is still considering whether or not it wants to purchase the Lockheed
Martin F-35 Lightning II (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter)
aircraft, as Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other Israeli government
officials discuss the expensive investment.Previous approval
granted Israel the right to purchase 75 JSFs, but Israel initially
only wants just 20 aircraft. The country expects to pay more
than $140 million for each F-35, and it's unknown if Israel will be
able to install all of its own equipment into the
aircraft.Previously, the U.S. government said it would remove
some of its own hardware and offer an alternative or allow the
purchasing nation to make slight alternations. Continued
negotiations take place, but it's likely Israel will fulfill the rest
of its order after the first 20 aircraft are accepted."We
work according to the assumption that other countries
will receive the jet, and that is why we need to be the first,”
an IDF officer recently disclosed. "The JSF not only
provides unbelievable capabilities, but will also assist Israel in
boosting its deterrence.”After agreed upon configurations,
Israel will begin to receive its new aircraft by the end of 2015,
with future orders expected to arrive shortly after. Although
there are some early contract problems, Israel and the United States
are expected to come to a fair agreement as quickly as
possible.Lockheed Martin has been given approval to sell the
aircraft to select countries, but cannot offer certain electronics
and hardware aboard the aircraft.The Australian military is
interested in purchasing up to 100 JSF, but want to see additional
testing information before purchasing the costly aircraft. If
an agreement with Lockheed cannot be finalized, it's possible
Australia will work with Russia. Canada is expected
to purchase up to 65 JSF -- negotiations are ongoing with
other countries as well.
quote: Okay I'll play, spending 2.3 trillion and not collecting 2.3 trillion that needs to be spent is still adding 2.3 trillion to our balance sheets.
quote: We added around 4 trillion to the debt under Bush
quote: So no, you can't just say "oh, tax cuts weren't spent they just weren't collected, hehehe"
quote: As for my comment being fallacious, I clearly state (and therefore imply agreement) that the increases ARE massive because I say "and are only massive because".
quote: Instead of fallacious what my comment was was poorly worded
quote: So instead of saying Bush "spent" money on those tax cuts, I should have said Bush borrowed 173.9% of the total of those tax cuts during his terms.
quote: The difference is typing "spent", while i admit is not what literally happened with the tax cuts
quote: On the first comment, you are stuck on the tax cuts only
quote: Obviously we spent money on many things over 8 years, none of which had to be tax cuts in order to spend 2.3 trillion dollars that we didn't have.
quote: I owe 3 lollipops I've already eaten to Ron. Jimmy owes me 2 lollipops, but Jimmy is such a great friend I tell him to forget about it. Then I borrow 5 lollipops from Tom so I can give Ron his 3 lollipops and eat the other 2.
quote: Our Congress has a problem controlling spending
quote: and our Presidents come up with a budget every year that outlines that spending in great detail versus the Congress that comes up with a very broad budget each year after the President submits his.
quote: I'd like to summarize this little argument with a fitting slogan: The Washington Post - If you don't get it, you don't get it.
quote: and yet that is what you continue to needlessly rail on.
quote: Then in my last comment when I guess I finally make it clear enough that I agree with that statement
quote: your comments start to have less and less substance as we go on and have turned into a "show the clip" segment like on O'Reilly or The Daily Show where they either take a small percentage of what someone said and comment on it as if it were the whole of the argument or they make light of the comment to lessen the meaning.