Now, we need to be hopeful here that the house and senate can hammer something out that the president will sign. His proposed budget, was just like his last budget, in that it used silly math gimmicks, and though I was initially hopeful when he vowed to "work with congress" it seems again that the Obama campaign has crafted something that is simply not worth its paper.
The press says his budget cuts spending a total of $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Unfortunately, that's not what HIS BUDGET SAYS. It only cuts spending by a mere $186 billion. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/tables.pdf see pages 187-190.
So, how are they getting the $1.2 trillion? First they are including the the implementation of the sequester, but then they cancel those cuts. (they add it, then subtract it, then still claim it as new savings). They also claim the savings in intrest payments as a result of sequester cuts, that they then cancel out. So basically it is like going to the car dealership with no intension of buying a car, and writing them a check for a new Mercedes Benz for $80,000, but then tearing that check in half and claiming that you just saved $80,000.
The campaign's budget also fiddles with the chained CPI for the purpose of lowering SS annual cost of living increases. He has to do this because to touch SS directly would result in liberal revolt (of course this didn't work because he underestimated the intelligence some liberals and groups like MoveOn.org who have brought this to light) This is another mathematical trick. Annual inflation reporting is what triggers cost of living increases in SS (as well as in most companies). By implementing the Chained CPI calculation you are basically under-reporting inflation. Again, it's like cutting spending by choosing to ignore spending. If my wife and I would like to reduce our monthly spending, we could either eat out less or use the Obama method and just ignore our restaurant spending when making the calculation (that would save us about $500 a month! WHOOHOO!). http://front.moveon.org/robert-reich-on-why-you-shouldnt-accept-chained-cpi-from-obama-or-anybody/
From day one, the Obama Campaign (and it is a campaign, it has never actually switched over to a presidency) has employed a myriad of tricks and gimmicks designed to distract and confuse their constituency. All this has done is result in wave after wave of unworkable legislation, gridlock, and endless campaigning to avoid doing any heavy lifting.
Mr. President, just stop, wait for congress, and when the bill comes sign it. The people are getting tired of your bravado and clumsy foreplay.
wow.
Quote from: Hoss on April 11, 2013, 08:13:29 AM
wow.
You "sound" predictably underwhelmed. I can almost hear you saying it in a slow, monotone, disinterested voice. Kind of like the guy on the TV ad for Clear Eyes.
;D
So, you mean he actually wrote this all down, submitted it to Congress....?
As opposed to just running it in unfunded mode, OFF budget for 8 years?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 11, 2013, 10:22:39 AM
So, you mean he actually wrote this all down, submitted it to Congress....?
As opposed to just running it in unfunded mode, OFF budget for 8 years?
Hey, it's a start. Now if we can just get him off the guns campaign trail for a few minutes to work something out with congress, perhaps we can stop some of the bleeding.
Didn't the previous administration keep a trillion dollar war off the books?
They all use math tricks that me and you don't get to use.
Whine all you want.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 11, 2013, 12:21:41 PM
Hey, it's a start. Now if we can just get him off the guns campaign trail for a few minutes to work something out with congress, perhaps we can stop some of the bleeding.
If it were to be passed as proposed, spending as a percent of GDP would be down. The deficit would be down to $744 billion, from this years $973 billion. The plan is to continue the downward trend that started with his first deficit reduced from the record high last Bush deficit of $1.9 trillion. That's a real cut, as were the previous year's reductions, no matter how anyone wants to parse it up.
I think the gun issue has been effectively countered by rational thought to the point that the more sane amongst the country realize that none of the carp proposed would make any difference to these type events. The one point that could have merit has been so mangled and chewed up by the lies and distortions of the Brady Bunch types that a rational handling may not be possible - the background checks...and even if background checks are expanded, it once again has NO relevance to the incidents that have been so heavily politicized the process. Reality just can't get a word in edgewise....
Can't remember if I mentioned this yet, but I have been converted to a true believer in what Joe Biden has to say about one little part of this - he has been on a rant about using a shotgun in the home for self-defense. In general, that is a good weapon for self-defense in many circumstances (but not all!!), so I would always back it up with a pistol, too. Now comes a solution to the problem of the inadequate number of shells, especially in a double barrel or single shot shotgun. It is always desirable to have more than 2 shots available - no matter what. The perfect solution is at hand - we just need it available in semi-auto....at a reasonable price.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 11, 2013, 12:40:22 PM
Didn't the previous administration keep a trillion dollar war off the books?
They all use math tricks that me and you don't get to use.
Whine all you want.
That's what I was alluding to....
We will not make a dent in the deficit with this guy only paying 18.4%.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324240804578418842282798284.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird
Releasing your current tax statements is a idea that republicans should embrace.
I am on the record saying a year ago that if Romney didn't release his, he would lose the election.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 12, 2013, 06:45:13 PM
Releasing your current tax statements is a idea that republicans should embrace.
I am on the record saying a year ago that if Romney didn't release his, he would lose the election.
Romney lost because he did not release his tax returns, is that what straw man, I mean what you are saying? And how about addressing Obama only paying 18.4%, despite he being a member of the nasty 1%? Where is your outrage over that? Where are the 99%ers in here demanding Obama practice what he preaches and pay the 39% he expects his equals pay?
And did you see how little Biden paid, and his charitable giving. Cheapass.
I think Obama paid about what was expected he pay. Yes, he makes enough money to be in the top 1% club, but didn't Romney only pay 14% on the few returns he released (and only the years he was running for President)? 18.4% is higher than 14%.
The issue isn't just that he paid 18.4%. The issue is that he was open and honest by releasing his returns. Romney was less than forthcoming and lost respect and votes.
And I agree with you with Joe Biden and charity. My wife and I support many local charities with our considerably smaller annual income. We feel blessed to give.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 12, 2013, 10:46:35 PM
I think Obama paid about what was expected he pay.
I think Obama paid about what was required he pay. I would expect him to pay more.
QuoteYes, he makes enough money to be in the top 1% club, but didn't Romney only pay 14% on the few returns he released (and only the years he was running for President)? 18.4% is higher than 14%.
14.1% is also higher than 14%. We are getting into the area of the old joke about the old geezer that offered the cute young chick $1 Million to sleep with him. Now we are just discussing the price.
QuoteThe issue isn't just that he paid 18.4%.
I agree. The issue is also about Obama's constant rhetoric about the rich paying their fair share. The issue has always (from the left's view) been about the percentage, not the number of dollars paid. I believe his percentage should be much higher considering his professed attitude toward the rich and their fair share. At 18.4%, I believe he is falling into the "do as I say, not as I do" world.
QuoteThe issue is that he was open and honest by releasing his returns.
A small part of the issue.
QuoteRomney was less than forthcoming and lost respect and votes.
Primarily among the voters that didn't respect him to begin with and would not have voted for him anyway.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 13, 2013, 12:07:56 PM
I think Obama paid about what was required he pay. I would expect him to pay more.
14.1% is also higher than 14%. We are getting into the area of the old joke about the old geezer that offered the cute young chick $1 Million to sleep with him. Now we are just discussing the price.
I agree. The issue is also about Obama's constant rhetoric about the rich paying their fair share. The issue has always (from the left's view) been about the percentage, not the number of dollars paid. I believe his percentage should be much higher considering his professed attitude toward the rich and their fair share. At 18.4%, I believe he is falling into the "do as I say, not as I do" world.
A small part of the issue.
Primarily among the voters that didn't respect him to begin with and would not have voted for him anyway.
Thanks for penning my thoughts. But RM and I do agree about charity. I will give Obama credit that he gave a significant amount. Biden? Cheapass.
Quote from: guido911 on April 13, 2013, 02:16:54 PM
But RM and I do agree about charity. I will give Obama credit that he gave a significant amount.
I too will give Pres. Obama credit for significant charitable giving.
I think it's horrible that President Obama paid 18%. No one should have to give up that amount of their income!
Quote from: Gaspar on April 15, 2013, 09:07:15 AM
I think it's horrible that President Obama paid 18%. No one should have to give up that amount of their income!
Absolutely true!
But since we have had 20 of the last 33 years run by Republican spending addicts, setting the pace by running the national debt up from $900 billion to many, many trillions, and absolutely refusing to do what is necessary to get back to the surplus situation of the Billy Bob administration....what can ya do?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 15, 2013, 10:58:05 AM
Absolutely true!
But since we have had 20 of the last 33 years run by Republican spending addicts, setting the pace by running the national debt up from $900 billion to many, many trillions, and absolutely refusing to do what is necessary to get back to the surplus situation of the Billy Bob administration....what can ya do?
Cut spending.
QuoteAs in 2011, the rest of their charitable contributions were spread across a range of charities, including the American Cancer Society, Habitat for Humanity and the National Congress of Black Women.
I wonder why he didn't donate to the National Congress of White Men?
Quote from: Gaspar on April 15, 2013, 01:20:06 PM
Cut spending.
That has always been one of the two things I have advanced....neither one of them by themselves is enough, though.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 15, 2013, 10:58:05 AM
Absolutely true!
But since we have had 20 of the last 33 years run by Republican spending addicts, setting the pace by running the national debt up from $900 billion to many, many trillions, and absolutely refusing to do what is necessary to get back to the surplus situation of the Billy Bob administration....what can ya do?
We can stop paying for research on duck junk...
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/384949-federal-study-looks-plasticity-duck-penis-length
Quote from: guido911 on April 28, 2013, 03:21:50 PM
We can stop paying for research on duck junk...
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/384949-federal-study-looks-plasticity-duck-penis-length
We could definitely and perhaps should. But for $300,000+, I would rather see them stop doing the unfunded wars for trillions of dollars...then I will worry about duck junk...
When we get to the point where we can legitimately say the only wasteful Federal spending we have to worry about is research on duck ducks, then I don't think I'm even gonna care about it....'cause it ain't ever gonna get that good!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 29, 2013, 05:57:01 PM
We could definitely and perhaps should. But for $300,000+, I would rather see them stop doing the unfunded wars for trillions of dollars...then I will worry about duck junk...
(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5058372904944965&pid=1.7)
Quote from: guido911 on April 30, 2013, 02:08:24 AM
(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5058372904944965&pid=1.7)
That is the subject of the sentence - you are trying to make the point that the government has certain levels of wasteful spending. I was agreeing. And pointing out the FACT that worrying about a couple hundred thousand dollars in possibly silly spending is itself ridiculously silly until the really BIG amounts of wasteful spending are addressed. Wouldn't go to your adherence to The Script, though!
And salad is overrated! Pork in any form, however....!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 30, 2013, 12:25:38 PM
That is the subject of the sentence - you are trying to make the point that the government has certain levels of wasteful spending. I was agreeing. And pointing out the FACT that worrying about a couple hundred thousand dollars in possibly silly spending is itself ridiculously silly until the really BIG amounts of wasteful spending are addressed. Wouldn't go to your adherence to The Script, though!
And salad is overrated! Pork in any form, however....!!
I disagree. Any amount of wasteful spending which is not scrutinized only leads to more hubris and more of bureaucrats and legislators viewing this money as theirs to to with any way they see fit. The war spending is winding down, comparing a few million here and a few hundred thousand there as insignificant due to huge war costs is ridiculous. There is absolutely no prioritizing of spending going on in government right now. If I wouldn't personally donate to a particular type of research, why should the government be taking my tax dollars and spending it on that very thing? Why do we need to know the elasticity of duck penises? I find little useful return to society for such a study and thousands of others which are pure waste, but labeled as "funding education and scientific research."
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2013, 12:43:31 PM
I disagree. Any amount of wasteful spending which is not scrutinized only leads to more hubris and more of bureaucrats and legislators viewing this money as theirs to to with any way they see fit. The war spending is winding down, comparing a few million here and a few hundred thousand there as insignificant due to huge war costs is ridiculous. There is absolutely no prioritizing of spending going on in government right now. If I wouldn't personally donate to a particular type of research, why should the government be taking my tax dollars and spending it on that very thing? Why do we need to know the elasticity of duck penises? I find little useful return to society for such a study and thousands of others which are pure waste, but labeled as "funding education and scientific research."
Beyond that, it's become shocking how the president responds any questions related to fiscal responsibility or anything else for that matter. I watched the press conference this morning and it seemed like the reporters questions were distractions that he would rather not deal with. He actually responded to one reporter with "Maybe I should just pack up and go home." He regurgitated campaign promises from 2008, blamed congress for allowing the sequester initiatives, that he signed into law because he could not get a budget through the Senate. His own base is getting pissed at him for, as Vanity Fair puts it, his "laid back style." To date he has spent about twice as many hours on the golf course or on vacation than he has on the economy. His words are hollow and his actions shallow. Today, he promised again to close down GITMO, and the press corpse almost burst into laughter.
Heiron may be smarter than you think. To focus on the president tackling or even addressing debt is as useful as expecting the Kardashians to develop a cold fusion reactor. This thread is dead. The president has no intension to, and will never curtail spending or implement a budget. It is what it is.
This administration is done. It's simply a combination of autopilot and damage control now.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2013, 12:43:31 PM
I disagree. Any amount of wasteful spending which is not scrutinized only leads to more hubris and more of bureaucrats and legislators viewing this money as theirs to to with any way they see fit. The war spending is winding down, comparing a few million here and a few hundred thousand there as insignificant due to huge war costs is ridiculous. There is absolutely no prioritizing of spending going on in government right now. If I wouldn't personally donate to a particular type of research, why should the government be taking my tax dollars and spending it on that very thing? Why do we need to know the elasticity of duck penises? I find little useful return to society for such a study and thousands of others which are pure waste, but labeled as "funding education and scientific research."
Which exactly makes my point about the ridiculously silly of trying to address a few hundred thousand compared to a couple of trillion!
I don't know about the ducks, other than the fact that I enjoy duck hunting (followed by eating them!) a great deal. If there were some issue with reproduction that might be adversely affected by elasticity, well then it might just impinge on my consciousness. Don't know until it's done, though. Many years ago, there was the same plaintive bleating about studying frogs and toads - which it turns out had some good information - but if it had not been done, there would be major gaps in our knowledge, most likely including the importance of how these and other amphibians are "bell-weathers" - early indicators for problems with other species in a given environment. But that certainly has interfered with the "you know who" efforts to gut environmental concerns and actions.
These kind of things fall into the general category of stuff that cannot be shown to benefit a bottom-line, so in the private sector, would NEVER be done. Vast amounts of this type of research will only be done when there is no for-profit motive. Who would have ever dreamed of commercial space travel - well, lots of people dreamed it, but it would NEVER have happened without government research, funding and implementation leading the way.
But still - doesn't lend itself to adherence of The Script does it?
Quote from: Gaspar on April 30, 2013, 01:24:23 PM
Heiron may be smarter than you think. To focus on the president tackling or even addressing debt is as useful as expecting the Kardashians to develop a cold fusion reactor. This thread is dead. The president has no intension to, and will never curtail spending or implement a budget. It is what it is.
This administration is done. It's simply a combination of autopilot and damage control now.
No doubt.
Here is the lament about working (or not!) on a budget...which involves trillions of dollars....and yet, there is umbrage because there is no attention to $300,000...?? Yeah...that make sense... par for the course, to use the local favorite golf metaphor!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 30, 2013, 05:48:51 PM
Which exactly makes my point about the ridiculously silly of trying to address a few hundred thousand compared to a couple of trillion!
I don't know about the ducks, other than the fact that I enjoy duck hunting (followed by eating them!) a great deal. If there were some issue with reproduction that might be adversely affected by elasticity, well then it might just impinge on my consciousness. Don't know until it's done, though. Many years ago, there was the same plaintive bleating about studying frogs and toads - which it turns out had some good information - but if it had not been done, there would be major gaps in our knowledge, most likely including the importance of how these and other amphibians are "bell-weathers" - early indicators for problems with other species in a given environment. But that certainly has interfered with the "you know who" efforts to gut environmental concerns and actions.
These kind of things fall into the general category of stuff that cannot be shown to benefit a bottom-line, so in the private sector, would NEVER be done. Vast amounts of this type of research will only be done when there is no for-profit motive. Who would have ever dreamed of commercial space travel - well, lots of people dreamed it, but it would NEVER have happened without government research, funding and implementation leading the way.
But still - doesn't lend itself to adherence of The Script does it?
Why don't you run for Congress? Your fiscal mentality would be a perfect fit!
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2013, 10:13:46 PM
Why don't you run for Congress? Your fiscal mentality would be a perfect fit!
No. I would be working hard to stop the wasteful spending of trillions in unjustified and unfunded wars. That would never fly well with the Oklahoma mentality exemplified by your post.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 01, 2013, 09:13:58 AM
No. I would be working hard to stop the wasteful spending of trillions in unjustified and unfunded wars. That would never fly well with the Oklahoma mentality exemplified by your post.
I think you, I and Conan would all be striving to do that, the only difference would be that Conan and I would not be willing to turn a blind eye on all of the other waste.
(http://im41.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/wpid-robo-squirrel.png)
Quote from: Gaspar on May 01, 2013, 09:30:16 AM
I think you, I and Conan would all be striving to do that, the only difference would be that Conan and I would not be willing to turn a blind eye on all of the other waste.
Never said anything about turning a blind eye - that is The Script response - jump to the most extreme, illogical state of being that could possibly exist and present it as the proposed action.
So, what you seem to be saying is, that in your business, you would be putting equal attention to a million dollar hemorrhage versus a couple extra reams of printer paper every month? Or would you put proportionate effort into the two problems - 99.999% of your time into the million dollar issue versus about 12.5 seconds into the paper waste?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 01, 2013, 09:13:58 AM
No. I would be working hard to stop the wasteful spending of trillions in unjustified and unfunded wars. That would never fly well with the Oklahoma mentality exemplified by your post.
I don't have a clue where you get the idea myself nor any other conservative is happy about the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor how that is some "Oklahoma mentality". I also don't understand your crazy obsession bringing this up when someone mentions cutting
any and all waste from government.
You are the one who seems to be reading from a script, like something right out of Daily Koz or HuffPo.
Here's $18 billion identified in a Coburn report. Considering it was just announced the government will finally make a $35 billion payment to the debt principal, there's significance since that's just over 1/2 of what we are now applying to debt reduction. We could be making a $53 billion payment instead. I doubt you will take time to read much in it because it doesn't fit your RWRE/Murdochian mindset.
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b7b23f66-2d60-4d5a-8bc5-8522c7e1a40e
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 01, 2013, 09:37:54 AM
Never said anything about turning a blind eye - that is The Script response - jump to the most extreme, illogical state of being that could possibly exist and present it as the proposed action.
So, what you seem to be saying is, that in your business, you would be putting equal attention to a million dollar hemorrhage versus a couple extra reams of printer paper every month? Or would you put proportionate effort into the two problems - 99.999% of your time into the million dollar issue versus about 12.5 seconds into the paper waste?
Incorrect analogy.
The patient is bleeding to death (has been for some time), and no one wants to render aid, but everyone wants to argue about which wound is most important.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 01, 2013, 12:37:25 PM
Incorrect analogy.
The patient is bleeding to death (has been for some time), and no one wants to render aid, but everyone wants to argue about which wound is most important.
Bleeding is $ trillions. Essentially undetectable scratch - few hundred thousand. When you stop the bleeding, the scratch is still irrelevant.
Here is a scaled reference for you to give some idea of the kind of relationship we are talking about. For $ 2 trillion in unwarranted wars - versus $ 300,000 researching duck ducks;
That would be as if you had $ 50,000 in credit card debt. And were worried about less than a penny - $0.0075 to be precise. Are you seriously trying to suggest that you would worry about that penny the same as you would the $50,000...?? Or even think about the 7.5 mills....before spending all your available 'concern time' on the $50,000....??
I submit you would not even think about the mills. Nor would any rational person.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 01, 2013, 12:00:56 PM
I don't have a clue where you get the idea myself nor any other conservative is happy about the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor how that is some "Oklahoma mentality". I also don't understand your crazy obsession bringing this up when someone mentions cutting any and all waste from government.
Here's $18 billion identified in a Coburn report. Considering it was just announced the government will finally make a $35 billion payment to the debt principal, there's significance since that's just over 1/2 of what we are now applying to debt reduction. We could be making a $53 billion payment instead. I doubt you will take time to read much in it because it doesn't fit your RWRE/Murdochian mindset.
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b7b23f66-2d60-4d5a-8bc5-8522c7e1a40e
Don't know if you are happy about it or not - can only go by your previously expressed thoughts that you are not happy with it. I'm all for cutting waste in government - that's been said a lot. I am also grown up enough to understand reality - something tragically missing in this state and so many others who at the same time are wringing hands and bleating plaintively about "waste" - and yet, insisting on trying to continue the exact policies and personnel that put us in that hole to begin with. The insanity is mind boggling. It IS an Oklahoma mentality - but not limited to Oklahoma....there are plenty of other parts of the country that go the same way.
Putting an end to the atmosphere of imperialistic voyeurism we have indulged in for so long IS the biggest 'any and all waste'. Even Coburn's examples are leading to the ratio of about 100 to 1. $100 in huge waste - and death and wounding of tens of thousands of our kids....what is the 'dollar value' of that loss and waste? Compared to $1 dollar of Coburn identified waste.
And the idea being expressed that somehow 100 times bigger - or 6 million times bigger - has the same weight of $18 or 300k...well, maybe in some alternate universe world. But not the real world. That means you would be just as happy with $ 1 revenue and it would have the same 'value' as $100 - should be pursued with the same effort. Or $50,000 versus less than a penny! Seriously? No!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 01, 2013, 07:02:32 PM
Bleeding is $ trillions. Essentially undetectable scratch - few hundred thousand. When you stop the bleeding, the scratch is still irrelevant.
Here is a scaled reference for you to give some idea of the kind of relationship we are talking about. For $ 2 trillion in unwarranted wars - versus $ 300,000 researching duck ducks;
That would be as if you had $ 50,000 in credit card debt. And were worried about less than a penny - $0.0075 to be precise. Are you seriously trying to suggest that you would worry about that penny the same as you would the $50,000...?? Or even think about the 7.5 mills....before spending all your available 'concern time' on the $50,000....??
I submit you would not even think about the mills. Nor would any rational person.
You miss an important mathematical point: The two trillion you keep bleating about is over almost 12 years now. Throw in $200 billion in other waste every year between clown studies and being far too liberal on entitlement programs and it comes close to the waste on foreign wars.
Heck, even if we stick with $18 billion a year identified by Coburn over 12 years, the same span of your two trillion, that's $216 billion. Still want to say that's insignificant? That's not Washington's money, that's your money, but continue to be glib about it if you like.
House passed the first budget bill of the year with almost unanimous support approving a $73.3 billion plan that increases funding for veterans programs. The vote was 421-4.
Looks like they will be on time again this year with the other bills.
Of course all of the bills are expected to die in the Senate again.
There are programs in the Government that have many questionable attributes. Understanding the migration patterns of the European Swallow, as opposed to the African Swallow (Monty Python for the win) may not mean much to most ever person, but there is generally a reason behind it (though it may not be a good one).
Here is how I look at it. A certain portion of the Government will look at tax increases and say that it only provides X dollars which won't matter to our bottom line. Another portion of the Government will look at these smaller programs and say that cutting it would only provide X dollars which won't matter to our bottom line. Seperately they may be pennies, but together they are a start... all a part of that comprimise that should be happening in our Government, but is regularly dismissed because someone might lose their seat.
Now here are a couple numbers I am going to toss out
Program Cost- 66.7 Billion (F-22 Raptor)
Program Cost- 388 Billion (Joint Strike Fighter)
Cost for 2- 1.5 Billion (LCS)
14 Billion in development and 9 Billion per. (Ford Class Carrier)
These are all great programs that have cost the Government a significant amount of money. The numbers have most likely inflated to double the initial forecasted costs. We have designed aircraft to fly with the assistance of 30+ computers working in tandom but we have a vehicle that cannot withstand an impact of an explosion. We have ships and aircraft that are invisible to radar, but the body armor utilized today hasn't changed in 3 -4 decades. Misplaced priorities. Our new enemies, for the most part, do not have radar or aircraft. They do have mortars, RPG's and the ability to put together a bomb that is easily discharged with a cell phone. The enemy goes for a body count, they are not trying to win... they are just doing their best to make sure we don't either.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on June 05, 2013, 10:17:49 AM
There are programs in the Government that have many questionable attributes. Understanding the migration patterns of the European Swallow, as opposed to the African Swallow (Monty Python for the win) may not mean much to most ever person, but there is generally a reason behind it (though it may not be a good one).
Here is how I look at it. A certain portion of the Government will look at tax increases and say that it only provides X dollars which won't matter to our bottom line. Another portion of the Government will look at these smaller programs and say that cutting it would only provide X dollars which won't matter to our bottom line. Seperately they may be pennies, but together they are a start... all a part of that comprimise that should be happening in our Government, but is regularly dismissed because someone might lose their seat.
Now here are a couple numbers I am going to toss out
Program Cost- 66.7 Billion (F-22 Raptor)
Program Cost- 388 Billion (Joint Strike Fighter)
Cost for 2- 1.5 Billion (LCS)
14 Billion in development and 9 Billion per. (Ford Class Carrier)
These are all great programs that have cost the Government a significant amount of money. The numbers have most likely inflated to double the initial forecasted costs. We have designed aircraft to fly with the assistance of 30+ computers working in tandom but we have a vehicle that cannot withstand an impact of an explosion. We have ships and aircraft that are invisible to radar, but the body armor utilized today hasn't changed in 3 -4 decades. Misplaced priorities. Our new enemies, for the most part, do not have radar or aircraft. They do have mortars, RPG's and the ability to put together a bomb that is easily discharged with a cell phone. The enemy goes for a body count, they are not trying to win... they are just doing their best to make sure we don't either.
Very well said!