E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Saurabh Das / AP file
U.S. M1 Abrams tanks withdraw to a safe position after mortar rounds landed nearby in Kufa, Iraq, on April 29, 2004.
Editor's note: This article was corrected after publication. An earlier version incorrectly said the Pentagon spends $3 billion every 82 minutes. The Pentagon actually spends $3 billion in a little more than a day. Also, the earlier version said that members of the House Armed Services Committee got $31,500 from General Dynamics during a two-week period in September last year. The correct figure is $30,500.
The M1 Abrams tank has survived the Cold War, two conflicts in Iraq and a decade of war in Afghanistan. No wonder – it weighs as much as nine elephants and is fitted with a cannon capable of turning a building to rubble from two and a half miles away.
But now the machine finds itself a target in an unusual battle between the Defense Department and lawmakers who are the beneficiaries of large donations by its manufacturer.
The Pentagon, facing smaller budgets and looking towards a new global strategy, has decided it wants to save as much as $3 billion by freezing refurbishment of the M1 from 2014 to 2017, so it can redesign the hulking, clanking vehicle from top to bottom.
Its proposal would idle a large factory in Lima, Ohio, as well as halt work at dozens of subcontractors in Pennsylvania, Michigan and other states.
Opposing the Pentagon’s plans is Abrams manufacturer General Dynamics, a nationwide employer that has pumped millions of dollars into congressional elections over the last decade. The tank’s supporters on Capitol Hill say they are desperate to save jobs in their districts and concerned about undermining America’s military capability.
So far, the contractor is winning the battle, after a well-organized campaign of lobbying and political donations involving the lawmakers on four key committees that will decide the tanks’ fate, according to an analysis of spending and lobbying records by the Center for Public Integrity.
Sharp spikes in the company’s donations – including a two-week period in 2011 when its employees and political action committee sent the lawmakers checks for their campaigns totaling nearly $50,000 – roughly coincided with five legislative milestones for the Abrams, including committee hearings and votes and the defense bill’s final passage last year.
After putting the tank money back in the budget then, both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have again authorized it this year — $181 million in the House and $91 million in the Senate. If the company and its supporters prevail, the Army will refurbish what Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno described in a February hearing as “280 tanks that we simply do not need.”
The Center for Public Integrity
The cash and the tank. Click to enlarge image.
It already has more than 2,300 M1’s deployed with U.S. forces around the world and roughly 3,000 more sitting idle in long rows outdoors at a remote military base in California’s Sierra mountains.
The $3 billion at stake in this fight is not a large sum in Pentagon terms – it’s roughly what the building spends in a little more than a day. But the fight over the Abrams’ future, still unfolding, illuminates the major pressures that drive the current defense spending debate.
These include a Pentagon looking to free itself from legacy projects and modernize some of its combat strategy, a Congress looking to defend pet projects and a well-financed and politically savvy defense industry with deep ties to both, fighting tooth-and-nail to fend off even small reductions in the budget now devoted to the military – a total figure that presently composes about half of all discretionary spending.
Vulnerable to IEDs but impervious to Pentagon budgeteers
The M1 Abrams entered service in 1980, but first saw combat during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. That episode indicated that, on the battlefield at least, the only thing that could destroy an Abrams was another Abrams; only seven of the tanks deployed in the operation were destroyed, all by friendly fire.
In the last decade, however, as hundreds were deployed to Iraq and later Afghanistan, a key shortcoming became apparent: Their flat bottoms made the Abrams surprisingly vulnerableto improvised explosive devices (IEDs). As a result, the Abrams in Iraq ended up being used as “pillboxes”— high-priced armored bunkers used to protect ground.
“The M1 is an extraordinary vehicle, the best tank on the planet,” Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general now with the nonprofit National Security Network, said in an interview. Since the primary purpose of tanks is to kill other tanks, however, their utility in modern counterinsurgency warfare is limited, he added.
Ashley Givens, a spokeswoman for the Army’s Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems, said that the Army can refurbish all 2,384 tanks it needs by the end of 2013. Freezing work after that, she said, will allow the Army to “focus its limited resources on the development of the next generation Abrams tank,” rather than building more of the same that “have exceeded their space, weight and power limits."
Warfare has changed, Odierno explained while discussing the Army’s new strategy at the February hearing: “We don’t believe we’ll ever see a straight conventional conflict again in the future.”
But top Army officials have so far been unable to get political traction to kill the M1. Part of the reason is that General Dynamics and its well-connected lobbyists have been carrying a large checkbook and a sheaf of pro-tank talking points around on the Hill.
For example, when House Armed Services Committee member Hank Johnson, D-Ga., held a campaign fundraiser at a wood-panelled Capitol Hill steakhouse called the Caucus Room just before Christmas last year, someone from GD brought along a $1,500 check for his reelection campaign. Several months later, Johnson signed a letter to the Pentagon supporting funding for the tank. Johnson spokesman Andy Phelan said the congressman has consistently supported the M-1 “because he doesn't think shutting down the production line is in the national interest."
The contribution was a tiny portion of the $5.3 million that GD’s political action committee and the company’s employees have invested in the current members of either the House and Senate Armed Services Committees or defense appropriations subcommittees since Jan. 2001, according to data on defense industry campaign contributions the Center for Public Integrity acquired from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
These are the committees that approve the Pentagon’s spending every year; without their support, the tank – or any other costly military program -- would be dead.
Kendell Pease, GD’s vice president for government relations and communications, said in an interview that the company – which produces submarines and radios for the military, as well as tanks -- makes donations to those lawmakers whose views are aligned with the firm’s interests. “We target our PAC money to those folks who support national security and the national defense of our country,” says Pease. “Most of them are on the four (key defense) committees.”
But Pease denies trying to time donations around key votes, saying that the company’s PAC typically gives money whenever members of Congress invite its representatives to fundraisers. “The timing of a donation is keyed by (members’) requests for funding,” he says, adding that personal donations by company employees are not under his control. He said the donations tend to be clumped together because lawmakers often hold fundraisers at the same time.
More cash at key milestones
During the current election cycle, General Dynamics’ political action committee and its employees have sent an average of about $7,000 a week to members of the four committees. But the week President Obama announced his defense budget plan in 2011, the donations spiked to more than $20,000, significantly higher than in any of the previous six weeks. A second spike of more than $20,000 in donations occurred in early March 2011, when Army budget hearings were being held.
At a March 9 hearing of the House subcommittee dealing with land forces, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, railed against the Army’s decision to freeze work on the Abrams. Since the start of 2001, Reyes has received $64,650 in GD donations, including $1,000 on March 10, the day after the hearing, according to the data. Reyes office did not return a request to comment; his overall campaign receipts in the current election cycle have been $1 million.
Another large spike occurred the first two weeks of May 2011, a period in which the House Armed Services Committee voted 60-1 for a budget bill containing money to continue work on the Abrams through 2013. Over this period, GD’s PAC and employees donated a total of $48,100 to members of the four committees, with almost $20,000 of that going directly to members of the House Armed Services Committee as they voted.
During another two week period in September, in which the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense handed in its conference report and Congress rushed to pass a stopgap spending bill to keep the government open, the company sent $36,500 to members of the four committees — primarily the House Armed Services Committee, whose members got $30,500.
The final large spike in donations last year came the week of Dec. 11-17, when Congress made a final vote on the whole budget. During this week, GD’s donations to members of the four committees totaled $17,000.
Along with its checks, the company has been carrying around a message that a cutoff of tank manufacturing work in Lima will harm the nation’s “industrial base,” using what has become a favorite expression of alarm for military contractors facing cutbacks.
The workforce “is not like a light switch. You can’t just click it off, then walk away for three years, come back and click it on,” Pease said. Smaller suppliers who exclusively make parts for the Abrams could be shuttered if the Army’s spending stops, he said. GD has also accused the Army of underestimating the plant’s temporary shutdown costs, claiming that the government’s actual savings would be minimal.
To help bring its corporate viewpoint to lawmakers, General Dynamics has spent at least $84 million over the past 11 years on lobbyists, according to Senate Office of Public Records lobbying data acquired from the Center for Responsive Politics. Just in the last year and a half, the firm — which draws nearly three-quarters of its revenues from public tax dollars in the form of federal contracts — has spent at least $13.5 million on more than 130 individual advocates, who pressed Congress to fund a variety of military and non-military programs at the firm.
While lobbyists often do not name their causes, those working for GD that specifically listed the Abrams tank, along with other topics, reported earning at least $550,000 from 2011 to the first quarter of 2012, according to the data. Pease described the lobbying efforts as “education… Shame on us if we don’t go and tell them (Congress) our side, because the Army is doing the same thing as we’re doing, having just as many meetings as we are.”
Relying on special contacts
In addition to tapping its in-house team, the company also hired outside firms to help sway lawmakers’ votes, which in turn assigned the General Dynamics account to former congressional staff tightly connected to committee members — part of the “revolving door” phenomenon now common among veterans of both political parties.
GD paid the Podesta Group nearly $1.7 million since 2009 to lobby on the defense appropriations and authorizations bills, according to lobbying disclosure forms. Among the more than 20 Podesta lobbyists assigned to the account was Josh Holly, communications director for the House Committee on Armed Services under Republican leadership for six years.
According to Holly’s bio on the Podesta website, he worked directly with Republican Buck McKeon of California, its current chairman. McKeon is a major recipient of GD campaign donations, garnering $68,000 from GD’s PAC and employees since the start of 2001 — with $56,000 of that coming just since 2009, when he became the committee’s top Republican. Holly did not respond to emails and phone calls seeking his comment and committee spokesman Claude Chafin said McKeon has consistently argued that it is fiscally smarter to keep the Abrams work going than to stop it.
Podesta also assigned the GD account to two former House Appropriations Committee aides. One of them, Jim Dyer, confirmed that he lobbied on the tank this year, but directed other questions to General Dynamics. GD also hired firms that assigned its account to six other lobbyists who worked for the relevant committees and to a former Pentagon liaison to Congress.
Click here to sign up to receive our Top News email each day.
Pease said that when working with outside firms, he lets them pick the specific lobbyists on the account. But when picking the firms, “you always look for those people who can get the job done,” he says, referring to his approach as using a rifle rather than a shotgun. The company hires “a lot of individuals who understand our message, and how to deliver the message, so we can educate the right people, so they can understand our side of the equation.”
The company’s efforts so far have had great success. In April, 111 House Republicans joined with 62 House Democrats in a letter to Secretary Panetta decrying the decision to freeze work on the tanks. Less than a quarter were from Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania — the rust belt states with small subcontractors that would be directly impacted by a halt to Abrams work.
Of the 173 signers, 137 received contributions totaling more than $2 million from GD since 2001. Giving to Republicans and Democrats was split in half, with Republicans receiving about 51 percent of contributions, and Democrats 49 percent. More than half of the Armed Services committee and defense appropriations subcommittee members signed, effectively telgraphing the outcome of their deliberations.
The first signature was from Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., whose district includes the Detroit suburb of Sterling Heights, the location of the headquarters for General Dynamics Land Systems. Rep. Levin’s brother is Michigan Democrat Sen. Carl Levin, the powerful head of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Levin has received $46,200 from General Dynamics since 2001; his brother has received $43,000.
In a written statement, Rep. Levin said he wants to protect the Abrams because it is of “vital importance to more than 60 local companies” in Michigan and the difficulty of restarting tank production after a hiatus. Rep. Levin’s spokesman Josh Drobnyk says Levin has not conferred with his brother on the issue but confirms that representatives from GDLS contacted the congressman’s office about the Abrams.
Sen. Levin’s spokeswoman Tara Andringa said that “based on information on the M1 tank program from the Army, from contractors, and from independent analysts,” the senator supported the funds for the Abrams as being in “the best interests of U.S. security and protecting taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars.”
Both this year and last year, the funds were added to the President’s proposed budget without a specific recorded vote, in what independent experts have termed an earmark — money directed by members of Congress to a pet project that often benefits their district. Earmarks were supposed to have been banned after the 2010 election, but lawmakers have decided that when multiple members favor adding funds – rather than just one lawmaker – it is not formally an earmark.
So far, there has been a great silence on the Abrams funding issue from congressional deficit hawks. Rep. Jim Jordan, who represents the Ohio district where the Lima plant is located and has received $31,000 for his campaigns from General Dynamics’ leadership PAC and employees, said he is now optimistic that the Abrams money will make it safely through the Senate.
If it does, the fight still might not be over. The White House, in its May 15 responseto the House budget, objected to the “unrequested authorization” of funds for the Abrams during a “fiscally-constrained environment.” The administration did not specifically threaten a veto over the issue but said that if too many unrequested projects impeded “the ability of the administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources,” senior advisors will recommend the president veto the bill.
Reporter Zach Toombs and Data Editor David Donald contributed to this report.
The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit, independent investigative news outlet.
Leave a Comment:
Save the 3 billion by cutting all aid to Pakistan, then keep building the tanks..........
Seven -- are you nuts? This is bribery and blackmail by General Dynamics. We don't need these tanks. We need names of the Congressmen who keep this loser tank rolling. Where is the war that needs these tanks?
So we build and rehab them, and they sit in the yards....that's spending money wisely!
Yes, we need to put 10' of thousands of Americans with good paying jobs out of work, so we can spend the money on buying condoms for crack whores...brilliant
Lets let some reality into your world. It not the terrorists that are going to kill you its cancer. Radical Muslims are not going to torture you to death Alzheimer Disease will. All the M1s in world wont protect you it is a bunch of people in labs funded by the NIH who may be able to do it. Congress wants to slash funding to the NIH to keep money flowing to defense contractors. Are you willing to die for defense contractors profits?
Sally: We do need them (hell, tanks are being used in Afghanistan as we speak by a few countries). We may not need them now, but the future is murky. At one point in the past, we didn't have fighters with any gun armaments because someone said aerial gunfights are a thing of the past. Then Vietnam happened. Our fighters were getting chewed up by enemy fighters that closed to range and engaged in dogfighting. Today, regardless of how technologically advanced our fighters are, they still have internal guns or the option to carry gun pods. Same concept. Canada was on the verge of retiring all of their Leopard II Main Battle Tanks; then Afghanistan happened and they found a use for them.
@ Mr Willie: You must be in the North of the country. Do a google search on how the Marines and Canadian have been effective with their tanks.
All the more reason to establish Term Limits for all Politicians.... get them out of office before the kickbacks blind them to what their real purpose is supposed to be!
I just wish the Media or the Leaders that you worship would be honest with you for just one minute...
Defense Spending is American Jobs, Jobs that cannot be outsourced, Constitutionally authorized spending...that supports communities all across America...please someone turn on a light in this dark room...this is getting really scary...
Mr. P.
I agree that it means jobs, but did you just hear yourself? How is this different than an Obama stimulus? I'll tell you how... we're saying keep the funding to build worthless tanks while denying what could be those same funds to rebuild our roads and bridges and other infrastructure. The tanks have no return but scrap value while the infrastructure has a huge return on investment.
I'm with you, though. I'm a "jobs" guy. But I'm also for a well focused stimulus and partial funding for local and state governments while we work the economic recovery thing.
Your false drama point about crack whores is a tiring tactic though... the GOP has adopted that tactic to elect Romney and it IS getting old.
This is EXACTLY what Eisenhower warned us about, and we have failed to heed his warning...BEWARE THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. At least the military is starting to think about his warning, and trying to eliminate the costly programs that don't benefit our security.
"We downsize our military because it becomes politically correct, then we take it in the shorts, can anyone say 9/11? I hope we never have to use them, I hope we never have to use our military again, but that is wishful thinking."
Please tell me how having a $ 1 trillion dollar military helped us on 9/11? Or would of helped us for that matter since we did!
"That money is in the pockets of US soldiers and their families who are paying for their kid education and health-care, "
...and the $ 8 billion missing in Iraq and the opportunity cost of we could of spent it elsewhere or used it to pay down the debt?
Saying that the tanks should not be maintained,or upgraded to be less vulnerable to new threats,is foolish...I can understand the Chief of staff saying 280 tanks are not needed out of 3000...They could be so NMC,..non-mission-capable as to be not worth the repair costs.I was involved with the feilding of M1's,and M1A1's to our unit in the early '90's..and the later mod up to the M1A2 was a giant improvement to survivability for the tank crew...These tanks might seem like parked dinosaurs right now,but should be at least maintained,and waiting for the next time they are needed....Look at the Navy,...Army guys are always messing with Navy guys....The Navy hasn't had to fight in a war with an enemy with a navy,or an air force since WWII.....We bust their chops,but it's nice to know that they're there.....for when one of our politicians gets stupid,or another country's egomaniac leader gets a woody......The old adage of; 'Pray for peace,..but prepare for war..'...could not be more true today......what with the war-loving peace-prize winner in the White House,,and a congress and senate that couldn't vote on a fart......and yes,I'm talking members of BOTH partys.....U.S. Army Disabled Veteran
First, I wouldn't vote for Romney if he was the only candidate running...The RNC and DNC seriously need a hair cut...
Second, the "Stimulus" wasn't what is was claimed to be, the vast majority wasn't used to build anything, yes some went to the states, to help shore up budgets, but most went straight into the bank accounts of "Political Allies" of the writers of the stimulus...it was political theatre to the tune of 800 billion dollars...If it had been "shovel ready" "infrastructure" jobs as it was sold, I'd have no problem with it...But it wasn't
Aaaaaaaaand there's our problem. DC is like a whorehouse with money thrown around like an AK-47. We do not have a Government by the PEOPLE it is a circle jerk of the greatest degree.
When are we going to wake up and fix CAMPAIGN FINANCE? It is our money, our Government and we let them piss all over us daily while doing the Corporations bidding.
I can't do this by myself people....You need to get off your asses and stop filling the pockets of the Corporate Thieves!
"Defense Spending is American Jobs, Jobs that cannot be outsourced, Constitutionally authorized spending...that supports communities all across America...please someone turn on a light in this dark room...this is getting really scary..."
Well wrong...because plenty of the money is spent buying products from overseas suppliers. You think all the electronics in the B-2 is America made. Lets not even mention the fact that the B-2 (a $ 2 billion a copy plane) is another relic of the cold war. Using it to bomb mud huts... ridiculous... when a missile costing .01 % of what the plane costs could do the exact same job without risking a pilot or the plane itself.
To keep building an outdated tank, when even the military leaders say we need to develop a new generation tank, is insanity. We can't afford it! We need to spend our money where it will do the most good. Hire those workers to rebuild the infrastructure that so badly is needed to try to help us become competitive again. And alocate the funds needed to build the tank of the future, quit living in the past!
Remember that only ONE-THIRD of that stimulus money went to projects. One-third went to tax-cuts and one-third went to extended unemployment/COBRA. In other words, two-thirds went directly into the pockets of CITIZENS. The stimulus should have been triple that for the project money. Then we would have seen a major improvement in the economy and in employment, just as many of the economists told us.
Wow, I'm surprised! And yet again we agree. I just try to understand that the "shovel ready" jobs came from existing lists of pet projects that Congress had been working on already... full of all the political payoffs and all.. but were the only thing available in such a short time frame. At least that was the thinking at the time. In retrospect, assigning a small non-partisan "reality panel" to weed out the flawed projects might have worked. Or it might have stalled the stimulus indefinitely. Who knows?
I don't have the anger around the decision for the stimulus but I do have the head-shaking disgust around our "politics-as-usual" that we found surrounding most of the projects.
Also in retrospect, I wish we had focused more on projects and followed through with newly conceived ones that had national scope and better merit. But I also wish we had "trickle stimulated" local and state governments... the current local government slash cut budgets are causing job loss and are hurting consumer and business confidence big-time...
phea - tanks to crack whores? You're rock is calling.
Mr FauxNiques-
I must be really mixed up. I never knew that the purpose of the military was to provide jobs! Surely that must be in the right-wing constitution somewhere, so I hope you can point it out. And aren't you the guys constantly screaming about how we can't win wars because the politicians won't let the generals run them? Just askin'.
Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex buying politicians. Quite clearly, Eisenhower would never be even a Republican nominee for President today.
As usual, it is probable that Wall Street will win. It shouldn't be too hard to look up who votes to keep building and rehabilitating the tanks. It will likely show up on http://www.opensecrets.org/ , and you can safely bet the farm that they will be conservatives.
765 Billion of the 840 Billion has been spent as of 7/20/12
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx#TaxBenefits
Losing the jobs this refurbishing supports would be bad, but we can't waste our tax dollars supporting obsolete weapons systems. The Abrahms was designed to fight Soviet era tanks in large open areas, which it excelled at during Operation Desert Storm, twenty years ago. Like the article stated, the type of warfare we are now engaged in is more suited to a smaller, lighter type of vehicle with different weapons and defensive capabilities. I personally don't believe the Abrahms is entirely out dated, but I do believe we should be spending those dollars developing a more appropriate wepons system, one that is more suited to the changing face of the battle field. These new systems will also provide jobs, most likely at the same factories that the work supporting the Abrahms is being done now.
Bribery is legal and our political system is broken.
Your rock is calling. With apologies.
Sally in Chicago
I'm with Seven2Seven on this one. Stop spending billions in bribe money (peace building foreign aid) to Pakistan to the tune of 3 Billion, Israel another 3.2 Billion, and Egypt 1.6 Billion ANNUALLY and keep the tanks and keep Americans working. The only foreign aid these countries and others should get from us is in the form of our dollars purchasing cotton tee-shirts or some sheets.
Your idea is build them when they are needed? Now that's bright. I would compare that to being pregnant and then seeking birth control. Preparedness and prevention are some powerful tools.
I would rather have the tanks and not need them, than to need them and not have them.
All right, here's the real solution. As Americans, we must live in a constant state of fear. (I learned this in the Republican Handbook, 1984.) Because these tanks are so impressive and virtually indestructible, except when we blow them up ourselves, because that's the friendly thing to do, we should use them here in the U.S.
We should give them to local police departments. As we know, the drug war is being lost. Tanks will solve that problem. They will further bolster the horribly weakened, woefully undermanned, and outgunned local gendarmes. As it is, they have only small air forces and navies, and they desperately need these tanks.
It's times like this I wonder how anyone can be so blind to the need for these tanks and why they must be sacrificed to pay off bills, provide education, and health care.
Priorities people, priorities. We must all be very afraid. Is this a great country or what?
I'm not sure whether any of you got the point, but there are already thousands of Abrams tanks being used and warehoused. We have enough of them to meet our current and future defense needs at this time and for the foreseeable future. They have limited utility for urban warfare which seems to be the next threat. While, some will need to be retrofitted to limit their vulnerability to IEDs, it doesn't make sense in this fiscal environment. Virtually the only budget to recieve a top line increase over the past decade has been the defense complex whether internal or external.
As for the stimulus, at least here in the northern VA, Maryland, and DC metro area the massive improvements to the infrastructure are real with major improvements to the road system. While, it may not have resulted in all the jobs that were touted, it did save thousands of state and local workers (police, fire, teachers, etc.) at least for a few years. And it also stopped and changed the direction from the free fall in job losses that were taking place. Of course job growth would certainly be helped if our coroporations actually invested in the US rather than leaving trillions of dollars parked overseas.
US politicians love flushing money down the toilet as long as they get a piece....
Warfare has changed, Odierno explained while discussing the Army’s new strategy at the February hearing: “We don’t believe we’ll ever see a straight conventional conflict again in the future.”
Will we ever learn? Desert Storm was a major problem with troop transport. We had to use Civilian Airliners because our Goverment cut funds for Military transport. If we indeed had another Major Conflict which no one can ever be positive it will not happen..where will we be? Pearl Harbor taught a major lesson that we should always be ready. 911 was a major f-up and a reality check that we slipped up again. We should keep what we have, mothball what we are not using, keep some at the ready for conflicts and training now, and start looking at future Tank development. What i read from this story is that the Goverment is more worried people are making millions off their spending. duh..thats how business is run isnt it? from the small machine shop that turns out engine blades or bearings and so on, stockholders make money..etc. to use that to scare people is pure BS, most people know how the business world turns, or is it the mindset of a few kiss ass politicians who want people to believe the hype that its a waste of money? wow..and how much are we giving to third world countries every day? Bridge building, shovel ready jobs? where? stupidity plain and simple. they cry that our military needs the right tools, the right equipment to get the job done, no brainer..so stop stripping the Military down..and start refusing to prop up goverments by giving millions and billions to them.
Keynesian theory doesn't work...unless the spending is for military hardware.
This sort of nonsense was bad enough before Citizens United. No bribery is entirely legal.
@LmarcT
Maybe it is just my military background, or the respect that I have for the men and women putting their lives on the line to protect this nation, I get a little nauseous listening to the lefties spitting in the faces and on the graves of our service members and those who supported, loved and were supported by them...and maybe I let that bleed over a little into other topics...and for that I apologize
But for all the attacks that I heard, by the anti-war crowd, that Bush took us to war, without the protective equipment for the troops, and vehichles...and without the systems to win the war... like the drones and stealth helicopters...to now hear them calling that same spending wasteful...it just tweeks me a little
Hey, politicians are stupid, but not that stupid, if they allow the A1's to be cut, that's money out their pockets, for their steaks, scotch, cigars, and male, or female whores.
LOL and I bet you're about to vote for Romney, with him you'll need those tanks, after all, he can't wait to put America in Iran.
The article describes an apppalling situation; it's exactly how I thought things worked. Corporatioons with money subvert the democratic processs with their financial manipulation. How can we pound money down this rathole forever and begrudge peoip0le afffordable health care?
Defense Lobbyist's money is for bribery. Too bad these lobbyist don't work for infrastructure repair companies or other companies that build America! Building something for the military that the military doesn't want to save jobs is one of the stupidest things I've heard of.
@ Moshuluu
http://mrpheaniques.newsvine.com/_news/2012/07/03/12533401-the-ten-for-American-Independents-day
If this issue was run on a free-market basis, there wouldn't be an issue - if there was no demand, no market for the tanks, the manufacturer wouldn't make them anymore. In this case, the Army is the market, and they are saying that they want to refurb the ones they need, and not refurb the rest so they can redesign. So the "market" has spoken and if that means a plant has to shut down, that's what it means, just like in the "real" world where a company produces what the market wants, or dies. The "product" in this case is not suitable for current use without refurb, and its current use is limited anyway due to changing conditions. So because a manufacturer is not keeping pace with market demand, we're going to bail them out?
How many of you objected to bailing out the banks? How many of you holler about letting companies fold if they don't produce what the market needs? Why is GD different, and why should we bail them out? Yes, it means jobs. Should those jobs exist if they are producing something that is not needed? Should the factory be re-set and those jobs retrained to accommodate the refurb that's needed? Should GD be more concerned about the new design instead of continuing to produce the old ones? And for those talking about preparedness, are you willing to be unprepared for future conflicts in new arenas with enemies who don't fight in the old ways to save something that doesn't work without refurb even now?
More importantly, the Army rarely says they don't want to spend $ on something. So why aren't we listening to them? I do understand the jobs issue. But spending taxpayer money on something that is not needed is not the answer to a potential factory shutdown. Maybe the money would be better spent on re-training and/or infrastructure projects so those people can find other jobs. And GD can spend their money on weapons for the future instead of for the past rather than using it to buy votes.
When the military is saying, "Please, no more. We have enough." They are the experts, so if these vehicles serve no purpose (and with 60% idled that must be the case), save some money and/or instruct GD in a new direction of weapons development.
The irony of bribing elected officials with our own taxpayer dollars cannot be lost.
If Congress shoves these tanks down the Pentagon's throat, then the Pentagon should just have all the tanks driven and parked at the US Capital. Let the idiots who bought them take them home!
The Politicians, are all bought and paid for. This is a prime example.
I can't help but wonder where you live. Around me and in the surrounding states out to the East coast every road, bridge and tunnel is torn up using stimulus money to rebuild. People are working like mad on the highway infrastructure.
Are you in...I don't know, New Mexico or some place? Or do you just never leave your house?
You're sure full of rhetoric without facts to back you.
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
Next time you're going to lie try to keep a straight face.
Typical... lobbyists and special interests calling the shots... Your American tax dollars at work!?
Make sure you hide behind the flag. That way you don't have to answer for your lame BS.
I find if odd how those pretending to care about the troops are the same ones willing to send them to senseless wars to die then spout their support for the widows.
Taxpayers give money to Congress, Congress overpays Defense contractors, Defense contractors pay lobbyist, lobbyist pays Congress to get more money for Defense contractors and keep the cycle going!
Republicans complain about spending too much money for unneeded things (when Democrats are in office anyway) and this is not only unneeded but unwanted so why aren't they leading the cause to pull the plug? This way they can blame the Democrats for the stupid funding of obsolete Dinosaurs and take that smart position to the voters.
2 points...
1. Even if this equipment is outdated, you MUST maintain it until its replacement is in service! The United States is equipped to do battle in many ways. This tank (or its capable replacement) is just what the doctor ordered for various scenarios.
2.
Do the math... If this time range covers 11 years, divide all that money by 11. Then divide that amount by the number of recipients. If my math is correct, the average campaign donation is $1,328.47 per year. How does this compare to campaign donations from the UAW to ONLY their democrat recipients...??? Let's look at this objectively...
Save the 3 billion by cutting all aid to Pakistan, then keep building the tanks..........
........Save SIX billion by cutting off aid to Pakistan AND Israel!
Second, the "Stimulus" wasn't what is was claimed to be, the vast majority wasn't used to build anything, yes some went to the states, to help shore up budgets, but most went straight into the bank accounts of "Political Allies" of the writers of the stimulus...it was political theatre to the tune of 800 billion dollars...If it had been "shovel ready" "infrastructure" jobs as it was sold, I'd have no problem with it...But it wasn't
.......Don't often agree with you, but in this case I do. It was galling to see money going straight to incompetent state governments like mine, it should have specifically targeted American companies, to hire American (not illegal) workers, to rebuild roads, bridges, port facilities, etc. Our school system got some of this money and went out and hired more staff instead of paying down debts and bills. They amazingly put this in their newsletter, then said after the stimulus was gone, they had to decide how to afford the new staff. They figured it out of course, they increased their tax levy with our county (heavily GOP by the way) and we all paid high RE taxes.
As far as the defense jobs you are concerned about, sorry, but we shouldn't be spending that money on something that does not improve our defense capabilities. As the article says, there are 3,000 of these babies sitting in the California mountains, doing what, protecting us from the Brown bear and mountain lions. Look, the Army itself says we don't need to waste money on these things, their are other weapon systems that are more line line with today's new realities of combat. You want provide more American jobs, then let's demand a realistic infrastructure bill in Congress. Of course, there will be complaints about more spending. I want to spending reduced also, but intelligently and over a time period so as not to drag down the economy, which will just further our deficit problem when revenues shrink. I've been complaining for years that government programs need to be audited, waste and fraud identified and eliminated (and criminal charges brought ) Yeah, some people constantly scream about cutting all spending immediately, but of course NOT THEIR spending...........YOUR spending! The hypocrisy on both sides is sickening.
@ Mr. Willie,
Your in Afghanistan and your a what?...local national? If you are indeed what your supposing you are (a soldier who can speak to the M1's uses) you would understand better than most that the statement of this tank being a cold war relic is not only false but completely irrelevant.
More importantly the worlds entire battlefield isn't relegated to Afghanistan. Usefulness in one theater doesnt mean usefulness in all theaters. Light Infantry (good in Afghan) were virtually useless in the mobile battlefeilds of Kuwait/Gulf War. Should we have gotten rid of grunts?
It only takes a country with other "cold war" relics, say China, to start an invasion campaign that rivals Germany's in WW2 and the M1 will be right back to being needed....which is why you keep what you have and refurbish them.
It's typical Lefty garbage that tells the U.S. to take money from a solid defense platform and give it to the welfare surfers.
seven2seven,
"Save the 3 billion by cutting all aid to Pakistan, then keep building the tanks.........."
That's a good idea, but they could also save a lot of money if they could figure out some way to improve its gas mileage. The M1 Abrams tank burns more than 1.67 gallons per mile when traveling cross-country and 10 gallons per hour when idle. That's not exactly fuel efficient. How would you like to drive a car like that with the price of gas what it is these days?
Let's cut corporate subsidies and use that $$ to pay for our military. Oh wait, why do we need this tank? Does the GOP have another illegal war that the US has to pay for?
here's an idea- why don't we move into the 21st century? Tanks which have no purpose today yet the politicians who take the defense contractor's $$ have to play the "jobs game". Maybe if these politicians were thinking forward and not about their own pockets we would not be in this situation. Same applies to big oil and car manufacturers- keep pandering to them and we'll never become energy independent. Same applies to Wall Street- keep bailing them out, or better yet going lenient on regulations, and they will game the system to no end...
They need that big stock of tanks and Bradleys and assorted armored personnel carriers.. With our current economic and political insanity going on a collapse would bring chaos.. These mechanized tools of war will be used to keep us in line along with UN and NATO troops.. The Pentagon has a plan for it I guarantee that..
concernedone... your math would make sense if you had read the article. It is $2,000,000 divided by 137 or about $14,598 per contribution. Make that same $2,000,000 contribution enough times, and your talking about real money. But then again, I think you already knew that. Let's look at this objectively...
The whole bribery -I mean "Lobbying" thing is abhorrent and should be stopped. Didn't Obozo promise that was all going to stop under his administration? I'd love to know more about the $Billions in brib- uh, Lobbying that went into the liberal government's pockets + Swiss bank accounts, but that's not worth reporting or perfectly OK.
Let's go back to the original gist of the post; the $3 Billion or more a year to Pakistan so they can build more training camps and mansions for "freedom fighters". The spun version is that aid keeps their nukes on the launcher trucks. A whole different level of blackmail. We already spent $3 Billion on a nuclear deterrent- it's called an Ohio Class. Let's try using THAT, and spend next year's Foreign Aid budget on Abrams upgrades, better body armor and more ammunition for whatever rathole in a different hemisphere (Pacific Theater of Operations, anyone?) we wind up in next.
this is an example of why cutting Government spending doesn't create jobs. Looks, the most immediate effect of killing this programs is job loss.
The M1 is not outdated. It's the most advanced tank in the world. There is no country out there that has a tank that can go head to head with a M1 Abrams.
@Sally in Chicago, I will name you 2 wars this tank will be needed. If it comes down to a war with North Korea and Pakistan.
Objectively is the military does not want or need the tanks, Americans want and need cars and if they are built in America even better! Money spent by the Unions is not the same as your tax dollar! I haven't contributed, directly, to any union money. I have contributed greatly to the government.
This is a great example of our government at work..telling the army what they do or do not need. But lets be clear..do NOT stand in the way of lobbyist money and politicans. Common sense and lobbyist money do not go together...but...politicans and lots of lobby money surely do. Can anyone really wonder just why our national debt is so high when our politicans spend it even when told it is not needed.
Why is it not illegal for a defense contractor to donate money to the very same politicians that decide whether or not we go to war or not? How is that not a conflict of interest?? Disgusting. Eisenhower should be looked at as the modern day Nostradamus because he predicted exactly what is happening now in 1961 in his farewell speech as President. We the people should go to Washington and forcibly put congress in a plane and send them to a war zone to see what their desk chair patriotism is all about.
The true irony here is that it is our tax dollars that fund these defense contractors and their political donations. We actually pay them to hose us! And they said there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.
There should be some basis for eliminating the ability to use income derived from public funds to make political donations of any kind.
Would not the military know more about It's needs than politicians? Why insist on the continuation of spending money to build junk? These same politicians claim we must all listen to the military Generals and Commanders. If a manufacturer gave these sons-a-bitches enough money they would force all our troops to carry "sling shots" to back each fighters gun. This is crazy as hell. Course most politicians are nothing more than outlandish liars and hogs. If we could just find a market for the bullsh^t of fools!
So this is another example of waste and abuse. Let the oil companies pay for their own wars.
agamemnon, what a pile of crock. I'm SO glad you are far more intelligent in the needs of the Defense of our country, than the actual DEFENSE DEPT...... geez.
I would bet my house on the fact the heads of GD are all republican and tout "smaller govt, cut spending, etc....... except when it comes to OUR business".....That is the way it works. A LOT of wealthy people are republicans who follow the party lines.. but have made their fortune on govt spending... contract bids that are a farce, etc. All about the money..... And don't think I'm not blaming dems as well for this latest tank issue. Looks like both sides are dirty on this one.
DeJay - Read this slowly... The story said this number was donated from 2001 to the last year reported. I guess I used an 11 year period for my math since we are still in 2012 and reporting would only be complete through last year.
So please DeJay, continue the calculation all the way through to keep it in perspective.
Here is a short list I found on a watchgod website showing some other "contributions" I refer to when I ask you to keep it in perspective:
I dare them to post the names of the congressmen who received the checks and the amount they received. This would be an important tool in helping people decide who they want to vote for, someone to takes payola or someone who doesn't. There really needs to be a limit on congressional terms and a open book on what kind of money and perks are given to them. Too much is going on under the table.
While on the surface that IS true -- be honest. If it isn't needed it's a make-work project. It's digging a hole and filling it in. It's pork. It's exactly what conservatives rail against when it isn't THEIR pork.
You can't have it both ways if you're honest with yourself.
Mr. PheaNiques -
My brother was one of those in Iraq who was sent there without what was needed to back up him and his troops. Before he left, he started a non-profit and raised money from friends, family, and corporations that went directly to buying things needed for his ttroops to help keep them safe and stay in touch with their loved ones back home. I know of one specific incident where the equipment purchased by the non-profit did save 5 lives in Iraq; I heard the story directly from the colonel involved so know it is true.
I'm saying this not to bring recognition to my brother, but because he's one of the people with a military background who is saying that the M1 isn't suitable as designed, they should refurb the ones they have and not continue to make them as designed, as GD wants to do. He is saying that what Congress and GD wants to do is wasteful, that the money needs to be spent on things the Army does need. He's been there, i have to believe he knows what he's talking about.
My brother and I don't always (not even usually) agree on politics but when it comes to this, we agree. It tweaks me a little that, with your military background, you're not listening to what the military is saying they need.
same thing happened in 1940, Army wanted new rifle, M-1 garand; congress said just do something with the Springfield 1903; when the war started, all troops in the Philippines ,Hawaii, Wake had bolt action 1903; Army had production started on the M1; according to Gen. Patton, the M-1 won the war. same again in Nam, m-14, great gun, but not for jungle fighting, Army finally convinced congress to go for the AR-15, solider could carry 10 times the ammo, we have the best Congress money can buy!
I'll trust that if the military says it doesn't need something, it really doesn't need it.
Those jobs might be lost, but those jobs will transition to building these smaller "striker"-type vehicles and those with similar capabilities. More protection for more troops in the street
It is fiscally irresponsible to invest in something you don't need... especially if it's redundant capacity.
If that's what you're really worried about are the paychecks that the workers would be missing out of while the business shuts down and reinvents itself. It would be cheaper to pay the workers directly while they are out of work while the company restructures itself into something useful.
That would be win/win for every party involved, including the taxpayers, but then it would be spin'd in the media with "Look who's getting paid good money for not working on the taxpayers dime!" and "Socialism, socialism, and socialism."
It's a pretty bonehead move for taxpayers to pay even more to keep producing something useless to society but that's what we do in the name of PR. Stupid.
build busses
build high speed trains
build bike paths
build infrastructure improvements for roads, bridges, airports
or have your congress person build a tank.
This is a clear example of how corporation bribery occurs in our Congress and we are OK with it. The tank was always a problem, impossible to quick deployment by aircraft, since there is a limited number of plane capable to lift it into the operations zone, the tank is not invulnerable, there are new antitank weapons capable to take it down (e.g. Russian made RPG-29), our latest enemies don't have it, although Iraqi cheap EDIs have caused serious damage within urban war zones. Bottom line we are not going to use them to crush an opponent in a traditional war, we need a lighter main battle tank.
Please explain to the class why you would keep building a tank that the DoD says it neither wants nor needs regardless of whether Pakistan gets a dime or not.
I've been in the M1 and even got to fire the 50 cal at the Fort Irwin training range. It's an awesome machine for conventional war, but it has limited use in modern insurgent wars taking place in urban environments. It's heavy, expensive to transport and not very fuel efficient. There's a whole industry revolving around making and maintaining them, so the campaign money didn't surprise me. What did surprise me was there are 3,000 of these monsters sitting mothballed in the Sierras. More than enough for a very long time. I'm sure there is more productive uses for the Lima, Ohio and Michigan tank plants. Perpetually cranking out war machines is not the best use of public money.
Let me address Comment #1.64
Those sacred Oil Companies are irresponsible.
Follow the hypocrisy in Alaska where SHELL had two years to prepare for drilling and STILL can't meet standard EPA requirements .... so now they are asking for a dispensation....
Even after one of their fleet RAN AGROUND (shhh...the media does not make this story a priority ).
At least two events suggest Shell isn’t ready: On July 14, the Noble Discoverer lost its anchor and drifted toward shore in the Aleutian Islands. T
SHELL actually DENIED THIS...but natives posted pictures!
The company this month also asked the Environmental Protection Agency to ease air restrictions for the vessel, which has been unable to meet limits set before the rig headed for Alaska.
Drilling Oil on TV commercials looks clean...but the REALITY is, the CONGRESS SHOULD be more aware of the truth.
Instead, they pin a flag pin on their lapels and shout MORE TANKS!
Just to those who are screaming about American jobs with the M1 plants. The majority of the work is done outside the US. They do the finishing touches here in the US to satisfy government contracts. Also, if they are so worried about building a better tank, why don't THEY build the better tank and then those few US jobs wont go bubye. Oh, I know, why innovate when you can buy a politician?
Till a new tank is ready to replace the Abrams (that is only in the talking stage) shouldn't we maintain what we have? we were caught with our pants down in two world wars, that's why we maintain a military in a state of readiness, even the Korean war caught us off guard and we had to gear up for that, the Hawks cost some money in their quest for defence, the Doves cost allot more money and loss of life by not being prepared. the risk is to great for us to drop our guard in the world today, a tank that doesn't work is useless, and those tanks in the California desert are mothballed they are not combat ready, so refurbishing 286 tanks does not seem out of line to me. besides what cost does a new model come to, its cheaper to maintain then to start over its still a good tank. I wish Obama would get the space program going so we can get off of this rock.
Keep the M1 tank, still the most superior tank out there. Sucks against terrorists, but you think China or Russia will also stay asleep? This tank whips their tanks easy. 60mph over open terrain, shoots 120mm sabot rounds, laser sighting and stabilizers that keeps the cannon on target regardless of bumps and jumps.
That being said, yes this is not efficient in terms of fuel or money, which is why they shouldnt be used in insurgency warfare. This is used for tank battles against nations that actually have them. Send them back home, but still keep up the maintains, at least it won't be expensive if they are kept in a non-sandy enviro......
Wow - reading through this piece, I almost, almost thought that NBC was actually going to print a neutral, non-partisan article. Until the last part of the article, where of course everything had to be blamed on the Republicans.
Democrats are the kings of spending inefficiently. The only reason why they are against it here is because it involves the military industry.
That being said, to be fair and consistent with my political beliefs (which other people here should think about doing) I do agree with the article. If the spending doesn't actually make sense, then it should be stopped. Although, we don't actually know whether the tanks are useful or not...the way NBC News spins things, it could really be that the tanks are essential and that NBC is ommiting key parts of this story.
FYI, both China and Russia have 10k+ tanks each..........
IF we don't keep something at least battle ready to counter...........we be repeating what happened in WWII.......we would fall behind in tank superiority and numbers........
General Odierno - "We don't believe we’ll ever see a straight conventional conflict again in the future”
That's the "
WarStatement to end all Wars."Just more proof that the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about now controls the republican party and America. The shift to the right is so evident and we are moving toward a National Socialist type control if we don't stop the right and the republicans. ( In particular the Teabuggers)
Ok. I have learned a couple things in this discussion.
1) If i type in the word "fact" it makes it so
2) Apparently, there was not mention of Democrats in this article taking donations (sarcasm)
3) If you put something on recovery.gov, it must be a fact because the government would NEVER lie to us
4) There are some dillusional people that think this one factory is worth saving. If we took the money and oh I don't know used it to build a road we actually need, the net job
So my actual thoughts on this is lobbying should end. We need to get the corporations out of government and the government out of corporations.
Money definitely still talks........sigh
@clwyd-2621393 Wrong side, talk to Obama about socialism. Entitlements have grown under Obama more than any other President, the Healthcare Bill is a socialist plan. Get facts straight.
BRIBERY!
Any politician that takes political kickbacks or sells his country should be ejected from the country for treason and all they're wealth reprocessed.
All the Republicans on here will keep saying 'listen to the leaders on the ground' when prosecuting 2 wars costing billions per month, but when same military leaders say we DONT NEED the tank, they are somehow wrong and take another General Dynamics bribe.
More wasteful government spending by the GOP in the name of special interests
The problem is not the fact that unions and corporations donate money to politicians, the problem is that they are allowed to. we need to stop the madness of buying politicians.
Maybe we don't need the tanks today, what about tomorrow?
Now you talk about a bias reporter. He went out of his way to single Democrat congress members as receiving funds although 51% of the money went to Republicans then named Rep. Jim Jordan as the representative of the Lima, Ohio district but failed to mention that he was a Republican that receives donations.
In April, 111 House Republicans joined with 62 House Democrats in a letter to Secretary Panetta decrying the decision to freeze work on the tanks. The number of Republicans signing on to keep the M1 tanks was nearly 2-1 Republican yet he singles out Democrats.
Certainly both parties have their hands in the pockets of GD but lets be impartial on the reporting. The House of Representatives is now controlled by the Republicans. If they are really really serious about cutting the federal budget this is the place to start. Use the excess money to build infrastructure in the US and stop making things at astronomical prices that are no longer of practical use.
Mr.PheaNiques-0000001, you are a hypocrite . . . again. I see you and those of your ilk on here posting so often about how the president needs to listen to the generals (which he does, by the way). Now the generals are saying get rid of this tank, but your message now is suddenly to ignore the generals and listen to the politicians (and Fox News talking heads), all of whom are backed by defense contractor lobbyists. You're such a tool.
meet our members Armed Services Committees
http://www.senate.gov/general/committee_membership/committee_memberships_SSAS.htm
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/members
Can anyone tell me how it is more important to keep funding repairs and manufacturing of tanks that are obsolete (as well as other military projects) over keeping teacher and first responders working? It doesnt matter if you are a Dem or a Repb, if we need to cut spending, everything should be on the table and the priority should always be to first take care of those here at home before we spend on death machines and how to keep the military complex happy.
We all know EVERYTHING about this already. The TL;DR is below.
You aren't going to change your entrenched affixation over your one political party over this, if that is what you do. Of course, it leaves you totally blind to the fact that Republicans and Democrats push for military contracts in their state, and actually, that is what they were hired to do. It is sometimes what happens with a civilian directed military. And I'm not saying it should be different, but...
The multi-state projects are the hardest. M1 is a perfect example of that. Now, you can go back to ANY debatable project in the past, f-22, f-35, b-2, OH AND THE M1 TANK IN THE 1980's!
Does anyone remember that?
Because if you did, you'd remember it was put through anyway, and honestly, what happens is pretty predictable. Sometimes US tech is so far ahead of another countries (Warthog for example, STILL ripping up enemies) that a program even ready to be retired, still performs. Sadly, what ends up happening, is when enough people have been killed, politicians stop wanting to defend a pet project because they'll be seen as being responsible for it and greedy (which we knew they were but started really paying attention when someone died).
That is what is happening now. Nobody paid too much attention even though we knew the M1s shortcomings, though we paid a little. Remember the Stryker? And the failures and the way over budget cost runs with that? You should because it JUST happened within the past 8 years. Now that we have no money and pissy faced Repukes and Dimocrats decided not to work out a budget, and enough soldiers have died, NOW we suddenly care.
Politicians are going to try to let this story quietly go forward. They will argue that it is still effective. Just remember that they aren't arguing FOR is because it means anything more than money for attack adds.
Concern
That is chump change compared to what industry pours in.
Beware of the military industrial complex.
Businesses talk about the fiscal cliff and how it is scaring them to move forward but yet it is these same businesses who are pulling the strings and own these politicians that have created the fiscal cliff. WE ARE IN TROUBLE!
We wouldn't have any left!
Hmm. So the taxpayers pay Congress. Then Congress pays General Dynamics. Then General Dynamics pays Congress. Such a lovely system we have. No conflict of interest there. That's sarcasm, by the way.
Don't lay them off, pay them to build something constructive not destructive. But then you would hear "Socialism." Why is it when taxpayer dollars go to pay people to build something that isn't wanted or needed it's ok but when those same dollars go to people to build and create infrastructure it is socialism and supporting labor?
The people saying scrap the M1 are completely clueless.
The M1 is still the BEST main battle tank on the planet, bar none. Tanks are not just to fight other tanks, but to provide heavy support to ground troops.
Some people say the A-10 warthog is a cold war relic also, it still does its job amazingly.
The M2 .50 MG and 1911 pistol, in service for over 100 years, still working amazingly.
3 Billion dollars? Thats a drop in the bucket with what we spend on our military. I would rather spend the 3 billion updating these tanks than have our government spend hundreds of billions designing a brand new MBT.
Cut off aid to Pakistan and get our troops out of Afghanistan, problem solved.
Why this story does not name names why is Obama allowing this to continue. He made promises about no lobbyist in Washington. Or Barack Obama promised to create five million new energy jobs alone, he claimed that, by the end of the first term, his healthcare plan, would quote, "bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family." He guaranteed that his financial rescue plan would help stop foreclosures. In the first year of his presidency, he pledged, quote, "to cut the deficit we inherited in the half by the end of my first term in office." He said he would, quote, "lift two million Americans from poverty" and, quote, "jolt our economy back to life."
concernedone.... The AFL-CIO represents ove 12 million people. How much does that represent per person? A fraction of what GD spends per person. Also, where are the sources for these donation totals? I remember a factcheck group debunking something similar to this a while ago.
Our founding fathers were against a standing army because they lived the history that we have forgotten. Standing Armies lead to colonialism and the eventual fall of the country with the standing armies. What people like George Washington knew was war is hell and if we do not educate ourselves (impossible in public schools with political agendas) we are doomed to repeat this history over and over. The leaders now know nothing of putting their lives or riches on the line for the people, it is just the opposite. Welcome to being doomed America. As far as the rich traitors that fill our congress and corporate offices and the jackals that pay them contributions for favors, they will just take our money to a new country and start again while the good hardworking people are slaughtered. This also has been done all throught history, just look at jewish history.
We're @!$%#ed. That's it. The Supreme Court saw to it when it equated money with free speech. The Houses of Congress are now little more that a bordello. We need to do whatever has to be done to overturn "Citizens United". Now will be a good time to start...
First, let me start out by saying I am conservative and support the military. But I am also for smaller government, eliminating debt, and letting the markets move resources efficiently from non-efficient use to efficient use.
What also needs to be understand is this tank problem is not the problem - it is a symptom. A symptom of elected officials looking out for THEIR best interest and not the best interest of the TAXPAYER!! I am just as sorry as the next that people will lose their jobs but this purchase is NOT in the best interest of the taxpayer.
We have MASSIVE government waste and it is across the board. From the military, to GSA, to the Department of Education, to the Department of Energy, to Food Stamp and Welfare programs, to Social Security, and the list goes on and on. We only hear the BIG stories like the GSA spending nearly $1 million to send 300 bureaucrats to Las Vegas for 4 days, estimated Social Security fraud of $3.3 BILLION a year (just a case seen last week were a Houston man had been collecting his mother's Social Security check even though she died in 1984!! For almost 30 YEARS!!), and so on. And these are the BIG ones - imagine how many "little" ones there are!!
End result we are borrowing about $1.5 Trillion a year because our elected officials cannot budget money and believe we taxpayers can just keep giving them more money and say "there is just nowhere to cut". BULL#$#%!! I propose four things:
1) Term limits for elected officials. 12 years maximum. Two terms as Senator and/or 6 terms as Representative. This was NOT intended to be a permanent job by our founding fathers.
2) Limited pensions. Refer to #1. Not intended for lifetime jobs. You offer your "civic duty" to help the country, help for up to 12 years, then go back home to your farm, family store, or business.
3) Paychecks for Congress and the President are the LAST items paid. If there is no money left at the end of the month, say we had to borrow to cover perceived "necessities", then we are not going further into debt to pay Congress or the President. Let's see how fast they approve a tank purchase, a turtle tunnel in Florida, or a loan to Pakistan if it keeps Congress or the President from getting THEIR paycheck!! Just like in a business if there is no money at the end of the month the OWNER does not get paid - well our elected official are the "owners" of the budget and if no money left they don't get paid. We don't borrow money to pay Congress and the President when they fail at their primary job which is to manage the taxpayer's money!!
4) 20% across the board cut in EVERY government department including the military. Then make EACH department DEFEND why they need more. By forcing each department to scrutinize their budgets you KNOW they will find ways to cut. Yes, they will argue and defend that is TOO much of a cut (and that is fine) but defend why you need more. Let's say on average each cuts about 10% when all said and done that will save a couple hundred billion right there.
These elected officials need to be reminded they work for US and we DO NOT WORK FOR THEM!!
Waiting for a Russian invasion huh? LOL
American,
You have 0 clue. The Sergeant York project was an Anti-aircraft gun project based off the M48 tank from the korean War, it had NOTHING to do with the M1.
The M1 was the BEST tank on the planet in the 80's, even in the 90's during the Gulf war, it was the best and took direct hits from the Iraqi tanks without stopping or being damaged.
looking forword,
so has the gap between the rich and poor so that the top1% now control 42% of the wealth. Up from 40% a year a go and 375 two years ago. America has become the land of the aristocrats. Get your guillotines ready for use.
Chuck1968,
Thanks for the links. Very handy indeed and saved me time as well.
:)
We have got to stop the military industrial complex from taking us to war again and ruining America. Republicans are the new American terrorists.
Rev,
One of the best comments I've ever read, after more than 4 years on the Vine. I hope you're still on this thread to read this. Kudos.
This is what happens when Corp. are people too.
I think Sally is a perfect example of why this story was published, but whether Sally felt as she does before the story or not I don't know. It's just that a one-sided appeal as this was fits Sally's worldview. Look, there are hundreds of billions in wasted dollars in the US budget, every year, year after year. But it's an odd thing to me that the first purpose of the federal government is regarded as "discretionary" spending, and yet most of the spending done by the feds, called mandatory spending, hasn't got any constitutional authority at all. Yet the Sally's of America rise to defend that spending every election, year after year.
Cut the program, fine with me. I would like to see a clear debate over the topic for which this article is not, but if it's true that to defend the USA we don't need to continue to refurbish these tanks, then don't refurbish them. I would like to see the government, which engages in these long term contracts and so gets firms to gear up for them to act with more foresight itself, but the fact is this will likely never happen, and so firms should instead build in (maybe they do) this risk cost in their contract proposals. That way if the government ends a contract after a major investment has already been made, the firm is nicked less.
Last point...campaign dollars almost always, despite this pathetic article's implication, follow decisions rather than help make them. The Randy Cunninghams of American politics are the exception, not the rule. So the giving of money, while the authors want you to think it was connected to a LATER decision to vote for whoever gave the money, is in almost every case chasing politicians who already have staked out a position. Which doesn't mean that politicians don't stake out positions on the come line, so to speak, expecting contributors to follow. It just means that if it's a payoff, it's a payoff in almost all cases for what HAS happened, not what WILL happen.
Listen. This isn't a Republican, Democrat issue and who sucks more. The system is set up so you run on massive amounts of cash or you can't run at all. People do try to get in politics with great ideas but they are drowned out with the cash out there. Mitt Romney is a turd but he was the turd with the most money this year. Both Republicans and Democrats believe there are much better Republicans to have on the ticket and money is the only reason he's there. Mitts a shady guy that has always manipulated the system to put the most cash in his pocket no matter what destruction he left in his wake. There will be a huge payout for Mitt if he get's elected. Absolutely.
Obama isn't the burning light in the darkness we've been looking for to get us into the promise land. He played ball to get himself in the position to do what his main objective is. I hate people who play ball and I hate the idea of playing ball but I think his reasons for doing so weren't to get a big pay day for himself. I believe he played ball aggressively enough to become president but genuinely wants to uplift the standards of living in this country higher for everyone with that focus on the poor and the middle class. Much more then getting any dollars in his pocket. I don't think the money or the power is what drives him.
I'm getting off topic. There are scumbags in the Democratic Party as well that are just there for a big payday. The whole system is lobbied with people getting kickbacks because of how it's set up. Some of those kickbacks can be money or women or whatever. Our first mission has to take the money out of politics. Corporations or Unions. I'm for corporations. I'm for unions. I don't want their money in my politics. I want them regulated by my politics. Any person representing the people that is accepting monies from either I want them slapped with treason, they're assets taken, and put on a raft and sent out to shore to find another country that will have them.
Then maybe we can start electing people who are good at critical thinking and those that can see the sense in moving forward.
Shellie-657180,
Ya might want to read this excerpt and go over to the Miami Herald for the whole story.
It's unclear right now if Russia really wants a base that could be as close as 90 miles away from U.S. shores. Russia's top naval officer said on state TV Friday that it's in talks to build a base or bases in Cuba, Vietnam and the Seychelles island nation in the Indian Ocean. But then, on Saturday, Russia's foreign minister dismissed the talk as a media "fantasy."
Indeed, comrade.
Asked about the possibility of a Russian base in Cuba and President Obama's possible response, West said he couldn't speculate about what would happen. But he expressed concerns about multiple threats in our hemisphere:
"Cuba is looking for a new sugar daddy. And when you look at what's happening in our hemisphere, as a I say, you have Iran in our hemisphere. You're looking at Russian naval vessels coming into our hemisphere. Now, if you go down and talk to the United States Southern Command in Miami, Florida, who oversees this hemisphere all the way down to Latin America, the only real military presence we have is the Coast Guard. We don't have anything in this hemisphere. But yet you have Hezbolla training camps, you have Hugo Chavez, you have the Ortega brothers, you have narco traffickers in Mexico that are working with Iran and Hezbollah. How much did you hear about the assassination attempt on the Saudi ambassador and also the Israeli ambassador?...."
The New York Daily News, Washingto Post and others have been reporting this as well. IF they are that close anything could happen. I'm not about to hold my breath waiting though
Wrong. There only has to be a US partner. It can be manufactured anywhere including China.
They don't need them. They don't want them. So stop the program and use the plants for things we do need if possible. If that isn't possible put the workers to work doing other jobs. Roads are falling apart, bridges are unsafe, tracks need repair, schools are falling apart, and we need funding for teachers, firefighters, and police.
Anyone who thinks there isn't money in the US to get all those things done and way more is naive. I think sending a brief to a lawmaker outlining what a particular business/group does is fine, but I don't understand allowing them to come put pressure on lawmakers...I don't get why it is legal to donate to a lawmaker who is going to vote on your company's contracts or interests. I would like to see them banned from the Capitol and just allow them to send general briefs. It's one thing for a constituent to come talk about his high health care, but disgraceful for the healthy care industry lobbyists to get to come strong-arm lawmakers into voting against the people's best interests, for example.
The oil subsidies, the costs for this tank, and any other program the Pentagon says they don't need should be stopped. Really, in the private sector do we keep a business around JUST to keep jobs there, or only if it is making or giving something people need/want? The problem is that we stopped modernizing and focused on lining pockets. If my job becomes obsolete I will train for something that isn't, and I wouldn't expect the community to buy my services or products just to keep me in my job. The world changes and the labor force and business practices have to change with it.
It amazes me that the same people who say they want small government and that letting business work itself out want to keep a program the Pentagon doesn't even want, and this isn't the first time. And to use the threat of all the people out of work instead of focusing on what can be done to re-employ them and keep our states/cities functioning and infrastructure safe.
You can't have it both ways. Either you let business adapt or fail (and helping it adapt isn't such a bad thing) or you bow to lobbyists and big money and keep businesses open just to supposedly keep people employed. We have some old manufacturing plants sitting empty in my region, but some have been refurbished or rebuilt as more modern plants making something that is needed and using modern methods. That is how businesses work, and getting that obscene money and pressure out of the Capitol is a big step in making this country work again...literally. That money wasted for that program could be put into one that actually works for the citizens who need it instead of in the pockets of lawmakers, lobbyists, and the big businesses that can afford to pay that money. Wouldn't it make more sense to invest in modernizing your plant instead of paying lobbyists if paying them were illegal? I know..it's all a mess. ugh.
Chrysler and its children must stay alive some how so they buy part of the Government.
Patrick, how old are you? If you're under 20 and relying on memory I can understand your ignorant comments. The truth is we downsize our military at the end of EVERY major conflict because we can't afford a massive standing military. I have been through 3 "Reductions in Force" in my lifetime. It's happened before, it will happen again. You can put any stupid, paranoid, right-wing spin you want to put on it but MOST of us remember previous drawdowns. Do you remember the term "peace dividend"? What the hell do you think that referred to?
...and people say the defense budget shouldn't be cut to keep us safe.
People are getting rich off government contracts--THAT'S why defense doesn't get get.
The Ryan budget, while slaughtering Medicare doesn't even touch defense. Wonder why...
It took so many paragraphs to remind us that politicians and lobbyists are a bunch of ho-bags?
I'm a from a military, formerly Republican family. We include a Medal of Honor winner, among others. We support the military and a strong defense, because it's foolish to do otherwise. Humans are a violent and unpredictable species.
However, this endless pocket-lining and party-time spending on senseless, destructive wars (not to mention the modern Republican Party's cynical pandering to a hillbilly social agenda) has to end. The U.S. can no longer afford to be on the lobbyists' meters. We certainly can't afford elected officials who would peddle cyanide-laced heroin in a schoolyard if they thought this would benefit their campaign coffers and maybe buy them more ad time.
Maybe it's an Air Force prejudice on my part, but come on, if the Pentagon doesn't want some pimped-out Escalade of a tank, the toupe enthusiasts in D. C. need to get off the dime and focus their attention elsewhere.
Maybe improving the quality of life here at home would be a good start. Call me a crazy dreamer, but that would be useful. Probably impossible, but useful.
the other rick - I will just pick a couple. You can Google the data and find info for almost any organization...
Regarding the NEA contributions: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000064
Regarding the Teamster contributions: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000066
Etc, etc, etc...
Rev 124 (post 1.4) -- Your post is very well taken. Most of these posters have no clue as to who/what the true enemy of themselves, their families, loved ones, etc. Even though several million US citizens die each year of these few major diseases, and we spend 10s of billions taking care of the ill, we still don't get it. In fact with 30-40 million of us Baby Boomers coming on line in the next few years, and with the results of rampant obesity just starting to hit the health care system - the disconnect is only going to get worse -- much, much worse in the next few years. Funding of critical medical research will have a 100 to 1 paypack as compared to refitting un-needed tanks, however there seems to be no highly paid lobby speaking up for the ill and soon to be ill. It is not big pharma, it is not the insurance companies, and it is not the medical care establishment. How can we worry about the 9/11's and the Iraqs, the Irans, etc. - when we have this 10 ton elephant living with us each day ???
Let's see if I got this right.
ARMY: We don't need these tanks refurbished or want them done as we have all we need already.
Congress: We are in deficit spending and should look to save money.
General Dynamics: Excuse me Senator and Congressman/woman from either party......we get Billions in contracts and will give you thousands in your campaigns to keep this contract going.
Congress: OK.......send the check.
This article is so bad it is laughable..
Tanks were DESIGNED to provide infantry support. They ARE mobile pillboxes. Some of them just happen to be very good anti-tank weapons. That being said we have a LOT of anti-tank weapons that are much cheaper than a tank.
The US military thought it didn't need an armored troop transport and let the M113 die, then it learned in Iraq that it DID need armored troop transports. Gee....
The US military thought it didn't need any conventional forces after WWII because all future wars would be nuclear. Along came the Korean war and they were BADLY unprepared.
The world military leaders also thought they needed a lot of battle ships before WWII. That was not the case as the aircraft carrier was fare more useful.
World military leaders thought they could fight WWI like they fought all the wars before and learned they couldn't mass their soldiers and charge enemy lines.
The US air force decided it didn't need to put guns on its fighter planes but the air battles in Vietnam quickly showed them they were wrong.
Nobody thinks we need to build bombers because we don't fight that way anymore. This thinking is why the B-52 is older than most of the people that fly it.
Military leaders have a bad track record of picking the right technology for the next war.
We have a lot of tanks because if you need them you can't wait 10 years for somebody to build them. They have to be ready to go. Maybe we can get by with less but they ARE needed and they are NOT obsolete. We just fought two wars with Iraq where they were used extensively.
The writers do all they can to paint a one sided picture. We just fought a conventional war in 2003 and this Odierno they talk to says he doesn't think there will be another straight conventional war. How absurd can you get?
This article is why NBC news is known as a liberal bastion. No hint of balance at all.
How about this to reduce spending. We cut our army to 100K we cut Marines (they are not needed any more)to 0 Navy to 50 (no need for them) ships. air force to 300 plains.
gtouch:
USA: We will lay down our weapons and live at peace as a role model for the planet.
World: OK, lay down your weapons and we will never do anything negative to one of your interests, never-ever... We promise... Pinkie swear!
Hello Congress.... news flash!!!...we are bankrupt and the military doesn't need these expensive items. Just all the more reason to give every incumbent dem and repub their walking papers. Take back your country America and vote for anybody but an incumbent.
Ron, We are not bankrupt, but the Pentagon and bush's wars have gotten us close. 20% increases in the Pentagon's budget each year doesn't help. the military industrial complex has bought the republican party and now is on the verge of owning America. We have to stop listening to the likes of McPain and McConnell.
WE, those of us on here griping about the bribery and stupidity of our "elected representatives", are to blame. Instead of (or in addition to) posting on here, we should be spending all this time and effort in writing, emailing and calling our representatives and telling THEM how we feel about their refusal to look after the best interests of the PEOPLE of this nation. We need to let Washington know that WE WILL NOT STAND FOR IT ANY LONGER!
MAKE CORPORATE BRIBERY ILLEGAL! This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue - it's about GREED! Greed at the expense of all Americans and greed that, if not stopped SOON, will bring about the total destruction of this nation.
one last try at the light switch
let me start by saying that there are few here who are more opposed to government corruption than I am...and no, I don't just mean the other side's corruption...when and where ever Politicians are being swayed by outside money to act for other than the good of the nation, and or their constituencies...it should be condemned by all Americans...but there are valid reasons why politicians on both sides of the aisle to want to avoid cutting the good paying jobs in their districts
Second I don't believe the Generals want this program cut, but they are being asked to cut 500 Billion from their 10 year budget, and these refurbishments are the easiest things to do without...
as the DNC are vehemently opposed to anything except massive tax increases, and massive spending increases on everything except the Military, I can only assume this is born from the Liberal hatred of our Military...because even your Leaders understand this is a Job killer, even if you don't...as a Fiscal Conservative I would love to believe these military cuts would lead to smaller deficits, but because not a single liberal here can say anything except were they want to spend these monies, and are crying for greater stimulus on top of it...I doubt the validity of your claims
@Rick in SD, if i am a hypocrit because i would say that the generals should always have the last word in all things military (which I don't)...You are now saying that they should, does that also make you a hypocrit?
@ lizzie the refubishment program is what they want to iliminate from 2014~17 as a part of their budget cutting...no contractor could possible idle the plants and people for three years, and if they are forced to it will be the employees and communities that rely on those jobs that will suffer
@Rorschach... yes it is pork... if i thought for a second that it would actually be cut and discarded, and not just redirected to some other project... I would be all for eliminating it
@Jeff-1592116 I don't hide behind anything... again I wish, for the good of the Nation, that the DNC would stand up, and be honest with you about Afghanistan and Iraq... because the Families of those lost in those wars do not need your intentionally misinformed opinion adding to their loss
@ mj-1457154
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/stimulus-tracker/index.html
no, i don't guess i live in the universe that you do, unless the whole 40 Billion of the 840 Billion went to rebuild the roads around you town/city
It's too bad for our country's future that teacher unions aren't nearly this powerful.
@Bill Morin:
It's nice that Odierno thinks so, but this is nothing more than speculation. The British thought the days of protecting their far-flung dependencies were over after the decision to withdraw all forces east of Suez in the 1960 and began drawing down their military. Both their remaining carrers, HMS Hermes and HMS Illustrious were still in service but were being offered for sale to India and Australia respectively when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982. NO ONE SAW THAT COMING! And if the Argentinians had held off on the invasion for another year, both carriers would have been gone and there would have been nothing the British could have done to retake the islands. Similarly, the CIA, NSA, DIA in the US, the Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service in the UK ALL missed the collapse of Soviet communism in the early 1990s. The lesson here is no one can predict the future.
Saying warfare has changed may make for great sound bites, but it doesn't make it true.
@ old Doc
I have no doubt that there are components of US Military Weapons systems that imported, as there is an exemption for item not available from US manufacturers...but I know it is where I have to attempt to source parts I need, and the paperwork I have to fill out to apply the exemption is cumbersome...You maybe correct that the supplier only need be a US based Company, it could have manufacturing capacity outside the US...I'm not saying that you are wrong...I would just like to see a link for my knowledge...I don't know of any that produce any of our weapons systems in any other countries
Yes the M-1 is the best tank in the world, and did great while fighting in Desert Storm, but that was the last war, we need to plan for the next one. So why do we need 5,000 of them???? From the article:
What if China develops a better tank and we're still producing the M-1? Spent the money to develop something to replace the M-1 (that's lighter) or the A-10 or Apache Gunship. Rather have 5,000 Apache Gunships then 5,000 battle tanks (which are restricted by terrain, roads and bridges). It takes one C-5A to transport one M-1 tank or six AH-64 Apache gunships.
The weight of the M-1 makes this tank obsolete. It can't manoeuvre in the city so it's death trap in urban warfare. It's flat bottom offers no protection against IEDs. There are versions of the M-109 Paladin artillery that have half the weight of the M-1, range of 11 miles and fire 9 rounds per minute. 120 mm tank round or 155 mm artillery round - it's still going to "kill" the other tank.
It's the same mentality of pre world war II - that battleships were unbeatable. If you can't manoeurve quickly to a fluid battlefield, your going to lose. And an armed Apache gunship can out manourve an M-1 in any giving terrain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR2GUiefbgo
Auto - interesting you bring that up. While I want our guys to be the best and have the best it is clear there are major wastes and I don't want that going on either. The budget needs cut, end of it. And one thing I think needs to finally be done is along the lines of what you said, not so drastic, but rather the Marines need to combine with the Navy (mostly there anyways) and be an organization within the Navy. Then the Air Force should just merge back with the Army like it was during WW2. There's are obviously considerations to be made, such and moral and the I'm a Marine, or I'm Army, ect mindset but I would think there could be major cost reductions as far the overhead and command structures go. Lots of double ups that don't need to happen. Similar moves with National Guard, DHS, coast guard and other similar groups could probably also happen as well.
As far as these tanks go. Yes they are awesome and love them but if their time has come we need to move on and look at options that are more in line with what we see happening in the future. It would seem we could probably scale the overall number back some and limit the number that get upgraded. While look at a new system and addressing new concerns. This whole keep making it just to keep people employeed is not the answer and it is not the governments job to employ the masses. If you are making something no one needs anymore then you adapt or go out of business. I don't want to see these people lose their jobs but the taxpayers can not just support these business for no other reason than that; its not the governments fault per say, its these companies managers and owners who have gotten fat at the governments tit and now don't want to let go. Just more reason why the money and the lobbyists have got to be removed. Why do we have so much debt, here is a clear reason right here.
It is time
The concern about losing skilled workers at these plants if they go idle is entirely valid. We saw this more than 10 years ago when Congress decided to reduce the Seawolf-class attack submarine production program to 3 boats with no follow-on project even in the design stage. Same thing happened when the DDG-21 program was cancelled. If these people get laid off, you think they're just going to sit around waiting in the hope the plant will reopen someday? No, they're going to go find other jobs, and when we do finally decide we need to start producing some form of tank again, it's going to be even more costly as we will have to train a whole new workforce from scratch.
Great idea, except the ones who should be fixing campaign finance are the same crooks who are benefiting from the current system....
Our country allocated $711B into "defense" spending this year, not including the additional supplemental budgets for "security" apparatus, and yet some of you think we're not spending enough?
We currently total 47% of the world's global defense spending, (in fact dwarfing the next closest spender, China, nearly 5 to 1), and there are still people on here saying we need to maintain/increase spending?
All of that, and people are afraid that China or Russia would attempt to invade us, a country with over 160 million gun owners? We have more AR-15s in civilian use than in the military, complete with .223 or 5.56 NATO rounds galore, and we worry about invasion???
Look, people, we're doing just fine. We do not need to spend any more money. Hell, even with all the concern about upgrading our systems, there is no country on this earth that can even come close to our military technology.
I personally think we should take all the extra Abrams tanks, empty them of fluids and precious metals, poke a bunch of holes in them, and place them in the wilderness to create habitats for animals that have seen their environments destroyed by our largesse. Maybe you consider me to be "tree-hugging dirt worshiper" or "bleeding-heart hippie", to which I say 'Thank you',.... but remember folks, a destroyed planet affects all of us, regardless of your political ideology.
These recent wars are nothing but opportunism for geostrategic hegemony and resource allocation. They have nothing to do with "freedom and democracy". Our freedoms are not being taken away by any foreign enemy, but rather by our own politicians.
Make love, not war. Throw bread, not bombs. Shoot basketballs, not guns. Simple.
N-529260
Wow - reading through this piece, I almost, almost thought that NBC was actually going to print a neutral, non-partisan article. Until the last part of the article, where of course everything had to be blamed on the Republicans.
.............Wow, that's terrible, however, I didn't recall reading that, so I went back and re-read last few paragraphs. I saw two references to Democrats, both of them named Levin, but I did not see the words "Republican" of "GOP" once, could you please do us all a favor and copy/paste the specific wording blaming EVERYTHING on the Republicans. Thank you!
P.S., I blame BOTH parties, they are either all corrupted by lobbyists' money, or they stand by and let it happen. Vote them ALL out.
@mr pheaniques -understand it's refurbing some. But If they don't need all, why refurb all? Better spend the money on redesign.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/31/us-embraer-brazil-usdefense-idUSTRE7BU03Y20111231
I stand corrected...I'm not exactly sure how this is possible, except of "the turning of the blind eye" ...though some sources say it will be built in Florida (or assembled) under a US sham company
@lizzie
unless the military has a secret program called "Operation Crystal Ball"... I would assume that the statement should be, we don't forsee needing all of them, so we will reduce the number of M-1's maintained...Abrahms Tank is still head and shoulders above anything else out there.
it seems as if some of you think we need to disarm ourselves and spend the money on more welfare type of programs while China and Russia continue to increase their arms and military capability... Im just real glad those people that im talking about are not in power. The US would be short lived.
Perhaps if all the families that lost soldiers would file a class action suit against General Dynamics for knowingly continuing to produce a defective tank design that puts the soldiers at undue risk of death would stop this crap.
@ lizzie cont.
I seriously doubt that the US Military is going to get a new tank anytime soon, If these Generals believes that kinda money will materialize in the near future...they may want to consider retirement...I hope we as a Country never need another tank, plane, or bomb...but I also belive it is short sight to discard what is already paid for and on the job...
I read about jobs in the factories that make war machines--but could give a care. I'd rather see the money spent on things that benefit average citizens as opposed to killing a goat farmer in Afghanistan.
I served in the military and can tell you, if it could be wasted, we were ordered to do it.
The U.S. congress...the best government that money can buy!
Concernedone,
You just don't get it. Those Unions represent American workers, not corporations. And don't tell me that those corporation represent their workers, they represent a handful of owners who profit from the business. The workers are just a necessary evil to these guys.
Ever wonder why Union contributions favor Democrats? Pretty simple, because Democrats tend to stand up for the average working man above corporations. Republicans tend to protect business above workers citing the trickle down theory being good for workers.
To equate corporate political contributions with Union political contributions is simply a false analogy. They are both donations, but the similarity stops there. Corporate donations are about getting more profit for a few. Union donations are about getting respect for the workers in this country. Unions don't make profits.
I completely understand why the right wing so hates Unions and would like to stop their influence. They don't want a lot of average working class Americans to have an influence. They want a small group of the powerful elite to be in control. I understand their thinking, let a bunch of dumb working class people gain some control and they will surely screw things up and maybe change the rules of the game. The powerful elite know what makes the wheels turn, they designed the system that is taking care of them quite well. They simply can't risk the rules of the game they created, changing in a way that potentially damages their system.
The reason that you can get so much info on Union donations is because the rules for Unions are different. They must declare where all their contributions come from. They must open their books to the public. They are not allowed to hide anything like many of the corporate funded SuperPacs are allowed to do.
One last note. Many of the people working on these tanks belong to Unions.
I'm sure @!$%#ing Buck (McKeon) is one of the loudest advocates for this boondoggle. This is the corporate welfare republicans just can't live without, and it costs way more than programs that benefit most of the country.
@Rontron - you have been sadly misinformed. The M1 protects its crew members very well. The M1 has the lowest casualty rate of any vehicle in Iraq or Afghanistan. The only vehicle that is better is the purpose built Buffalo, which is designed to take IED hits. That being said it is NOT a fighting vehicle but rather an armored transport.
More so you mean the workers changing the rules so thatt the person who created the rules has to work just like they do to earn a living instead of writing laws that allow politicians to skim off the top of taxes that come in as a result of such laws written by the elite?
That goes to show me that the politicians really have lost touch with the working class for the simple fact of the matter that you know longer read about politicians working as a welder or on a gas rig anymore, going to college and then becoming a politician.
All we hear about are how politicians have become "Hand me Down Leadership."
Hand Me Down Leadership is when a politician has influence in Washington D.C. not because of their own substance of character but because of their fathers and grandfathers coming home after World War Two busting the nuts to build America up where the father or grandfather became rich and invested in the government.
The Hand Me Downer is then given money based upon the investments of the Hander's forefathers who then most likely goes to school to learn a college education which is based upon reading and nothing more.
Such Hand Me Downers then expect that America should view them as the best politician for the job based upon what the politician WAS GIVEN to them by another as well as the politician basing their substance off of what their forefathers had done.
Basically the Hand Me Downer's mentality is "See what my father and grandfather did? See what I have because of what they did? Just being around them makes me like them, so vote for me and my candidacy will be as rewarding for me because I know how to make people think that I am someone who worked hard and deserves to be treated like those who built the country after coming home from World War Two."
Sally in Chicago 1.1
You are correct. This is indeed bribery for sure and possibly blackmail as well. The reason for this obviously is that these senators want to get re-elected. This is something that should never happen and it would be much less likely to happen if senators were selected by the governor's of the states they represent instead of being elected.
This is the way it was until Woodrow Wilson rammed an amendment through that caused senators to be elected by popular vote and thus susceptible to all kinds of bribery and intimidation.
The founders were indeed wise when they envisioned a senate made up of state appointees and a house full of elected representatives designed to represent the people.
The founders system if left intact would have also had the effect of eliminating career politicians from the senate. There would be no senators serving for 25-30 or more years, and that's a good thing.
And herein lies the problem. The left is beholding to this massive government spending as the workers are primarily union workers who support democrats. The right is beholding to this massive government spending because of the companies that support them.
This is why spending continues to spin out of control.
I wish I had a government job, as at 52 I am again starting over, having lost 3 jobs in the past 7 years being "eliminated" as older sales people are the one's that earn the most and are the easiest method of recouping costs quickly.
But most of us (I think it is still most) do not work for the government. We do not receive the benefits and retirement plans that they do. And I realize not all are great, but here in CA we have elementary school principals in small rural districts with a very low cost of living earning $100K plus benefits. How does this make sense? This person can retire in 20-30 years (age 55 or so) with a lifetime income of 80% or so of their salary. By the time the next guy retires, that school district / local government will be potentially supporting 3 workers for that one job.
This entire system is collapsing under its own weight, because all of these jobs, from building tanks to running schools, are done by American people raising families.
My problem is this - how so I explain to my kids that even though their dad has worked full time since he was 15, worked two jobs for more than 25 years, the American dream isn't so great, and the future is filled with endless overspending, debt, and blame.
I am starting my life from scratch at age 52, these clowns argue about foodstamps for Mexican citizens (July 19 Wash Examiner USDA program) and tanks we don't need. Seriously, I vote we close down DC and start over as 50 separate states, because these buffoons are borrowing $3.2 billion a day over and above the $6.5 billion a day that they take in from taxes.
1NewDay - Actually, I do get it.
Firstly, I worked in a union shop for 10 years (United Steel Workers). Believe me, I got it, and I get it!!!
Secondly, even though I didn't need it, my local TOLD me who to support in elections because they KNEW who would back my personal interests (as if they KNEW me).
Thirdly, as far as pac's and super pac's are concerned:
My understanding is a union member can elect to have money withheld from their checks on behalf of the union's use for political contributions. It is at the union management level to decide who to give the money to. I'm guessing you would have a hard time giving evidence of 2 separate instances of union support going to a republican. I was a republican, so giving would mean supporting higher taxes and baby killing, to which I am opposed. So the union did NOT speak for me...
What you are saying is my local could make political contributions to support the candidate they chose - without my consent for specifically supporting a candidate. But the company who employed myself and a few thousand others should have no say. Both are organizations. Why should one organization be given a voice while the other must shut up?
You can't have it both ways. If you take away the ability for my former company to speak out, you must also silence an organized union. IT IS THE SAME THING!
Hey lib50,
I think it's probably true that McKeon supports this program, but two quick questions for you if you don't mind. Do you think that prior to McKeon becoming Chairman of the House committee that the democrats that ran it, and which comprised tha majority of it, voted against this program? I mean, it really wasn't that long ago that, if you weren't so apparently a political hack, you would have seen democrats support the same program. Even in this very poorly presented article democrats are identified as supporters of the program too. So, stow your partisan hackery, okay?
Second, why is the alternative only between defense spending OR funding projects you think help the country? Why would, oh I don't know, reducing the deficit be another worth alternative? I'm not even sure what programs you imply would help the country, but if the record over the past few decades is any indication then the best program to help the country requires exactly no money, since it is cutting governmental programs, even eliminating some.
Here's a reality check for all of you unless the government starts cutting everything, you all better start taking Chinese language classes, when will you MORONS wake the hell up, America has no more money We are robbing Peter to pay Paul, and this sh-t will catch up real fast, if you have a government job you better start worrying because sooner or later the people a sleep at the wheel will wake up and you will be out of a job, right now the problem is they are to busy trying to look educated, when any dumb azz would know the sh-t is falling apart, the taxes collected can't pay down our tab, and no one drinks for FREE. The real problem is our Congress has to many friends that have their hands in Uncle Sam's pocket and they only care about money, what happens when money has no value, You can't eat gold, believing the puppet masters is why we are in this mess, remember that American dream, Own your own home, how is that working for you.
The Soviet Union collapsed because their economy could not support the massive military spending that we forced them to match. We should learn from that. Keep spending almost 5% of GDP on the military and their will be no country to defend. General Dymnamic could just as easily be making something other than tanks. Something like high speed rail components. Thing that would not require us to kill people.
Rich,
I guarantee Buck supports this program even as he bitches about the deficit. I can't comment on democrat support of the program because I pay attention to Buck, he is the only one I can affect a vote on, and he's been in his seat forever and a day. I don't care if a dem or a republican is for this spending, it is WASTED. It is UNNEEDED and UNWANTED. Use it for the deficit, that works, although I would prefer a nationwide spending on our infrastructure. I fully support necessary defense spending, but not this type of corporate giveaway, even when it hurts. My dad used to work in defense and my son was in the Iraq war, but that doesn't mean it's ok to just force this tank on the country. And Rich, I am not a democrat, but they are most definitely the better party at the moment, so you can take off your own partisan hat. I don't agree with either party all the time, just don't go for crazy/bad, which covers the teapubs these days.
Editor's note: This article was corrected after publication. An earlier version incorrectly said the Pentagon spends $3 billion every 82 minutes. The Pentagon actually spends $3 billion in a little more than a day. Also, the earlier version said that members of the House Armed Services Committee got $31,500 from General Dynamics during a two-week period in September last year. The correct figure is $30,500.
Lets put those 3000 tanks sitting idle in a depot in the Sierra nevada mountains and put them on the border with mexico and tell them if it moves shoot it. That is more than one for every mile of border.
Ya gotta love it when quabbling for a pittant $3 billion takes precidence over Obama spending over $5 billion for "stimulous" that never happened - PLUS put us into a AAA- credit rating.
MSNBC - Always looking to turn heads away from this administration's waste and giveaways to those that don't work a single day in a year.
The Abrams is FAR from being obsolete, but tanks are designed to smash enemy fortifications, destroy enemy tanks, provide close support for infantry in open environments and generally scare the hell out of our enemies. They are not designed for urban warfare. That's what the Striker is for. The Striker was designed for rapid deployment within urban environments, it's faster and lighter than the Abrams, its armor is designed to reduce injuries from IEDs and it is much cheaper than the Abrams, yet even IT had to be up-armored to defend itself against the IEDs being made out of surplus 155mm artillery shells left behind by Saddam Hussein's regime and the Taliban. The tanks are being overused in situations that are less than ideal for what they were created for. Every branch of the military has projects or equipment that it doesn't want or need, but was shoved down their throats by defense contractors and their bought-and-paid-for Congressmen (and women). Neither the Navy nor the Air Force wanted the Joint Strike Fighter. Pilots who fly the F-22 Raptor hate the plane. None of our servicemen wanted to adopt the 9mm sidearm, which is now being done away with by all our NATO allies. The defense contractors have a vested interest in making and distributing weapons, not in listening to what our servicemen want or need. Everybody thinks they know better and ignores the end user.
Mr. Phea,
So which is it. Does Government create jobs or does it not? If it does not then stopping the DOD from funding production of Abrams tanks is not going to cost us jobs. If they do then it will. You (or if you did not other posters cannot) cannot say that Government creates no jobs but then turn around and say allowing the DOD to do as they planned will cost us jobs. The DOD is part of the Government.
My post was way down at the back so I will paraphrase here. Allow the DOD to modernize the tank to increase the firepower, decrease the materials required in its construction, increase the safety of the operator, and decrease the number of tanks required to be in service. This will reduce costs but requiring less tanks to be built, less soldiers to be hired, trained, and paid to operate them, and use up less resources.
If you want to downsize it has to be done equally and without mercy to every area that the Government has a hand in. That means you are going to be destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Some dude posted how much money the unions spent for political contributions, it might have been a lot but far less than $3 billion a day that the Pentagon spends. I hate to see these jobs lost too, like the space shuttle jobs, or the jobs lost because no more submarines are being built. These are very technical jobs, once they go it's hard to train people to do them right again, wielding pressure hulls together on submarines for example. This money could be used to cross train people, learn new skills but still keep up their older skill set by retraining.
Geowil
The Government needs goods. In that way, and in that way only does it 'create' jobs. If a President (like Obama) begins to MAKE UP goods the Government needs then, we are NOT creating jobs, we're wasting money. This whole thing is about waste in the DEFENCE dept.. Actually, the ONLY dept. outlined by the Constitution that the Federal Government should be in. Your question is one of igorance to the mission of the Federal Government. The Government can create all the jobs it wants, printed and paid with worthless hollow dollars - as Italy, Spain, France and more are finding out.
I'm still trying to figure out how this is 'News'. This kind of activity has been going on since the beginning of the country and, on a broader scale, since the beginning of recorded history. The only unarmed government is one that just got it's a$$ whooped. Those that aren't in that sitch buy arms. They have x amount of dollars and spend them on weapons. If they didn't spend money on weapons they'd spend it somewhere else and you can bet that group would fight to keep the money pouring in (and that someone would get their pants in a bind that the money wasn't going to their pet project).
The only thing that troubles me are the figures. 3 Billion a day. Consider this. Rover cars (you know, the cool SUV's that zip by) was bought for 2 Billion. 2 Billion bought a productive car company that turns a profit. The Pentagon throw more than that away at the end of the day and what do we have to show for it? A government that throws away money.
But don't worry, it's 'their' money, or as Kramer says, 'It's all a write-off'.
Nothing new to see here folks, just keep paying your taxes and move on.
@ Geowil
It will probably sound like semantics, and it probably is...Government (at all levels) as consumers of goods and services, do support jobs that are created by business to provide those goods and services... as a service provider, Government (at all levels) removes $$ from the Economy to provide those services (defence included)...Until Government becomes a producer of goods and services, their net effect is negligible... so if the decision is made to put these workers out of a job, they will join the ranks of the un-employed drawing from the Government instead of paying into it...so that the net effect of cutting the defense budget by 3 billion, would only be displaced by addition spending to support those employees, their families, the communities that survive, and or thrive because of those jobs in their communities...
Concerned,
You can opt out of Union political contributions, it's the law. As an employee, you can't "opt out" of company funds being given as political contributions. I suppose you can "opt out" of the job, but that is different. The vast majority of Union members do tend to agree with who their Union supports. Usually it is candidates who support working man's issues and not necessarily their views on things like abortions and taxes. Although, generally the Democrats who tend to get supported usually are looking to lower the tax burden on their typical members and make the system more progressive making the wealthier in our society pay a bigger share and eliminate the loophole they use to avoid paying taxes. You may call that being for raising taxes, but I don't think you are making a fair judgement.
Unions are different than a lot of SuperPacs and must follow more stringent rules. Their books must be open unlike the now extremely popular 501c4's that call themselves "social welfare" groups. These guys don't even have to disclose where their money comes from. Of course it wouldn't be legal, but it could come from foreign interests for example and there is no way to catch them on it.
You've got a personal issue with Unions because you didn't like the one you were associated with. But you didn't have to pay a dime for political contributions if you didn't want to. These are separate from dues and you can indeed opt out. Many have done it. But the vast majority of members are fine with it and in fact tend too vote for the candidates their Union supports. Not because they are forced to, but because they can see what is the better thing for them, even if that candidate may have some views they don't completely agree with. If you ever find a candidate that you 100% agree with on every issue, I think you are just fooling yourself. And if you choose to make some controversial issue a "poison pill" for your support, that is up to you. The bottom line is that most controversial issues have such a large division that usually no significant change really happens regardless of who gets elected. It just isn't very smart to base your vote on these kinds of issues, but you are free to do it if you so choose. You can rest assured that the other SuperPacs could really care less about these issues and would gladly make a trade off if they get what they are after which is a more profitable environment.
I get that you don't like Unions, but you are wrong in think it's the same as corporate money going to SuperPacs, often completely anonymously. And even if it isn't through 501c4's and is direct contribution like these cited in this case, it's about a lot of money representing just a few as opposed to many small contributions from many people lumped together in a Union.
@ 1NewDay
admittedly for many of us, this may be one of the, "we want to ban all guns and freedoms, but today, we will settle for assault weapons, and smoking" things, that your side seems so fond of
but for me it isn't all Unions we hate, in fact, I'm not sure I would want to live in America where there were no workers unions to sit opposite businesses...but at least in private industry unions, there is a forced balance...where if the Union gets too much, the business suffers and the Union's workers suffer in return, where it is in both parties best interest to reach fair accords...and just to point out a flaw...when business spends money toward the candidates, it isn't money that has been forcibly with-held from the Employees Paycheck...and Yes they will support candidates, that they think will good for the business, or projects that the business needs to thrive...
But it is different, when a public sector union sits across the table from a politician that requires their support to get elected and or re-elected...where the City, County, State, Federal is playing with their own money, but that of the tax-payers and that of future tax payers...when it in the politicians best interest to go overboard and Under-boards make the Unions happy...in return for additional support from the Unions to get re-elected again
In a two-party system, where the media is controlled by the two parties, it makes no sense to vote for anyone, based on anything...because every single one will only say what you want to hear...and what they say will have no bearing on what they do once in office...
http://mrpheaniques.newsvine.com/_news/2012/07/03/12533401-the-ten-for-american-independents-day
The government may not do the "direct hiring", but in a sense, the government does create jobs for a portion of the economy.... what would happen if the government didn't allow anymore mining, drilling and timber logging on government owned land??
Or decided not to do anymore heavy construction contracts?
Or cut the defense budget in half??
No, the government doesn't produce a physical product, (but neither does the financial sector) but it does provides the demand and without the demand, your business is going to fail.
As to the rest of the economy, this is something the 1% doesn't want to admit - our economy has never been a "trickle down" it has always been a "trickle up"...... to make it simple, if "We the people..." aren't buying or can't afford to buy.... your going out of business and this gives "We the people..." power and 1% doesn't like it.
And you can thank the GOP/teahadists for getting this country's bond rating reduced to "AAA"
So... AL
16 trillion in Federal Government debt (+2.5T adding state and local Gov), ~30 trillion in private debt, 100 Trillion in future debt (unfunded liabilities), trade deficits for every year since 1973 (now 600 ~ 700 Billion per year), 1+ trillion dollar annual Deficits, stagnant economy, financial system in taters, Businesses leaving America as fast the boats will row, developed world economy on it's knees wearing a blindfold.......
And you believe, that we got downgraded because, the GOP/RNC/TP holds a majority in the House of Representatives...I want you, to be my Banker, because I need a Loan
The down grade was the result of the GOP/teahadist threating to shutdown the government, unless they get their way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating/2011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_story.html
It was because of "political brinkmanship" not because we're 14 Trillion in debt.
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563
You may want to read it from the source...Hint...hint...not the media spin
PheaNiques: talk about spin. The Democrats in the Senate pass a plan to extend tax cuts to the middle class. All over the media are claims of "the fiscal cliff." And, surprise, surprise, surprise, here we have a story about the Pentagon wanting to not spend money, and Congress forcing the use of money where it is not needed. Yesterday there was a story about another defense contractor threatening to send our WARN notices to all employees right before the election.
The gamesmanship on the budget agreement has begun. Republicans are blaming Democrats for the defense cuts the Republicans voted to put in place. If each and every GOP member had not sold their soul to Grover Norquist in order to be put into Congress, they could actually govern. Amazing how stupid they really are.
I hope the Obama administration specifically targets the cuts so that each Republican member of Congress who has a defense contractor in his district gets hit and hit hard.
#1.6 I notice that all the contributions you noted come from a variety of union type organizations. Don't these groups make their money by charging employees of any given industry a fee to represent them? And don't these workers get paid by someone who started a company with an idea of their own or someone they held dear? Does this mean these suckers, (as in someone hanging on) only make money by being employed by someone else? The leaches, ( unions), do not make any money unless they attach themselves to a profitable group/company. Is that right? So where does Mr. Obama fit into this? Wouldn't employees make more money if they simply stopped giving their income to a union representative? Middle class is what it represents, I think.
Welcome to the depravity of the Conservative Movement, a place where anyone with money is a producer and everyone else who does work, including the work that enriches those wealthy elites is a leech.
America blows more money than all countries in the world combined on defense, yet scoff at providing it's own people medial coverage.
At least this story highlights somewhat how Defense "Companies" buy our politicians. Defense spending is the real welfare problem in America. Corporate Welfare. You can bet this is one small part of our Governments wreckless spending while kicking money down to there cohorts in the guise of Defense contracts.
We need a 60 Minutes investigation.
But the problem is, Sally, no one watches anything of any importance now that we have the net and cable TV to dull people's mind. I remember when the news programs took themselves seriously as public watchdogs, and they could do a show like that and since there was little else to watch, most of the country would see it, and something would be done! Now - nothing happens.
The best government money can buy - of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. (They're people too, right?)
And Romney wants to increase military spending 260 billion a year.
Entitlements are already bankrupting this country without Obamacare. Perhaps you may change your opinion when we become the western hemisphere Greece.
Romney's from a different generation. Our President needs to be much more agile in today's world - needs to be able to think on his feet. Romney just dives and ducks.
ItsSimple - he is agile, haven't you heard? "Strange things" are happening to him, he's learning to like "grits" and say "y'all".
Sally in Chicago,
In case you didn't notice, the Nobel Peace Prize winner is engaged in at least 5 wars
Not to mention the Special Operations forces were deployed in 75 countries.
Mike - How many of those wars did he start? How many is he winding down?
Typical of the Republican'ts and those Republican'ts who call themselves dimocrits but are really Republican'ts like the rep from Texas and Senator Joe "Republican't" Lieberman. The Army says they do not need the M-1 tank but all the Republican'ts can say is spend baby spend.
The Republican'ts are so willing to take the baby bottle from a little babies mouth in order to buy more unneeded M-1 tanks for the Republican'ts useless, pointless, worthless wars: The George war in Iraq and the Afghanistan war. The Republican'ts scream for balanced budgets but when 2013 looms with massive cuts that will get us close to the point were we were when President William Clinton balanced the budget in 1993-2001, they scream and scream and scream then the Republican'ts break their word and begin the process of taking Grandma's Medicare in order to fund the Military Industrial Complex.
Spend spend baby spend is the motto of the Republican't Party
Meanwhile how many children will go hungry because the money set aside to feed them was instead spent on these worthless useless M-1 Abram battletanks?
SHAME!
And thats my opinion.
I do not think anyone is going to be happy with algorithmic directed healthcare based on survival rates and finite resources .
@D Gerrow,
Its awfully funny how "Agile" and "Flip Flop" look alot alike ;)
@Stunt Axe
Americans agree with a useful defense budget and scoff at Government mandated/run medical coverage because the U.S. Constitution supports a useful defense budget and does not support Government mandated/run medical coverage.
Weren't you paying attention to the President Obama's "big" Health-care victory?...you know the one where SCOTUS said that 12 parts out of 12 of Obamacare was un-Constitutional....and the SCOTUS had to re-word the bill just to make it into a stillborn tax.
The U.S. Constitution: Frustrating Liberals since 1788.
so if I wanted something done I send a donation right??? What a bunch of fuuking crooks!!
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why and how the Repugs are bankrupting this nation. They use the budgeting process as give aways to their rich defense contractor supporters. There needs to be a law making it illegal for Congress to fund a program or project that was not in the budget request by the department in question or to fund that department more than it requested. That wouldn't fix all of the problems by a longshot, but it would make situations like this no longer a problem for them.
Is my math/ calculation really bad, or am I right that if the article's assertion that the Pentagon spends $3 billion every 82 minutes is true, that would be $1 billion every 27.333 minutes, or roughly a bit over $2 billion every hour.
If you round it down to $2 billion an hour, that would be $48 billion every 24 hour day, which seems a bit excessive since that would put the Pentagon's annual budget at 17.52 trillion dollars every 365 day year.
I hate sloppy journalism.
How long have we had entitlements? Since July 30, 1965 we have had Medicare and Medicaid. You do the math. It wasn't entitlements (which by the way, Obama has not increased) that's bankrupting us; it Bush's two unfunded wars (off the books), Medicare Part D (unfunded), and a huge tax break to the wealthy (unfunded). Bush (your party) charged all of that on our credit card and now that the bill has arrived, you're trying to blame Obama. Add to that your repeal of Glass–Steagall which led to the Financial Crash of 2007 and there you have it. Sorry slick, you don't get to rewrite history. By the way, your boy Bush didn't get bin Laden. I figured you're so ignorant of facts you might have missed that one.
@Vince,
Don't just blame the Republicans. This is clearly a bi-partisan effort(sigh - couldn't they save it for something useful) Both sides should be taken to the woodshed
Your post is so idiotic I don't even know where to start. You sound like a "big supporter" of the Constitution...why not try reading it. You obviously haven't because you're not even familiar with the preamble...you know, the first paragraph. Please read it and get back to me on your first comment.
Your comment regarding the ACA is completely ridiculous. The SCOTUS Chief Justice (a stanch conservative by the way), used a different clause of the Constitution (you remember, the document you love but don't know) to frame his opinion.
As to the Constitution frustrating Liberals...It was written by liberals. The Founders were a product of the "age of enlightenment" (read: liberal/progressive). The Conservatives were the Tories. Try getting you head out of FOX and read a damn book! Preferably something on American History that hasn't been revised by the Texas Board of Education.
Afghanistan - True, but he inherited it from a Republican.
Iraq - Inherited if from a Republican and ended it.
Libya - We're not at war with them.
Pakistan - We're not at war with them. (I don't think drone strikes are equivalent to invasion...you know GW's favorite form of diplomacy).
Yeman - Same as Pakistan.
Wow...one out of five...you're doing better than most Republicans.
Maybe someday this country's teacher unions will be nearly this powerful. That day will be a good day.
Sometime back there were several companies around the world who were the best at building battleships, and the last battleships that they built were the best ever built.
Someday the same thing will be true of aircraft carriers too, not long after they become sitting ducks just waiting for something bad to happen.
The M-1 is the best tank every built, and perhaps they should be updated and refurbished, so that we are covered if we ever need them again, and if not, perhaps General Dynamics can sell them around the world like used Humvees are sold too!
I think that perhaps we need a better-armored yet lighter fighting tank with the latest in laser or heat guided missile technology rather than a rolling battleship with an old-style artillery-piece as its main armament instead. Perhaps such a new tank could be controlled remotely too, thereby greatly increasing its survivability as well as the survivability of tank crews too?
Perhaps some of the old Abrams tanks could be converted into a much more heavily armored replacement for the Bradley "Flaming" vehicle too???
@Mike Brutus Teacher unions should be careful. A school district where a teacher union sued for raises in a time of decreased property tax revenue and won. The school district has to lay off 3000 teachers over 3 years to balance books. Do you know a internet based learning company was waiting in the grass ready to pounce. They have unofficially threatened to sue the school district that they cant meet the curriculum. Basically meaning the district needs them the "web based learning company". Dont sell yourselves out for 3600 dollars more a year.
ItsSimple-3093757
...Behind his army of bodyguards and caravan of limos
@Ol Doc
Your post is idiotic as well. (See how easy that game is.) (But, surely if we get rid of excessive, Cold war era words like "idiotic", our war of words will end and peace will insue. I just need to cut funding to your fingers.)
Surely the Preamble must say there is no need for M1 MBt's in the future and that Government/Controlled health care is ok. Because other than that you provided no actual accusation of what you claim I don't understand about the Constitution or it's preamble....
....assumption follows...
...unless your speaking of the General welfare clause. Which didnt save Obamacare.
The Constitution was written by Liberals?..solely by Liberals? Wow, talk about revisionism.
Stop getting your news from Comedy Central.
Out with the Socialist 2012
Comment with-drawn
Ol_doc.... sorry to call you out on your lie, but obama did not end the war in Iraq. This decisions was in place during Bush's term.... like the killing of obl all obama did was allow the previous protocols/orders to continue.
And regarding Pakistan and Yemen... the governments may love our money, but most of the population 'is at war with us'
Your post is filled with little truth, but mostly lies... much like obama's TV ads!
Ol Doc - Obama claimed Afghanistan was the war we should be fighting. Iraq withdrawal was as Bush planned, Obama was simply in the chair at the time, as he was for Bin Laden.
As for the other nations listed, I bet the people being assassinated by our drones would disagree with you, and as Obama has the military claiming anyone within a particular radius of these targets is an enemy combatant, we are also being defrauded by our own military underreporting innocent civilians being killed.
If you are going to comment, staying near the truth might be nice.
Obama is committing war crimes on our dime. Assassinations are not part of war, they are illegal, and I hate to break it to you, but you might want to read foreign press reports, as the world is not amused with our assassin and his murdering people with drones.
My position is this - shut it all down. Close all but a dozen or so foreign bases, bring everyone home, get out of the assassination business, get out of the world police business, stop aid to all nations for 3 years or until we reach a balanced budget, and let's see who our real friends are.
Bush planned? Lo@!$%#ingL
Ya 'lib' he did....your Prez had his best shot. Our economy is in worst shape than 4 years ago, our nation is split apart by people like you with NO respect for anybody that doesn't agree with you. Ya, believe it or not, people that you just plain HATE (stressed) can plan.
Good Grief
Four years ago we were loosing 700 thousand jobs a MONTH. Both Bush and McCain stated there was nothing wrong with our economy.
Four years ago the stock market lost half it's value.
Four years ago two of the three auto makers were on the verge of collapse.
Four years ago, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't even being counted in the National debt.
The only ones that tried to make this worse was the fricking GOP party of No,with their only goal to see Obama fail, not the goal to solve this county's problems, but to see the sitting US President fail.
What did the GOP do in the last four years?????????? Not a GOD DAMN THING............ except attack every minority in this country.
Oh I did forget the GOP/teahadist contribution during the last four years, they got this country's bond rating reduced to "AAA"
This must be a story of Democrats taking money from GD.. not many comments.
dcook - This is a sample of the GRAFT in both parties..... Yep corporations are real good citizens.....
We need reform. The buying of congress has to stop. Republican or Democrat.
Unbelievable....I,ve read this far and no posts blaming Bush for this tanks problems, course I'm not done reading yet....
Blame Bush? Everyone knows he doesn't know what an Abrams is.
I'm not sayin Shrub was stupid, but he OK'd the spending cause he thought it was for his old drinkin buddy "Tank" Abrams!
@ FlaNative55
The turbine engine "drinking buddy" and the M1 are not inseparable. Alternative diesel engines have been designed to replace the turbine engines if necessary. However, three reasons that the turbine engine have stayed are how quiet they run, how fast they propel the M1 and the fact that you can run many different fuels in the turbine engine if pressed into a corner.
My only point is...it's fuel economy does not make the fighting platform obsolete.
Coyote - Thanks that made me smile.
FlaNative - that was funny made me chuckle a bit. Thanks.
notfiveo - MEH.......... pure word salad.
Hell, he thinks it's on of the books of the old testament.
Sometime back there were several companies around the world who were the best at building battleships, and the last battleships that they built were the best ever built.
Someday the same thing will be true of aircraft carriers too.
The M-1 is the best tank every built, and perhaps they should be updated and refurbished, so that we are covered if we ever need them again, and if not, perhaps General Dynamics can sell them around the world like used Humvees are sold too!
I think that perhaps we need a better-armored yet lighter fighting tank with the latest in laser or heat guided missile technology rather than a rolling battleship with an old-style artillery-piece as its main armament instead. Perhaps such a new tank could be controlled remotely too, thereby greatly increasing its survivability as well as the survivability of tank crews too?
Perhaps some of the old Abrams tanks could be converted into a much more heavily armored replacement for the Bradley "Flaming" vehicle too???
That's all we need more war machines to destroy the human race. The empire must prevail. Right. Stop the military industrial complex now before it is too late for the entire world and the human race period.
A very good historian once observed that mankind never has real peace.... just occasional down time to sharpen their swords before the next battle!
See post #1.3. This is about government corruption AND production of a tank that needs modernization. In this case the pentagon does not want or need the Abrams. The pentagon want to study and build a more modern tank (same thing as sharpening its sword).
In the mean time healthcare and education in this country are going under.
We spend more on our armed forces than the next 25 countries combined. We cannot be the world's policeman. It broke Russia trying to keep up with us. We need to get out of the Europe and Asia and Africa completely.
@Spot1951183
You have been watching too many movies. Turn the TV off & go to bed.
Hate to break the news to you....it's all ready too late.
Just because the Pentagon has the budget dollars doesn't mean they have to spend them. Politicians forcing the DoD to waste money is dumb. The Pentagon should hold its ground, stand up to the politicians and do the right thing - Don't waste money on something they don't want or need.
Yes, it creates jobs. But spending like this is no different from the stimulus stuff that both Bush and Obama have done. The Teapublicans screamed at the waste of money of those programs. Why isn't the Tea Party screaming about the clear waste of money their politicians are forcing the DoD to do?
scottyhomer,
Yes its dumb and it should be illegal also. The Pentagon should have the final say on these types of issues. Congress should OK the budget and NEW weapon systems only the quantity of CURRENT systems should be left to the experts as long as they stay at or under budget.
General Odierno - "We don't believe we’ll ever see a straight conventional conflict again in the future”
That's the "
WarStatement to end all Wars."SabotAndHeat,
I'll agree with you on that (on most if not all that you posted actually) but the U.S. Army says that they currently have more than they need and would like an Updated Tank. Personally I think that the Abrams has and is doing a great job, but flaws have been found. If the Army has a surplus it seems like a good time to build off the success of the Abrams (use whats good) and Fix this Little IED problem (and improve anything else that we reasonably can). I would think that every potential enemy out there has heard about it and will use IEDs in the future. I would....but I'm a big fan of cheap and effective designs instead of expensive and fancy.
Also since Congress doesn't want to do what the taxpayers are paying them to do have Congress wash, wax and detail all the surplus tanks at least.
It seems to me that drones are more cost effective than tanks, and there's no risk to American soldiers that operate (fly) them! Unfortunately common sense takes a back seat to a Congressmans wallet!
War has evolved like everything else. There used to be a front. Then we made machines that could kill from miles away. Now we have technological warfare so advanced that soldiers don't even have to put their boots on the battlefield because they are in an office flying a drone from a room halfway around the World. Our machines made for war have changed. Now the political mind absolutely has to change. Politicians have always gotten kickbacks from Defense contractors. That absolutely has to change for the benefit of a strong Defense. You can't have a strong Defense if the boys who aren't on the battlefield keep playing money games. And private Defense contractors have been screwing sh1t up ever since Bush & Cheney gave them the go-ahead. Those should be the first to get axed from military budgets! They are mercenaries out for the buck not patriotic duty! Much like the dirty politicians taking kickbacks from General Dynamics!
Too bad the authors wrote the article to imply the battle tank is obsolete. It is quite clear they have no knowledge of military history nor do they think it is important.
Running over 1000lb+ of high explosives will disable/destroy just about any vehicle.
Rather than say that congress is blocking the military from modernizing they imply that dirty and corrupt congressmen are taking kickbacks to keep a worthless piece of military hardware on the battlefield.
Congress men and women are always going to try to get jobs in their district.
We would be foolish to scrap this until we had something else on the way.
A more balanced and knowledgeable approach would help this article a great deal.
The only 'crackwhores' are our congressman, the best congress money can buy. We need to quit being democrats and republicans long enough to be Americans and vote these worthless pond scum out. The greatest security threat to this country is an economic melt down brought about by an ingnorrant electorate and corrupt government. The cuts to balance the budget will have to be massive and it will include increased taxes on all, including the wealthy. You have your head up your a&& if you think it can be done any other way.
I just wish for 2 minutes a year that your leaders, or the Media that you worship, or a friend of a friend of a friend would be honest with you for a change...
Military spending "IS" Stimulus Spending, It IS Shovel ready Jobs that cannot be outsourced, is supporting communities all over America, in every state...It is why you have schools, and doctors and teachers...I wish for 1 year that the Government would cut all Military spending so that you would have an inkcling of how dependent you are on our Military and the Spending required to support our troops and keep this nation safe...
You do realize if we stop Military spending the money just doesn't disappear right? It could be used to increase our infrastructure, and improve education and research.
Do you understand that the money spent on the military doesn't disappear?? That money is in the pockets of US soldiers and their families who are paying for their kid education and health-care, It is the pockets of those Americans who work in industries that manufacturs good used to provide for and protect our Service members, and this nation...it is in the pockets of all Americans who live in communities that are supported by the US military complex and industries...
And it is virtually the only Government spending that is Audited, It by law only goes to American Companies, who are required by law to only hire Americans, and are required to buy American manufactured goods (when available and price competitive)...
Mike Sol said "You do realize if we stop Military spending the money just doesn't disappear right? It could be used to increase our infrastructure, and improve education and research."
Just in case you didn't read it the first time.
The problem is the business goes to who ever pays the most. The waste because of congress is our biggest problem. They are being bought.
Mr.PheaNiques - Yes, agreed this is stimulus spending. The point is we don't need new Abrams tanks. Get GD to build something the army DOES need, and most people wouldn't have such a problem with it.
You'd be further ahead melting down those 280 Abrams tanks and selling them as raw steel to China....
America, is broke. We rely on and loans from China.
Maybe they would like to barter for a couple thousand Abrams tanks?
Mr PheaNiques: The payroll paid to the military and DOD civilians living in Germany and Japan, Okinawa, Korea etc, etc. does go to local landlords, fuel suppliers, grocers etc. Our personnel buy clothing, souveniers, cameras and take vacations in the these places. They fly back and forth to the US frequently and this transfers taxpayer cash to the local airports and industries serving the flights. The Military itself buys huge amounts of supplies locally to fuel it's operations. Also, transportation Companies in country to haul our stuff everywhere. And we hire many thousands of locals to work on our bases. There is a monstrous transfer of cash from the US taxpayers to the host country and we call it military spending. Then there are out and out cash losses from stupid decisions. See the other article today of a $200 million dollar loss on Iraqi policemen. Such artricles appear every 24 to 48 hours with a new financial tragedy everytime. So yes, our Pentagon is bleeding cash to foreigners like it was nothing at all. Except it is something important - it's only them that doesn't know it.
If you earn 50,000 a year but spend 75,000, cutting out cable won't do you a lick of good if you start going to the movies 3 nights a week - you're still going backwards.
Seems that as long as our country is running a 1.5 trillion dollar a year budget deficit, maybe we should consider this part of the money that isn't there to begin with...
The question is what can we begin to do without? Keeping in mind every dollar the govt spends goes into somebodies paycheck.
Mr Phea... sorry to disagree! The American company Hawker-Beechcraft lost a multi-million dollar contract to build a light fighter aircraft (AT-6) to a Brazilian Company (owned in part by George Soros) Embrael that coincidentally is being investigated by the SEC under Foreign Company Corrupt Practices Act.
It is true that this administration has no qualms about outsourcing... especially if George Soros is involved!
Bill T 6.11, that's a true story, my brother works for Beechcraft in Wichita, KS. They put about $100 million into getting this $1 billion contract. They had a great product and their bid was lower.... politics was the deciding factor, not a fair bid evaluation. Hawker-Beechcraft took it in the shorts on this one! No new jobs and layoffs were the result.
This story about the Abrahms tank is another example of political corruption!
Mr.PheaNiques-0000001
Military spending "IS" Stimulus Spending, It IS Shovel ready Jobs that cannot be outsourced (BS. The company that produces the weapons system only has to have an America partner. They can be built anywhere, at the lowest wages possible (and I suspect in the future it will be outsourced more and more). Based on your previous postings your comments are disingenuous regarding stimulus and jobs.
I wish for 1 year that the Government would cut all Military spending so that you would have an inkcling of how dependent you are on our Military and the Spending required to support our troops and keep this nation safe... I have a better idea. How about we revise our contracting so that only American Companies can produce weapons systems (including all critical components). No cost overruns allowed. If you bid on a project and it costs more than you bid...you eat it. Any company found defrauding the US Government should lose their corporate charter, have all assets seized and be sold to the highest bidder (corporations are people too my friend, and sometimes deserve to be executed). No weapons system should be purchased by the US Government, for the US Dept of Defense which is not requested by the Department of Defense. End Corporate Welfare.
IMHO,
R&D... That's where this money should be, I agree with many of the posters that defense is one of the most basic responsibilities of the FEDERAL gov't, and I don't think we should ever be in a rush to reduce spending toward that end. That said, the money must be spent wisely, and it appears from the article, that it is not...(I say "appears", because I haven't seen the detail the congressional committees were privy too, and its possible this reporter is sensationalizing things)..
Spend more even, just do it on making better weapons, that'll keep our national interests defended, while limiting the risk too our brave troops as much as prudence allows.
Initially we utilized them when we first went in but in my last to rotations I never once saw them. It is time for a re-design of the Abram. The continued spending on this dinosaur is a indirect threat to our troops.
There you have it from an expert who has been there and done that - not that our lawmakers ever listen to the voice of experience when it comes to taking bribes as the other choice. Thanks Mat and thanks for serving.
Best government money CAN buy! SHAME. Publish the names of the lawmakers and their contributions from PACs and General Dynamics
Mat. The basic Abrams is 30 years old at least. We do need a new design. Time Mag a week ago featured the Russian weapons carnival held in Moscow. All the despots from the middle east were there buying everything from AK's to tanks and missiles. The Russian tank looks exactly - I mean Exactly like an Abrams. We may not sell our Abrams to these folks lest we have to fight them one day and our new advanced esign isn't ready yet. But the Russians are selling them a knock off Abrams. And the Chinese probably have a better copy of the Abrams than the Russians do. Our Pentagonistas couldn't keep a secret if their life depended on it. So the Rusians and the Chinese have a complete arsenal of advanced equipment and many of the items in it look very, very much like the stuff the US taxpayers paid the R&D on.
I have no doubt that it needs to be redesigned. One problem that we have, both with politicians and with the military and all government agencies, is that there is very poor planning. Where has the military been for the past 4 years on this issue? They just want to shut down a plant for 4 years while they redesign the thing? They apparently have no concept of how businesses operate. You don't just shut off the switch when you want to and then turn it back on when you need to. Just look at NASA. All that great planning they do! We're relying on the Russians to get us into space. If it wasn't for the fact that they need our money (and they are overcharging us) then we wouldn't be in a position to send anyone up there.
It's time that the government get some real planners in there who know how businesses operate so that they aren't destroyed at the whim of government.
I also think that people are off base on the political "contributions." From what the article has pointed out, none of these donations are enough to make a dent in a politicians coffers. It's more about keeping people employed and not having jobs lost while they are representing the people. Which is another good reason for the government to plan ahead.
Apparently, General Dynamics has no idea of how the market operates - you don't build things that your market doesn't want. Unfortunately, they have a very good idea of how Congress operates - give them money to vote the way GD wants. You may think that the donations aren't enough to make a dent, but look at the cumulative effect. As the article points out, the funds from GD have been averaging $7K per week. Per. Week. That adds up. If you're a congressman, are you going to butcher the cash cow? Don't think so.
Businesses are "destroyed" at the whim of consumers all the time when consumers decide that they don't want the product. But we're not talking about a small company here, and not even one that gets most of the components from within the US. If you think GD is going to be "destroyed," you have no idea how big that company is. Besides, shouldn't General Dynamics learn how to plan? They've been in the business a long time and should have learned by now that wars and the need for the same equipment don't last forever. Terrains change, needs change. Other military defense contractors had to figure that out before, like after Viet Nam when we stopped buying so much defense equipment. Why haven't they learned their lesson?
And you can't compare military planning with normal business planning - it's not like you can have a focus group of all the bad guys to ask if they're planning on a war or get your sales reps to tell you what the market's like with their customers. General Dynamics knows that, too, so maybe they should have planned better and read the writing on the wall during all the previous refurbs to the M1.
I'm sorry witchrunner, but even if they get $0.01 from that company it still creates a conflict of interest. If they were really doing it for the people, they would turn down the donation flat out.
The last number I find for employment at the Lima plant is 450. With an estimated savings of 3 billion over 4 years, that comes out to 1.6 million per person per year. We're probably better of just paying those people 100k a year for not working.
Sally in Chicago.
You are the loser.
yeah lets starve our seniors by privatising their ssi, take away their medicare, medicaid, obama care and build a bunch more tanks we can have sit around and never use, makes sense
you are a troll...! Try and stay on subject little boy!
I don't think he is trolling. He has made the real point of this issue which is government corruption and bribery. There is no need for name calling unless you are a politician or shill.
Barry the name caller is the real TP/Repub troll and we all recognize you for what you are Barry...........crawl back to the party HQ and report in
Kardashian,
He was directly on target with his views regarding the current topic thank you.
Regarding YOUR comment:
I'm rather sure that another Barry would say that "You are a Jacka$$"
This is just welfare for corporations. If we can easily lay off teachers, and stop fixing roads with no worries about those whose liveliehoods such moves impact, we surely can dump companies making useless items. Oh wait, there is someone actually making a PROFIT off the government there! So we have to make a stink about it.....
soon their will be no more public schools, they are bankrupting all our cities and states and are on the gop targets, face it you can educate your kids better yourself using the internet or send them to a privite school, why should someone with no kids be forced to pay for yours, and as bad as public school teachers are these days they are nothing but a government paid baby sitter who takes care of welfare mothers kids-make it happen vote tea party-they are taking america back!! (sarcasm)
No, teachers aren't government paid babysitters. No, I don't want to send my kids to a private school, and we all pay for things we don't personally use. So? Others contribute to things they don't use and I use, so it all works out. And your welfare mother remark is just nonsense. From your post I wonder if you personally listened in any classes in your own schooling, and in particular the English classes. Perhaps if you had paid more attention you might have seen that teachers work hard and in general deserve respect for what they do. Yes, school are GOP targets, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be open and that trained teachers shouldn't be teaching children. You basically ranted about a few topics and tried to tie them together in your post.
If it smells of lobbying, then it is more and likely dirty money.
I can understand that they are playing the I am concerned about their employees card, but get real. How much is the CEO taking home a month?
How much money has been poured into ah "donations", when that money could have been spent on diversification the factories.
They are probably as many ways are the dollars that they have thrown at Congress to help keep their employees working.
This has been a cash cow for the company, and no way will they ever convince me that they are concerned about the factory workers. All they care about is losing their millions of dollars in salaries for themselves.
"The $3 billion at stake in this fight is not a large sum in Pentagon terms – it’s roughly what the building spends every 82 minutes."
3,000,000,000/82x60=609756.0976
OK so that is $607,756 every second...
Instead of using your impeccable math skills to determine such a useful, er... I mean useless... statistic, maybe instead you could realize that the original figure is absurdly impossible.
$3 Billion in 82 minutes?!?!?! That comes out to $19 Trillion per year, just for the Pentagon!!! That's more than the GDP of the entire country, for Christ's sake!
In reality, it's about $700 billion. So they're off by about a factor of 30.
C'mon! Don't journalists have to pass 2nd grade arithmetic?
yam show your math, are you factoring in the working hours or 24 hours a day? the point is even if its only a million every whole day its still far too much. Did it look like I was stating fact...
What the Pentagon spends every 82 minutes is crazy.
What Congressional Commitee Members, Lawmakers, Politicians receive in donations from Defense Contractors are crazy.
Money Talks and B.S. Walks to save current U.S. based Jobs, Total Madness.
War And Peace.com
makes you wonder how this can be legal to be able to buy off politicians like this, but I guess the supreme court has answered it by basically ending any kind of campaign finance reform what soever. As they say, corporations are people, and this wasn't mitts orignal saying, it was our supreme court, Mitt just repeated what they said and said he somewhat agrees with that statement because corporations are the job suppliers
That is exactly why everyone of you should have been involved in the Popular Amendment Movement since its inception in August/September 2010. If you haven't gotten involved yet, why not? Why just sit here typing your complaints about SCOTUS/Citizen's United? Go to www.faircampaignreform.us and get involved. Here are the two amendments this grassroots group is promoting.
Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Election Reform
We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.
Election Reform:
1. Abolish the Electoral College (Repeal Amendment 12)
2. ONE NATIONAL primary date to be held on the Tuesday eight (8) weeks prior to the General Election day for Congressional offices and for the President. Candidate petitions must be filed with the local/state elections boards 60 days prior to the Primary Election date. Federal election petitions shall be uniform in every state and shall include a “contract with the voters” that spells out clearly what that candidate stands for on all issues that they may have to address in elected office. They shall be held accountable in court for breach of that contract if elected and any/all terms are not met.
3. NO campaigning allowed for any elective federal office more than 60 days prior to the National Primary Date.
4. NO campaign contribution shall be donated to any candidate of more than $200 from an individual or $500 maximum from a family (spouses/children living in the same household.) No donations shall be made to a candidate more than sixty days prior to the primary date. No candidate shall contribute from their own funds more than 60% of the total donations from other private individuals.
5. NO campaign contribution from any PAC, corporation, union, non-profit organization, special interest group, etc. shall be allowed for any elected federal office.
6. NO third party campaigning (separate PAC ads, corporate ads, etc.) for/against any candidate shall be allowed at any time during or before the election season.
7. NO party conventions shall be held to select the presidential candidates. The selection must be done at the ballot box in the primary election.
8. The One Man/One Vote Supreme Court ruling shall be enforced by this Amendment, namely that NO federal candidate selection shall be by any means other than the ballot box on Primary/General Election Dates.
9. National Party Organizations shall NOT raise money for or donate to specific candidates of their party prior to the dates outlined above.
10. PAC’s shall NOT be granted tax-exempt status by the IRS, and any non-profit organization who uses their funding for political purposes shall lose their tax-exempt status.
11. All lobbyists shall be outlawed from influencing Congress at all times.
This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.
Name Signature State Address
Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Congressional Term Limits
We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.
Term Limits for Congress:
1. Representatives to Congress shall serve no more than two two-year terms in the House.
2. Senators shall be elected to no more than two six year terms in the Senate.
3. No elected official shall serve more than six terms in office in any combined elected offices (House/Senate/Presidency.)
This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.
Name Signature State Address
Some of the changes are appealing but one thing that turns me of are the percentages of persons who would determine the course of action. Couple of others I question and would have to look into further to make a decision. But basically, you are trying to further honesty in the elections and that is always good.
Percentage of persons??? Not sure what you mean by that. Which specific section of the amendments do you disagree with? This version that has been posted on the website since early 9/10 is an expanded version of the original that I helped draft and includes specifics that were discussed here on Newsvine at the time of the original amendment posting. The ECFR amendment was a direct result of the CU ruling and the vast amounts of money being spent at the time in the various Congressional and governors' races in 2010. If we could have set the same financial restrictions on ALL elections, we would have, but, since this is a US Constitution amendment, we could only deal with election/campaign finance reform on the federal level. The same goes for the Term Limits. Some of us wanted to see the "six term" limit to be a total of six terms in ANY elected office combination, not just federal elected positions.
Individuals can take this same amendment and modify it for constitutional amendments to their state constitutions to force ECFR changes at the state/local level as well.
I live in the USVI, where we have NO vote in Congress or for the President, NO voice in the Senate, and a limited voice/vote in the House, where our delegate only has voting rights within whatever committee(s) he/she can get appointed to. I pay the meager annual hosting fee for the website to keep the amendments in front of people. PAM itself is strictly a grassroots effort...NOT a national organization like the other websites proposing other types of election reform amendments. There is NO solicitation of donations to the cause, etc. It is up to each individual who gets involved in promoting the amendments to join with others in his/her community who also support this effort in forming their own LOCAL grassroots group to circulate the petitions for signatures, collect them, compile them, and file them with their Secretary of State. It is best to get local groups to join together on a statewide basis so that all petitions are gathered before presenting to the Secretary of State, due to the timelines stated in the amendments. Do your part. Go to the website, download the .pdf files, print them out and sign/circulate them among family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. and email them to all of your contacts. This is how grassroots movements work the best.
Election Reform: see #6, #11, first amendment violations. In what possible way could we enact laws that prevent people from speaking freely on behalf of any candidate - or any other subject [i.e. we can't legislate cultish protests at funerals either, only limit the distance at which they can protest].
In effect, as a citizen who writes a letter persuading my Representative to take a stand on a vote makes me a lobbyist. Not a paid one, but, in effect, a lobbyist. Perhaps restricting Congress from accepting "gifts" or other benefits from lobbyists is the better way to go on #11.
In fact, much of the proposal requires some kind of policing or penalty - how would it be enforced?
Term Limits: House Reps only four years? - true, term limits provide incentive to run effective government, but limiting them to a maximum of 4 terms (8 years) is more reasonable, and Senate maximum 2 terms (12 years).
The office of the President is already term limited.
In this way, a politician could (conceivably) serve 8 years as Rep, 12 as Senator, 8 as Pres - that's 28 years in elected public service on a national level (that same person should have proven herself or himself at the local and state level prior to running for a national office).
I think this is my first comment ever on a forum or article, maybe my 2nd. I agree on term limits, but that doesn't address the present predicament of military suggestions and congressional blinders. People should be more involved and more aware of their responsibility in government.
The present action that can be taken is to write to the members of the committee and copy your own representatives. Tell them what you think.
Instead of fixing the system from the outside, participate from within and affect (influence) change.
Once again people are not reading or understanding the article, only pulling plums to suit their needs. The article is not talking about "new tanks" at all, it is talking about a potential savings of "up to 3 billion" by delaying the "refurbishing" of the current M1 tank force. If the military is saying that it doesn't need 280 of the tanks scheduled for refurbishing, then mothball them and move on. The problem seems to be that General Dynamics doesn't want to close this plant and lose the suppliers that they may need later. General Dynamics' stance that the work force cannot be flipped off and on like a light switch is accurate, but there are other ways to keep the work force viable. If the military had their follow on design in place, then the work force could be redirected to that to maintain it. Or the Defense department could work with GD to restructure existing contracts to maintain the workforce in smaller numbers so that once a new program starts, it wouldn't be a start from scratch proposition. It is all about the use of perishable resources, a fact which many overlook.
I agree that campaign finance needs to be cleaned up, but the problem is how! People and Corporations have the right to free speech and exercise it through campaign contributions. They support those that support them. This works for all candidates, not just republicans, but democrats and independents as well. Maybe it should be as simple as having to pay the now volunteers for fund raising and campaign activities. Maybe we should just curtail all campaign contributions all together and just allow each candidate an equal amount of free air time and media campaign coverage. I do not know how it would work but as long as we have mass media and elections in our current system, there will be issues like highlighted in this article. The article is written to amplify anger at republican congressmen who happen to support defense. The token mention of democrats only gives the perception of unbiased reporting. The amounts of money are given in lump sums to make them seem larger or more substantial but when dived by the numbers and projected over time they really aren't all that much. (less than 1500 dollars per year per individual). This is just another inflammatory piece which has ignited the arguments and ire of the foolish.
How are #6 and #11 First amendment violations...unless you agree with SCOTUS that corporations, etc., are PEOPLE. #6 is a ban on organizations of any type who receive non-profit status, as well as corporations, from being politically involved through "third-party" advertising. Read the section again. Why shouldn't lobbyists be banned from Congress? They are the "voice" of corporations, not individuals. Plus, there is nothing in the Constitution that bans another amendment that might in any way restrict any portion of the Bill of Rights. After all, the BoR are all amendments and ARE subject to repeal or restrictions the same as any other amendment, per the Constitution itself. There is NO clause in the Constitution that says that any one particular amendment can't be repealed or amended.
@archangel. That is why the ECFR amendment restricts donations to INDIVIDUALS/families ONLY and restricts the amount that CAN be donated. Get all corporations, non-profits, unions, and any other type of organization OUT OF POLITICS. You haven't restricted an individual's freedom of speech by this amendment. In fact, you are strengthening an INDIVIDUAL's speech.
Most of it sounds good. But I can't agree with number 1, repealing the electoral college. Direct democracies can end up in ugly outcomes.
So can the Electoral College...namely the 2000 election. EC is outmoded in this day and age. We MUST have direct election, otherwise why even have a general election. Make the presidential ballot an Electoral Delegate ballot then, and that is even worse than what we have right now in the "hidden" electoral college delegate selection.
@adhoc. As used in this amendment, "lobbyist" refers to those registered as such (individuals and companies), not to you as an individual sending a letter to your legislator or to the administration. THAT is YOUR right as a private citizen to communicate with YOUR ELECTED representative. Lobbyists (especially the companies registered as lobbyists) are NOT communicating with their individual elected representative. I quite frequently go to the WH website and post my comments on issues. I have also sent comments to many members of Congress through their websites to comment on legislation that directly affects those of us living in the US Territories where we have NO vote in Congress and our delegate in the House has little voice either.
Moat economics and modern day democracy at work.
We're so screwed.
The US has been in more wars that the rest of the world combined ,so yes they need to feed the dogs of war. The hell with medical care that saves life,lets build machines that kill people.
Mark-1023510; You are incorrect sir, the U.S. has NOT been involved in more wars than the rest of the wrold combined. We have engaged in only the Spanish/American war (over in a few weeks), WW 1, WW 2, Korea and Vietnam. Plus we've only been around for 236 yrs, while the rest of the world has been killing themselves for over 10,000 yrs (100,00 yrs since the dawn of humanity). These are well documented hostorical facts available to anyone through your local Library, High School, College Campus or even the Internet.
Mark,
That is the most ridiculous claim I have ever seen! As a country, we are less than two hundred and fifty years old! We have seen very limited fighting as opposed to the rest of the world. You seem to be forgetting the great empires of history, Rome, Egypt, Ottoman, English, etc. The wars and battles fought by these four examples alone out number our paltry history a thousand to one! You anger is evident in your statement, but you need to understand that there is a need for defense and that there are byproducts of the defense industry that improve the quality of daily life for all! It was through military conflict that advances in triage were made so that during a disaster like Katrina, or the earth quakes so recently in Haiti, that more lives could be saved. Modern communications are a byproduct of military spending including satellite tv, and the internet. Different vaccines and drugs have been developed as an off shoot of military spending and our interstate highway system was built as part of our national defense program. The monies that are spent on defense do have practical returns for the citizens other than buying killing machines.
Never use? You sure about that? Our government never learns. Americans never learn. We have the most capapble tank in the world, albeit, needs an overhaul. We downsize our military because it becomes politically correct, then we take it in the shorts, can anyone say 9/11? I hope we never have to use them, I hope we never have to use our military again, but that is wishful thinking.
This is not a safe planet. There are those who would do us harm in a heartbeat. I have more to say, but have to go to work.
you are half right, it needs a overhaul or a more modern version, no since building more of the same old dinosaurs that we wont even use, even if there are no cuts make general dynamics come out with something newer and better
9/11 was caused partly because we had such a huge military. The terrorist saw us come into their lands and prop up dictators to control them so we could take their resources for cheap. They wanted 9/11 to happen so we would send our military to them and make us spend trillions trying to root em out. That was their own stated goal in the beginning.
not a troll,
They are not building more they are refurbishing existing please read the article not just the comments.
Mike Sol
I have news for you Mike, it wasn't because we had a huge military, it was because of our power, wealth and politics in general why 9/11 occurred! The Islamist s had no great love for the Soviet Union either and gladly took our help to get them out of Afghanistan in the eighties. We were dubbed the "great satan" because of our influence in the world on cultures in general. The terrorists religion didn't agree with our values towards women, freedom, and education, seems they rather keep their women as slaves and most of the population stupid!
Arch our huge military industrial complex shapes our power, wealth and politics in negative ways. We all know soft power has a much more positive impact on those things.
Also Arch the world isn't as black and white as saying they bad we good. That's the story the politicians fed us. The terrorist themselves stated the reasons for their attack. It was our meddling in the middle east and the massive troop buildup in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. It was the propping up of western, puppet governments.
If I told you there was an enemy out there who hated everything you love and hated everything you believed in don't you think it would be easier for me to tell you to go kill him? It is our responsibility as citizens of the only superpower to keep it in check and question what our politicians tell us to get their way.
People your forgetting a factor here , you might think it bad spending , but in fact it is a job making venture, those sub contractor jobs are companies unaffiliated with General Dynamics, they are business's that have people behind the making of it, now you stop making part for the tanks the planes, the soldiers , the weapons he soldiers use, the R&D on the parts and weapons made , anything to upset that, and those that had jobs are now numbers on the unemployment board, they were people that paid taxes, now since it was those that said it was a waste, well those that lost or would lose their jobs because of the indecision would now be on unemployment., and is that what we need is more people on the unemployment line.
This goes hand in hand like with base closures, you have 50,000 civilians, and military personnel and their families living and working in the area. They are contributing to the economy of say the town the size of say, Reno, NV they have 750,000 people in the area, they have jobs too, they support the gaming industry, home improvement stores, restaurants sporting goods, Walmart the list goes on, say the unemployment is low 4%, the base supports the town y buying supplies and fuel, food, vehicles etc.
Now when a base closure happens it isn't fast, by any means of the word, but what does happen is the town begins to start the process. unemployment begins, now that 4% is now 5% because the business are expecting the ease of their needs to supply the base, so those not so needed employees go, then the base starts to move equipment out of the area, planes, tanks, whatever the purpose of the base, and the families are moved, then the troops, then those people that supported the base are laid off, and the base is now dormant, with minimal security, in the 2 of 6 years it takes to close a base the unemployment went from 5% to 8 or 9%, the town starts to dwindle down from 750,000 people to maybe 350,000 to accommodate the job climate, there is and are still jobs, but not like they were, and the worst hasn't really set in , and that is the tax base is really off, as there were people working and money was flowing like crazy, now the state has to either raise taxes, or or cut jobs, as there isn't enough to make up for the lost revenue.
The same can be said as I did above, if you screw with the money, jobs will most definitely follow, and when they do, everything else drops like domino's.
It's not really about the Pentagon it's about those little people that the Pentagon supports at the bottom supporting the whole big shabang to keep it working. Think bigger picture, than just about the money, The military keeps probably about1/2 this country in jobs, with bases , and manufacturing, they are a big part to why most people are not on the street looking for jobs today, good or bad that's a pill we have to swallow, it might hurt , but it keeps the country going.
I am sure I missed a few little details, but the idea is what matters.
your total right we need to find some war
most of those bases are overseas and we are basically paying for s.korea, japans and germanys defense, no wonder we cant win, they have virtually no military to support and can subsidise their companies, fix their roads educate their kids, provide health care for their citizens, we cant because we are not only paying for our defense but half the worlds defense too
Kenneth C: Invest in war! It's good business! Is that what you are saying?
Invest your sons and daughters now?
Kenneth,
It is painfully apparent that cloecokid,not a troll, and jack, missed your point entirely. That should be unsurprising to you as it is to me because some folks just never look beyond their own nose.
The problem is that you have to draw the line somewhere. The exact same argument Kenneth made can be made for any and every single government expenditure; including medicare, medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, social security, and all government agencies including the entire alphabet soup.
The real question is, can we be spending that money in a more efficient manner while minimizing the impact on the people affected?
In the end, something is gotta give; someone is going to have to pay for all the years of exuberant unfunded spending sooner or later.
archangle 3:16, I didn't miss the point, I'm well aware how much our economy is based on defense contracts. Even where I live manufactures love making top dollar military parts. I believe that should be changed. I don't think its a good argument that "it is the way it has to be, because thats the way it is". Maybe take back some of the outsourced manufacturing. I understand WWII saved us from the Great Depression. You can see our country's history, war ends recession. A perceived threat creates spending. Is it OK with you if we fake a conflict so we can create 1,000s of jobs?
Just because there isn't a conventional war now doesn't mean there won't be in the future.
We will need a tank like this at some point in the next 20 years.
As the article stated, we have:
20 years ago there was no internet to speak of and given the acceleration of technology, in 20 years there will be weapons we can't even imagine yet. Tanks are clunky and old school.
also stated:
Warfare has changed, Odierno explained while discussing the Army’s new strategy at the February hearing: “We don’t believe we’ll ever see a straight conventional conflict again in the future.”
When would we need tanks again in the future? If Afghanistan/Iraq has taught us anything, it's that if an aggressive nation like China builds an entire armada of tanks to take over America, you can stop it with IEDs.
........either that, or with crack whores equipped with IUDs.
WWI was supposed to be the war to end all wars. Ten years later a man named Hitler became chancellor of Germany and two years after that WWII broke out. So much for the War to End all Wars! Just because we can't see a conventional war in the near future doesn't mean there won't be one. Worse yet, how could they be so blind! If something ignites in Iran, there will be a conventional war, or possibly in Syria. North Korea will certainly be throwing their tanks and aircraft at our soldiers, should we have them return fire with M4's and spitballs? Things change in the world daily, that is why the president has a national security briefing everyday! They may not intend to get into a conventional war, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared.
Yeah but in today's world with satellites and the way we monitor everything its easy to see who is making what. It seems to be clear we are outgunning everyone and then some. So maybe when we notice some opposition we can resume making some more tanks. If we flood the world with enough tanks eventually the bad guys will get them also and then we will be fighting our own tanks. brilliant!
More corporate welfare to run up the deficit. A few tanks and you pay for America's food stamp program.
The corporations are the biggest socialists around in the USA, always getting high on federal welfare and taxcuts.
Why holding on to obsolete tanks? One drone is far cheaper than a tankbatallion. One drone can strike more tankbattalions down than tankbattallions ever will do to drones. For 10 million you render a multi-billion-dollar tankfleet useless. But no, the socialist warmongers let build you tanks which arent worth a dime in combat which they will never ever see anymore anyway. Government should control those out of control warmonger-socialists.
I always find it funny to listen to comments by people that have no idea what they are talking about. The M1 Tank is the most leathal and survivable tank ever built. I served on them for more than 20 years. I watched an M1 get het on the bottom by a triple stacked IED. Lifted the tank 3 feet in the air, and the crew walked away. This story is quite frankly a bunch of garbage. But then again, most of you on here have never served, nor do you care about the soldiers. Maybe those of us that wear the uniform (Both Military and Civillian Emergency Services) should let you all fend for yourselves for a bit. Maybe you would value our lives as much as your government handouts.
Did you read that the Army said they didn't need it? If you are going to spend the money at least spend it on something they need.
The Army Brass is so political, they will say whatever it takes. They waste tens of millions of dollars on crap, but don't support soldiers with equipment they actually need. They cut retiree's and soldiers medical benifits but again keep pet projects. I saw this first hand, in my last job in the Army (I retired 2 months ago.), so is there waste? Yep!! Do they cut where they should? No!!! Their hands are not clean. Do not equate my support for a system that works, and saves soldiers lives to being a blanket pentagon spending supporter. I am not. The current crop of most of the Generals needs to go. Too political and bought off by defense contractoors, but don't cut systems that work, and take care of the soldiers and vets!!
Slow down there. The brass is not saying they are scrapping the M1. Just that for the current tempo of the current engagements; they don't need the M1 so they are only delaying upgrading them for 3 years. As a retiring 'Old Ironsides' soldier I don't want to see them go either but I know eventually all good soldiers know when to retire. I retire next month myself with 22 years served.
ArmyTanker; Thank You Sir! I have an ex-19 kilo as my roommate and we agree w/you on all fronts. ded
Sally in Chicago; You ask where is the war for this tank? It could be right around the corner for all anyone knows. The Middle East could truly erupt into chaos and bloodshed and if you think for a moment that America would be spared you are sadly mistaken. Yes the tank needs to upgrade to better serve in the current situations, but it is STILL the absolute BEST main battle tank IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. I agree w/seven2seven, let's cut aid to Pakistan and instead put the money to better use here in the US.
There was a lot of talk in the late 90s that the tank had outlived it's usefullness too, then came Desert Storm...While the current conflicts don't need the tank as much, our enemies fear and respect the M1, make no doubt about it.
You are right, tanks aren't really used much in insurgency warfare, except for when you need the shock and firepower the M1 and it's variants provides. Slowing down the retrofits some I don't think hurts the program too much, but I worry that cutting defense without cutting other social programs doesn't do the country one bit of good.
P.S. Went to AOBC in the 80s in the M60A3 then transitioned to the M1 - a HUGE improvement.
Blah blah blah...thanks for your service but that's as far as it goes...you don't know anymore about the future of warfare than the idiots running this country but suffice it to say that if people like you get their way we'll build them and then use them....
When WWII started GM turned its production line from cars to tanks. Surely General Dynamics can retool its line to producing other large machines needed to rebuild the national infrastructure. These people are just trying to maintain the status quo and refusing to face the reality that modern warfare itself has changed. It's nothing mote than laziness with large dollops of graft thrown in.
$3 billion every 82 minutes = $526 billion every month.
The 3 billion every 82 minutes is quite the exaggeration and it equaling 526 billion in one month is also wrong as the total defense budget is only 1 trillion projected this year. That is one thousand billion dollars so at 526 billion a month the budget would be exhausted in under two months!
Money (or the love therof) rules! and governs....and corrupts......and destroys.
Good and evil. It's that simple.
We need to stop all companies from supporting representative elections. It is bad for the country and is way out of control.
Sad days ahead unless we act for change but I am afraid we have become too complacent/apathetic. I am guilty as well. We need a strong leader for the people to pull us together and spur us on.
JD, see my post above and get involved.
I am not opposed to refurbishing the tanks, they are still the best tanks in the world. Then study the design of a replacement and build them when someone makes a better tank.
Loser tank? I think you are ignorant of its capabilities.
Want to save a lot of money, lets look at entitlement spending.
yeah lets look at social security, medicare, medicaid thats what you basically saying-screw you we paid for them and you tea party idiots want to end them
Army Tanker, read the article. It's not about supporting the troops. It's about cutting government corruption. If there is a surplus of these tanks, according to the Pentagon, then we have more than enough. If we bring troops out of Afghanistan we will have even more of a surplus. We cannot win this war anyway. General Douglas McArthur advised against ever getting into another land war in Asia and we have done it time and time again. The terrorists will still come. We cannot wipe them out. What we can do is work on an even better tank and use the taxes for our own people here in the U.S.A.
not a troll, yes let look at the medicare and SS, we the tax paying people have paid in but those on medicaid mostly come from south of the border that have not paid into the system. Lets put a hault on allowing "ILLEGALS" to drop babies in our country that become citizens that will stop a lot of our money from being waisted. You can thank odumbo for taking 50 Billion from SS.
Rich and not a troll, you guys are looking at two ends of the same issue. The tank is excellent and served its purpose well. That is past and should be recognized. Change is demanded and General Dynamics is dragging its feet at spending its profits to fix the issue. That is as bad as entitlements.
Entitlements are an issue that must also be addressed. But by Congress at another level. In any case, we obviously have no 'balls' in Congress because they are addressing nothing. Rather, they pocket new money to maintain the status quo. What does that, or should it tell you guys? C'mon, you are both right, in your way.
Over 50% of all discretionary spending already goes to the military and the "politician buyers" (defense contractors.) I don't care how many jobs are lost in the war sector. Put them to work on the crumbling infrastructure and restore education.
Call your old buddies g.bush and cheny they will buy for hunting;and farm vech. they stole enough to pay for them now drag your -ss.You graff giving -ssholes and take it on hopp.
The Jews want to call it Abraham.
2 things, 1) pastafari, why is it always the jews, are you a german wishing all the jews were dead. Check your history about the jewish people have contributed to the world vs the muslims.
2) The military was working on a lazer that odumbo stopped. It could have been mounted to a tank/air plane/or ship. This could have stopped rockets/planes or ships from about 2 miles out and never have been seen. If you want to stop our country from being strong and on top keep cutting back on the military and then you will thank God for we the people who are armed in this country because if we the people lose our right to maintain weapons we will be taken over in a heart beat and that is what odumbo is pushing through with a treaty with the U.N.
the name is NOT odumbo - I would love to compare IQs of yours and the Presidents - and in addition to that you are so full of ignorance skota you do not even desire a spot on this board
ODUMBO seems to fit....
For ever Dumb, I'll compare my I.Q. with yours and Obamination's, how in the world can you say this piece of Crap Illegal Sunni Muslim Communist Half Breed NOT BLACK for you and your Liberal Communist loving friends has done anything but damage and destroy our way of life and Constitution ? This Corrupt Congress and Illegal President has passed more Illegal Bills that have taken our 1st and 5th Amendment rights away and he is working with the even more Corrupt United Nations to back door our 2nd Amendment Rights to bear arms. He has delayed the Small Arms Treaty with the U.N. till after the Election this November but if elected our 2nd Amendment rights will be taken away and the demise of our Country will be continued. If you want total world order you are on the right side but as an American and a Viet Nam Veteran I will never accept an Illegal President and Corrupt Congress actions and neither will most Real Americans unlike Traitors like you. Rhis Transparent pathological Liar Obamination has overspent to the tune of $7.4 Billion Dollars added to our National Debt without putting Americans back to work (unlike the 15 Million Illegal Aliens) without fixing our totally outdated Electricaql Grid which he promised to do, has not fixed our decaying and falling down Bridges which he promised to do, he did not fix our decaying Highway system and build new Highway systems which he promised to do and he has used (Illegally) Facism to take over Private Corporations such as he did with General Motors and gave away 51% of that Private Corporation to the Unions for payback for the Millions they donated to Obamination for his bid to win the Presidency and he repaid the Wall Street Multimillionairs and Banks all with the American Tax Payers Money. Obamination also has allowed 6-10 Million Illegal Aliens to cross our Borders without any attempt to stop this flood of Ignorance, Gangs, Drugs, Murderers, Terrorists and Disease to enter our Great Country. There are currently over 40 Million Illegal Alien's in our Country and this President like the last Presidents Carter, Clinton and Both Bush's have allowed to stay and live off the American Tax Payer murdering over 11,000 Americans and the Disease they have brought with them have murdered over 80,000 Americans since 9/11. Obamination has hired and placed into our Government 55 Illegal Radical Socialist's, Communist's, Muslim's and Black Panthers and one Radical Socialist and one Radical Communist in the "Not So Supreme Court". Since his Coronation the King Obamination has Doubled the price of Gasoline and he wishes it was even more if you recall his statement when gas was $5.50 a gallon he didn't mind the price just how fast it went up, over 2 Million people lost their jobs because of gas prices and he dosen't care. Food is up 31%, goods and services are up 38%, unemployment is at 16% and if you count the people that Had full time employment that are now lower wage part time work its 22-24%, forclosure is still at 2,000-3,000 homes a day, Obamination's QE1 and QE2 have done nothing but pay back his Big Business Big Government buddies and did nothing to stop the 41% increase in Welfare and 98% increase in Food Stamps putting further burden on the American Tax Payer. Even if I hate the Romney Flip Flopper I will vote for him never an Illegal Kenyan Born Sunni Muslim Communist (yes he is all that just look at his past associations and you will see) Half Breed NOT BLACK for you Morons. I still want Ron Paul he is the only True American who loves our Constitution and is the only one who would revoke the three Bills that Obamination signed into law that took our Rights away. Lastly what F___ing Idiot would re-elect any Demo_Moron in Congress that didn't read the 2nd most important Bill reguarding the Health Care of every American Citizen before voting on it? YOY WOULD and that shows your true I.Q., starting cost $500 Billion and even before it instituted completely the cost has risen to $2.2 Trillion and rising with 21 NEW TAXES and the DEATH CARE PANEL THAT IS ALREADY KILLING OLDER AMERICANS. Thanks Moron.
Boy, Steve....where do you get your news source? Obama was elected fair and square by the people of the USA. Get over it. Have you seen the price of gas, food, clothing....it is all going up. It costs more to do business today that means even to run our country. So get with the program....if we need to keep this government going, we have to pay for it. You get what you pay for. I rather spend money keeping our American citizens alive and well rather than on tanks and war that kill people.
Could't have said it better Steven.
Steven Coy, your post is full of partisan BS.
Steven can't write a post or use facts and wants to compare i.q.'s? And rlb43 agrees with him? You two need to get back on your meds.
As long as we are the leading country for death and destruction we will NEVER be free from the military/industrial complex. They squander billions on weapons we don't need and the NRA (Nuts, Retards and A-holes) keep the paranoia growing on the homefront. At the pace we're on we'll not only lead the world in death and destruction but paranoia will become a spectator sport. Every wimp will have a metal penis on his hip and rather than solve problems we'll cowardly pull out or piece and fire away. If that happens hopefully the Darwin Effect will take place and the first to go will be the Stevens of the world.
boy, steven C sure makes a strong case for electing him the dumbest schmuck on the planet.
Linda,
I am not sure what libtard calls "fair and Square", but his NAZI tactics will not fly this time around. The Teamsters and the Black Panthers had better be real selective if they try to disrupt the town hall meetings this go around. Real Americans hate bullies and liars. given that all politicians are liars, he has proved heads above the rest with his organized deceit and propaganda machine. Stalin would have been proud. Someone here mentioned the lack of Steve using fact, well I believe his was using facts, but he appears to be somewhat agitated. Every time a story is posted that is near and dear to a libtards heart, there is so much rhetoric taken straight from the libtard handbook. It seems to me that Libtards have more mouth than a mare mule has ass. You know what a mule is don't you? It is half horse and half donkey, or Ass if you will. Since the Ass is the symbol of Democrats, it seems to be relevant that I mention my mule I had on the farm. He always voted Democrat, but he had a strange way of doing it. He did not go into the voting booth head first so that he could see what he was voting for. He always backed into the booth, swished his tail around for a while until the proper amount of switches were pulled, and then took a crap before he left the boot. Oh that Barry was a great mule. do you know that I looked up his blood line and he was directly descended from the first donkey to come from Mexico? Well it just goes to show that there is something good to come from almost anywhere. That crap on the floor of the voting booth was always used as fertilizer and you know how good Mule nuggets are for the garden?
As with most articles about the military, Mr. Mehta and Ms. Mulrany direct the conversation to corrupt politicians and their greed and ignore facts about the M-1 Tank. Unless of course it suits their point of view.
To make the M-1 practical for future combat, its weight of 70 tons is being reduced to 55 tons by using recycled Titanium armor, that cost money.
As to it's vunerable to IED's, the M-1 was designed to run over anti tank and anti personnel mines and remain combat ready. If a big enought explosive is put under any vehicle it will be destroyed. Do you really expect anyone to believe entire battlefields of the future covered with such IED's???
As to the M-1 being used as high priced pillboxes, this stupidity comes mainly from the Marine Corps.
I think a great deal of the Marines, their the best combat fighters on earth, but their officers leave a lot to be desired. Most are infantry oriented and reguardless of their rank don't have a clue how to best use a tank in combat. They let Marine Riflemen get shot up trying to take an objective and then call up a couple of tanks for fire support. The idea of attacking under an artillery barrage of VT frag, with tanks in the lead and cannons and 50 calibers blazing is lost on them. Their main interest seems to be it getting a high PT scores and passing inspections.