Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Military-industrial complex 1, USA 0
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. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Military-industrial complex 1, USA 0
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. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Military-industrial complex 1, USA 0
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. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Military-industrial complex 1, USA 0
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'. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Too complex for Witlessmongrel to grasp | Audio Opinions | |||
Unnecessarily Complex 300B Amp | Audio Opinions | |||
when distinguish her complex spread | Car Audio | |||
incredible studio complex | Pro Audio | |||
Complex advice about madmen | Vacuum Tubes |