If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Lawmakers: You really want these tanks, huh? Army: No, not really. Lawmakers: Come on... you know you want 'em. Army: Goddammit we said "No"   (security.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 306
    More: Asinine, Odierno, Yoshiaki Iwasaki, General Dynamics, Drew Griffin, Sierra Nevada  
•       •       •

6454 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Oct 2012 at 8:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-10 09:25:42 AM
WAIT, I just got a brilliant idea
hugereviews.com
 
2012-10-10 09:25:44 AM

BolloxReader: Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed


We don't need any more tanks.
 
2012-10-10 09:26:03 AM
You guys have the wrong idea, we have extra tanks, that means we need to find somoene to piss off to want to shoot at them. Time for a new war!
 
2012-10-10 09:26:54 AM

NewportBarGuy: We have plenty for the next few wars


The fact that people think like this is what's wrong with this country. How about we not have any wars?
 
2012-10-10 09:27:07 AM
When an extraterrestrial ground invasion force cometh, you'll be glad the GOP was thinking long term.
 
2012-10-10 09:27:23 AM

liam76: ox45tallboy: dittybopper: But you've got to build new tooling (ie., the robots and such), probably beef up the cranes and other stuff and perhaps even the floor depending on the factory.

Building new production equipment alone to build tanks just so that you can *START* preliminary production is going to take time. It's specialized equipment. It's not just a matter of retraining people and reprogramming robots (which also takes time, btw).

A matter of months, dude. Look at how we changed over to war production in the 1940's when we didn't even have freakin' computers. They used pencil and paper and very limited communications (think about phone service in the 1940's) and still did it in months.

Things have gotten many orders of magnitude more complicated since then.


Not if you're a Republican. It's still 1942 to them.
 
2012-10-10 09:27:58 AM

Citrate1007: GOP =/= Fiscal Responsibly


Normally I'd agreed with you, but in this case of Fiscal Irresponsibility, the level of bipartisanship is as equivalent as it gets.
 
2012-10-10 09:28:11 AM

GoldSpider: Satanic_Hamster: We hear all the time from the Republicans, right wing shrill pundits, and troll accounts that government spending doesn't create jobs. But cutting military spending causes people to lose jobs. It's almost as if they're full of shiat.

That knife cuts both ways. The other side argues that all government spending creates jobs, except military spending, which should be cut to the bone.


Nobody NOBODY has said that military spending should be cut to the bone. Asshole.
 
2012-10-10 09:28:52 AM
Tanks.
Tanks a lot.
 
2012-10-10 09:30:07 AM

Satanic_Hamster: "Conservatives" - Money to no-bid / no competition military contracts that will purchase things we will then just have sit in the a low humidity storage depot or will literally blow it up.


Nope.


ox45tallboy: liam76: Things have gotten many orders of magnitude more complicated since then.

*sigh*

Yes, but so have our capabilities. So have computers and machines used for production. So have programmable robots that can flawlessly weld the same seam nonstop. So have robots that can lift and maneuver objects far too heavy for humans to pick up.


Setting up those robots, computers and machines takes moneth, if not years. And that is after you have a wroking prototype.

Look at how long it takes to design a military plane 1940's compared to today. Some of that is DoD acquisition rules, but most of it is from the fact that were are deisgning things that are far more effecient and complicated. the testing of anew tank or aircraft today take slonger than it used to take to design, build and set up assembly lines for them in the 40's.


Do you realize how complicated it was to manufacture a simple analog telephone in the 1940's? Now, think about the fact that today unskilled Chinese workers are assembling iPhones by hand, because all of the hardest parts are done by machines.

How long do you htink it would take to set up a factory for phiones then vs now?
 
2012-10-10 09:30:28 AM
Let the factory shut down. If they are needed again some other contractor will be bootstrappy enough to open up a factory for $3 Billion a year. Also my district has the Hum-vee up-armor factory in it. They would be able to recondition outdated existing equipment until the other factory is online.

I was going to suggest our consulates and embassy might be able to use them, but having military equipment would probably make them more of a target than any benefit they might supply. I also don't want tanks in the hands of local police and sheriff departments.
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-10 09:31:37 AM
i1162.photobucket.com
i1162.photobucket.com
i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-10 09:32:32 AM

TheGogmagog: Let the factory shut down. If they are needed again some other contractor will be bootstrappy enough to open up a factory for $3 Billion a year. Also my district has the Hum-vee up-armor factory in it. They would be able to recondition outdated existing equipment until the other factory is online.

I was going to suggest our consulates and embassy might be able to use them, but having military equipment would probably make them more of a target than any benefit they might supply. I also don't want tanks in the hands of local police and sheriff departments.


Is that a Cobra logo on the grill?
 
2012-10-10 09:33:12 AM
This is just more enforcement of what we are told are "myths" or "urban legrnds", the stories about military units having to use up all of their budget is true, too, although people try and tell us all of the time that it never happens. My bro-in-law recently retired from the Air Force, and had been running his squadron for years. He was constantly trying to figure out what to blow their budget on at the end of the year.

Three examples were a large screen theater system, a popcorn machine and a snow cone machine for the break room. Not because they needed this stuff, but because if he didn't spend it, his budget would get slashed for the next year. He was getting annoyed with having to constantly think of new unnecessary shiat...
 
2012-10-10 09:35:04 AM
Spreading the "action" is how Congress gets support for projects. I worked on the ISS and traveled all over the country doing support. I don't think there were 100 engineers total on that part of the project, but there were seven sites, seven companies, and a couple hundred NASA administrators involved.
 
2012-10-10 09:35:22 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: We have shown the overall employment effects - including direct, indirect, and induced job creation - of spending on the military in contrast with four alternative domestic spending categories: clean energy, health care, education, and increasing household consumption through tax cuts. Specifically, we have shown that spending on all of these alternatives to military spending create substantially more jobs per $1 billion in expenditures relative to military spending.


That's an interesting read, thank you. I'm going to send that to my Congressman.
 
2012-10-10 09:35:42 AM

liam76: Satanic_Hamster: "Conservatives" - Money to no-bid / no competition military contracts that will purchase things we will then just have sit in the a low humidity storage depot or will literally blow it up.

Nope.


Wow, you showed me. You completely refudiated my point on how the military procurement process is hopelessly corrupt, on how major contracts are given without competitive bids, how Congress keeps European/Korean arms makers out of the bid process, how the US defense contractors have consolidated to the point where there's no competition on major contracts, etc.
 
2012-10-10 09:35:50 AM
Good points but you had to add a single line of derp. Romney said he would let them go bankrupt. Not fail. Guess what? They went bankrupt. Oh noes. Romney would have allowed normal bankruptcy, not the illegal restructured bankruptcy Obama pushed for to reward unions. Ask gm how easy it is to get private loans now that their original creditors were pushed behind unions in bankruptcy.
 
2012-10-10 09:36:14 AM

liam76: Setting up those robots, computers and machines takes moneth, if not years. And that is after you have a wroking prototype.


We already have a working prototype. We have people with experience building them. We are discussing production, not R&D. World of difference.

liam76: How long do you htink it would take to set up a factory for phiones then vs now?


About the same. Yes, the product itself is infinitely more complicated, but the materials are already in production, and most of the complicated stuff is down to programming the robots and training the staff to tighten the screws here, here, and here.

Don't forget about Steve Jobs and the Gorilla Glass in the first iPhone.

Months, not years.
 
2012-10-10 09:36:27 AM

TheGogmagog: I was going to suggest our consulates and embassy might be able to use them, but having military equipment would probably make them more of a target than any benefit they might supply. I also don't want tanks in the hands of local police and sheriff departments.


You know , we really can't send whatever military forces we desire into a foreign country to protect our embassies and consulates.

Do you think the Russian Consul in LA could drive around the city in a T-90 if wanted to?
 
2012-10-10 09:37:21 AM
So much for the 'invisible hand of the free market'.
 
2012-10-10 09:38:02 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Do you think the Russian Consul in LA could drive around the city in a T-90 if wanted to?


No, but there's alternatives:
images.thetruthaboutcars.com
 
2012-10-10 09:38:06 AM

Mikey1969: Three examples were a large screen theater system, a popcorn machine and a snow cone machine for the break room. Not because they needed this stuff, but because if he didn't spend it, his budget would get slashed for the next year. He was getting annoyed with having to constantly think of new unnecessary shiat...


I know this is unfair to your brother-in-law and he's definitely not at fault, but I can't help imagining that the local schools (you know, within 2000 miles of base...) could probably do with some new computers...
 
2012-10-10 09:39:30 AM

MyRandomName: Good points but you had to add a single line of derp. Romney said he would let them go bankrupt. Not fail. Guess what? They went bankrupt. Oh noes. Romney would have allowed normal bankruptcy, not the illegal restructured bankruptcy Obama pushed for to reward unions. Ask gm how easy it is to get private loans now that their original creditors were pushed behind unions in bankruptcy.


Well, you then proceeded to add several lines of derp, so I wouldn't complain if I were you.

Romney's idea of bankruptcy, as evidenced by the happenings at Bain, is to screw over the employee pension plans and keep all the money as "consultant fees". Our auto workers deserve better than that.
 
2012-10-10 09:40:36 AM

MyRandomName: Good points but you had to add a single line of derp. Romney said he would let them go bankrupt. Not fail. Guess what? They went bankrupt. Oh noes. Romney would have allowed normal bankruptcy, not the illegal restructured bankruptcy Obama pushed for to reward unions. Ask gm how easy it is to get private loans now that their original creditors were pushed behind unions in bankruptcy.


If it was illegal why isn't Romney suing?

And I like how in one sentence you say they "went bankrupt" just like Romney said they should, and in the next you say it was "illegal restructured bankruptcy"

Get it together man.
 
2012-10-10 09:40:52 AM

MyRandomName: Good points but you had to add a single line of derp. Romney said he would let them go bankrupt. Not fail. Guess what? They went bankrupt. Oh noes. Romney would have allowed normal bankruptcy, not the illegal restructured bankruptcy Obama pushed for to reward unions. Ask gm how easy it is to get private loans now that their original creditors were pushed behind unions in bankruptcy.


1/10. You say it with such conviction, I bet you actually believe yourself.
 
2012-10-10 09:41:18 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Congress keeps European/Korean arms makers out of the bid process


Actually, I'm in favor of keeping production necessary for wartime here in the continental US. It's not that I don't trust overseas manufacturers, it's that it's far easier for an enemy to disrupt a supply line that runs halfway around the world.
 
2012-10-10 09:43:15 AM

coeyagi: 1/10. You say it with such conviction, I bet you actually believe yourself.


He's here to provoke a reaction, not carry on coherent discussion.
 
2012-10-10 09:43:21 AM

TheGogmagog: [24.media.tumblr.com image 850x668]


Man, I'll bet the guy driving that thing has a really big dick. Just ask him.
 
2012-10-10 09:43:54 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: TheGogmagog: [24.media.tumblr.com image 850x668]

Man, I'll bet the guy driving that thing has a really big dick. Just ask him.


And probably pulls a muscle getting into it.
 
2012-10-10 09:44:44 AM

ox45tallboy: coeyagi: 1/10. You say it with such conviction, I bet you actually believe yourself.

He's here to provoke a reaction, not carry on coherent discussion.


Indeed. Hence my restraint at actually responding to him.

If there's "Randomness" in your ALT name, chances are, you're here to derp.
 
2012-10-10 09:45:39 AM

Mikey1969: This is just more enforcement of what we are told are "myths" or "urban legrnds", the stories about military units having to use up all of their budget is true, too, although people try and tell us all of the time that it never happens. My bro-in-law recently retired from the Air Force, and had been running his squadron for years. He was constantly trying to figure out what to blow their budget on at the end of the year.

Three examples were a large screen theater system, a popcorn machine and a snow cone machine for the break room. Not because they needed this stuff, but because if he didn't spend it, his budget would get slashed for the next year. He was getting annoyed with having to constantly think of new unnecessary shiat...


Your brother's finance folks weren't doing their job. They knew how much money they would receive as soon as the defense bill was signed in a given fiscal year.

My agency has about a $4 million budget, and we have it completely prioritized by April, along with three tiered-priority lists of unfunded requests. As soon as additional funds are freed up or we receive growback on a completed purchase, we execute one of the unfunded requests. We've had no less than 99.4% budget execution since FY03, with a distinct lack of popcorn machines.

Also, it's a complete myth that not executing your budget will result in a cut the following year. If one military program knows it will have excess funds, thy can turn those funds back in by May/June timeframe and let it be spent by another program. When the beancounters look at programs for the following year - what do you think is more favorable? Program A who was responsible, turned money in early instead of wasting it, but can show exactly what they would do with an increase? Or Program B, who buys useless crap every year but keeps asking for the same amount (or more)?
 
2012-10-10 09:47:17 AM

Graffito: Nobody NOBODY has said that military spending should be cut to the bone. Asshole.


Maybe we should. Why u so mad?
 
2012-10-10 09:49:18 AM

coeyagi: Indeed. Hence my restraint at actually responding to him.


Hey, I responded as well...
 
2012-10-10 09:49:43 AM

clkeagle: When the beancounters look at programs for the following year - what do you think is more favorable?Program A who was responsible, turned money in early instead of wasting it, but can show exactly what they would do with an increase? Or Program B, who buys useless crap every year but keeps asking for the same amount (or more)?


Is the Congressman form the district Program A is based in more or less powerful than the Congressman for Project B's district?
 
2012-10-10 09:51:23 AM
Remember kids, building infrastructure = socialism, building useless war machines = patriotism.
 
2012-10-10 09:53:37 AM
Meanwhile...
www.onedigitallife.com
 
2012-10-10 09:53:55 AM

keylock71: We've got money for weapons and war, but when it comes to infrastructure, education, and helping the average American citizen, well, we've all got to tighten our belts, you see... Not the wealthy, of course, though.


The united states spends more on education than any other country by pupil. Stop this lie that there is no spending on education. The problem is administration has tripled in size sucking money from actual classrooms. Stop this myth of no education spending. It is just silly.
 
2012-10-10 09:54:19 AM

TheGogmagog: I also don't want tanks in the hands of local police and sheriff departments.


What the fark does "Free Speech Unit" mean? That thing is an abomination on so many levels.
 
2012-10-10 09:55:32 AM

swahnhennessy: That still doesn't answer the underlying question of why we were selling tanks to an authoritarian puppet, but that's another matter entirely.


The same reason why we have been selling them arms for decades. We were bribing them not to attack Israel.
 
2012-10-10 09:56:06 AM

NewportBarGuy: Sgt Otter: Building one F-22 Raptor involves parts or subcontractors in 46 states. You can't tell me that that's a coincidence.

It's f*cking ridiculous and nary a word of outrage is spoken on the Hill or on the news. We just know that the money flows to "jobs" whether we need them or not for what they produce.

snip

The F-22, 46 State solution only proves the point. Make it uncuttable and you'll make these lifers make choices on whether they want to keep their seat, not what is in the best interest of the country security-wise or financially.


And yet people scream and nash their teeth about those folks on welfare. How is this any different?
to stay elected politicians supports spending gov't money on projects/products that we the people don't need. It is welfare for the people producing these products/projects. Likewise keeping those projects funded keeps politicians in jobs. It is welfare for the politicians.

All on the taxpayers backs.

Term limits for politicians.
Minimum budget amount required to be spent paying down the debt.
line item veto or single issue legislation.
Reform to the civil legal system to a looser pays system.

that's what we need in this country.
Not a bunch of military equipment that sits around unused and unwanted
 
2012-10-10 09:57:13 AM

MyRandomName: keylock71: We've got money for weapons and war, but when it comes to infrastructure, education, and helping the average American citizen, well, we've all got to tighten our belts, you see... Not the wealthy, of course, though.

The united states spends more on education than any other country by pupil. Stop this lie that there is no spending on education. The problem is administration has tripled in size sucking money from actual classrooms. Stop this myth of no education spending. It is just silly.


Exactly - by pupil. Not by school. There are a few extremely rich schools where they get what they need and the rest, well, they have to get bootstrappy.

That's like saying there's no hunger in the US because we spend enough on food to feed everyone.
 
2012-10-10 09:57:25 AM

Satanic_Hamster: liam76: Satanic_Hamster: "Conservatives" - Money to no-bid / no competition military contracts that will purchase things we will then just have sit in the a low humidity storage depot or will literally blow it up.

Nope.

Wow, you showed me. You completely refudiated my point on how the military procurement process is hopelessly corrupt, on how major contracts are given without competitive bids, how Congress keeps European/Korean arms makers out of the bid process, how the US defense contractors have consolidated to the point where there's no competition on major contracts, etc.


I refuted your "Money to no-bid / no competition military contracts" with as much info as you presented.

You then brought som other points (which are also BS, except for the corruptnesses).

You want some proof?

The most common no-bid complaint I hear about is support contracts for KBR in Iraq in 2003. They actually bid on it.

European/Korean arms dealers are only kept out if there is strategic or cclassified need. Look at Agusta Westland's role in the presidential Helo.

Name the last major defense contract with no bid. LAst I can think of (major contract) was JAGM, which had a number of bids (but dies under current funding). Before that there was JSF, which had multiple bids.

The process is corrupt, but you spitting out BS points doesn't help stop that.

ox45tallboy: liam76: Setting up those robots, computers and machines takes moneth, if not years. And that is after you have a wroking prototype.

We already have a working prototype. We have people with experience building them. We are discussing production, not R&D. World of difference.


Sorry, Ithough you were talking abotu picking up out of no real research to going cutting edge like we did in WWII.

We don't employ those people (on those types of projects) and we lose that experience. however the army is talking about waiting three years, not abandoning tanks so I agree we aren't hurt by waiting this case.

ox45tallboy: About the same. Yes, the product itself is infinitely more complicated, but the materials are already in production, and most of the complicated stuff is down to programming the robots and training the staff to tighten the screws here, here, and here.


Military vehilces use a shiat ton of things that you can't get as commercial off the shelf products.

ox45tallboy: Don't forget about Steve Jobs and the Gorilla Glass in the first iPhone.


He didn't do it right or make the deadline, Iphone flops or is late. With military equip you have consequences on another level.
 
2012-10-10 09:58:24 AM

MyRandomName: keylock71: We've got money for weapons and war, but when it comes to infrastructure, education, and helping the average American citizen, well, we've all got to tighten our belts, you see... Not the wealthy, of course, though.

The united states spends more on education than any other country by pupil. Stop this lie that there is no spending on education. The problem is administration has tripled in size sucking money from actual classrooms. Stop this myth of no education spending. It is just silly.


The United States spends more on it's military than the rest of the world COMBINED.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-10 09:59:20 AM
I agree with the idea of keeping a technological base and skills base in place, but as far as building tanks go, they are not as complicated as aircraft or submarines. We have a huge surplus of them. Also, industiral fabrication techniques are poised on the brink of a complete revolution. Whatever replaces the Abrams will likely use a lot of 3-d printing techniques for some major components, as well as new-generation materials as part of the armor and in the engines. Preserving a 20th-century production line may not be relevant to building 21st-century versions of the product. What makes more sense to me in the case of the tank factory is to shut down current production and retain a minimum staff working on developing the next-gen techniques and tools to be ready when demand returns. You would think a tech company like GD would just invest some profits into that kind of future-proofing on their own, but you would be wrong; shareholder value would not tolerate making actual strategic investments over a long time.
 
2012-10-10 10:00:13 AM

Epoch_Zero: Exactly - by pupil. Not by school. There are a few extremely rich schools where they get what they need and the rest, well, they have to get bootstrappy.


Would you support consolidating school districts to the county level (in states where it's not already so) and change the funding mechanism from local property taxes to a county income tax?
 
2012-10-10 10:00:36 AM

MyRandomName: The united states spends more on education than any other country by pupil. Stop this lie that there is no spending on education. The problem is administration has tripled in size sucking money from actual classrooms. Stop this myth of no education spending. It is just silly.


Sure they do, if you include all the private school spending and ridiculous expenditures of state universities such as paying Snooki $32,000 to speak about tanning and partying.

Of course, you also have to include all of the interest payments for the ridiculous student loan money that students in other countries don't have to worry about.
 
2012-10-10 10:01:00 AM

Epoch_Zero: Meanwhile...
[www.onedigitallife.com image 500x326]


slightly off topic but I had to take a good hard look at that to figure out whether it was an actual photo of a collapsed bridge or a screenshot from apple maps.
 
2012-10-10 10:01:02 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: MyRandomName: keylock71: We've got money for weapons and war, but when it comes to infrastructure, education, and helping the average American citizen, well, we've all got to tighten our belts, you see... Not the wealthy, of course, though.

The united states spends more on education than any other country by pupil. Stop this lie that there is no spending on education. The problem is administration has tripled in size sucking money from actual classrooms. Stop this myth of no education spending. It is just silly.

The United States spends more on it's military than the rest of the world COMBINED.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 270x250]


Well yeah but its in USD so we get a better rate. You need to UNSKEWE that
 
2012-10-10 10:01:10 AM

Graffito: GoldSpider: Satanic_Hamster: We hear all the time from the Republicans, right wing shrill pundits, and troll accounts that government spending doesn't create jobs. But cutting military spending causes people to lose jobs. It's almost as if they're full of shiat.

That knife cuts both ways. The other side argues that all government spending creates jobs, except military spending, which should be cut to the bone.

Nobody NOBODY has said that military spending should be cut to the bone. Asshole.


I have
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report