A Weapon That Costs More than Australia

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You said "Maybe we need it or maybe we don't but understand that cutting the program is also either cutting a lot of jobs or not creating a lot of jobs." That says that even if the program isn't needed, we need to understand that jobs depend on it. That should be irrelevant altogether - if you keep it going for no reason other than a lot of jobs depending on it then it's money down a black hole. The rest is just your old tirade about the stimulus package which is not actually backed by anything. If nothing else, common sense tells you that pouring a few hundred billion into an economy will obviously have an effect on that economy and hence the job market. Otherwise, we're saying that money just evaporates.

Whatever puppydog. Your opinion means nothing if you can't follow a simple discussion without bringing in partisan hackery. You started the argument about the stimulus, not me. If you want to argue the supposed benefits of the stimulus start another thread.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gar-John's MO. Edited March 16, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Gar-John's MO.

Stevens infantile response. Grow up man. What is it to you who I am? You are obsessed. My name is John, simple as that. You must have a man-crush on this Gary. Get over it, I am not him.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you cut spending you kind of have to cut jobs. Whether they be government workers, or private sector workers from scrapped government contracts. Some people seem to want less spending without the practical inevitable implications of doing so.

It's not brain surgery that you can't have both.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Where is BY when you need him?

:devil: He's back in Australia designing a new fighter since they can do it better.

But seriously, why not continue with the F-22, it's a much better plane? The R&D money has already been spent, build more aircraft.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Whatever puppydog. Your opinion means nothing if you can't follow a simple discussion without bringing in partisan hackery. You started the argument about the stimulus, not me. If you want to argue the supposed benefits of the stimulus start another thread.

Oh you're funny. I just could not help but notice how one of the largest foes of the stimulus package is speaking pure stimulus when it comes to defense procurements and doesn't even notice it. The supposed staunch opponent of government waste turning a blind eye to government waste and then gets all worked up when that discrepancy is detected.

[james&olya 1,121]

Your duplicity is breathtaking. If you don't see the difference between wasted stimulus and government handouts with a defense contract then you have no hope of any real understanding beyond political hackery. I have no idea if we need this particular aircraft or not but it is not the same as the wasted stimulus. If we need it then we need it. If we don't then it should go. But it isn't analogous to stimulus. You just lost all credibility with that inane comparison.

Your stupidity is breathtaking. If you don't see the similarity between wasted stimulus and government handouts with a defense contract then you have no hope of any real understanding beyond political hackery. It is very analogous to the stimulus programs. You just lost all credibility with your inane blustering!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So, it's a stimulus program where private sector jobs are created on the backs of the American taxpayer? We should see to it that those workers who are at the end of the day on Uncle Sam's teat, those workers who rob taxpayers of their hard earned money are getting some cut-backs just like any other public employee. They are not all that much different except the taxpayer also has to pay CEOs and shareholders on top of the workers. Where are all the stimulus enemies when you need them? Here are hundreds of billions worth of stimulus money that can be slashed. And if that costs taxpayer funded jobs, then - to say it in the Speaker's own words - 'so be it'.

As much as I hate to say it (and we spend waaaay to much on it) defense spending is the one thing that taxpayers can be constitutionally on the hook for. It's the one thing that congress has the stated 'right' to spend money on.

Bailing out other corporations? Hell to the no...

Paying for random administrative jobs? Hell to the no...

Of course, the military appropriations gets abused like no other and the US is not supposed to have a standing army like we have outside of war time... Of course, this is why they 'create' long-term wars for us to be a part of in the first place.

[Zero Sum 305]

Yep. Its a conspiracy most of the time.

Sadly, I can see moments where this is the case. Nevertheless, a common defense can be had even in this day and age without duplicate subcontracts with war mongers still feeling proud of the Armed Forces.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Zero Sum

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Oh you're funny. I just could not help but notice how one of the largest foes of the stimulus package is speaking pure stimulus when it comes to defense procurements and doesn't even notice it. The supposed staunch opponent of government waste turning a blind eye to government waste and then gets all worked up when that discrepancy is detected.

I will try one more time, show me where I said we can't cut the program because it would cut jobs. I didn't. I said it is something to consider. Yet you wanted to jump all over me like it is some big gotcha moment. It is called a discussion. You and your ilk seem to want to play your childish games rather than have an adult conversation. So be it, I am dealing with children. You have just lost all credibility and proven once again it isn't about having a discussion here, it is about playing schoolyard gotcha games.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Your stupidity is breathtaking. If you don't see the similarity between wasted stimulus and government handouts with a defense contract then you have no hope of any real understanding beyond political hackery. It is very analogous to the stimulus programs. You just lost all credibility with your inane blustering!

I see kindergarden has let out.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I said it is something to consider.

It isn't. If the procurement is necessary, it needs to occur. If it isn't, then it doesn't. When we start thinking about the jobs connected to these procurements - aside from jobs on procurements that have been deemed necessary on their merits - then we end up wasting taxpayer money. No business will ever take jobs that may be created into consideration when making purchase decisions. Quite the opposite, often times.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It isn't. If the procurement is necessary, it needs to occur. If it isn't, then it doesn't. When we start thinking about the jobs connected to these procurements - aside from jobs on procurements that have been deemed necessary on their merits - then we end up wasting taxpayer money. No business will ever take jobs that may be created into consideration when making purchase decisions. Quite the opposite, often times.

There, that is better. Having a discussion rather than playing gotcha.

IMO it is something to consider but not something that is an overriding factor. We have only a few companies that make these sort of aircraft. We must at least think about the impact closing a major contract like this would have on those companies. There again, it should not be the only reason to keep the contracts but IMO it should be at least something to add to the list of things to think about. If the aircraft isn't needed or it will not do what we need it to do then yes, close it. Maybe the aircraft could be modified to more closely meet the desired goal? If it could then we could keep those people working and still give the military what it needs.

[^_^ 5,021]

I don't care about those peoples jobs but I do care about the fact that this is a product air forces around the world will want to buy. We need more, not fewer, exports.

Does the US need 1200 or 1300 or whatever number of these? IDK.

Edited March 16, 2011 by \

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I don't care about those peoples jobs but I do care about the fact that this is a product air forces around the world will want to buy. We need more, not fewer, exports.

Does the US need 1200 or 1300 or whatever number of these? IDK.

This is true, if other countries want this then it is money well spent.