backtop


Print 87 comment(s) - last by Regs.. on May 29 at 12:45 PM

The debate over the need of expensive new fighters continues

The U.S. Navy has requested more money for fewer aircraft compared to last year's budget wish list, which has some lawmakers and military officials concerned over the spending on military aircraft.

"We can no longer afford unaffordable programs," said Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss), Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee Chairman.  "I believe it is time to step back and build what we know works, make it better if and when we can, and get the capability to the sailor and Marine who need it today, not 10 years from now."

The growing length of the so-called "fighter gap" has left some military officials and lawmakers scratching their heads as to whether or not the government needs to purchase so many aircraft.  Specifically, the 2010 Navy aviation budget proposal stands $4.6 billion over the 2009 proposed budget, even though there are 20 fewer aircraft to be built.

The Navy is expected to begin using the F-35 Lightning II in 2012, and some military leaders have come forward and said the Navy will be just fine waiting a couple of years for the expensive next-generation aircraft.  The Navy requested two different F-35 fighters, including the F-35 B fighter that is designed for short take-offs and vertical landings that will be used for the Marine Corps.

It's expected the Navy will receive its first F-35 C sometime this summer, if all goes according to plan.

Although there have been calls to reduce military spending, there is also growing concern over the millions of repairs invested into the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet fighter jets.  The 2010 aviation budget includes almost $280 million for continuous upgrades that will continue to increase until the JSF is ready for deployment.

Even though Navy officials won't say how long the strike fighter gap will be, they've launched an internal investigation and hope to have their findings ready sometime this fall.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Basselope gap
By Danger D on 5/21/2009 5:57:13 PM , Rating: 5
"Fighter gap?" Why isn't anyone talking about the Basselope gap? Rumors are the Russians have a Basselope of their own.




RE: Basselope gap
By Azsen on 5/21/2009 6:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
What is that?


RE: Basselope gap
By Tsunami982 on 5/21/2009 6:33:08 PM , Rating: 5
RE: Basselope gap
By MadMan007 on 5/21/2009 10:13:03 PM , Rating: 1
This deserves a 6!


RE: Basselope gap
By Jedi2155 on 5/22/2009 12:59:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm still worrying about the Doomsday weapon gap.


RE: Basselope gap
By Aloonatic on 5/22/2009 4:58:30 AM , Rating: 3
"Damn straight! Today, the mad scientist can't get a doomsday device, tomorrow it's the mad grad student. Where will it end?"

- Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth


RE: Basselope gap
By VaultDweller on 5/22/2009 7:55:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'm more worried about the mine shaft gap.

Seriously though, when we can look back at this in a couple decades, I wonder whether the idea of a "fighter gap" will be as big a load of BS as the missile gap was.


RE: Basselope gap
By flyboy84 on 5/22/2009 8:03:42 AM , Rating: 3
Mr. President! *Bangs fists on table* We cannot ALLOWWWWWWWWWW a mineshaft GAP!


RE: Basselope gap
By meepstone on 5/22/2009 4:31:41 PM , Rating: 3
No fighting in the war room!


RE: Basselope gap
By Regs on 5/29/2009 12:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
If we all start fighting the terroist have won!


10 years from now
By homerdog on 5/21/2009 5:43:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"I believe it is time to step back and build what we know works, make it better if and when we can, and get the capability to the sailor and Marine who need it today, not 10 years from now."


I'm of the opinion that we should be working on the stuff we'll need 10 years from now now, and we should've been working on the stuff we need now 10 years ago - probably more. Perhaps it's stating the obvious, but it takes a long time to design this stuff.




RE: 10 years from now
By Tsunami982 on 5/21/2009 6:05:15 PM , Rating: 5
I agree. That kind of statement indicates that the Rep. has a fundamental misunderstanding of military technology, tactics, war, and science in general as well as incredibly short sighted.

Imagine if he used this logic to other research. Let's just stop innovating/researching in general because we can't use the tech now. Tear down those particle colliders because what's it do for me today? Medicines take too long to research, if it doesn't help me today we don't need to be wasting our money. <sarcasm>

Playing catch-up in a time of war costs lives as well as more money.


RE: 10 years from now
By ianken on 5/21/2009 8:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
Military planning is always planning to fight the last war, not the next one. It is and has always been and will always be that way.

If you could plan for the unknown then it wouldn't be unknown, would it?

That said, the F35 is really not needed for naval aviation. The Marines on the other hand need to replace the Harrier. The thing is a death trap and their mission needs S/VTOL capability. Their variant of the F35 delivers that.

It's sad to see discussion around defense spending and procurment turn into silly posturing by the teabaggers and the Obama worshipers.


RE: 10 years from now
By ipay on 5/22/2009 12:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Military planning is always planning to fight the last war, not the next one.


Right, that's why military tech hasn't changed since WWII.

quote:
If you could plan for the unknown then it wouldn't be unknown, would it?


If you know that something's unknown, you automatically know something about it, yes? And while it is impossible to predict every unknown situation, many of them can be made known with good intel, while others can be predicted.

quote:
omnislash


omnislash


RE: 10 years from now
By xmichaelx on 5/22/2009 4:23:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Right, that's why military tech hasn't changed since WWII.

Let's 'splain this for the short-bus folks, shall we? The weapons used in WWII were designed with WWI in mind. The weapons used in Vietnam were designed with WWII and Korea in mind. The weapons we have currently were designed with Vietnam and the cold war in mind.

Planning to fight the last war doesn't preclude military technological advancement, obviously (nevermind what your foolish troll-post asserts). But the fact that our troops were woefully under-equipped for Iraq -- despite vast numbers of fighter planes sitting in hangars and on carriers throughout the world -- is a pretty compelling evidence that the comment you're denigrating is insightful.


RE: 10 years from now
By Regs on 5/29/2009 12:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
lol, exactly. After we fire and carpet bombed half of vietnam, we thought "Wouldn't it be better if we had one bomb that could be guided to it's target than 50 cluster bombs?"


RE: 10 years from now
By Targon on 5/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: 10 years from now
By nafhan on 5/22/2009 8:32:57 AM , Rating: 2
Some reform military budget reform could be good, but the government doing all the work themselves doesn't sound like a good solution. Look how well they handle stuff like transportation...
I think some of the problem is the lowest bidder lying about how much it will cost to complete a project, and feeling secure in the fact that any cost overruns will be acceptable since so much has already been invested. If there were a stricter policy about overruns, we might get a more truthful cost estimate to begin with.


RE: 10 years from now
By JediJeb on 5/22/2009 4:08:04 PM , Rating: 1
True. Just need to put it into the contract that the job will be done at a certain time at a certain amount, and if it goes over time money will be deducted from the final total, and no money past the total will be accepted. You accept the risk if you accept the contract. And you will finish the contract if you accept it.

This would make those in charge be a little more careful how they price things. At work we normally over estimate what a project will cost, then if we come in under cost the client is happy and we usually get more work and it is easier if there ever is a problem with a project with them in the future.


You don't say
By ZetaEpyon on 5/21/2009 6:26:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"We can no longer afford unaffordable programs," said Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss), Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee Chairman.


We could afford unaffordable programs before? Sweet!




RE: You don't say
By Ozziedogg on 5/21/2009 6:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! I somehow missed that one

+1


RE: You don't say
By MadMan007 on 5/21/2009 10:14:19 PM , Rating: 5
The way politicians do budgeting and accounting? Heck yeah.


RE: You don't say
By Trisagion on 5/22/2009 12:22:44 AM , Rating: 2
Of course we could. It's like expecting the unexpected. ;)


RE: You don't say
By Aloonatic on 5/22/2009 5:00:42 AM , Rating: 2
And the known unknowables...


It is quite simple.
By Lastfreethinker on 5/21/2009 9:38:13 PM , Rating: 1
Military programs do not only protect our men and women of the armed forces, or keep us safe from harm, they also provide copious amounts of data and funds to help in the civilian sector.

Computers, Lasers, Microwaves, Radar, Internet and thousands of other technologies have come from what a POLITICIAN would consider and unfordable program. IE a Military program, let us not forget what has gotten us into this CURRENT problem people. Just like in 1929 Credit was given to those how could not afford it. I would seem we did not learn from our mistakes. The first time it was the lenders this time it was a the POLITICIANS of the late 90s.

It needs to be understood we are the guy EVERYONE is aiming for, if we do not keep ahead and trip up only the slightest we will be picked off like a wounded animal. I do not want a Navy with a new Aircraft Carrier which cannot cruise with the flight without wonder if their reactor is going to meltdown do to overheating.

If you want to tighten the belt you need to cut funding to Illegal immigrant services. Stop paying UN dues, it is a failing system. Cut foreign aid to countries that do nothing but bad mouth us while taking our money. That people with solve the problems.




RE: It is quite simple.
By the3monkies on 5/22/2009 12:50:28 AM , Rating: 1
I'm with the freeThinker! Man, I get a hard on just thinking about ammo, fighter jets, nukes and all that other cool stuff! And to Hell with all this rationalizing! I just love weapons - doesn't matter if we need them, or even if we can afford them! I think the greatness of a society can be measured by how much of it's limited financial resources it decides to spend on the military. Fuck all that pussy social spending crap, gimme the guns!


RE: It is quite simple.
By Durrr on 5/22/2009 10:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the Constitution calls for the federal gov't providing for common defense, but does not call for universal healthcare, or $137,000 to research why Thai prostitutes who use drugs are more likely to contract a STD as compared to one who doesn't use drugs.


RE: It is quite simple.
By whirabomber on 5/22/2009 11:06:28 AM , Rating: 2
The constitution isn't too specific on what the army is to be used for....

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

But it does say:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Which is can be pretty liberally interpeted.


RE: It is quite simple.
By Durrr on 5/22/2009 7:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, it is pretty ambiguous... I guess it COULD be interpreted that way. I don't know if I would call that "study" part of science, and definitely not a useful art..


RE: It is quite simple.
By RagingDragon on 5/24/2009 11:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


Uhm, that one only covers patents and copyrights.


RE: It is quite simple.
By kellehair on 5/22/2009 11:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
It's a shame you're being sarcastic because I agree with everything you said.


RE: It is quite simple.
By Carl B on 5/23/2009 4:19:20 PM , Rating: 1
The shame is that you agree with it.


Keep funding research / Postpone building
By Shig on 5/21/2009 9:03:36 PM , Rating: 3
At this point in time we simply cannot afford to spend as much as we have been, doesn't work.

I'm all for military research, some of the best minds in the world work at these companies.

These generals make it sound like we're going to lose WW3 if we don't build more.




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/22/2009 6:03:39 AM , Rating: 2
As it stands right now, we would. Our aging fighters are good, but franky mass produced crap from China could overwhelm us with mere numbers much as we did in WW2 to the Germans and Japanese. It wasn't until we rolled out the Mustang that we had a chance in hell against Japanese Zero's. The only thing saving our collective asses against the Germans were the British Spitfires.

Without a large force of F22/F35's on hand to take an early lead and hold on to it we could face the grim reality of not having air dominance for the first time since WW2 leaving our ground troops wide open. It's foolish to think our ancient F15/16/18 force will work in the next major engagement. It only works right now because we are fighting a bunch of fools that have no concept of air power and warfare. If we end up going toe to toe with China (as we likely will be one day because of our pact with Taiwan) then we will be in for a world of hurt. But these politicians and people in general can't see beyond their collective noses.


By werepossum on 5/22/2009 2:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As it stands right now, we would. Our aging fighters are good, but franky mass produced crap from China could overwhelm us with mere numbers much as we did in WW2 to the Germans and Japanese. It wasn't until we rolled out the Mustang that we had a chance in hell against Japanese Zero's. The only thing saving our collective asses against the Germans were the British Spitfires.


Agreed, and the worst thing is that we have crap for air defense too, almost totally composed of guys in HMMWVs dismounting to fire Stingers on foot. In a war with China, we will be Germany in '45 - not a nice thing to be. (Several years back, India beat our Eagles 15 to 1 in air-to-air combat war games.)

On the positive side, China is soon going to own everything in the USA anyway, so why would they want to break their own stuff? As long as we don't interfere with their conquering the world, we're golden.


By imperator3733 on 5/22/2009 3:44:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It wasn't until we rolled out the Mustang that we had a chance in hell against Japanese Zero's.

Mustangs only saw limited use in the Pacific - they were mostly in Europe. It was really the F6F Hellcat that was able to truly counter the Zero. The Mustang was very important in Europe where it was one of the few fighters that could escort the bombers all the way to Germany.

I do agree that we need modern aircraft, such as the F-22 and F-35, if America wants to remain significant in the future. I am slightly concerned about stopping production at 187 aircraft - it would be nice if they would increase that to 250 or so.


Let me get this right:
By Ozziedogg on 5/21/2009 5:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
A military official comes out and says "It's ok, we dont need quite so much funding this year, thanks anyway."

God, thats a first.




RE: Let me get this right:
By MatthiasF on 5/21/2009 5:45:27 PM , Rating: 4
I think with the power of unmanned vehicles and new types of smart bombs, they are re-evaluating what our air forces will look like in 10-20 years.

So, perhaps they're thinking more along the lines of "Let's not buy too much now with things changing so quickly."


RE: Let me get this right:
By RagingDragon on 5/24/2009 11:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
Either that or the general is lacky saying what the politicians want to hear.


Oh Congress, why waste your time?
By yacoub on 5/21/2009 6:40:22 PM , Rating: 3
Surely the DailyTech armchair generals have debated all the finer points ad nauseum. You could just have your aides print out the comments to the last few F-22 articles here on DailyTech and read them aloud into the Congressional Record!

;)




spend much??
By frozentundra123456 on 5/21/2009 11:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
So does this guy mean that at some time in the past we could have afforded the unaffordable.




military industrial complex
By poohbear on 5/23/2009 2:19:11 AM , Rating: 2
The military industrial complex needs to be fed, and the corporations making billions are'nt gonna stop pushing their products on a government and military that doesnt need them. If americas main threat is terrorism, these planes are'nt gonna help much in that regards. Intel, Special Ops, and recce programs is where the money needs to go, not on ridiculously overpriced military hardware so lockheed martin & Boeing can continue to make a killing even in peacetime.




the one purpose of government..
By Randomblame on 5/22/09, Rating: -1
Spend much?
By HostileEffect on 5/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Spend much?
By RjBass on 5/21/2009 5:45:07 PM , Rating: 5
Ok then. Let's continue to have an all powerful military and forget about the people it is suppose to serve.


RE: Spend much?
By Alexvrb on 5/21/2009 6:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree with the meaning behind your words. But for the record... what good has the enormous trillion dollar spending done for us? I sure as heck don't see unemployment number improving, in fact even as they talk up the economy, more and more people are losing their jobs.

Yeah, The Man stimulated our economy alright - in a caught-it-with-its-pants-down-in-a-dark-alley kind of way.


RE: Spend much?
By matt0401 on 5/21/2009 7:14:04 PM , Rating: 3
"what good has the enormous trillion dollar spending done for us?"

Are you talking about the bailout or the multiple trillion dollars spent on thr war in Iraq?


RE: Spend much?
By aftlizard on 5/21/2009 7:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
FWIW we have yet to hit a trillion dollars in Iraq, heck even if you added both Iraq and Afghanistan together we still haven't hit a trillion.


RE: Spend much?
By aftlizard on 5/21/2009 7:53:29 PM , Rating: 1
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/

Here is the link. I used their counter, hey have spending at 671 Billion and growing, roughly equal to one year of normal defense spending.


RE: Spend much?
By sinful on 5/22/2009 12:37:56 AM , Rating: 4
- The Iraq War has cost $656.1 billion in budgetary costs
so far, with another $52.7 billion pending as part of the
FY 2009 war supplemental
- The war in Afghanistan has cost US tax-payers $171.7 billion to date,
with a pending spring supplemental request .... $24.4 billion for Afghanistan.
- At least $2 trillion in future budgetary costs (including
Veterans’ benefits) will be spent
[for the war in Iraq]
(same source you quoted)

So, only $904.9 Billion spent by the end of 2009.

But, while you may be technically correct that we haven't spent a trillion yet, it's like buying a Ferrari on a credit card and saying you've only technically spent $20 thus far on it because that was the minimum payment on your credit card.


RE: Spend much?
By Solandri on 5/22/2009 4:59:20 AM , Rating: 4
I remember the paper by the economist who came up with that. The problem is he compressed ~50 years worth of expenses into one figure. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but then people started comparing that number to single-year numbers. You can't do that. It's like comparing your annual salary to my expected lifetime earnings, and concluding that I'm a lot wealthier than you. Or to use your credit card example, it's like comparing the total cost of buying a car vs. the cost of one month's bus pass, and concluding the bus is cheaper.

If you did the same with expected Social Security + Medicare expenses and added them up for the next 50 years, it'd work out to about $90 trillion (inflation-adjusted). Total projected federal budget expenditures for the next 50 years works out to about $300-$400 trillion. Suddenly $2 trillion for two wars which (whether or not you believe they were justified) were definitive events in this decade is a mere footnote.

U.S. defense spending is actually close to the lowest it's been in modern history, even including the increase in spending to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-...


RE: Spend much?
By mcnabney on 5/22/2009 10:17:57 AM , Rating: 2
And you can compress those expenses into one figure. When you buy a house, you don't just count the closing costs.
And as much as a like Truth and Politics, there cutoffs are suspicious. Measuring as a percentage of GDP only starts at WW2 and percentage of discretionary starts in the 60's. Hardly a history.
And a comparision to other entitlements isn't accurate either. Those expenses have specific revenue streams to support them and have ongoing benefits. An injured soldier has a considerable lifelong support cost that needs to be included when you judge the cost of the war, especially when you consider the war in Iraq as an 'optional war' unlike WW2 and Korea which were not optional.
Ultimately, it is a question of need. Do we need all of this expensive hardware?


RE: Spend much?
By Solandri on 5/22/2009 3:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And a comparision to other entitlements isn't accurate either. Those expenses have specific revenue streams to support them and have ongoing benefits.

You're confusing government with a business. Governments don't create wealth, they merely redistribute it. As such, the "revenue" you speak of isn't money that's coming in because an expenditure provided a return on investment. It's money that's allocated because a political decision was made to fund it. Money taken out of my paycheck to pay for Social Security is the same as money taken to pay for DoD projects. The only difference is how they're structured in the accounting books. In other words, the fact that the entitlements have "revenue streams" to offset their cost is not justification for their existence. It just means a political decision was made to structure their accounting that way.

(I happen to believe a certain amount of SS and Medicare provide value. But I also believe a certain amount of defense spending provides value.)
quote:
An injured soldier has a considerable lifelong support cost that needs to be included when you judge the cost of the war, especially when you consider the war in Iraq as an 'optional war' unlike WW2 and Korea which were not optional.

Of course. But like I originally stated, those costs need to be looked at within a given timeframe. You cannot compare 50-year costs to 1-year costs. You either have to compare the 50-year costs for veterans' aid to 50-year costs for everything else. Or you have to compare the 1-year costs for veterans' aid to 1-year costs for everything else.

And Korea was an optional war. Actually it was a UN police action, akin to the first Gulf War and the Bosnian war, but I digress...


RE: Spend much?
By threepac3 on 5/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Spend much?
By TSS on 5/21/2009 7:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
of course people expect miracles from obama. he's performed miracles before why expect less now?

and if you don't consider inheriting a record breaking deifict and tripling that within your first 100 days as president a frickin miracle, i don't know what is.


RE: Spend much?
By arazok on 5/21/2009 7:54:14 PM , Rating: 1
I think disaster would be a better word.

The miracle for Obama is that the American people haven't realized it yet.


RE: Spend much?
By mead drinker on 5/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Spend much?
By Alexstarfire on 5/22/2009 2:45:08 AM , Rating: 2
No, but I don't think tripling our budget is going to help things, but we'll see won't we.


RE: Spend much?
By deeznuts on 5/22/2009 5:35:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
And what would you have done? Inject money into the consumer base as some sort of stimulus, lower the interest rate to 0 and allow everyone and their mother to acquire a home loan based on that criteria, give the upper class a tax break all based on the trickle down principle? Guess what all of these were all done back in 2001-present and look where the fuck we are now? Stop playing armchair politician and continue paying your taxes. Here's a real kicker: if your not claiming Social Security by now chances are you never will and we are still paying the motherfucker every pay check. I guess all of the ills of this nation are Obama's fault, right?
Get the fuck out of here with these liberal talking points man. What did those tax cuts do? Please dont' listen to MSNBC and Lib campaign clips for this information. Use objective analysis.

The tech bubble by itself should have caused a bigger recession than it did. By all accounts it was mild, and even by the traditional standard of two straight quarters of negative GDP it barely passed even if it did (but the NBER who is tasked with declaring recessions does not subscribe to that definition of recession). Plus you had 9/11 which was devastating on our economy. What did the Bush tax cuts do? Extend our prosperity even after these two potentially devastating events.

Tax cuts help but they're not a panacea. You can't expect them to save our economy from bubble after bubble. The tech bubble of 2000, the commodity bubble and then the credit/real estate bubble, which are technically two separate ones. Lets not forget the CRA while not directly causing subprime, created the market and appetite for these lower profile debtors. who was responsible for pushing that, and repeal of Glass-steagall? Look it up. Also who defended Fannie and Freddie while they were going down the tubes and resisted regulation? Look it up.

It's not Obama's fault but he isn't doing anything to help it. I can talk all day about his hypocritical statements but I'll leave it to the relevant one. Those who subscribe to Keynesian theory of govt. stimulus are the same ones who criticize Bush for his deficit spending for security and military. wait, didn't WWII and govt. spending bring us out of the Great Depression? When Obama was criticized for his stimulus and some of the provisions, he defended himself and said, "spending money is stimulus" yet spending money was the very thing he criticized Bush for. He doesn't want to extend failed policies of our previous administration but he goes out and extends the very policy but multiplies it by 4.

Bush did a lot of things wrong, a lot, but this buffoon in the Office now isn't doing anything to correct it. Bush and Cheney may have made some bad choices, but at least they did it for our safety. Obama is doing it for his party. Making up for lost time

Make no mistake, a stimulus that is by Obama's design isn't supposed to be spent until after they project recovery isn't stimulus at all. If you fail to see that point then I feel pity for you.

Damn I wrote way too much. That's what I get for having a couple beers this late. good night.


RE: Spend much?
By deeznuts on 5/22/2009 5:41:17 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and please dispense with giving the upper class a tax break stuff. If you do the research and read the Treasury numbers, which I have, you will find the rich actually increased their share of taxes throughout after the taxes.

And we hear of the shrinking middle class. Yes the poor middle class. Yet when you look at the numbers, again which I already have, and no reporter or politician will tell you this, during the previous administration the middle class shrunk, but the lower class did not increase. How is this so? Because those that left the middle class moved up, not down.


RE: Spend much?
By codeThug on 5/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Spend much?
By General Disturbance on 5/22/2009 11:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
Nice to see someone else with a true take on reality. For others not afraid:

See:
The Obama Deception
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

and

Zeitgiest Addendum
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=70652052776...


RE: Spend much?
By smitty3268 on 5/21/2009 8:34:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But for the record... what good has the enormous trillion dollar spending done for us? I sure as heck don't see unemployment number improving, in fact even as they talk up the economy, more and more people are losing their jobs.

I think you're missing the point there. Most economists think that without the (actually several) trillion dollars of spending, the economy could be looking like the Great Depression, with 20%+ unemployment. Of course, it's impossible to tell what would have actually happened, but if that's true then the spending is a relative bargain.


RE: Spend much?
By knutjb on 5/21/2009 10:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
Whose "most economist" are you talking about? The CBO said more than once do nothing, wait it out and the economy would recover faster than under Obama's massive transfer of wealth to the wealthy, TARP, and funding of ACORN for social change (their 270+ groups under the ACORN umbrella are eligible for over $8,000,000,000.00 of tax payer ARRA money), government funded corruption. Voter fraud convictions against ACORN in multiple states and more indictments on the way.... Sure let the left rush through bills and sign them without proper review. You get what you vote for, and yes the center of right repubs spent like dem light and that didn't work either.

The economy has seasons and the harder you try to avoid a painful period the longer it will last. Research the depression and you will find all that spending and other crazy policies i.e. no private ownership of gold and anti business/investment tax laws only suppressed the economy. FDR's Treasury Secretary said in 1939 that all that spending didn't fix the economy, it only prevented a recovery. Obama is doing the same thing, it didn't work then, it won't work now.

Stealing form the military is a hallmark of the left, accuse them of unbelievable waste and slash their budget. Jimmy Carter unfunded the military, I have friends who had to pull up drainage grates searching for hardware to put aircraft back together because they didn't have any funding to buy simple hardware like screws, washers, nuts and bolts. Clinton, after bombing Kosovo refused to replenish supplies, bombs, parts etc... we grounded aircraft because we didn't restock supplies consumed in that effort and refused to get a suplamental because and used TRAINING FUNDS to fight a war, so we stopped flying aircraft. It took Bush to start replenishing those supplies, that was before 911. Obama is doing the same thing, further hacking away at an already tight budget to fund his social agenda.

At what point do you realize the size of the military is too small? When the UN says you can't build up your military? When you have to learn Chinese? What is that limit and how close do you want to get to it? It's your future to gamble with, which says we're way to close to that line. The best money spent on defense is a weapon not fired in anger. Freedom will not continue if you refuse to protect it decisively.


RE: Spend much?
By ssjwes1980 on 5/21/2009 10:53:08 PM , Rating: 1
this


RE: Spend much?
By Alexstarfire on 5/22/2009 2:52:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think you totally missed out on how much money goes into R&D. They don't use up the entire budget just buying parts and supplies. R&D is a huge chunk of that and I don't have any qualms of cutting that back a bit.

Ohh hey, I've got a bright idea. How about we stop fighting in Iraq? That's easily $50+ billion a year right there.

There are tons of places to cut money, not just in the military, but most of it won't get done. God forbid they do something that might help.


RE: Spend much?
By Lifted on 5/22/2009 5:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
Too small? Surely you jest.

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-dis...

The question is how much military spending is too much. I think the above url is good place to start the debate.


RE: Spend much?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/22/2009 6:22:57 AM , Rating: 3
There's no debate to be had. That idiotic chart without qualifiers lacks credibility.

Let's start things off right. First up we have the total budget chart. Funny how much we pay in social programs, good god.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S....

Next up we have the lovely GDP chart. Holy crap were #28 on it.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world...

I know some people like to whine and cry about basing the cost off a percentage of GDP, but realistically as a percentage of the total GDP we get a better idea of how much is being spent. With the largest (or second largest, seems to be a seesaw with the EU right now) GDP in the world our percentage will reflect more real dollars. We also have the problem of not wanting our soldiers to be killed, ever (everytime someone dies in the military it makes news) where as other countries in the middle east, africa, and china could really care less about casualties in the grand scheme of things. Because of this they don't need to devote quite as much money to their military budget. China while having the largest standing army is also mostly comprised of infantry so all they need to pay for is rifles and ammo, not body armor, night vision, air lift and logistics for the entire military, aerial refueling, etc....


RE: Spend much?
By Lifted on 5/22/2009 6:41:26 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
where as other countries in the middle east, africa, and china could really care less about casualties in the grand scheme of things. Because of this they don't need to devote quite as much money to their military budget.


That has to be the most asinine thing I've ever read on dailytech, and from a staffer no less. You seriously have to get out of the US and see the rest of the world for what it is and not what CNN and Fox make it out to be in their 30 second blurbs.


RE: Spend much?
By Solandri on 5/22/2009 3:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
You need to read up on some history. Many of the nations in the regions he described have a history of throwing high body count into battles, sometimes even without weapons (they were expected to pick up rifles from soldiers who had died ahead of them).

I can't speak of the Middle East and Africa, but for Asia I know it's because of the Confucian ideals which pervade societies there. Individuals are expected to, and do sacrifice themselves for what they perceive to be the greater good. Usually it's for family, but it extends to country too. It's why the Japanese were able to recruit a steady stream of volunteers for suicide kamikaze missions in WWII. It's the opposite of the U.S. where individuality is cherished, and every decision which seemingly puts a soldier's life unnecessarily at risk gets questioned.


RE: Spend much?
By werepossum on 5/22/2009 5:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:
quote:
where as other countries in the middle east, africa, and china could really care less about casualties in the grand scheme of things. Because of this they don't need to devote quite as much money to their military budget.


That has to be the most asinine thing I've ever read on dailytech, and from a staffer no less. You seriously have to get out of the US and see the rest of the world for what it is and not what CNN and Fox make it out to be in their 30 second blurbs.


Made perfect sense to me. American operational and tactical policy since WW2 (after the losses of WW1) has always been "Send a bullet, not a man." For most nations it's "Send a hundred men." This may be because their economies can't afford advanced weapons and huge stockpiles of ammunition to be spent lavishly, but it's cold hard fact. It may be cheaper to send a hundred men with rifles than to send one smart missile, but if you're one of those men with rifles, it's a very important distinction. If your loved one is one of those men with rifles, that policy is the single largest determinant of whether your loved one comes home vertical or horizontal.

Decisions like this determine whether we begin fighting a war like World War II or Korea or Viet Nam, losing 17 planes to 1 shot down, or like Iraq, dominating the skies from Day One. To a liberal, who sees the US military as the root of all evil but thinks we desperately need more government-funded ACORN spin-offs and permanent welfare mothers, that's a pretty easy decision. Know what? It's a pretty easy decision to me too. If they think they need 250, I say buy 'em 300.


RE: Spend much?
By Carl B on 5/23/2009 4:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
Or we could just not fight in the wars that are needless to begin with. That includes Vietnam, and it includes Iraq. But insofar as we *do* enter a conflict, I don't think the US has anything to worry about in terms of achieving airspace superiority in any near future conflict.

We need 250 and you say build 300; I say we don't even need 100 if last gens fighters are still doing the job, they're still doing the job.

From an 'intelligent' spending perspective, keep the dial turned up on the R&D, and set up for manufacturing when there's an actual need. The way these things work anyway is that the money poured in to a generation of fighters usually yields a quasi-obsolescent fleet upon completion anyway. There would be nothing wrong with skipping a gen IMO if it meant a better leveraged application of both R&D and manufacturing dollars in the end. Right now there's just no pressing need to have a 'current' fleet.

If we enter a modern conflict in the foreseeable future, we have what it takes to claim the airspace in days. If an armsrace starts a couple of years from now, well that's a race we'll win as well should we start running. But no need to run and to build for the sake of conflict scenarios that aren't on the horizon.

And what's liberal vs conservative have to do with it? Spending on universal healthcare yields efficiencies and real benefits; spending on defense programs in areas where the US already has clear dominance is just a couple of dudes masturbating our tax dollars away.


RE: Spend much?
By Lifted on 5/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: Spend much?
By inperfectdarkness on 5/22/2009 1:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
i'd also like to point out that that 4% of GDP listed for the USA INCLUDES the funds we spend on the ongoing wars. our actual defense budget (not including the cost of war) is closer to 3% of the GDP...which is abysmally low.


RE: Spend much?
By Carl B on 5/23/2009 4:34:19 PM , Rating: 1
Yet in actual terms still far and away higher than any other nation on Earth. What are the benefits you see of doubling that figure, for instance? Is there some air or naval threat you perceive to this country? It won't buy soldiers, and it won't defeat the present enemies of this nation. The year isn't 1979 and we're not posturing against massive conventional armies in a pan-continental theater.


RE: Spend much?
By smitty3268 on 5/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: Spend much?
By codeThug on 5/21/2009 7:48:00 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, stop the FED, get rid of the IRS etc. etc..

Never happen. Lose the IRS and politicians will lose their ability to threaten and blackmail corporate america and it's citizens.

Close the border? Ain't gonna happen. How would the politicians collect payoffs for the huge river of drugs coming across the border. Ramos and Compean anyone?

Bailouts? Why? This is the main money laundering channel for the banker theft going on. Trillions of our dollars spent and absolutely NO accountability or money trail. Where did it go? You will never know.

We are in deep sch1dt people and this started well before bush, clinton, and obama. They are all puppets. You mean to tell me that idiot bush and puppet obama are actually making policy? That is laughable. Get on the internet and start educating yourself.


RE: Spend much?
By ianken on 5/21/2009 8:09:18 PM , Rating: 5
Tinfoil hat...too tight...restricting bloodflow....9/11 was in inside job....moon landings faked...Illuminati control it all....

It's all right there on THE INTERNET. It's so OBVIOUS.

LOL.


RE: Spend much?
By codeThug on 5/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Spend much?
By teckytech9 on 5/21/2009 11:12:02 PM , Rating: 3
Will work for gold and silver.

"We can guarantee cash benefits as far out and at whatever size you like, but we cannot guarantee their purchasing power."

- Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve US Central Bank), appearing before the Senate Banking Committee on February 15, 2005, in response to Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island on the topic of funding Social Security.


RE: Spend much?
By Carl B on 5/23/2009 4:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
And you *can* guarantee the purchasing power of gold and silver? The whole idea of 'precious' metals - separate from their actual utility - is a total boondoggle. Whenever a time of determing 'real' value comes to pass, the people burning paper money for heat are just as readily going to be tossing aside their shiny, and heavy, soft metals.


RE: Spend much?
By General Disturbance on 5/22/2009 11:38:41 AM , Rating: 2
See:
The Obama Deception
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

and

Zeitgiest: Addendum
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=70652052776...

and

Zeitgeist: The Movie
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847...

All very well referenced - you can go get the relevant supporting material from any public library to confirm the research yourself, if you wish.


RE: Spend much?
By walk2k on 5/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Spend much?
By ggordonliddy on 5/22/2009 1:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
You are incredibly obtuse, aren't you?


By the3monkies on 5/22/2009 1:00:14 AM , Rating: 4
That's right brother, we could have all the weapons we want if it weren't for the %$#@ Mexicans. I say we composte them all and turn em into fuel to power our fighting machines.


By ggordonliddy on 5/22/2009 1:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously I wasn't talking about weapons in that paragraph; I was talking about the California budget crisis. But you are apparently too obtuse to understand.

Are you denying that California's budget crisis would be vastly smaller if not for the illegals?


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














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