Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32009395/ns ... _politics/


White House vs. Capitol Hill
The F-22 debate is a high-octane fight between the president and Congress over a high-profile weapon.

Obama has vowed to veto any bill that would keep the program going — the first veto threat of his presidency. He believes that no additional F-22s are needed and that the money can be better used elsewhere in the defense budget.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has hit the same themes. He sharpened the attack on congressional supporters of the F-22 on July 16.

“If we can’t get this right, what on earth can we get right?” Gates told the Economic Club of Chicago. “It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual.”

But the administration faces a phalanx of lawmakers determined to keep the F-22 alive. They argue that the Air Force still has a formal requirement for 243 of the planes — which is 56 more than Obama wants to buy. They say the F-22 is more capable than other fighters, particularly against surface-to-air missiles. Several leaders in the National Guard have promoted use of the F-22 for their missions, and large unions concerned about layoffs have also contended that the program must be continued.

“We’re about to lose 70,000 to 90,000 jobs in the aerospace industry,” said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., citing industry estimates of the employment impact of terminating the F-22. “We’re about to make an incredible decision.”





Another stupefying waste of money which has already lined the pockets of the military-industrial oligarchs to the tune of billions. We don't need it. Fuck, trade the technology to the Chinese to pay off some debt. Better yet, you wanna keep those UAW-type slobs in aerospace working, build 'em for the Chinese!



"Roger that, tower. Junkyard appearing at heading zero-niner-zero."

Some of our armed forces guys on CS probably know this type of issue better than I, but if we modernize our air force and get rid of a lot of these aging cold war fossils, we could save money in the long run.

Cap'n Cat wrote: They say the F-22 is more capable than other fighters, particularly against surface-to-air missiles. Several leaders in the National Guard have promoted use of the F-22 for their missions, and large unions concerned about layoffs have also contended that the program must be continued.

While I agree with the first statement, it's the second sentence that concerns me the most. Making defense procurement decisions based on employment is letting the tail wag the dog.

Pwns wrote:Some of our armed forces guys on CS probably know this type of issue better than I, but if we modernize our air force and get rid of a lot of these aging cold war fossils, we could save money in the long run.

We could save some of the money, but not sure we'd actually "save" money overall. In fact, I'd bet money that it's STILL a very expensive program.

Cap'n Cat wrote: “We’re about to lose 70,000 to 90,000 jobs in the aerospace industry,” said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., citing industry estimates of the employment impact of terminating the F-22. “We’re about to make an incredible decision.” [/i]

Translation: I'm about to lose 70,000-90,000 votes if this thing gets mothballed!

From the Tribune Newspapers
Gates on F-22: Defense chief says funding for fighter jet will be vetoed if restored
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi- ... 4220.story

...
"Every dollar diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity -- whether for more F-22s or anything else -- is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates said.

Gates in recent months has also emphasized the need for the Pentagon to focus on the fights like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan and less on wars among big powers, which he sees as less likely.
...
Gates prefers the cheaper F-35, which he has argued is newer, carries more weapons and will prove superior in combat.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote: “We’re about to lose 70,000 to 90,000 jobs in the aerospace industry,” said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., citing industry estimates of the employment impact of terminating the F-22. “We’re about to make an incredible decision.” [/i]

Translation: I'm about to lose 70,000-90,000 votes if this thing gets mothballed!

So what... 70K 90K who cares people get laid off all the time
Shit happens - Use your brains to build an un-manned device - create something else... go back to school - mow lawns - paint houses - get a job at Wal-Mart

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Translation: I'm about to lose 70,000-90,000 votes if this thing gets mothballed!

So what... 70K 90K who cares people get laid off all the time
Shit happens - Use your brains to build an un-manned device - create something else... go back to school - mow lawns - paint houses - get a job at Wal-Mart

Sounds like Brother Z talkin' in them last four points!!

UNI88 wrote:From the Tribune Newspapers
Gates on F-22: Defense chief says funding for fighter jet will be vetoed if restored
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi- ... 4220.story

...
"Every dollar diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity -- whether for more F-22s or anything else -- is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates said.

Gates in recent months has also emphasized the need for the Pentagon to focus on the fights like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan and less on wars among big powers, which he sees as less likely.
...
Gates prefers the cheaper F-35, which he has argued is newer, carries more weapons and will prove superior in combat.

Gates is right.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:
So what... 70K 90K who cares people get laid off all the time
Shit happens - Use your brains to build an un-manned device - create something else... go back to school - mow lawns - paint houses - get a job at Wal-Mart

Sounds like Brother Z talkin' in them last four points!!

Just a little sarcasm...
But really, we should build those jets in China - they'd cost less

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
Sounds like Brother Z talkin' in them last four points!!

Just a little sarcasm...
But really, we should build those jets in China - they'd cost less

You're right, but, I still like my idea of selling them to the Chinese to pay off our massive debt due them.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:
Just a little sarcasm...
But really, we should build those jets in China - they'd cost less

You're right, but, I still like my idea of selling them to the Chinese to pay off our massive debt due them.

Honestly: Not a bad idea... What do we owe China right now... (how many Trillions)

Here is a replacement job for some of them.

Defense secretary to add up to 22,000 troops to U.S. Army

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/20/ ... index.html

Cap'n Cat wrote:

UNI88 wrote:From the Tribune Newspapers
Gates on F-22: Defense chief says funding for fighter jet will be vetoed if restored
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi- ... 4220.story

Gates is right.

Gates is a sharp mafucker. Glad Obama kept him around.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote: “We’re about to lose 70,000 to 90,000 jobs in the aerospace industry,” said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., citing industry estimates of the employment impact of terminating the F-22. “We’re about to make an incredible decision.” [/i]

Translation: I'm about to lose 70,000-90,000 votes if this thing gets mothballed!

Dodd is going to get his ass handed to him next year. Stupid fugging crook needs every vote he can get.

Ivytalk wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Translation: I'm about to lose 70,000-90,000 votes if this thing gets mothballed!

Dodd is going to get his ass handed to him next year. Stupid fugging crook needs every vote he can get.

Um, I'm going to invoke Board Progressive double standard privilege and ask that you not only apologize for taking a swing at Sen. Dodd, but that you, also, refrain from doing it in the future.

Sign here:

X___________________________________

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Dodd is going to get his ass handed to him next year. Stupid fugging crook needs every vote he can get.

Um, I'm going to invoke Board Progressive double standard privilege and ask that you not only apologize for taking a swing at Sen. Dodd, but that you, also, refrain from doing it in the future.

Sign here:

X_______Mike Hunt____________________________

Done!

Isn't that CSUBUCDAD's real name????

Senate rejects funds for more F-22 fighter jets
Obama hails decision, says no need to waste taxpayer money

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Tuesday decided against spending $1.75 billion on seven more F-22 jets, siding with the Obama administration's assertions that the Pentagon has enough of the fighters and the money could be better spent on other, more modern military programs.

By a 58 to 40 margin, senators passed an amendment to strip out the money from a $680 billion defense spending policy bill.

President Barack Obama hailed the Senate's decision, saying the move will "better protect our troops." He said he rejected the notion that the country has to "waste billions of taxpayers dollars" on outdated defense projects.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32028667/ns ... s-military

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote: “We’re about to lose 70,000 to 90,000 jobs in the aerospace industry,” said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., citing industry estimates of the employment impact of terminating the F-22. “We’re about to make an incredible decision.” [/i]

Translation: I'm about to lose 70,000-90,000 votes if this thing gets mothballed!

That's bullshit. They won't let go 70k-90k people. There will be layoffs, but many defense companies will absorb the workers and keep them on the payroll because they will expect more awards AND they make money off their employees. You get $17/hr, the companies charges the gov/t $26

Could a got 'em built for us in China for a fourth the cost.

Wedgebuster wrote:Could a got 'em built for us in China for a fourth the cost.

Imagine what they would cost if we got them from Sri lanka!!!

Wedgebuster wrote:Could a got 'em built for us in China for a fourth the cost.

Bamboo and rice paper planes use a lot less fuel as well.

UNI88 wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Could a got 'em built for us in China for a fourth the cost.

Bamboo and rice paper planes use a lot less fuel as well.

The randing gear would not have to be as heavy duty either.

Wedgebuster wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
Bamboo and rice paper planes use a lot less fuel as well.

The randing gear would not have to be as heavy duty either.

Not very sturdy, though, when the fraps are in the down position.