blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Yes let's let top members of congress fly with the public in an era where conservative boogymen have brought out the largest resurgence in death threats in recent years.
So why are a lot of dems against military spending so much? Vehicles and other equipment that are often a debate in funding are designed and built by many thousands of skilled US workers. And one thing about defense spending is much of it is done in the US because it has to be. I read many press releases about contracts awarded and they usually end up with "... units will be built in the company's Ohio/New York/Georgia/etc facility".
And it's not that I don't think there are problems in the procurement process, but at least the money is going towards good jobs on equipment that can save troops' lives.
Economists would argue that defense spending is one of the more inefficient ways to stimulate the economy. Weapons should only be procured to meet military requirements. There are much more efficient methods of fiscal stimulus.
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 86
- 91
We are bitching because the deficit is sitting at $1.8 trillion. Having to upgrade due to age is bullshit. My first flying job was on airplanes that were 30 years old...these were Boeing 727's and were in great condition for having 65,000+ hours of flight time. Airplanes don't age like cars do. Hell the airforce is still flying B-52's!
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
It does happen with either party in power. What's your point? Waste is easy to criticize from any piece of furniture... or while standing up. What's your point? Do you approve of our current spending levels?
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
I don't, but then again I also understand why they do it. Politicians want to stay in power, and if they have to spend money to do it, they will, even despite ideology. And fact is, most of the time spending isn't the insane thing conservatives portray it as, nor is it the absolutely necessary thing fringe left-wingers believe it is. But the harsh reality you right-wingers are going to have to learn eventually is that very few politicians can actually afford to stay in power while spending virtually nothing, because they "credit-take", as it's referred to in poli sci, to actually stay in power. Without credit-taking the vast majority of these guys are deemed ineffective or average by their eventual challengers and opposing parties. "Low spending" works with very few districts and is exactly why the polls show that while a huge majority of Americans want fiscal responsibility, they also simultaneously vote for spending bills because they actually want to spend money more than they care to admit.
Bottom line, everyone is a fiscal conservative until it comes time to do or die on an important program. Reality is harsh and "spending" isn't evil, it's commonsense and it happens for multiple reasons; population growth, necessity, perceived threats, etc. You think those voting for Medicare, Social Security, and general gov't expansion have been getting booted out of Congress over the past 50 years since those programs were instituted? You think McCain losing Florida by a wider than expected margin had something to do with him campaigning twice to cut Medicare for the elderly in FL in favor of non-guaranteed tax credits? Christ, these "spenders" have stayed in power for a reason. The small gov't crowd is, in reality, a pretty small crowd, but an important and necessary check on the loony leftists that want to start gov't programs that guarantee everything in existence or who want to limit corporate profits because corporations are "evil". You think it was a coincidence that Republicans spent like drunken sailors after Bush took office and for most of his tenure? No, it was a logical progression of exactly what American voters wanted; programs, funding, common sense shit. Some of it was without question unnecessary, sure. But most of it was absolutely sane (the knock on Bush, of course, had little to do with domestic spending and far more to do with two wars and no victory).
It's offensive to a Democrat to direct money to someone who actually has to earn it. There's an alcoholic or crack-head who could use that cash to live off Uncle Sucker!
No shit eh? Planes are a luxury item. I work for a boat manurafacturer. Maybe the govt should be buying boats since our revenues are off big time.
See the problem with your thinking?
This is essentially a military purchase. It will be used by the military to ferry around top brass and our congress. If these congressman want to utilize our military for shuttle service be my guest. Meet at 0600 hours on the tarmac for the next C-130 heading to your state of choice.
I'd love to see more congressmen takings RV's around their states/districtsWho cares at this point? More than likely we are gonna eventually stiff our creditors and if they continue to fund our absurd spending I don't really feel sorry for them.
Patranus
Diamond Member
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
Looks like it is actually 8 new planes for congress....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124960404730212955.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124960404730212955.html
Ive never understood why Congressional Leaders needed to fly private military planes.
They DONT need to be anywhere on a moments notice. They should fly commerical just like all the other congressmen Alot of Congressmen, not only fly commerical but also fly standby. Are these "VIPs" footing the $15-20k per flight hour costs out of their congressional budget?
Plus the military has 737s and 757s to transport. Why cant they just get on a regularly scheduled military flight?
They DONT need to be anywhere on a moments notice. They should fly commerical just like all the other congressmen Alot of Congressmen, not only fly commerical but also fly standby. Are these "VIPs" footing the $15-20k per flight hour costs out of their congressional budget?
Plus the military has 737s and 757s to transport. Why cant they just get on a regularly scheduled military flight?
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter