Senate says no to funding F-22.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Dickie4:20, Jul 21, 2009.

  1. #1 Dickie4:20, Jul 21, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 22, 2009
    In a vote earlier today, the U.S. Senate voted 58-40 to not approve funding the $1.75 billion in construction for the new F-22 fighter jets for the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill.

    Right now, the U.S. has 187 F-22s on hand or on order. Still, not one jet has flown a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    It also has trouble operating in the rain.
    washingtonpost.com

    President Obama said today that he is "grateful" for the Senate vote and also stated "This would have been an inexcusable waste of money.”

    Oh and BTW, The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb wrote, "America is less safe now than it was an hour ago."

    Ha. Riiight.

    Im just suprised at the fact that the Democrats grew some pubes on their balls today!:eek: Maybe their balls actually got bigger! Wishful thinking...

    All the fiscal right-wing conservatives must be glad at this vote today no? Or is President Obama and the Democrats now going to be labled soft on defense?

    I think we know the answer to that...


    What a sad day for the Military Idustrial Complex.:)
     
  2. That's good news

    I believe I heard about this on the radio like three weeks ago when it still had the potential to go through

    They were either talking to or they quoted a high-ranking military official who said that the planes are basically obsolete and it would have been a complete waste of money
     
  3. And somewhere a Mouseketeer is weeping...

    The first of many blows to the Mickey Mouse club, hopefully.

    Obama is no good at giving Mickey dick hickeys, like Bush was.

    Bush had a lot more Sucktion.
     
  4. this vote makes perfect sense and is completely rational

    now lets see how many good decisions they can come up with in a row
     
  5. #5 aaronman, Jul 22, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 22, 2009
    It was very clearly a good vote, the F-22 is pure waste just like everything else financed by government. If we have other, more efficient methods of producing jet-powered-people-killers we should take them.

    I would not start the peace party just yet, though... after all, who knows how much they'll approve for the F-35 program? If it's $80 billion I'll regret this vote.

    This is an important part of the article:

    Pierre Sprey, a key designer in the 1970s and 1980s of the F-16 and A-10 warplanes, said that from the beginning, the Air Force designed it to be "too big to fail, that is, to be cancellation-proof."

    Lockheed farmed out more than 1,000 subcontracts to vendors in more than 40 states, and Sprey -- now a prominent critic of the plane -- said that by the time skeptics "could point out the failed tests, the combat flaws, and the exploding costs, most congressmen were already defending their subcontractors' " revenues.

    John Hamre, the Pentagon's comptroller from 1993 to 1997, says the department approved the plane with a budget it knew was too low because projecting the real costs would have been politically unpalatable on Capitol Hill.

    "We knew that the F-22 was going to cost more than the Air Force thought it was going to cost and we budgeted the lower number, and I was there," Hamre told the Senate Armed Services Committee in April. "I'm not proud of it," Hamre added in a recent interview.


    Do you so quickly assume that this is no longer the case with congress and the Pentagon?

    Yes. The ball is in their court.
     
  6. Hell no... I aint throwin a party yet lol. Havent even cleaned the house yet.:D

    But as far as the F-35 goes, arent they a much better investment?

    They can be used by all branches, not just the Air Force, i.e. aerospace.

    I dunno... any spending concerning the defense budget worries me.
     

  7. Yea, as far as I know :confused_2:

    A lot of the F-22's shortcomings weren't allowed to be realized until post-production.
     
  8. I applaud the Senate for a no brainer. Im sure there were a few brave souls who voted against it even though it might cost job/votes in their states. Now lets hope they have the sense to kill this carbon tax ripoff Ponzi scheme of Waxmans. Send that POS back to the 7th circle of hell where it came from.
     
  9. It wasn't a choice made because the Democrats were trying to save us money. They want to put the money into the F-35 program. They are going to spend the money, just not on the F-22
     
  10. It's not like we don't already have air superioriy. Such a fucking waste of money.

    How 'bout you suspend the building of one of those fucking planes and instead invest the billions of dollars into building housing projects, or maybe using it for micro-loans...


    Nope. Because the gov. doesn't give a shit about practical spending.....
     
  11. Yes the money that was intended for the F-22 will be used in the FY2010 budget, but at least it wont be such a invested in such a hunk of junk.

    Hell I say we cut the defense budget by 50%.
     
  12. #12 jusChillin, Jul 22, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 22, 2009
    There is nothing to celebrate here. Like some of you said earlier, the next project will come around and it will be passed through. Check out this clip from the documentary 'Why We Fight'. It takes a look at the process of new projects being presented and how inaccurate it is presented. If you are really that impatient you can skip forward to 5:35 and watch to end but it's all good.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKp3FhD5vUY]YouTube - Why we fight 5[/ame]
     
  13. A better investment is to just not take the money out of the productive economy in the first place. Let investors and consumers spend that money creating jobs. Government doesn't know where the money should be spent in the economy so anything they spend it on is likely to be wrong. It's best to leave the money in the peoples pockets so they can do with it as they please. It's their money anyway.
     
  14. I say cut the budget by 80-90%. Cutting it by 80% will still leave us with a $130 billion budget and we can stop positioning ourselves to be the police of the world.
     
  15. Agreed. I was simply stating that the government should redirect their defense spending towards improving infrastructure, poverty, joblessness, etc. ......
     
  16. Yea we still havent used but 2 nukes yet, lets keep spending billions on em they make me feel safe.
     

Share This Page