[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

The measure also had nearly $7 billion in "add-ons," funds not sought
by the Pentagon. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
said those additions include controversial programs that the Pentagon
did not want, such as $2.17 billion for eight C-17 transport planes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/...ress_war_funds

Boeing will be very happy.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 17, 2:12*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 16, 8:11*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
The measure also had nearly $7 billion in "add-ons," funds not sought
by the Pentagon. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
said those additions include controversial programs that the Pentagon
did not want, such as $2.17 billion for eight C-17 transport planes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/...ress_war_funds

Boeing will be very happy.

*"The $106 billion measure, in addition to about $80 billion for
military operations, provides for an array of other spending
priorities, including $7.7 billion to respond to the flu pandemic and
more than $10 billion in development and security aid for Pakistan and
Iraq as well as countries such as Mexico and the nation of Georgia.

Democratic leaders pushing the bill on behalf of the Obama
administration had to overcome an unusual alliance. Anti-war Democrats
opposed continued war spending and Republicans condemned $5 billion in
the measure to secure a $108 billion U.S. line of credit to the
International Monetary Fund for loans to poor countries.

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., top Republican on the Armed
Services Committee, contended that Democrats were endangering troops
by shifting money to create room for a "global bailout loan program."

The vote was 226-202, with only five Republicans voting for the bill
and 32 Democrats opposing it.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., unsuccessfully appealed to
Republicans for support, saying 80 percent of the package still went
to the troops. "Stand up for them," he said."

So how do you give democratic house leadership a pass for architecting
this travesty? *If the dems didn't stuff the stupid IMF legislation
into the bill the Republicans would have provided plenty of votes to
overcome the anti-war left wing of the democrats. *Instead they
stuffed it in, lost republican support, and forced themselves to bribe
for enough votes with BS pork. *Was the IMF line of credit really
worth that?

Is $5B for the IMF really what the republicans were upset about? Then
I guess my being mad about the $7B the Pentagon doesn't want makes me
pretty conservative.

A straight up troop funding bill would have passed with republican
support.
And WTF do we really need 7.7B for the flu pandemic for?

Immunizations?

I get so disgusted with Congress doing this pack crap into bills and
horse trade like bargain shoppers at the swap meet. * Keep the bills
simple and let them pass or fail on their own merit. * What Hoyer
really said is that 20% of that bill wouldn't pass on it's own. *That
clearly means to me that it doesn't belong there.
Congress needs to cut the crap.

The republicans still would've supported buying more C-17s and the
other stuff the military doesn't want. And I thought that is what
*you* wanted. You know, keeping the production lines open and all.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 17, 7:53*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 17, 2:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

The republicans still would've supported buying more C-17s and the
other stuff the military doesn't want.

*If they put that bill up on it's own, it will be clear who is doing
what.
*I wonder who has those Boeing plants in their districts.

And I thought that is what
*you* wanted. You know, keeping the production lines open and all.

*I don't think the technology of a C-17 is all that advanced to need
this.
*I do think the advanced technology development of the F-22 has to be
covered
and nutured to some degree or it will end up needing to be reinvented.

How do you "unlearn" something you know?

I'd say that's a neat trick.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 20, 12:18*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:07*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 17, 7:53*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 17, 2:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
The republicans still would've supported buying more C-17s and the
other stuff the military doesn't want.

*If they put that bill up on it's own, it will be clear who is doing
what.
*I wonder who has those Boeing plants in their districts.

And I thought that is what
*you* wanted. You know, keeping the production lines open and all.

*I don't think the technology of a C-17 is all that advanced to need
this.
*I do think the advanced technology development of the F-22 has to be
covered
and nutured to some degree or it will end up needing to be reinvented..

How do you "unlearn" something you know?

*You clearly haven't worked in a large corporation. The knowledge
required to develop and produce a leading edge technology is a
communal knowledge that is distributed between many people and
archived in many forms.
That knowledge will dissipate as the organization dissipates when the
programs terminate. *It's almost impossible to prevent it.

But what they learned about stealth, airframes, materials, joints,
engines, adhesives, electrical grounds and on and on will be taught in
aeronautical engineering classes. Also, it's not like Lockeed, Boeing,
Grumman, General Dynamics and the others haven't kept records.

The less leading edge the technology the more people and companies who
have that knowledge and the more likely someone competent enough to
perform can answer the next RFP. * Until the technology is obsolete
and then the capable supply base also and the knowledge and tools for
producing products with that technology disappears.

So they have to reinvent "leading edge" from the ground up anyway.

See following question.

Programs like the F-22 are spread across many companies and
subcontractors and suppliers. * They don't just sit and patiently wait
for the next program, they move on or in some cases die and the
knowledge they possess will die with them.

So IYO it is worth billions of dollars per year to keep production
lines open, etc. for an aircraft with a life expectency of 20-30
years? Especially since Robert Gates and I agree we sure as hell don't
need any more of them?

I have a 'differing POV'.