of the countries best investments in aircrafts since the B-52. It is a perfect weapon against our new twit enemies. We remain superpower with 7+ aircraft carriers, 65 b-1s, 20 b-2s, and about 2000 F-15s and F-16s. Not to mention enough nuclear ICBMs sitting silent under the oceans to obliterate multiple continents simultaniously. AND THATs JUST THE BEGINNING!




By ZachDontScare on 4/14/2009 3:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The F-22 was designed at a time when we assumed we would be fighting a "superpower" such as the USSR. Now we fight cave and mutt hut dwellers.


The problem with this mindset - that we'll only face mud hut dwellers - is that you're fighting the last war. Its the age-old fallacy. You nor I do not know what we'll be facing in 10 years, and anyone who definatively says they do is liar.

For the politicians to not allow the military to be prepared for the possibility of facing a resurgent USSR or radically militarized China would be shirking their responsibility to defend the US.


More thank likely...
By MadMan007 on 4/14/2009 1:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
Chances are there are advances programs that aren't able to be disclosed that will make the F-22 obscolescent or entirely obsolete within 20 years. Someone mentioned the B-1 program, if you read through the brief history on Wikipedia you'll see that Carter cancelled the B-1A becuase of stealth programs that were in the works. The B-1B was restarted under Reagan but in many ways is a different plane, and furthermore military doctrine had vasciallated during the B-1 development which is partly why it when in and out of development. I don't think our leaders completely underestaimate potential threats from China or Russia so I'm guessing we'll find out in 5-10 years that there was good reason for not ordering a ton of F-22s.




Had to happen
By gamerk2 on 4/14/2009 4:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
It simply isn't cost effective to mass produce the F-22 if you already have the F-35. Granted, the F-22 is the better Air to Air fighter, but the F-35 places second anyways.




lobbyists = dinero
By 16nm on 4/14/2009 4:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are still 187 F-22 fighter jets that are being produced or must be delivered, but the Pentagon will not place any new orders for the $140 million aircraft. Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin have lobbied and launched ad campaigns to try and keep their contracts alive, but the Pentagon said it's near impossible that the program will receive an additional life line.


At least the lobbyists are making some bucks in this economy.




What a crime
By FPP on 4/16/2009 7:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
The Air Force sold out it's own.




By Kuroyama on 4/14/2009 9:17:34 AM , Rating: 3
That makes little sense.

A better road increases economic efficiency, which lowers the cost of doing business, and improves US competitiveness. In urban areas it also decreases commute times, which improves people's quality of life.

Most military expenditures have no multiplier effect beyond that achieved by any expenditure which employs people who then spend their income. True there are some exports, but I would guess that 90% or so of the spending on development and production of US weapons systems is paid for by the US taxpayer, and in any case there are few countries that can afford the F-22 (never mind the export restrictions). I am fairly sure that most domestic spending achieves a higher multiplier than does spending by the DoD, unless you factor in the less tangible (but very important) benefit of a strong military ensuring peace and safety. In that case the relevant question would be whether the programs they are shifting the money to are more likely to ensure our safety on a per dollar basis. For that matter it is entirely possible that those programs could produce more exports than the F-22 would.


By FITCamaro on 4/14/2009 4:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of military spending eventually trickles back to the consumer side of the economy through technologies developed as a result of the spending. You would not be on the internet right now if not for military spending. A lot of composite materials owe their discovery and creation due to military spending.


By BioRebel on 4/14/2009 4:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
So spending more money to buy already developed and implemented tech and less on future technology and new R&D programs furthers our technology how? I'd much rather see that 13 bil go towards some network security.

And knowing the military there is probably some black project for a new jet thats going to be finished sooner than expected.


By MrBungle123 on 4/14/2009 4:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
Once the air frame is built it will continue to be upgraded and revised until the model is retired. So that will require some research to continue even after the construction phase is finished. The B52 is up to what revistion H or something now? Those planes are a half century old now.


By lukasbradley on 4/14/2009 9:21:53 AM , Rating: 5
Your entire post says nothing.

Any monetary transaction has a multiplier effect on the economy. This also includes bridges, even those that go nowhere.

What you're really saying is you dislike leftist politics, and are looking for any reason to disperse blind blame. Your rhetoric is shallow and your armchair economics are laughable.


By judasmachine on 4/14/2009 9:50:28 AM , Rating: 2
The money is still being spent, just not on the F-22. Our military budget is still huge, it'll just be spent on other things. I admit I'm not sure what, but I haven't had a chance to read all the news that's coming out about it right now.


By Amiga500 on 4/14/2009 10:36:36 AM , Rating: 2
How stupid is that post?

Are you seriously trying to say better communications is not beneficial to the economy?

Do you not think the internet is a step forward over the telegram?

Do you not think people or goods being able to make their journeys 30 mins or an hour quicker is of benefit to the economy?

Do you actually not think the freeway network is of no benefit to the US?

Are you 5 years old?

You also totally missed the point over who pays for the upkeep of the F-22s and F-35s... Meanwhile, the bridge has been built and those people can go get jobs, getting paid from private investments, and being net contributors to the economy, rather than getting paid from govt contracts.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2009 10:43:17 AM , Rating: 5
You are right. What was I thinking ?

There is a huge crisis in this country of people not being able to get to jobs and their homes. Just last night I turned on the news and there was a huge pile of cars parked in front of a cliff just waiting for a bridge to be built so they could cross.

I mean, it's ONLY 2009. How dare the previous administrations fail in their duty to provide roads and bridges for us !!??

quote:
Are you 5 years old?


Are you ? Do you pay taxes ? Funny but, when I pay state taxes, I notice a good bit of it goes to something called the 'road and highway fund' !

Use your brain please. We HAVE been paying, for decades, for roads bridges and highways. Where has all the money gone ? If we were honestly in such bad shape, that we needed billions spent on the same thing from Obama's 'stimulus', then where have our taxes really been going to all this time ?


By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2009 10:59:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So your solution to a short term problem would be to create taxpayer funded jobs that have 20 or 30 year lifespans?


Wow.. I was being as sarcastic as humanly possible, and you still didn't get it.

Kudos, that's tallent.


By FITCamaro on 4/14/2009 4:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
OMFG.

He DOESN'T want all these construction jobs as a way to fix the economy. He's saying that they are NOT a solution.


By erple2 on 4/14/2009 6:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
Then what happens when those manufacturing jobs to construct the F22 run out? Are the same people running those jobs going to maintain all of those planes?

While I realize that there are some benefits to enhancements to the manufacturing processes as a whole, how much actual Military Tech for the upgrades of these planes funnel down into the economy? Avionics are kind of an interesting piece, however that research is happening with or without the F22 right now.

Advances in Flight Dynamics aren't really all that interesting in practice - they tend to already be very well understood problems that are applied to the specific military application (in this case, improvements to the F22 flight model computer). I'm not sure how that is going to improve downstream.

The problem is that this can very quickly degenerate into the "Broken Window Fallacy". So the real question is whether the money spent on manufacturing and updating the additional planes actually does have a net positive effect on the economy. I have yet to see much evidence that the B52 updates had any net positive effect on the economy. However, I do see where certain infrastructure improvements does have an overall effect on the economy.

Whether the government spends 16 billion dollars some social programs, 16 billion dollars on hard infrastructure improvements, or 16 billion dollars on more F22's unfortunately winds up being a political issue. There's waste in all programs. It's a question of which one helps the economy in the long run. I'd say that the answer is "nobody really knows".

At least, that's the argument that you're making. I also understand that the US is the superpower it is because we have a ridiculously good Military - no sane formal government wants to directly attack us because we can easily bomb them into the stone age. Now, however, we have these weird Rogue factions (are terrorists factions? they're certainly not states...) that the air dominance fighters like the F22 don't really have any use against.

Someone made the argument that fighting the war of today is short-sighted. That's true. However, fighting the war of 25 years ago is even worse. We need a balanced solution that puts at least SOME thought into the conflicts of the next 5 years vs. conflicts that might occur in the next 20.


By omnicronx on 4/14/2009 10:42:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is why Obama's plan to "stimulate" the economy with infrastructure doesn't work. And it didn't work in the great depression.
I love people like you that for some reason think that stimulus packages should have and immediate effect. It can take 5+ years to get good results from expanding infrastructure.

You also forget what drove the late 60's and 70's, more infrastructure was built during that time than the last 80 years, and it did a great job of boosting the economy.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2009 10:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love people like you that for some reason think that stimulus packages should have and immediate effect. It can take 5+ years to get good results from expanding infrastructure.


Wait, I thought we were in a "crisis" and we HAD to spend the trillions NOW or else suffer a complete economic collapse !!

Funny, it seems like the perfect setup for ramming a bunch of pork barrel earmarked legislation through congress that's true goal is expanding government, padding unions, and paying back campaign contributions.

But hey Omni that's what I like about you, you're attention to detail..


By Amiga500 on 4/14/2009 11:10:55 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I have ? Odd, I don't recall proposing anything.


Your memory going?

You said in your first post - the really idiotic one:

quote:
Now compare this to an F-22, or any similar project. It shouldn't take you too long to figure out the big difference.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2009 11:41:09 AM , Rating: 1
That wasn't a proposal, it was a comparison. I'm not PROPOSING anything here. It's already been done dude.

Do you idiots even understand that CIVILIAN contractors are selling a product to our government ? Now, again, COMPARE that to the government building a bridge.


By cerx on 4/14/2009 12:44:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Now, again, COMPARE that to the government building a bridge.


The government pays civilian contractors to build a bridge. Just like they do to build a jet. Probably different contractors.


By akosixiv on 4/14/2009 1:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
although civilian bridge builders do not sell a bridge to the government. Not unlike defense contractor which spends hundreds of dollars and manhours to develop a working unit that the government would buy.

In the case of a bridge. The government thinks they would need a bridge on a place. They send out bids to the contractors, lowest price and good design wins.


By MrBungle123 on 4/14/2009 11:05:39 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I love people like you that for some reason think that stimulus packages should have and immediate effect. It can take 5+ years to get good results from expanding infrastructure.


They think that because that is what a stimulus is supposed to do... Stimulate the economy NOW because people need more money NOW. If it's going to take 5 years then what is the point? The average recession length over the last 50 years has been 11 months, so if you're trying to shorten a recession [impossible] then your money had better get into the economy quick because you don't have 5 years...

quote:
You also forget what drove the late 60's and 70's, more infrastructure was built during that time than the last 80 years, and it did a great job of boosting the economy.


This is from wikipedia I'll leave it for what it is becuase there is no need for me to elaborate:

quote:
The 1970s were perhaps the worst decade of Western and certainly of American economic performance since the Great Depression... The average annual inflation rate from 1900 to 1970 was approximately 2.5%. From 1970, however, the average rate hit about 6%, topping out at 13.3% by 1979. This period is also known for "stagflation", a phenomenon in which inflation and unemployment steadily increased, therefore leading to double-digit interest rates that rose to unprecedented levels (above 12% per year). The prime rate hit 21.5 in December 1980, the highest in history.


By cerx on 4/14/2009 12:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I voted for Obama, but I don't agree with his "stimulus" plan. The point is for an immediate effect and should not contain long-term plans. Those plans have their time and place, but not now, not in a "stimulus" budget.

That being said, I do believe you can shorten a recession. Because you can definitely extend the length of one.


By MrBungle123 on 4/14/2009 12:18:17 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
That being said, I do believe you can shorten a recession. Because you can definitely extend the length of one.


I suppose it might be possible. But recessions happen when some part of the economy gets over inflated. The one we're in now got started because of housing. It wont end until prices fall to a level that is sustainable with current wage levels. Until this correction happens there is no way to stop the recession from happening any increased spending by the government may slow the recession temporarialy by stabilizing prices mid fall but as soon as the spending stops the recession resumes until things bottom out.

In that regard I dont think the government really shortens a recession there are just varying levels of lengthening depending on their policies.


By cerx on 4/14/2009 12:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
True. This is what happens when people try to make money without "making" anything.


By erple2 on 4/14/2009 6:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The one we're in now got started because of housing.


I disagree - the housing market is what sustained the ludicrous influx of capital into the overexpanding securities market. I wouldn't say that's what started it.


By Danish1 on 4/14/2009 12:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is from wikipedia I'll leave it for what it is becuase there is no need for me to elaborate:


Actually there's a huge need to elaborate and you could start with the original oil crisis.


By MrBungle123 on 4/14/2009 1:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually there's a huge need to elaborate and you could start with the original oil crisis.


Why? Did you even read what I was responding to?(below)

quote:
You also forget what drove the late 60's and 70's, more infrastructure was built during that time than the last 80 years, and it did a great job of boosting the economy.


By Danish1 on 4/14/2009 1:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I read it and your quote did nothing to disprove his claim.


By MrBungle123 on 4/14/2009 2:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
are you implying that the US economy in the 1970's was good because of infrastructure projects?


By Danish1 on 4/14/2009 3:03:51 PM , Rating: 1
No, I don't have the first clue about what infrastructure projects did to the US economy in the 70s but I do know the economy during that time frame went to shit mainly because of the oil crisis so I objected to that wiki quote being any kind of proof that infrastructure projects didn't do the economy any good back then.


By Danish1 on 4/14/2009 12:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are not producing a product. And you have not laid the groundwork for any type of long term employment.


Talk about missing the bigger picture.


By Deschutes on 4/14/2009 12:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your entire post says nothing.


Neither does yours.


By phxfreddy on 4/14/2009 2:30:44 PM , Rating: 1
Look this has been studied to death. As government spending goes the defense is about as good as it gets as the "infrastructure" of spending is already there.

Other forms of stimulus have been proven to be quite ineffective in comparison. That's a fact not a bold assertion on my part.


By callmeroy on 4/14/2009 9:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While all the bridges to no where have near zilch effect long term because they lack the engineering intellectual property. Seen one bridge you have seen them all.


Well that's a pretty uninformed and naive statement to make. While I'm no engineer or bridge builder, I don't no think that it takes a genius or engineer to apply some basic research skills, combined with logic and common sense, to conclude bridges are most certainly not cookie cutter - no brains needed engineering processes.

If they were so routine and uniform in their processes, and the engineering feat such a yawnfest, why do bridges still fail the world over and people die as a result? Granted no one can guarantee any manmade construct will withstand mother nature -- but some bridges fail will within their supposed design specs. This is from poor engineering and planning. Definitely not one bridge you've seen them all.


By callmeroy on 4/14/2009 9:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
"I don't no think?"......that should have read "I do not think...."


By arazok on 4/14/2009 9:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
All spending has a simulative effect that trickles through the economy. It’s the nature of spending.

If you’re looking to grow an economy, you must ask what is the most productive way to spend ones money. Generally speaking, the best uses of money are on things that improve productivity on a permanent basis, or allow you to generate new sources of revenue.

Military spending accomplishes this when you sell your new weapons to other countries, and when you gain R&D spinoffs. However, I think there are other areas of an economy where these benefits can be realized at less cost.


By BurnItDwn on 4/14/2009 9:28:46 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, the government is increasing the military budget for next year, not cutting the budget.


By Penti on 4/14/2009 10:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
The F-35 can be exported, so it's a huge difference. As the F22 can't it has played out it's role already. And of course you prefer something which you can proliferate to all dictatorships and allies across the world. However other stuff you seem to prefer being an importer of, even though you don't afford it without excessively borrowing. The US is a weapons and nuclear proliferator. The fact is that the US would do fine budget wise without the military expenditure also. (Still not trade wise though) Your one of the worlds most militarized states. With worlds most expensive health care system. It's not healthy spending that much. It's all borrowed money too. Just health care and military is like 20% of your GDP. In Sweden it's 9%. We pay 20.9% for social security though, while you pay 12.6%. And of course you export many times less and don't tax enough to spend that kind of money. The US aren't earning any money. You will need to adjust sometime. Sweden had to in the 90's.


By Redwin on 4/14/2009 10:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
Though I <3 the F-22 and our American way of life in general, and though it pains me greatly to say it.. he's probably right with respect to our spending and trade paradigms overall being unsustainable in the long run.


By omnicronx on 4/14/2009 10:54:57 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The F-35 can be exported, so it's a huge difference. As the F22 can't it has played out it's role already.
Sure it can, the government just chooses not to, most likely to maintain air superiority. The question remains is 200 aircraft enough to maintain this superiority.
quote:
In Sweden it's 9%.
Yet you have essentially no military and as such you are protected by the European union, not exactly a fair comparison.


By TA152H on 4/14/2009 1:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, your post is pretty silly.

The U.S. exports a lot, it's just less than it imports. Exports had been growing quite a bit.

The military is large, but that's because you Euro-pacifists need us to protect you. What would you do without the U.S. having a military that would protect you? I can understand you being afraid of war, but being too cheap to contribute is terrible. That's the main problem, the U.S. has to spend so much money because the rest of the world is so damn scared of fighting, and too cheap to really help out. What's with the Germans? What a disappointing country. When they are pacifists, the whole world is upside down. The Brits do their share, but the rest of Europe is frankly disgusting.

Think about it, if the U.S. didn't have a huge military, Cambodia could invade continental Europe with a reasonably good chance of taking Paris before they got bored with French people and left. Hell, a rogue regime in Andorra could post a military threat. You guys can only be so spineless because of the U.S., and Britain. If not for us, you'd actually need to be able to defend yourselves, instead of knowing we'd put down the fires.

The biggest issue is the debt. If we didn't have to keep paying interest on it, we wouldn't have deficits (until the Democrats figured out a way to spend enough to create one).

I do agree on medical expenses being outrageous. It also comes down to the rest of the world in some cases being unfair. For example, Canada caps what drug companies can pay for drugs, to the point where Americans will try to get these medications from Canada. So, Canadians get the same medicine we do, but we have to foot the bill. Since medical companies can't recover their money from Canada, naturally, they need to charge more here. And, somehow this is fair? And the idiot Canadians actually try to intimidate the U.S. with military force in the Northwest Passage area, and claim the waterway is their's. Yes, they would do well in a war. Trained grizzly bears would be their best fighters.

I don't think imitating a second rate country like Sweden is feasible for the United States. Your country is irrelevant, even the Germans didn't see a point in invading it. The U.S. has a role in the world that depends on military expenditures. You Euros can sit back and watch us defend your freedoms and say how we spend too much on the military, but it's disingenuous and hypocritical. You can only live that way because we do.


By Danish1 on 4/14/2009 2:11:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The military is large, but that's because you Euro-pacifists need us to protect you. What would you do without the U.S. having a military that would protect you? I can understand you being afraid of war, but being too cheap to contribute is terrible. That's the main problem, the U.S. has to spend so much money because the rest of the world is so damn scared of fighting, and too cheap to really help out. What's with the Germans? What a disappointing country. When they are pacifists, the whole world is upside down. The Brits do their share, but the rest of Europe is frankly disgusting.


I'm european and agree with you on the idiot euro pacifists but you make it sound like the US does it what it does for the world and that I can't agree with.

The US does what it does to serve the best interests of the US and you're in need of a reality check if you think otherwise.


By Spazmodian on 4/14/2009 5:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US does what it does to serve the best interests of the US and you're in need of a reality check if you think otherwise.


Of course the US does most of what it does for it's own interests. It would just be nice if the pacifists would shut up and stop admonishing the US for doing what they fail to do.


By Iaiken on 4/14/2009 2:39:59 PM , Rating: 3
Magnanimous and magnificent protector my ass...

We exist in a world where we've attained the power to wipe out life on the planet as we know it. And yet for all the might of the US military and our capability to make war and destroy, we've learned so few lessons about peace and reconciliation. So weapons and resentment proliferate and as always, violence follows. The "euro cowards" understand the difference between cowardice and the knowledge that the certain unpredictability of violence and the cost it exacts on those that fight it. I've numerous friends and associates that have served as both combatants and peace keepers and I can tell you matter-of-factly that not all casualties are 6 feet under.

Even Nazi commanders recognized the inconsolable damage being done to SS troops tasked with exterminating of the unerwünschte (undesirables). This led them to further research how to make killing easier, not on the killed, but on the killers. While a far cry from the patch the US walks politically, the end objective is the same, make killing easier for the killers.

This concept goes against the wants of all peace loving people and does nothing but foster more conflict. So I point to those former enemy states that are now friends to the west and those peaceful nations that find success without US protection. The UAE is an example of a peaceful state that has been positively affected through western influence via trade and the American Universities therein. While the political climate is different and the faith indisputably Muslim, they are a powerful (albeit small) player in the global market place. Here you have a nation where the Sheikhs have combined western and Muslim values and continue to forge a future for their people on a global scale without resorting to war or violence.

So your suppositions that the US military makes life as the people know it possible is both unwarranted and untrue. However, so long as nations look without for conflict, they will find it and so find the need for better weapons. But you cannot force peace upon an enemy just as you cannot force democracy or any other idea upon another as unless they discover it for themselves, they will retain their original opinion.

Average Eupopeans, Canadians and many others enjoy a greater degree of freedom and quality of life than the American status quo in the world than Americans do. I wonder just how great a nation America could be if it looked within for problems to fix rather than without...

But for all my words, you will retain your original opinion until you discover for yourself that the world is not America and America is not the world...


By Spazmodian on 4/14/2009 6:32:06 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, that same ideology worked out well for Europe in 1938-1944 didn't it? Europe was too scared of conflict to even attempt to stop Nazi Germany.

Pacifists are amazing, they refuse to recognize the fact that there are bad people in the world who will do violent things to others to gain power.

Maybe the US should have just packed up and left Europe after WW2, I'm sure Stalin would have been real nice to everyone.


By Pneumothorax on 4/14/2009 7:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
Last Time I checked the UAE isn't exactly doing so hot. Besides they've got wonderful debtor's prisons & getting jailed for "sex-on-the-beach" lol

BTW No matter how "advanced" human civilization will get, there will always be war. Count on it. IT's in our "nature"


By MrBungle123 on 4/14/2009 11:34:35 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why bother with smaller welfare systems when you can have a really, really big one that you can use to hit things with?


Conservatives are against the government spending money on things they do not have to, because they are really spending our money not theirs. They have a constitutional obligation to defend the nation. There is no such obligation for welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

As for these programs being "smaller" than the military, in fiscal year 2008 Defense was 21% of the federal budget where Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid made up 44% more than 2x the size of the military, and these programs are projected to consume an ever larger portion of the budget as time goes on. After about 2040 or so they will become unsustainable in their current form. The US is 27th in the world when it comes to military spending as a percentage of GDP. We just have a much larger GDP then everyone else so when it comes to actual dollars spent we are by far the largest.


By 1frisbee1 on 4/14/2009 9:31:07 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I just taught a course on this in Political Science and there seems to be no definitive study that demonstrates this is the case.

There is a much larger correlation between defense spending and election cycles, rather than an increase in military spending and economic growth.


By MrBungle123 on 4/14/2009 11:37:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a much larger correlation between defense spending and election cycles, rather than an increase in military spending and economic growth.


Does that include WWII pulling us out of the great depression?


By HercDriver on 4/14/2009 10:44:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the Pentagon made the right decision. Why spend more money on the F-22 when the F-35 is a superior aircraft?


These are the type of asinine comments you get when the "general public" weighs in on military issues. I'm sorry, sir, but you and the rest of "John Q. Public" has no idea what you are talking about. The F-35 is in NO WAY superior to the F-22. I really hate "arm-chair Generals" who think they know what they are talking about, and post their opinions as if they are facts. If you actually knew anything about these two aircraft, you'd realize that the F-22 was designed to be the air superiority fighter, and the F-35 the multi-mission (read ground-attack) fighter. The F-22 is specialized to shoot down other aircraft, without being seen. The F-35, while also stealthy (golf ball vs marble on radar) is capable of air-air combat against any other FOREIGN fighter CURRENTLY in existence, but not as good as the F-22. The problem with ending production is the short-sightedness of the decision. Yes, the F-22 is not particularly useful against the Taliban, or insurgents, but that's not it's purpose. Please read about the Russian PAK-FA and Chinese J-12 programs. This is what we will face 15-20 years from now. Then is not the time to say "oh, shit, what do we do now?" Once F-22 production is halted, it CAN NOT be restarted. Now, fast forward 20 years, and start a new fighter program from scratch...the F-22 development lasted almost 20 years. If we wait until our adversaries field their new fighters, then we lose for 20 years. I seriously doubt we'll end up buying 2000+ F-35s. Just look at the F-22 for example...originally planned to be 750, but halted at under 200. I'd estimate we'll end up with about 1000 F-35s when all is said and done, 15-20 years from now. The question becomes how many PAK-FA and J-12 aircraft will be produced? The Russians may not be able to crank them out, but I bet the Chinese will. What happens when we are outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1, and their fighters are just as good, or better than the F-35? OOPS! Even after this long post, I haven't even touched on the advanced air-defense that the Russians and Chinese currently have, let alone what they are developing. That is for another day. I suggest that you have a very long reading list ahead of you if you should feel compelled to offer you "military" advice again. At least try to educate yourself before making such statements.


By Redwin on 4/14/2009 10:57:15 AM , Rating: 3
Everything Herc said is true, and the F-22 is a superior Air-To-Air fighter in every way to the F-35, and we would in fact need that superiority to face currently in production future jets from the other countries he listed. I think, however, we need to examine a little bit more what the jets are needed for.

The bottom line is the US needs a replacement for its fleet of F-15's. We have a couple thousand of these in the US, based around the country. This is so we can have high speed air-to-air interceptors within minutes of any possible breach of our air space. It takes MANY planes to accomplish this 100% protection. To replace these, we need to buy several thousand of a good interceptor plane.

Between the F-22 and the F-35, the F-22 is obviously the far superior domestic interceptor plane. However, the price difference is as follows:
F-35 ~$83 million
F-22 ~$138 million

They were originally talking about 700 F-22's, but that never made sense if they intended to use them to replace the entire fleet of F-15's, so we were left to assume our domestic air defense would be partially F-22 and partially F-35, depending on how much we could spend.

It seems to me the decision here is essentially, that if the F-35 is good enough to cover much of our air space at nearly half the cost (and it is, its a great fighter jet, you don't need as great a stealth for defensive operations, though it IS a stealthy plane, and it can shoot down any bomber in the world), its good enough to cover all of it, and we will just buy several thousand F-35's to replace the F-15 fleet.

The F-22 then, is left as a foreign fighter jet, without domestic interceptor responsibilities. Its still good for that, but I think their point is that a couple hundred of them is enough to shut down the air space of a foreign nation at the point where we are invading, so buying more when we only need the big numbers for domestic defense (read: F-35) is pointless.


By Amiga500 on 4/14/2009 10:58:05 AM , Rating: 2
In 20 years time, the F-22 will be cronically outdated.

Its basic concept is already 30 years old.

Infact, in 20 years time, I think the UCAV will have redefined aerial warfare in a manner similar to the Fokker Eindecker.


By Nfarce on 4/14/2009 11:09:48 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Please read about the Russian PAK-FA and Chinese J-12 programs. This is what we will face 15-20 years from now. Then is not the time to say "oh, shit, what do we do now?"


Well, a lot of people out there think that that mentality is just neo-con "boogeyman" scare tactics. Why, nobody would ever want to harm the US, would they? We know everything and see everything, even needs 25 years into the future, man! Wake up and join the rose colored glasses world man!

quote:
Then is not the time to say "oh, shit, what do we do now?" Once F-22 production is halted, it CAN NOT be restarted.


Actually that's not true. I live not far from the Lockheed-Martin final assembly plant and have a friend that work there in logistical operations support. Information and interdepartmental access to it is highly secret there of course, but suffice it to say that on projects of this scale, the capability to ramp back up production has to be for a time period in the future in the event of a national emergency. This includes access to the personnel involved in the production and material used (or something like that).


By HyperTension on 4/14/2009 11:44:38 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe a more correct statement is that once a production line is halted it can be restarted but only with a massive amount of monies / time (and thats just the simple explaination).

Bottom line though.. Once high-technology production lines are halted, it's a done deal, saying "we can always restart" is like going trying to have a Quadraplegicpa prostitute offer to give you a hand job.


By Danish1 on 4/14/2009 1:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
imo the real question is nice to have vs. need to have and as much as I love planes like the F22 I just don't see any need for more of them for the foreseeable future.

Sure if China or Russia actually begins to ramp up mass production of aircraft which can compete with the F35 for air superiority there will be a need but that wont happen overnight and I'll bet you that the F22 line can get rolling again faster than they can create an entirely new production line.


By jcbond on 4/14/2009 11:26:50 AM , Rating: 4
FDR a Fascist? I'll disagree with that
With the Great Depression, FDR was very busy finding out that government spending was ineffective at aleviating economic downturns. In fact, many economists will tell you that the variety of programs implemented by FDR prolonged the Depression. Had not WWII intervened, he would have probably been turned out by voters.
The government does not build wealth as well as individuals working in concert with one another under the aegis of a free market. Never has, and never will. Our economy recovers despite the misguided attempts to spend our way out of economic problems via government. The best thing government can do is to cut taxes AND cut spending. Tax cuts are well known to have stimulative effects. Ask George W Bush, Ronald Regan,... and John F Kennedy ( a well-known democrat btw).
The purpose of defense spending is to defend the American people and their interests. Plain and simple. Don't mix this up with "stimulus".


By MrBungle123 on 4/14/2009 11:54:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
FDR a Fascist? I'll disagree with that
With the Great Depression, FDR was very busy finding out that government spending was ineffective at aleviating economic downturns. In fact, many economists will tell you that the variety of programs implemented by FDR prolonged the Depression.


You are making the mistake that many people do in believing that people like FDR and our current president are trying to help people. They are either profoundly stupid or they are putting on a show for the cameras while trying to accomplish a different goal [more government control]. You dont get as far as the presidency by being a totoal idiot. There is no way that everyone that advisises the president is completely ignorant to history and if were they truly interested in helping they would study it in the context of current events before acting. It is for this reason that I have concluded that they are staging a power grab not trying to fix the current economic downturn.

“The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” - Adolf Hitler


By cerx on 4/14/2009 12:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
While I believe that Obama was the best choice for President, I agree with your statement. He (and other Democrats in Congress) are getting their own agendas through in a time of uncertainty; when they should be worrying about the economy and country, they are worrying about getting their ideals put in place because it will be easier now. Just as Bush did after 9/11. Both examples are wrong and I think it will lead to a Republican upheaval of Congress (though I think Obama will win again for "saving" us from the recession) like we've seen with the past couple of Presidents. So all-in-all, little gets done that won't be undone. What we need is a three or four party system, not just two ...


By MrBungle123 on 4/14/2009 12:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So all-in-all, little gets done that won't be undone. What we need is a three or four party system, not just two


Some of the things they are trying to do can be undone, others cannot. Amnesty for illegals which will be the next big project coming down the pike will not be possible to undo. Universal Health care will create an entire generation of people that are dependent on the government and this program cannot be undone. Small things like assault weapons bans and tax hikes and relatively easily be undone but massive socialist programs are nearly impossible to do away with, just try to get rid of social security if you don't believe me.


By jcbond on 4/14/2009 1:41:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You are making the mistake that many people do in believing that people like FDR and our current president are trying to help people.

You are correct. I do believe that that is what they are trying to do. The problem is that they also think people are too stupid to run their own lives and need to be shown, led and ordered by the elite few who do know how they should live. And that is why they need to be stopped.
Unfortunately, they are very good at taking advantage of peoples fears - offering security in return for freedom. Slowly eating away at the things that make this country great...


By MrBungle123 on 4/14/2009 2:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem is that they also think people are too stupid to run their own lives and need to be shown, led and ordered by the elite few who do know how they should live. And that is why they need to be stopped.


History has shown that the individual is better at making decisions on how to address their specific situation than large government bureaucracies. This brings me back to my point, IF those in power actually cared about the people the decisions they made would be based in history.
Clearly they are not since the ideas they propose have been shown time and again to be wrong, so why should I believe that they care about anything other than creating dependence solely for the securing of their own power since history shows us that the only thing that comes of these socialist systems is ever more government control?


By Nfarce on 4/14/2009 11:39:10 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
What do you do when the bridge is built, back to the welfare line.


No, being a good government bot in charge of logistics and procurement in domestic "stimulus" spending you 1) ensure that the bridge project takes about 10 years to complete [see: state DOT road projects] and 2) ensure that it is sanded, stripped, repainted, and resurfaced about every other year.

Wonderful case in point that affects me:

I-75 south between Macon, GA and Valdosta, GA has about a 50 mile total stretch of interstate widening by the DOT that has been going on since early 2003. It is a little past half way complete. In this stretch, you cannot drive faster than 45mph when workers are present, and the area is highly patrolled.

That's an average of about .4 miles a month. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we have built entire freaking interstates from scratch, from tree chopping to road topping, at a faster rate than that.

Only government. And it's bloated bureaucracy and sloth is getting worse, not better.


By Teh Interwebz on 4/14/2009 1:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
its a little easier to build from scratch, you dont have to work around traffic or level it with the rest of the road.

In addition you dont go to the welfare line, the business that now uses the road to expand its business hires you.


By Nfarce on 4/14/2009 2:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In addition you dont go to the welfare line, the business that now uses the road to expand its business hires you.


So are you saying that if we build more/better highway infrastructure it will increase business growth because they will be able to do more on said roads which would expand their businesses?


By Danish1 on 4/14/2009 1:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's an average of about .4 miles a month. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we have built entire freaking interstates from scratch, from tree chopping to road topping, at a faster rate than that.


Yes you have, in an era where every hill was leveled and every wet area drained without a care for the environment, in an era where worker salaries was nowhere close to today and no one thought much about worker safety. In an era where there was no neighbors to complain about the noise. etc. etc. etc.

You can blame a lot of shit on the government and idiot politicians but not everything bad is their fault.


By Nfarce on 4/14/2009 2:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
in an era where worker salaries was nowhere close to today and no one thought much about worker safety.


(Agreed on your other points BTW)..but this one, meh, in the 1970s, everyone was working in building/road projects that were government managed. Today, you have 5 guys standing around watching while two do the digging. Then you have three guys managing the project in a government office surfing the web while one guy in Congress that represents their area is throwing more money their way when they find an excuse for a delay. Nobody to hold accountable for deadlines or efficiency, and us taxpayers foot the bills. Hence, no motivation to get the work done in an efficient (while safe) manner. This is what government does best.


By Danish1 on 4/14/2009 3:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
You mean your road work isn't done by private contractors over there?

Heck even in our socialist paradise here we know efficiency drops dead when you leave too much up to the government.


By Nfarce on 4/14/2009 3:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean your road work isn't done by private contractors over there?


No, that's not what I meant at all. They farm out stuff all the time to private contractors. But there are gov't employees who oversee and supervise everything. My point is that a government funded operation is a government operation: no ultimate responsibility to anyone because others (us) are footing the bills.


By Danish1 on 4/14/2009 4:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
I have to disagree, if you have 3 guys from a private company just standing there watching then you have a private company with an issue and you can't blame that on the government.

I think your real issue here is the abysmal footnote (I believe you call it that) system you operate with and that I'd agree with you about.


By Nfarce on 4/14/2009 6:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
I still don't think you are with me. The contracting company is only doing what it is told and holding to whatever deadlines it is held to. Those 3 guys standing around are that OSHA safety net - or something similar I'm sure.

Lemmie tell ya, that's the kind of contract I'd love to have if I owned a company. Easy money and you don't even have to work hard. Woohoo!

Lobbyists do it all the time.


By Danish1 on 4/14/2009 2:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I'm voted down because some people hate realizing they can't just blame everything bad on the government and politicians.

One tongue is blaming the politicians for things becoming more expensive and taking longer to complete and the other is busy demanding a salary raise and a safer work environment etc. for yourself and yours.

Sweet sweet hypocrisy.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki