Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2017, 10:50 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2017 11:08 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
Almost 10% on federal employee and vet benefits. (insert obscure Morrison reference here) I'm proud to be a part of this number. :tear:

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2017, 12:41 PM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
(13-02-2017 10:50 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Almost 10% on federal employee and vet benefits. (insert obscure Morrison reference here) I'm proud to be a part of this number. :tear:

Dad retired from the Marine Corps after 20 years of service in 1970. He's been getting a retirement check and healthcare benefits for almost 47 years now.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
13-02-2017, 01:09 PM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
Not alternative facts. Pap is simply failing to distinguish between Mandatory and Discretionary spending. Interest on the National Debt is not "discretionary" either... although a considerable number of republicunts think it is and are willing to drive the world economy over a cliff to prove their point. I imagine the WLB is just as stupid as they are.

[Image: discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png]

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2017, 06:50 AM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
Mandatory and Discretionary are both still tax dollars, Min. More of our tax dollars still go to healthcare than to defense.

Do you know why the military needs new aircraft? Because most of the existing fleet is near or beyond it's original design life cycle. The F15 was originally designed as a Mach 2.5 aircraft intended to last for about 7500 flight hours. Most of them are now at or beyond that 7500 hour mark now. That means it not only takes more expensive maintenance to keep them flying, but they are being artificially limited to speeds below Mach 1.5 to keep the wings from falling off.

I've never been a fan of the F35. It's a series of design compromises. It's a multi role aircraft that doesn't exceed at any of its intended missions. Problem is we've already dumped so much money into the program it would be stupid to cancel it now. At this point we can build F35's faster and for about the same cost as could retool to build new F15's, 16's and 18's.

Yes, I know the reason the fleet is worn out is because of 25 years of unwarranted war in the middle east. But that cat is already out of the bag and we can't undo the damage that's already done. They way I see it at this point our options are rather limited. We can do as the orange baboon suggests and let our allies pay for our military presence in their countries. (probably not going to happen) We can stop dumping money into the military and become isolationists, retreat to our side of the pond and let Europe and Asia duke it out among themselves. Or we can continue to invest more in our military than we can afford to maintain the status quo. If you have another viable option I'd love to hear it.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2017, 07:43 AM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
(14-02-2017 06:50 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  We can stop dumping money into the military and become isolationists, retreat to our side of the pond and let Europe and Asia duke it out among themselves.

Mmmm... that means China and Russia grow stronger. Methinks you guys aren't OK with that?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2017, 08:32 AM
Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
(13-02-2017 01:09 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Not alternative facts. Pap is simply failing to distinguish between Mandatory and Discretionary spending.

I can't find where you made that distinction either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2017, 09:01 AM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
(14-02-2017 07:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(14-02-2017 06:50 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  We can stop dumping money into the military and become isolationists, retreat to our side of the pond and let Europe and Asia duke it out among themselves.

Mmmm... that means China and Russia grow stronger. Methinks you guys aren't OK with that?

I don't know if I'm OK with that or not. I do know that the US can't continue to fund our military with 15-20% of the federal budget indefinitely. What does the rest of the world think? Are you worried that Russia might want to rebuild the USSR? Do you care about about Chinese expansion into the south China Sea? Does Western Europe and Japan want the US to help defend the world against the hordes of evil communists? If so why aren't many NATO members living up to their part of the agreement to spend 2% of GDP on defense? If not then why shouldn't we pack up our shit and go home?

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
14-02-2017, 09:06 AM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2017 09:12 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
At work.

It's not necessarily a deal of "Amount" Poppy's Pappy but "Value".

The lack of diversity of supplyers. The policisization of construction contracts.

Not that I am in any way an expert but just a reveiw of thd history of performance of past equipment as a guideline indicates there are problems other than dollars spent.

As for your comment about Chinese agression and why your allies aren't spending enough to support?

For the first? Yes indeed I am worried of Asian agression. I'm old enough to remember low key conflict and talking to now past relatives who lived and fought through major, catastrophic conflic.

As for the spending? Note that your country's very own unfair policies, political and otherwise, both dictate what your allies can buy, build and supply for themselves all to do little more than secure your country's wealth over your allies wellbeing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2017, 09:24 AM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
(14-02-2017 09:01 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  If so why aren't many NATO members living up to their part of the agreement to spend 2% of GDP on defense?

That 2% figure is a guideline only. There's nothing in the NATO agreement that mandates the 2% figure.

Source: Funding Nato

From the paper:
Quote:The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO member countries agreed to commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence. This guideline principally served as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to the Alliance’s common defence efforts.
emphasis added

That's not to say that some countries aren't pulling their weight, but it is to say that the 2% number is not a price of membership.

By the way, when was the one-and-only time the NATO treaty article 5 was invoked? September 12, 2001. Source: AFTER THE ATTACKS: THE ALLIANCE; For First Time, NATO Invokes Joint Defense Pact With U.S.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2017, 10:17 AM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
(14-02-2017 09:06 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

It's not necessarily a deal of "Amount" Poppy's Pappy but "Value".

The whole idea behind the F35 was value. Commonality of parts, maintenance and training between 4 variants of one aircraft has the potential to save a shit ton of money over 4 completely different aircraft over the long term.

Quote:The lack of diversity of supplyers.


How many US companies do you think are capable of designing and producing a plane like the F35? Just bidding on such a contract is a multi million dollar effort. Only two teams, Lockheed Martin and Boeing, bid on the project. The Lockheed Martin design was selected because it was considered less risky than Boeing's.

As far as diversity goes according to the Lockheed Martin website there are 110 companies from 12 countries supplying components for the aircraft. I guarantee you that Lock Mart spent a considerable amount of effort vetting each one of them before making them part of the team.

There's also the issue of small business participation requirements levied by the government. There's a good chance that at least some of the work being done could have been done better/cheaper by large companies but isn't because the US government requires some amount of the work to be done by small companies including minority owned ones.

Quote:The policisization of construction contracts.

Yes politicians fight like hell to keep contracts like these in their districts. Can you blame them? As far as the award goes our government employs people like Girly to ensure contractors are selected on requirements as opposed to politics.

Quote:Not that I am in any way an expert but just a reveiw of thd history of performance of past equipment as a guideline indicates there are problems other than dollars spent.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here so you're going to have to provide examples before I comment on this one...

Quote:As for your comment about Chinese agression and why your allies aren't spending enough to support?

For the first? Yes indeed I am worried of Asian agression. I'm old enough to remember low key conflict and talking to now past relatives who lived and fought through major, catastrophic conflic.

Then you want us there. Great! You can help us pay for it. Stationing US troops in other countries is expensive. If you help cover our expenses of stationing our troops in your country for your defense we'll have more money to spend at home for things like healthcare and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.

Our troops in your country also provides an economic boost for the host country. For the most part we pay rent for facilities and pump millions into local economies through buying goods and services from locals.

Quote:As for the spending? Note that your country's very own unfair policies, political and otherwise, both dictate what your allies can buy, build and supply for themselves all to do little more than secure your country's wealth over your allies wellbeing.

US international policy is a cluster fuck. You'll get no argument from me there. I'm not sure what you're talking about as far as dictating what you buy, build and supply for yourselves though. Once again you're going to have to provide some examples before I can answer that one.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: