Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 69 of 69

Thread: What Govt. Spending are Democrats/Liberals Supporting of Cutting?

  1. #61
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4008497]tell that to the Taliban

    speaking of which let me know when Bin Ladin gets in a jet fighter[/quote]

    As you yourself have said a million times, Terrorists are not a War, they're a job for Police and Law Enforcement.

    Mountains stop Law Enforcement, I think we'd agree.;)

    [QUOTE]China, Russia and India are not our enemies. they are Allies... at least economically[/QUOTE]

    Using the work Allies with #1 and #2 is incredably naive IMO. We have economic ties, we are not Allies in any form.:rolleyes:

    And at this point, we're just going round and round teh same idea much stated now. You don't beleive a future Convential War is possible, I do.

  2. #62
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4008510] You don't beleive a future Convential War is possible, I do.[/QUOTE]

    even if I grant possible... is there a military scenario where the lack of a f35 is the difference between winning and losing? like f22 and b2 aren't enough? it's not like the USA doesn't have stealth fighter/bombers.

    or put it another way do we need these things on day1 of the war? in WWII they ramped up production and got it done when they needed to do it... unless my history is wrong we weren't building tons of battleships in 1935 "just in case"

    the endless escalation is a relic of cold war... we are still wildly outspending everyone even tho the USSR already cried uncle.

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4008525]or put it another way do we need these things on day1 of the war? in WWII they ramped up production and got it done when they needed to do it... unless my history is wrong we weren't building tons of battleships in 1935 "just in case"[/QUOTE]

    How many lives were lost because they had to put homemakers to work back home building advanced weaponry that they hadn't accounted for needing.

  4. #64
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4008525]even if I grant possible...[/quote]

    Backtracking?

    [quote] is there a military scenario where the lack of a f35 is the difference between winning and losing?[/quote]

    Yes.

    US. or Proxy vs. Russia or Proxy. And US or Proxy vs. China or Proxy. Both of whom have or are ramping up to have, equipment capable of more than handling out-dated F15's and F-16's. Including fighters. Which they will undoubtedly sell abroad.

    You bemoan that we're "buyign for wars of the past", when in truth you prefer that, technological stagnation....the F-35 is for Wars of the future, F-16 and F-14's were for wars of the past, the last war. He who fights the last war usually loses.

    As I've said, you'd have made a brilliant British Millitary man Bit, they though manned aircraft were a thing of the past....in the late 40's.

    [quote]like f22 and b2 aren't enough?[/quote]

    The F-22 we've agreed has been thus far an abject failure operationally, and is a different kettle of fish to the F-35 (pure air-to-air fighter vs. multi-role fighter-bomber)? Or the what, 22 total B-2's we have (Strategic/Nuke Bombers, a whole different Fish to Fighter Aircraft such as the F-35, or the various planes it's designed to replace).

    [QUOTE]it's not like the USA doesn't have stealth fighter/bombers.[/QUOTE]

    The fact you view the B-2 as a "Fighter-Bomber" shows an inherant lack of knowledge on the subject Bit. It's nothing of the sort.

    [QUOTE]or put it another way do we need these things on day1 of the war? in WWII they ramped up production and got it done when they needed to do it... [/QUOTE]

    US today =/= US of then. Weapons Technology of 1940's =/= Weapons Technology of 2011+. Designing and building a competative combat platform today is a little bit more complicated than in WWII Bit.

    [QUOTE]unless my history is wrong we weren't building tons of battleships in 1935 "just in case"[/QUOTE]

    Might want to recheck your History. We build plenty of Battleships Pre-WWII.

    [quote]the endless escalation is a relic of cold war... we are still wildly outspending everyone even tho the USSR already cried uncle.[/QUOTE]

    Yet despite outspending (admittedly) both the Russians and Chineese (and the Euros) we find that our Millitary Technology has eqither been equalled by all of them, or in some cases been exceeded.

    Sounds like we have a problem, eh?

  5. #65
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hard to know what we will need in some future war. Clearly we have subsidized all of our allies defense. France and Great Britian couldn't have maintained a no fly zone in Libya for a couple of weeks without us doing the heavy lifting. Their entire arsenal of smart bombs are allready depleted.

    The reality is we did win WW2 and the cold war by outproducing our enemies. That comes from a vibrant and diverse economy that produces not just steel, energy, carbon fibers, jets, ships and computers but brilliant minds that can think outside of the box.

    If we don't get our budget in order which probably does mean massive cuts in SS, Medicare and Defense along with a tax reform that include tax increases through the lowering of deductions, we aren't going to be in a position to outproduce many of our potential enemies.

  6. #66
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4008539]Backtracking?
    [/quote]

    it's granting a point for the sake of argument.


    [QUOTE=Warfish;4008539]
    et despite outspending (admittedly) both the Russians and Chineese (and the Euros) we find that our Millitary Technology has eqither been equalled by all of them, or in some cases been exceeded.

    Sounds like we have a problem, eh?[/QUOTE]

    the problem is should we keep spending or should we balance the budget? someone could make a case for every piece of gov't spending. Return of investment is the question.

    Someone in the thread earlier said it perfectly we could cut military spending by 50% and still be #1 by far.

  7. #67
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,376
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4008539]He who fights the last war usually loses. [/QUOTE]

    See Iraq 2003 vs. Persian Gulf War :yes:

  8. #68
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,286
    Post Thanks / Like
    The worst part about the DOD spending is that we buy too many fighters up front and then have to scale back production (F 35).

    [QUOTE]The Pentagon would buy nearly one-third fewer F-35 joint strike fighter aircraft between 2012 and 2016 under a five-year spending program outlined Thursday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

    The plan would mean a dramatic slowdown in the anticipated pace of aircraft production by Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors.

    Total buys of all three variants would fall from 449 planes, as projected as recently as a year ago, to 325 planes over the five year period. The detailed plan document is attached below.[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2011/01/gates-f-35b-gets-two-years-to-fix-or-kill-it.html#ixzz1KZ9cyi13[/url]

    And there is no way in hell that we will use even 325 of these F 35's in any war in the near term. We already control the sky and the seas.

  9. #69
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4008565]it's granting a point for the sake of argument.[/quote]

    Why do you always want to argue with me? I thought we were friends.:P

    [quote]the problem is should we keep spending or should we balance the budget?[/quote]

    Bit of everything, you ask me.

    -Cut Defense, yes, but not technoloical superiority and generational advancement (but put a huge dose of private-sector style accountabillity and efficientcy into the process).

    -Cut Entilements (Grandfathered of course) by increasing qualification ages, havin benefits be tied to wealth, ending all benefits (of any kind, including anchor babies) to illegals, and shifting to (as much as possible) Private saving plans, not Govt. run "open lockboxes".

    -Change how we tax. This is a hundred threads in and of itself.

    -A litany of other cuts, most of which the left wants to save (non-vital, feel-good spending).

    [quote]Someone in the thread earlier said it perfectly we could cut military spending by 50% and still be #1 by far.[/QUOTE]

    They're wrong, IMO. We're only barely technologicly #1 right now, today. We could cut spending and be better, but it requires a metric ****-ton of changes in how we (the Govt.) does business.

    What did you say to me once about being relaistic?;)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us