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 114
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-10 05:32:33 AM
9 votes:

BolloxReader: We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.


I have to disagree with you here. Do you ever wonder happened to all those tank and jeep factories after WWII? They went back to making cars, the same thing they were making before WWII.

This is one of the best reasons for keeping manufacturing centers like GM and Chrysler open, and why it was so short-sighted of Romney to say "Let Detroit fail!" - it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to convert an already functioning automobile assembly line, especially one located in a defensively strategic place like the middle of the continent, into war machine production. Trying to convince Japan or Korea to convert their assembly lines into making our tanks for us, however, presents all kinds of logistical difficulties.

Having a strong manufacturing base is essential to our own national security, for precisely the reasons demonstrated in WWII. This does not mean we have to have functioning military production, just the capability for it.
2012-10-10 02:17:40 AM
9 votes:
And this is why we can't cut the defense budget. We're at war with our own "Representatives."

I don't know how you keep them idle for three years, but find something. Figure it out. There is no sense buying sh*t just to park it in a motor pool and never use it. We're moving away from large-scale armor engagements, so there is really no need going nuts on armor.

McKeon said he's thinking about the long range view. "... If someone could guarantee us that we'll never need tanks in the future, that would be good. I don't see that guarantee."

More than what we have and can refurbish? Uhhh... I can guarantee you that for a while. Go to Aberdeen Proving Grounds or any of the other storage sites for armor we can just refurbish and put into action. We have the tools. Take the $3,000,000,000 and use it elsewhere. Don't worry... I'm sure the Army will ask for it for something else sooner than you can imagine.
2012-10-10 06:18:50 AM
7 votes:

doglover: But I want Abrams.


Okay, speaking of the Abrams, why did Bush in 2007 approve the sale of 125 M1A1 Abrams tanks to Egypt, a regime that we only three years later supported the overthrow of?

I mean, it was decades between our sale of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein and our invasion on the pretext that he had the audacity to actually use them.

This is the problem with producing too many weapons - someone sees them sitting around, and before you know it, someone thinks its a good idea to sell them. Then, next thing you know, the purchaser uses them, and so the military has to order a new round of weapons to go kill someone else that is using the weapons we sold them in the first place.

I don't believe for one second that Hosni Mubarak's Egyptian government that had been in place for three decades went from "cool" to "needs to go" in only four years. What happened between 2007, when we sold him 125 Abrams battle tanks, as well as ammunition and training, and 2011 when we supported the uprising against him? If he was that bad, why the hell were we selling him tanks?

If we are producing so many tanks that we are selling them to other countries, then maybe we're producing too many tanks.
2012-10-10 08:17:18 AM
6 votes:
And Republicans tell us we can't cut defense spending.

We waste money on F-22s, when the type of air to air combat they were designed for never actually happens - standoff anti-air missions - and they are worse than any existing plane for any other role. We waste money on main battle tanks, when open tank battles are a thing of the past. We waste money on decades old ICBMs that just sit rotting in their silos. We waste money maintaining an active fleet of aircraft carriers larger than the entire rest of the world combined for absolutely no reason. We waste money maintaining bases around the world defending absolutely nothing. We waste money on "research" into new designs that are unlikely to work and are still designed to win the last war.

And yet we can't cut defense spending, the single greatest example of wasteful government spending with no return on investment.
2012-10-10 05:37:47 AM
6 votes:

SnakeLee: It would be really great if the army had a rebuttal to that point in the article. The whole thing seems to boil down to gambling on whether or not we will be in a large scale tank war sometime in the next 25 years. I am guessing no. In fact, it sort of seems like the WWI moment of charging a tank with calvary because it is all you know.


I agree with you. However, because Detroit was saved, we have the same capability of being able to convert those automobile production lines into tank production lines in a matter of months, just like we did in WWII. Although the tanks are now infinitely more complex than those on the 1940's, so is the machinery used in those assembly lines.

This is all about corporate welfare for the military industrial complex. They're saying, "You can't cut us off! People need jobs! Cut food stamps instead! People don't need food!"
2012-10-10 03:28:14 AM
6 votes:

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.

I support stimulus measures in a down economy, but we have to at least be reasonable. If we pump that same amount of money into infrastructure, we can probably keep most of these people employed and not wind up with things we don't need. If we need to train them into a transitional field, then do it. Or give them a lower cost project to replace the MRAP which we'll need for more mobility.

It's a goddamn lazy, childish allocation of funds. We know how much armor we have. We have plenty for the next few wars. I understand long-term planning (What if we have no tank factories! OMG NOOOOOOOO!!!) I think we did pretty well after WWII. We had an Army doing rifle training with brooms before Pearl Harbor. That's how my grandfather lost several of his teeth... Broom to the mouth.

They are too easy ready to write checks for things we don't need rather than do the work involved in finding a better way. I'm sick of it.

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. At least Robert Gates had the balls to fight against that which he did not need. He is sorely missed and Panetta couldn't hold his jock-strap.
2012-10-10 03:18:59 AM
6 votes:

NewportBarGuy: And this is why we can't cut the defense budget. We're at war with our own "Representatives."


The defense contractors know this. Building one F-22 Raptor involves parts or subcontractors in 46 states. You can't tell me that that's a coincidence. That much bi-partisan pork will protect that hangar queen for decades.
2012-10-10 09:39:30 AM
5 votes:

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 08:35:29 AM
5 votes:
www.whitehouse.gov

*cough* TOLD YOU! *cough*
2012-10-10 05:28:07 AM
5 votes:

BolloxReader: I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

Figure out the minimum production level needed to keep it running and order that number. Keep the skills of the workers current so that we don't have to worry as much about expensive war machines being built solely by inexperienced workers who just happened to be standing in line at the temp agency when the call for workers came in.


Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars.
2012-10-10 09:30:28 AM
4 votes:
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 09:05:40 AM
4 votes:
Part of the reason that military spending creates fewer jobs than other forms of expenditure is that a large share of that money is either spent overseas or spent on imported goods. By contrast, most of the money generated by spending in areas like education is spent in the United States.

In addition, more of the military dollar goes to capital, as opposed to labor, than do the expenditures in the other job categories. For example, only 1.5% of the price of each F-35 Joint Strike Fighter pays for the labor costs involved in "manufacturing, fabrication, and assembly" work at the plane's main production facility in Fort Worth, Texas. A full 85% of the F-35s costs go for overhead, not for jobs actually fabricating and assembling the aircraft. Link


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. Link, .pdf
2012-10-10 08:40:33 AM
4 votes:
Somehow this will end with the tanks being sold to suburban police departments.
2012-10-10 08:38:06 AM
4 votes:
If they're worried about the 16,000 jobs that would be at stake if they stop production of the tanks, wouldn't be far more efficient to just take that 3 billion and give it to those 16,000 people? That's what, like 200,000 per person? That should sustain them while they find other jobs.
2012-10-10 08:26:47 AM
4 votes:

GAT_00: But Red Storm Rising is just as likely to be the next war as 50 year long trench warfare stalemates are going to happen like everyone thought after WW1.


Well, not everyone. I like this guy's take on it:

content8.flixster.com
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will
be fought with sticks and stones."
2012-10-10 02:51:12 AM
4 votes:

AbbeySomeone: Follow the money people.


Personally? I think they care more about losing jobs in their district. They can raise $56k other ways, but they can't fight local paper headline of people getting laid off. I understand why they do it, but it's just another reason we need term limits so people don't make stupid decisions like this just to keep their job.
2012-10-10 10:25:38 AM
3 votes:

qorkfiend: The damage done by whackjobs on the Texas State Board of Education is mostly limited to Texas, so yes, I would prefer limiting the damage to one or two states instead of inflicting it on every state.


Actually it isn't limited to Texas. Publishers don't want to make "Texas Only" versions of their text books, so they try to make the general versions fit the rules of Texas and other states as much as we they can. So kids in classes across the nation end up with text books that follow the requirements Texas sets.
2012-10-10 09:57:13 AM
3 votes:

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 09:53:37 AM
3 votes:
Meanwhile...
www.onedigitallife.com
2012-10-10 09:43:15 AM
3 votes:

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 09:25:13 AM
3 votes:
FTFA: If the U.S. pauses tank production and refurbishment it will hurt the nation's industrial economy, lawmakers say.

But we can still laugh at the Soviets and their proven failure of a system where they attempted to control the economy through manufacturing demand, right?
2012-10-10 09:24:30 AM
3 votes:

NewportBarGuy: I support stimulus measures in a down economy, but we have to at least be reasonable. If we pump that same amount of money into infrastructure, we can probably keep most of these people employed and not wind up with things we don't need. If we need to train them into a transitional field, then do it. Or give them a lower cost project to replace the MRAP which we'll need for more mobility.


If we support infrastructure, there will be even more jobs down the road. A location with good roads, power generation, a strong grid, and excellent communications attracts employers from other places. Tanks that just sit around? Not so much.
2012-10-10 09:21:29 AM
3 votes:

ox45tallboy: Fine! Spend it on infrastructure!


THIS. I guarantee every single state involved in these defense contracts has an interstate bridge that could be replaced, a national park that could be upgraded, an airport control tower that desperately needs to be remodeled, some National Guard armories using furniture from the 1960s... anything. We're not saying to keep the money out of the economy. Just spend it more wisely... we don't need to buy new tanks when there are 2000 sitting unused in a parking lot. We don't need to buy fighters that will never be flown in anything but an airshow.

It's not the taxpayers' fault that defense contractors haven't figured out how to diversify their production lines. Apparently it's too hard for a company like General Dynamics to build Abrams' and Strykers during defense acquisition cycles, and then switch to building bulldozers and SWAT vans any other year.

Being able to change an industrial line like that just seems like some magical science-fiction pipe dream. You know, like we had in that far future time of the 1940s.
2012-10-10 09:20:35 AM
3 votes:

BolloxReader: We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.


We will likely never have a dire need to new tanks on such short notice that we couldn't ramp up production again.

What we could do, instead, is mothball the equipment we don't need and retool the factory and retrain its employees to build other things. You have equipment, facilities and experienced, skilled labor freed up. That tank factory could be making parts for wind turbines, or medical equipment like MRI machines, or dredges to fix our sediment-clogged waterways, or any number of things requiring heavy industrial support that we actually need.

I don't want to see idle hands either, but I also don't want to see time, resources and money get wasted for bullsh*t political reasons.
=Smidge=
2012-10-10 09:11:26 AM
3 votes:
i30.tinypic.com

"did i farking stutter?"
2012-10-10 08:54:00 AM
3 votes:
We can't spend $10 billion on necessary bridge repairs because it's a bad economy, but we NEED to spend $100 billion on tanks and bombers right now.

This is why I don't trust the Republican Party.
2012-10-10 08:50:29 AM
3 votes:
Factories can be retooled and started up again; it would take us YEARS to go through enough tanks to warrant doing that anyways, so it's not like we wouldn't have time.

What I don't get / love: 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.
2012-10-10 08:44:07 AM
3 votes:

dittybopper: ox45tallboy: I mean, it was decades between our sale of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein and our invasion on the pretext that he had the audacity to actually use them.

We didn't sell chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. We sold them intelligence during the Iran/Iraq war, and they bought some biological samples that they could weaponize on the open market from American sources, and that's about it.

It was *GERMANY* who sold Iraq the equipment: 52% of Iraq's chemical weapons equipment came from Germany, with much of the rest of the production equipment coming from France (21%) and Austria (16%). The balance came from a number of sources, none of it American. Actual chemicals (like Mustard Gas, and precursors for nerve agents) came from Singapore, Holland, Egypt, India, and Luxembourg. China and Spain provided actual weapons to be filled with chemical weapons (ie., artillery shells, bombs, etc.).

I don't know where this myth came up that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, but it's false. We didn't even significantly arm Iraq: most of their weapons systems are either European in origin, or came from the Soviet Union/Russia.

Their nuclear program was entirely French in origin.

That is why France, Germany, and Russia were dead set against the Iraq war: Saddam Hussein was deep in hock to them for all the weapons he got from them, and hadn't been able to pay them back due to economic sanctions, and if he got toppled, they stood to lose all that money. Don't kid yourself into thinking it was for humanitarian reasons.

That's not to say the justification for the Iraq war was 100% kosher either, just that governmental opposition to it from those countries was motivated not by concerns for the people of Iraq, but the fear that a new government in Iraq wouldn't pay for the stuff the Hussein regime bought largely on credit.


lemme get this straight...

youre advocating the stance that the Arms manufacturers of these countries were able to exert enough pressure on their respective govts over losing arms sales to saddams regimes that they should risk a series diplomatic schism with the US? I call shenanigans.

aint buyin' it.

the rest of the West didnt go with us into iraq because it was a fool's errand, based on BS intel, and their electorates were against it. the ones who went either went in because they couldnt stand the thought of breaking ranks with the US even when their electorates were overwhelmlingly against it (as was the case with the UK), went in in very limited capacity enough to uphold good stand with the US but not really fundamentally contribute and would leave soon (like Italy or Spain), or were hoping to gain washington's favors (like poland ukraine and others).
2012-10-10 10:52:05 AM
2 votes:

Arkanaut: I do agree though that employer-based health insurance is a hindrance -- single-payer or at least a public option would be a huge help.


This is how Japan kicked our collective asses (and continues to do so) in the automobile market. They don't have to factor employee health care costs into the price of an automobile.
2012-10-10 10:26:07 AM
2 votes:

Endrick: WAIT, I just got a brilliant idea
[hugereviews.com image 300x225]


They are already ahead of you see above:

Also forgot to add that while the original didn't have Free Speech Unit on it, it was brought to the Occupy Oakland (May 2012).
2012-10-10 10:17:11 AM
2 votes:

moothemagiccow: qorkfiend: Removing the burden of providing health insurance from businesses would probably go a long way, as well, but we all know that's socialism too.

I'm not really sure how they got intermingled, anyhow. What the hell does my employer care about my doctor? Why can't I just buy health insurance from the health insurance company?


From what I understand, it's a holdout from back in the day when both medical costs were low and there wasn't much room to increase wages; offering health benefits was an easy way to offer increased compensation without increasing wages. The savvy businessmen also realized that a healthy workforce is more productive, so taking measures to improve worker health was good for business...
2012-10-10 10:13:54 AM
2 votes:

Arkanaut: IMO globalization is a red herring -- it's not that difficult* to bring jobs back


Of course not. When you add in the cost of transportation, corporations don't save a huge amount of money by moving manufacturing overseas. If we built more infrastructure around manufacturing, companies could eliminate the management headaches of production facilities being halfway around the world, and create even more demand for their products by making sure more people could afford them.

But when mutual fund managers make that extra .02%, it translates directly into their own pocket, and makes a difference on whether their kid goes to Harvard or State U.

When one or two companies moves their manufacturing overseas, they make pretty well. When everyone does it, the whole system collapses because no one has customers who can afford their products anymore.
2012-10-10 10:13:50 AM
2 votes:

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]


Think of what would happen if we spent more than anyone else in education, or roads and train tracks
2012-10-10 10:12:52 AM
2 votes:

GoldSpider: Epoch_Zero: No - that wouldn't do anything. That the funding is local is already the problem. Schools should get what they need regardless of what economic area they happen to be located in. Everyone talks about how education is a way out of poverty, yet schools located in poor neighborhoods are at a disadvantage because of it. The school system needs to be nationalized. It would solve a lot of problems.

Not a fan of incremental (realistic) improvement, I see.


A massive statewide reorganization of school districts isn't really an incremental improvement, either...
2012-10-10 10:04:40 AM
2 votes:

GoldSpider: 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?


No - that wouldn't do anything. That the funding is local is already the problem. Schools should get what they need regardless of what economic area they happen to be located in. Everyone talks about how education is a way out of poverty, yet schools located in poor neighborhoods are at a disadvantage because of it. The school system needs to be nationalized. It would solve a lot of problems.
2012-10-10 10:02:18 AM
2 votes:

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.


Education spending: 3%
Military spending: 25%

Do you see some sort of problem when educating our children is 3% of the budget and the military is a full quarter of it?
2012-10-10 10:00:36 AM
2 votes:

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 09:28:11 AM
2 votes:

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 09:24:25 AM
2 votes:

InmanRoshi: dittybopper:
Don't make the classic mistake of projecting the last war you fought into the future.

Yeah, isn't it annoying when people attempt to hilariously shoehorn past events into a projection of the future when they're not at all comparable?

dittybopper: Funny thing about isolationism: We tried that in the first half of the last century, and we still ended up getting dragged into a couple of world wars, and we were unprepared for both.



Both of you will really like this article by Jon Huntsman. Link 

"In the aftermath of the failure of the super committee, we are facing cuts in defense. Yet there has still been little discussion about overall defense spending priorities and how we must transform our defense infrastructure for the 21st century.
..........
These approaches miss the target in two respects. First, they let resources drive strategy, rather than using strategy to drive force structure and capabilities. Second, they fail to fundamentally alter our defense posture -- so any short-term savings will be quickly erased."
2012-10-10 09:16:56 AM
2 votes:

ox45tallboy: BolloxReader: We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

I have to disagree with you here. Do you ever wonder happened to all those tank and jeep factories after WWII? They went back to making cars, the same thing they were making before WWII.

This is one of the best reasons for keeping manufacturing centers like GM and Chrysler open, and why it was so short-sighted of Romney to say "Let Detroit fail!" - it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to convert an already functioning automobile assembly line, especially one located in a defensively strategic place like the middle of the continent, into war machine production. Trying to convince Japan or Korea to convert their assembly lines into making our tanks for us, however, presents all kinds of logistical difficulties.

Having a strong manufacturing base is essential to our own national security, for precisely the reasons demonstrated in WWII. This does not mean we have to have functioning military production, just the capability for it.


Allegedly Yamamoto saw the assembly lines in Detroit and said not to, "awaken the sleeping giant," of U.S. production. He could see tanks coming off the assembly lines like Fords.

farm5.staticflickr.com
2012-10-10 09:13:31 AM
2 votes:

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.

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.
2012-10-10 09:12:37 AM
2 votes:

GoldSpider: 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.


I think the general argument is what is the most efficient way to create jobs and what spending is beneficial for society.

"Liberals" - Pave roads, build bridges, improve water and sewer treatment, research funding into new technologies, money to municipalities and poor/middle class that will immediately spend it to spur on the economy.

"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.

Hmmmm. What's the most beneficial spending that will help crate more jobs.
2012-10-10 09:11:07 AM
2 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: I dunno, as someone that advocates for deep defense cuts, I fully acknowledge that industry keeps many employed. The horse drawn carriage industry did to at one point as well. If you're no longer needed for any valid defense purpose, you'll lose your job. Maybe become a consultant for whoever we sell the excess to, it's cake work.


Same here. The federal government has a greater purpose than a make-work program.

The disingenuous "cut spending but NOT the military!" part of the GOP platform is a big reason why I will not be voting for any Republicans this year.
2012-10-10 09:00:15 AM
2 votes:

dittybopper: ox45tallboy: dittybopper: Not really.

A robot designed to build an SUV isn't going to be able to build a tank. Something designed to handle parts that weigh a couple hundred pounds isn't going to be able to handle parts that weigh thousands, and simply tack-welding parts together (as is done for a lot of auto body parts) ain't gonna cut it for armor plate.

It's more than just reprogramming the robots that make Tahoes and Suburbans.

But what it isn't is creating a whole new factory from scratch. The assembly lines are in place, complete with tools and equipment and people trained to use them, as well as managers that know how to get the most out of their employees and facilities. Yes, some things would need to be changed. This is why it would take a few months. But it would not necessitate completely building new factories and training new personnel from scratch.

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).


Invest time upfront and build factories that are designed to easily be converted from car factories into tank factories? Sure, the initial cost of building the factory is higher, but I'd rather have the government kick money to the auto industry to do something like that, than I would just have them build shiat we don't need.

You could even run drills every so often, where you take one of the car factories out of circulation and build a few tanks, so the employees are ready to go if the shiat hits the fan.

I guess it depends on whether that costs more upfront than what we're doing now.
2012-10-10 08:59:20 AM
2 votes:

dletter: Also, maybe it is just me, but, any wars we'll get into, probably sooner than later, will have little need for tanks.


THIS. I was under the impression that our military was trending towards a smaller, lighter, more mobile force. Where do freakin' tanks fit into that plan??

It's like keeping buggy-whip factories open, because someday we might have to go back to horse-and-buggy, and BECAUSE JOBS!!
2012-10-10 08:59:20 AM
2 votes:

indylaw: We can't spend $10 billion on necessary bridge repairs because it's a bad economy, but we NEED to spend $100 billion on tanks and bombers right now.

This is why I don't trust the Republican Party.


See, if we elect Republicans, we'll go to war, and they can say, "I told you so!"

If we elect Democrats, and don't go to war, the Republicans can say, "It's a good thing we have such a huge military to act as a deterrent! Look at all the American lives we saved from all this military spending!"
2012-10-10 08:43:01 AM
2 votes:

liam76: Nope, he needs it spent there (his state), and on a company that has donated to him.


Fine! Spend it on infrastructure!
2012-10-10 08:40:55 AM
2 votes:
dittybopper:
Don't make the classic mistake of projecting the last war you fought into the future.


Yeah, isn't it annoying when people attempt to hilariously shoehorn past events into a projection of the future when they're not at all comparable?


dittybopper: Funny thing about isolationism: We tried that in the first half of the last century, and we still ended up getting dragged into a couple of world wars, and we were unprepared for both.
2012-10-10 08:09:59 AM
2 votes:

dittybopper: Not really.

A robot designed to build an SUV isn't going to be able to build a tank. Something designed to handle parts that weigh a couple hundred pounds isn't going to be able to handle parts that weigh thousands, and simply tack-welding parts together (as is done for a lot of auto body parts) ain't gonna cut it for armor plate.

It's more than just reprogramming the robots that make Tahoes and Suburbans.


But what it isn't is creating a whole new factory from scratch. The assembly lines are in place, complete with tools and equipment and people trained to use them, as well as managers that know how to get the most out of their employees and facilities. Yes, some things would need to be changed. This is why it would take a few months. But it would not necessitate completely building new factories and training new personnel from scratch.
2012-10-10 07:46:08 AM
2 votes:

dittybopper: since weapons systems have become more complex with a longer lead time, you don't really have that luxury anymore.


I disagree. Yes, the systems are pretty complex, infinitely more so than they were in the 1940's when we converted our auto factories into tank factories, but so are the factories.

Seriously, quite a bit of the work is just reprogramming the robots for new parts. I'm not saying it could be done overnight, but it could be done in the same few months it took in the 1940's.
2012-10-10 05:39:04 AM
2 votes:

James F. Campbell: Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars


blogs.seattleweekly.com
"Thanks, Florida!"
2012-10-10 02:44:13 AM
2 votes:

NewportBarGuy: And this is why we can't cut the defense budget. We're at war with our own "Representatives."

I don't know how you keep them idle for three years, but find something. Figure it out. There is no sense buying sh*t just to park it in a motor pool and never use it. We're moving away from large-scale armor engagements, so there is really no need going nuts on armor.

McKeon said he's thinking about the long range view. "... If someone could guarantee us that we'll never need tanks in the future, that would be good. I don't see that guarantee."

More than what we have and can refurbish? Uhhh... I can guarantee you that for a while. Go to Aberdeen Proving Grounds or any of the other storage sites for armor we can just refurbish and put into action. We have the tools. Take the $3,000,000,000 and use it elsewhere. Don't worry... I'm sure the Army will ask for it for something else sooner than you can imagine.


McKeon was also unaware that the tank makers had made a hefty contribution to his campaign. Follow the money people. F*ck the taxpayers, we want kickbacks.
2012-10-10 03:05:09 PM
1 votes:
Corporate welfare is completely acceptable to republicans for some reason.
2012-10-10 01:56:37 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: And Republicans tell us we can't cut defense spending.

We waste money on F-22s, when the type of air to air combat they were designed for never actually happens - standoff anti-air missions - and they are worse than any existing plane for any other role. We waste money on main battle tanks, when open tank battles are a thing of the past. We waste money on decades old ICBMs that just sit rotting in their silos. We waste money maintaining an active fleet of aircraft carriers larger than the entire rest of the world combined for absolutely no reason. We waste money maintaining bases around the world defending absolutely nothing. We waste money on "research" into new designs that are unlikely to work and are still designed to win the last war.

And yet we can't cut defense spending, the single greatest example of wasteful government spending with no return on investment.


Clearly, the answer is to cut food stamps and defund PBS.
2012-10-10 01:27:14 PM
1 votes:

dittybopper: James F. Campbell: Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars.

Funny thing about isolationism: We tried that in the first half of the last century, and we still ended up getting dragged into a couple of world wars, and we were unprepared for both. Luckily, we could ramp up production fairly quickly, but since weapons systems have become more complex with a longer lead time, you don't really have that luxury anymore.


Does isolationism require blindness? We could have seen both wars coming. The unpreparedness part was just farking stupidity, not an inherent trait of leaving people alone.

/Also, 'pre-emptive war'? Is not in any way a requirement of not being isolationists. That was just bullshiat.
2012-10-10 01:08:11 PM
1 votes:
Fiscal Conservatism in action.

Hypnozombie
2012-10-10 01:03:33 PM
1 votes:
Happens all the time. DOD projects pushed by interested Reps and Sens are the bane of the budget.

But go ahead and cut BigBird. That'll help.
2012-10-10 12:29:27 PM
1 votes:
This is what they mean by "fiscally responsible small government." Trust them at your peril.
2012-10-10 12:12:57 PM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.

And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.

Stop them from developing nukes = smoking crator?

I am continually impressed with Queeg's Israel filter.

You are right. He's suggesting that we stop them from developing nukes by airlifting in flowers and puppies rather than a massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion.




How much would it cost the world to just move Israel to Arizona? I bet it would be cheaper in the long run, enable Israel's society to flourish, let the middle-east eat itself without a common enemy, and make life a lot simpler for their residents.

They could be completely autonomous and protected by America super-easily.

/They need to get over the whole "sacred land" thing. That goes for the Islamians and Christians, too.
2012-10-10 11:55:19 AM
1 votes:
Ditch diggers? National broadband, or national smartgrids? Green energy? Roads? Working sewers or drinking water pipelines? COMMIEFASCOSOCIALISMKENYANISMDOESNTWORK.

A few thousand seven-figure pieces of military hardware sitting in mothballs? REAL AMERICA.

Goddamn, I hate these assholes on Capitol Hill. Anything to keep the pork flowing, as long as it's your pork.
2012-10-10 11:28:44 AM
1 votes:

Nem Wan: Clearly there's no ideological opposition to spending taxpayer money to put people to work building stuff. It's just not okay for it to be even slightly useful stuff that might compete even slightly with anything in the private sector.


There shouldn't be any profit motive in infrastructure. I don't like the idea of paying a toll every time I pull out of the driveway. Therefore, some things need to be done even if they are not profitable. This is where government should be doing the work.

Put these defense contractors to work on police and civilian government vehicles instead of tanks. If we need the tanks, then they can convert their factories back over, and have employees already trained in the use of the equipment. It's just stupid to keep producing all of these tanks we don't want or need and can't afford the upkeep for.
2012-10-10 11:15:38 AM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: Epoch_Zero: No Child Left Behind indoctrinated millions of this country's youth into believing blatant falsehoods about history and that magic is real? Huh, didn't know that. I just thought it was a poorly planned operation that predictably failed. Who knew?

NCLB has been a disaster, and should serve as a warning against broad and rigid national education policy.


Having a national standard isn't a bad idea. Their slavish devotion to testing was the problem. Not sure that's worse than states pushing for biblical math and creation science as valid curriculum.
2012-10-10 11:13:26 AM
1 votes:

liam76: Not a tank expert, and this is from Wiki, but it doesn't seem to be a commercial engine.


That's the M1A1. I mean currently.

Link

"The decision to buy a turbine engine tank was a political decision. The Army had intended to select the GM version, which had a diesel engine. However, at the eleventh hour, The DepSecDef apparently ordered the Sec Army to reverse the decision and select the Chrysler version, which had the gas turbine engine."

-B. G. Steve Bliss, USA, Ret.

For the record, Chrysler did later sell off it's tank division which produced the gas turbine engine. But my point still stands - the Abrams doesn't use some hand-made specialty engine with individually crafted parts made by Christian Science monks under a vow of silence in a secret lair in the foothills of South Dakota. It's a production-line engine, or as you referred to it, "off-the-shelf".
2012-10-10 11:05:37 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: Funny thing about isolationism: We tried that in the first half of the last century,


BWAHAHAHA

Because nothing says "isolationism" like attempting to intervene diplomatically in the middle of a war, and then attempting to form the League of Nations afterwards.

Because nothing says "isolationism" like enacting the lend-lease and embargoes with opposing sides in an ongoing global conflict.

But yeah, we were totally "dragged" into those wars.
2012-10-10 11:02:50 AM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: Alphax: Congress isn't too trustworthy at the moment, but I'll take them over your average school board.

No Child Left Behind


No Child Left Behind indoctrinated millions of this country's youth into believing blatant falsehoods about history and that magic is real? Huh, didn't know that. I just thought it was a poorly planned operation that predictably failed. Who knew?
2012-10-10 11:02:10 AM
1 votes:
Came here to echo what has been said. The military usually knows what needs to be done and what they need to do it. Especially with armaments. They make a mis-step here and there, like underestimating the need for uparmored Hummers to avoid IED casualties, but on the whole they do it correctly.

The role of the military isn't to provide jobs for equipment that isn't needed. Couldn't those suppliers design and build other things, like kick-ass software and electronics for the auto and trucking industry, or really cool armor for industrial use, such as in dangerous manufacturing zones like steel mills?

Just spit-balling here. Either way, we shouldn't buy things we don't need.
2012-10-10 10:55:02 AM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: liam76: Things have gotten many orders of magnitude more complicated since then.

And the ability to modify production equipment has improved by orders of magnitude since then. Back then if you wanted to go from stamping out airplane parts to stamping out car parts, it was going to take a while. Today? Can do it a lot faster. The machine doing the stamping, then as now, doesn't change you just need a new die. Well back then, it took a while to make one and there was always the chance it wouldn't turn out right. Today? Thanks to computer controlled cutting machines they're made to tolerances that are best understood in terms of the width of a human hair. And it's faster. A lot faster.


My position is that it would take about the same amount of time today to change over our factories to wartime production as it did in the 1940's. Things like complexity of the product are canceled out by complexity and effectiveness of the machinery involved, as well as improved communications and computers to keep track of inventory. Do you think that it could be accomplished as quickly as we did it in the 1940's?
2012-10-10 10:45:23 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: This is the true entitlement program that's killing America.

These contractors feel entitled to our tax money to pay for their pet projects and it's draining out budget.

But yeah, go after PBS. Afterall, they're really the ones bleeding this country fiscally dry.

/rolls eyes


It's really simple, though.

To the dumb pork grind eating dickhead in the South, what's more favorable - protecting us from brown people overseas or Big Bird? Costs don't matter to a guy who can't evaluate the square root of 400.
2012-10-10 10:42:17 AM
1 votes:
Does the Army know something Congress doesn't? That maybe our super duper armor can now be penetrated by a cheap small penetrator, easily disabling a very expensive tank (not to mention killing it's crew)?


I would have linked to the original article in The Army Times but, strangely enough, the article is no longer available. Doo doodly doo doo
2012-10-10 10:30:35 AM
1 votes:

qorkfiend: Epoch_Zero: Any better than Texas setting the national standards for textbooks, mandating that 'distasteful' scientific discoveries be omitted?

You're seriously conflating the large textbook market of Texas with giving Congress the legal power to set national education standards?


If it prevents racists and religious zealots from injecting fascism and outright lies into the textbooks that are used for the national standard, then perhaps it should be looked into. If Homeland Security can be created and instituted in such a short time, having such a demonstrative effect on our lives, perhaps the same method should be used to correct our educational systems.

"Some board members themselves acknowledged this morning that the process for revising curriculum standards in Texas is seriously broken, with politics and personal agendas dominating just about every decision," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, which advocates for religious freedom.

Republican Terri Leo, a member of the powerful Christian conservative voting bloc, called the standards "world class" and "exceptional."

Board members argued about the classification of historic periods (still B.C. and A.D., rather than B.C.E. and C.E.); whether students should be required to explain the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its impact on global politics (they will); and whether former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir should be required learning (she will).

In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specified a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class.
Conservatives beat back multiple attempts to include hip-hop as an example of a significant cultural movement.

Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied, inducing one amendment that would specify that Tejanos died at the Alamo alongside Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. Another amendment deleted a requirement that sociology students "explain how institutional racism is evident in American society."

Democrats did score a victory by deleting a portion of an amendment by Republican Don McLeroy suggesting that the civil rights movement led to "unrealistic expectations for equal outcomes."
2012-10-10 10:29:35 AM
1 votes:

qorkfiend: The damage done by whackjobs on the Texas State Board of Education is mostly limited to Texas, so yes, I would prefer limiting the damage to one or two states instead of inflicting it on every state.


Bless your heart, you really believe that. Too bad it's not true.
2012-10-10 10:24:37 AM
1 votes:

bbfreak: They've become a jobs program


And an incredibly inefficient one at that. We'd seriously be better off canceling a defense acquisition contract and spend the same money on hiring air traffic controllers, VA and CDC doctors and researchers, US Forest Service park rangers, etc. That would put more money directly back into the economy through demand/consumption.

But lots of government jobs are socialism. A handful of private industry jobs wholly dependent upon government contracts are patriotic capitalism.
2012-10-10 10:21:03 AM
1 votes:
incendi: 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.


I posted the wrong one, That one is a Photoshop. The original is still offensive.

s/7373540/79916625#c79916625" target="_blank">imontheinternet: Is that a Cobra logo on the grill?

Yes, well... It's a Blackwater logo here:
sfist.com
2012-10-10 10:15:52 AM
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: While this is true, it's also true that they do use a sh*t ton of things that are pretty much off-the shelf products. Like engines. And wheels. And brakes. And tires. And axles. And seats.


I work with aircraft.

Tanks might share seats.
2012-10-10 10:14:02 AM
1 votes:

ox45tallboy:

Okay, speaking of the Abrams, why did Bush in 2007 approve the sale of 125 M1A1 Abrams tanks to Egypt, a regime that we only three years later supported the overthrow of?

If we are producing so many tanks that we are selling them to other countries, then maybe we're producing too many tanks.


Just an add - its pretty generous to say the US sold those tanks to Egypt. The US gives Egypt a billion dollars or so in 'military aid' that Egypt them uses to 'buy' tanks from the US. We're basically giving away these things.
2012-10-10 10:09:44 AM
1 votes:

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.


And how would it be easier for GM to get private loans if they had gone through "normal bankruptcy"?
2012-10-10 10:09:17 AM
1 votes:

Arkanaut: ox45tallboy: Arkanaut: Agreed. We should be focusing on ways to boost the economy so that there is more demand for other high-tech goods that will require skilled engineers to build them.

If there's one thing we do have, it's the demand. We just don't have the manufacturing capabilities anymore.

[blogs-images.forbes.com image 463x378]

Boeing & Lockheed are still here. The car companies are still here. We have lots of engineering schools.

IMO globalization is a red herring -- it's not that difficult* to bring jobs back. We just have to support wages, a la the EITC or other negative taxation schemes. That lowers costs for employers and makes life easier for workers. Of course you'd have to pay for it on the higher end with taxes, but if taxes are on the individual (e.g. the shareholders) and not the corporation then the marginal benefit to the corporation still outweighs the costs.

*not difficult conceptually; politically it would run into the usual opposition to "socialism".


Removing the burden of providing health insurance from businesses would probably go a long way, as well, but we all know that's socialism too.
2012-10-10 09:59:20 AM
1 votes:
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 09:54:19 AM
1 votes:

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 09:49:18 AM
1 votes:

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


Hey, I responded as well...
2012-10-10 09:45:39 AM
1 votes:

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 09:43:54 AM
1 votes:

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 09:41:18 AM
1 votes:

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 09:40:36 AM
1 votes:

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 09:38:06 AM
1 votes:

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 09:38:02 AM
1 votes:

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 09:37:21 AM
1 votes:
So much for the 'invisible hand of the free market'.
2012-10-10 09:36:14 AM
1 votes:

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 09:35:22 AM
1 votes:

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 09:33:12 AM
1 votes:
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 09:27:58 AM
1 votes:

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 09:27:23 AM
1 votes:

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 09:26:54 AM
1 votes:

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 09:26:03 AM
1 votes:
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 09:25:44 AM
1 votes:

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


We don't need any more tanks.
2012-10-10 09:21:01 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-10-10 09:16:05 AM
1 votes:
If the same tax money and labor went into some other thing it would be socialismz.
2012-10-10 09:07:52 AM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: I dunno, as someone that advocates for deep defense cuts, I fully acknowledge that industry keeps many employed. The horse drawn carriage industry did to at one point as well. If you're no longer needed for any valid defense purpose, you'll lose your job. Maybe become a consultant for whoever we sell the excess to, it's cake work.


So keep the government contracts, but order something else, like civilian government vehicles or computers used for traffic control rather than targeting weapons systems.
2012-10-10 09:05:29 AM
1 votes:

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.


I dunno, as someone that advocates for deep defense cuts, I fully acknowledge that industry keeps many employed. The horse drawn carriage industry did to at one point as well. If you're no longer needed for any valid defense purpose, you'll lose your job. Maybe become a consultant for whoever we sell the excess to, it's cake work.
2012-10-10 09:04:59 AM
1 votes:

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.


Some people get embarrassed, lying in public like that. But not you Mister Straw Man Fighter! You proudly herp the derp. A Real American Hero, you have been awarded the Clint Eastwood Memorial Empty Chair Debater Medal. Congratulations.
2012-10-10 09:02:42 AM
1 votes:

Arkanaut: Agreed. We should be focusing on ways to boost the economy so that there is more demand for other high-tech goods that will require skilled engineers to build them.


If there's one thing we do have, it's the demand. We just don't have the manufacturing capabilities anymore.

blogs-images.forbes.com
2012-10-10 08:59:42 AM
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: And, as I pointed upthread, the next thing you know, someone will get the bright idea of selling all these tanks that are "just sitting there" to some country's government that we'll soon be supporting the overthrow of, which will necessitate even more weapons.


And selling them at a loss to the US government as well.
2012-10-10 08:51:30 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-10 08:48:43 AM
1 votes:

dletter: But, sounds like we have a LOT of tanks sitting out there, that need little to no repair to be ready to deploy. So, other than because some region (and a region very close to me in Ohio) doesn't want to lose jobs... why do we need to just keep paying for tanks that each probably cost what we spend on PBS each year, which we definitely need to defund, amirite?


And, as I pointed upthread, the next thing you know, someone will get the bright idea of selling all these tanks that are "just sitting there" to some country's government that we'll soon be supporting the overthrow of, which will necessitate even more weapons.
2012-10-10 08:47:46 AM
1 votes:
Yeah, I get that you're trying to bring make-work jerbs to your constituents, but maybe you could have them build something useful. I unno, I figure the people who build tanks would probably be more or less the same people we'd engage if we wanted to build a rail transit system that didn't suck. Maybe just do that instead.

Ok, so that would put the airlines out of business. Well, have the guys in that industry make farking spaceships for NASA.

Hey look at that. We're saving money, creating jobs, building infrastructure that people actually use, and doing cutting edge research. Maybe I should run for congress.

/ But we'll all be sorry when China invades and we don't have all those tanks lying around anymore.
2012-10-10 08:45:38 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: The only US aircraft they had prior to the Gulf War was 6 Lockheed JetStars, which are business class jets, not combat aircraft.

All of their small arms were Soviet designed and of USSR, Warsaw Pact, or PRC in origin.


You missed the other stuff I said. We covertly helped them to acquire quite a bit of non-US made armaments. And we supplied them with plenty of intel on the US-made stuff Iran was using.
2012-10-10 08:45:30 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: dletter: Also, maybe it is just me, but, any wars we'll get into, probably sooner than later, will have little need for tanks.

Don't make the classic mistake of projecting the last war you fought into the future.

Besides which, we used tanks extensively in 1991 and in 2003, because we were fighting conventionally armored opponents.


Well, I wasn't saying that 3 years from now, we'd not need tanks. And, I am not saying that we'd NEVER need tanks in wars going way forward.

But, sounds like we have a LOT of tanks sitting out there, that need little to no repair to be ready to deploy. So, other than because some region (and a region very close to me in Ohio) doesn't want to lose jobs... why do we need to just keep paying for tanks that each probably cost what we spend on PBS each year, which we definitely need to defund, amirite?
2012-10-10 08:32:07 AM
1 votes:
1) Defund Planned Parenthood.

2) Fire Big Bird.

3) MOAR TANKS!

4) ???

5) Balanced budget!

/Seriously, where the fark is the Tea Party when wasteful Pentagon boondoggles are at issue?
2012-10-10 08:30:19 AM
1 votes:

dletter: James F. Campbell: BolloxReader: I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

Figure out the minimum production level needed to keep it running and order that number. Keep the skills of the workers current so that we don't have to worry as much about expensive war machines being built solely by inexperienced workers who just happened to be standing in line at the temp agency when the call for workers came in.

Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars.

Also, maybe it is just me, but, any wars we'll get into, probably sooner than later, will have little need for tanks.


This is why we need to invade someone NOW. Haven't these people ever played Civilization? If your army starts costing too much money, you don't just disband units. You throw them at someone else.
I recommend Mexico. Mexico City has a good sized population. We could build a library there, and make all those Mexicans useful.
2012-10-10 08:29:41 AM
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: GAT_00: We waste money maintaining an active fleet of aircraft carriers larger than the entire rest of the world combined for absolutely no reason.

Okay, I'm with you on all the others, but the aircraft carriers are just cool as sh*t, not to mention intimidating as f*ck when you've got one parked 30 nautical miles from your coastline.

However, they are ridiculously expensive, and with all the military bases all over the world that we're currently supporting, virtually all of which have airports, we could probably do without them.

But they're still really f*cking cool.


Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.
2012-10-10 08:06:41 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: I don't know where this myth came up that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons


I don't know... maybe Ted Koppel's 1992 Nightline report? And it's not a myth. The receipts for the rocket assemblies used as delivery mechanisms are on file.

dittybopper: We didn't even significantly arm Iraq: most of their weapons systems are either European in origin, or came from the Soviet Union/Russia.


I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you. While Iran was using mostly American made equipment in the Iran-Iraq war, they didn't buy a large part of it from the US. The ironic thing was that after the war began, the US began covertly supplying Iraq with weapons made elsewhere, so the nations then supplying Iran post-revolution wouldn't get pissed,

And the US did have plenty of above-board direct sales of things like helicopters and dual-use items like rocket assemblies. A sh*t ton of the evidence we had of Iraq's military capabilities in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion came from the fact that we knew exactly what we were looking for.
2012-10-10 08:03:32 AM
1 votes:

dletter: Also, maybe it is just me, but, any wars we'll get into, probably sooner than later, will have little need for tanks.


Don't make the classic mistake of projecting the last war you fought into the future.

Besides which, we used tanks extensively in 1991 and in 2003, because we were fighting conventionally armored opponents.
2012-10-10 03:37:21 AM
1 votes:

BolloxReader: I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.


It would be really great if the army had a rebuttal to that point in the article. The whole thing seems to boil down to gambling on whether or not we will be in a large scale tank war sometime in the next 25 years. I am guessing no. In fact, it sort of seems like the WWI moment of charging a tank with calvary because it is all you know.
2012-10-10 02:20:43 AM
1 votes:
Tell you what, start selling the oldest ones at auction without the firing parts included. I'll be in the line somewhere to help rid you of the back stock...
 
Displayed 114 of 114 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report