The Stimulus Program

Talk about walking into the wrong part of the neighborhood! :eek:

Sorry for getting any Air-Force folks out there riled up.

I just feel like watching for Ivan to storm europe is a thing of the past, and with China so dependent on our consumer demand for its production and economy, the threat of a Sino-American war is farfetched right now.

What I think everyone can take away from this argument is that one of the most critical issues confronting policy-makers today is how to balance the constant vigilance against conventional threats with the need to focus on unconventional conflicts in the present and near future.

Let me revise what I have said: The F22 is an outstanding plane (Ive always felt that way), but i just feel as though at the current moment, with an economy in recession and a War on Terror that doesnt require them, producing more F22s shouldnt be a top priority. Maybe in the future we can produce more, but I think now production should be paused

Also, Dont get me wrong! I hate the idea of technology replacing combat pilots! lol, Id be just as angry if you said robots were replacing infantry! Its just that with how much technology continues to advance, the idea of a "UAV-ed" F22 isnt so farfetched

I'm actually going to have to take Boxer's side of the argument. And I'll use the car analogy someone brought up earlier. We have F-15s that although may look like 1990 Honda Civics, they are being pimped to perform with the 2009 Lamborghinis. I see some of you are scared faceless that China will ruin its public appearance and start war with us, but that's ridiculous.

I also agree that we should keep expanding our technologies, but right now, with the state of our economy, things like these have to go and make way for whatever else is needed. The fact that some pork is involved is unfortunate but this was to happen regardless of what president is in power. I'm just glad we're moving forward and not staying stagnant like most republicans wanted to stay. To "ride this thing out" and keep spending money on commodities without any real hope of creating jobs.
 
"have actually taken the TIME to read the stimulus package and understand the nuances. "

Wow mdanderson!!! I am really impressed. That package is what, 800 or more pages, and I didn't think there was a person on the planet who would admit to understanding the nuances of this atrocity.

no offense meant by pointing out it is available for consumption--the bullets are posted on many gov websites, but you can also go to http://www.readthestimulus.org/ My son is actually analyzing it in AP microecon right now. It is truly simply a matter of economic differences in theory and should not be confused with political ideology. My point was there certainly is no indication that there is anti military bias involved--and yes I have taken the time to read about it as it has evolved. I am not an economist though my very fiscally conservative spouse is--and he agrees with some of the strategies and not with others. And so it goes...the great thing is that our freedom to have these discussions (though this forum is probably not the best place) our ability to adapt to change, and all of this controversy is democracy at work---the very thing these service academies prepare leaders to defend. It is fine to be frustrated about financing hardware and articulate frustration, and if possible be an agent for change--but that can be done without the political commentary I would think.....
 
Personally; I hope the stimulus package is a total disaster.

Don't say that! always wish the best for America, seeing this package fail would mean a even worse recession for all of us. My father daily deals with families threatened with foreclosures, one of the issues the package will try to help. Seeing the stimulus fail would mean more families losing their homes, more people out of work. Even if I don't always agree with what Obama is doing, I always hope that it will benefit our nation
 
Talk about walking into the wrong part of the neighborhood! :eek:

Sorry for getting any Air-Force folks out there riled up.

I just feel like watching for Ivan to storm europe is a thing of the past, and with China so dependent on our consumer demand for its production and economy, the threat of a Sino-American war is farfetched right now.

What I think everyone can take away from this argument is that one of the most critical issues confronting policy-makers today is how to balance the constant vigilance against conventional threats with the need to focus on unconventional conflicts in the present and near future.

Let me revise what I have said: The F22 is an outstanding plane (Ive always felt that way), but i just feel as though at the current moment, with an economy in recession and a War on Terror that doesnt require them, producing more F22s shouldnt be a top priority. Maybe in the future we can produce more, but I think now production should be paused

Also, Dont get me wrong! I hate the idea of technology replacing combat pilots! lol, Id be just as angry if you said robots were replacing infantry! Its just that with how much technology continues to advance, the idea of a "UAV-ed" F22 isnt so farfetched
Boxer, why do you keep saying the War on Terror? YES, our current planes get the job done. WE WON'T BE FIGHTING THE SAME ENEMY 10-20 YEARS FROM NOW. And you think that China and Russia are the only threat? Yeah, it's a long shot that we go to war with either, but look at North Korea and Iran. A war with them is very possible.

We are not worried so much about air supremacy in the present war we are in. We have it. But it won't be so easy for some of the future conflicts we might face.
Would you really want our F-15s against the newest Sukhoi/Eurofighter/Chinese fighter? Sure, we have the best trained pilots. Sure, we would probably win an air war, but the losses we would suffer would be greater than need be. The F-22 allows for complete air dominance, no question. For example:

During Exercise Northern Edge in Alaska in June 2006, 12 F-22s of the 94th FS downed 108 adversaries with no losses in simulated combat exercises. In two weeks of exercises, the Raptor-led Blue Force amassed 241 kills against two losses in air-to-air combat, and neither Blue Force loss was an F-22.

This was followed with the Raptor's first participation in a Red Flag exercise. 14 F-22s of the 94th FS supported attacking Blue Force strike packages as well as engaging in close air support sorties themselves in Red Flag 07-1 between 3 February and 16 February 2007. Against designed superior numbers of Red Force Aggressor F-15s and F-16s, it established air dominance using eight aircraft during day missions and six at night, reportedly defeating the Aggressors quickly and efficiently, even though the exercise rules of engagement allowed for four to five Red Force regenerations of losses but none to Blue Force. Further, no sorties were missed because of maintenance or other failures, and only one Raptor was adjudged lost against the virtual annihilation of the defending force. When their ordnance was expended, the F-22s remained in the exercise area providing electronic surveillance to the Blue Forces.

We can't rely on the F-15/F-16/F-18 forever. We didn't keep relying on the biplane because it helped win a war.
 
Sorry Boxer; but I really, really, really, do hope the stimulus package is a complete disaster. As I said; it will hurt. But the alternative is MUCH WORSE!!! The congress got us into this mess. YES, THE CONGRESS. 100% the cause. So why should anyone believe that they are the answer to fixing the problem. If any of this stimulus package is perceived to be successful, then there will be a false sense of security that the government is the ANSWER to all our problems. Hence, total government control. Sorry, but I pray loudly that the stimulus package crashes and burns.

Now, having said that, I am not talking about the concept of a stimulus package. There are plenty of things the government can do to help soften the fall and make it easier to get out of the economic recession we are in.

Basic rule of successful government economics during recessions and depressions:
DO's:
1. Give the citizens back more of their money by reducing taxes. They will save it, spend it, reduce their own personal debt, and invest it. It will be redistributed.
2. Spend money in areas that IMMEDIATELY create jobs. The Military is a MAJOR influential factor. If you look at history, it is WIDELY ACCEPTED that the end of the great depression in the U.S is associated with the onset of the war economy of World War II, beginning around 1939. Spend money in areas that NEED to be spent and will create jobs. E.g. roads, bridges, infrastructure, power, energy, etc...

DON'Ts:
1. Put money into social programs that promote welfare and dependency on the government
2. Spend money in areas that have no means of creating jobs or produce no profit. E.g. National Endowment of the arts; wetlands in the San Francisco area for endangered salt marsh harvest mouse
3. Bail out companies that have competition. The market is part of it's own evolution. You don't throw good money after bad thinking you are saving a company and jobs. You may prolong the death, but don't. The market ALWAYS corrects itself. Other companies will come in and take over or a new industry will rise

Anyway; there are a lot of things the government can do for a stimulus package. But to approve the first almost $800 billion to bail out; then an almost $800 billion stimulus where the vast majority is NOT on things that will create jobs or stimulate the economy; and now to talk about about TARP 2 which is another almost $1 Trillion dollar Bail out. Means that there will be more than $2.5 Trillion dollars put out there with very little of it capable of producing anything to help pay it back. In other words, it will just be added debt. Some say that they are glad we are moving forward. That it's better than nothing. I disagree. WHY? Because while I DO AGREE that we are MOVING; there is no proof that we are MOVING FORWARD. Unfortunately; there is a LOT OF HISTORY showing financial recessions, government control, and the free market. We KNOW what works and what doesn't. This stimulus package WON'T work. Not unless they reduce the spending (Almost $300 Billion) of the total cost on things that will not create any jobs.

Oh by the way; the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) who even the DEMOCRATS say is the smartest economic think tank in the world (Because they both NORMALLY agree when it comes to SPENDING) says that this stimulus package is a disaster waiting to happen.
 
1. Kim Jong Ill is..well...ill. His people are starving and the economy is in shambles. His successor would be even crazier than he to try and start a war. Relations have improved with NK, and the threat of a nuclear attack from them has greatly diminished since they were on the Axis of Evil.
2. Iran is a tricky situation, Ill give you that. but war can easily be prevented with full on diplomacy. Time will tell if Ahmadinejad's successor will be more moderate. With the bad recession Iran is in right now, it is likely that the next leader will be more moderate than the crazy little fella.

Also, remember, i dont doubt how amazing the F22 is right now. I just believe that in the middle of a counterinsurgency-style war as well as a horrible recession, we dont need 60 more F22s. In the future when things have improved, then YES! roll them off the line!
 
Also, remember, i dont doubt how amazing the F22 is right now. I just believe that in the middle of a counterinsurgency-style war as well as a horrible recession, we dont need 60 more F22s. In the future when things have improved, then YES! roll them off the line!

Once we shut down the line, there'll be no restarting it. Besides, producing the F-22 creates jobs and helps the economy.

WWII gave the economy a huge boost, mainly because of military spending.
 
If the F-22 was designed to perform the mission of the F-15E Strike eagle (though I realize the F-35 will fill that role), would that change anyone's mind?
 
Boxer most wars of epic proportion usually do occur by surprise. The Chinese have been building their military for years. The Russians under Putin have been consolidating power and remembering their previous glory. As for Chavez and the Crazy Mahmoud over in Iran they dont really need any encouragement do they.

The budget and stimulus package are looking past the military because it does not fit the new administrations world veiw. The Infantry will be required in the next war, and so will the Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard.
 
Both sides of this argument have good arguments, but the pro F-22 does have the edge in this one. I agree with Boxer that the chances of a full on war between a country like North Korea, Iran, etc. right now is very very low. Even if we were to go to war with say North Korea, there military inventory is so out of date, are current fighters would still be able to annihilate them any day of the year. However in terms of a war with say China, both sides would realize that a war between the two would be a disaster for both. Compared to say 30 years ago or so, the whole world is now a global economy, we all depend on each other. If China was to start a war with us, not only would be most likely still beat them down pretty badly, their economy would suffer due to the embargo we would unquestionably impose on them. (I'm sure when it came down to it, we Americans would be willing to give up some of our Chinese made goods at least temporarily). With workers out of jobs in China, they would maybe even revolt against the government and maybe even try to overthrow it, who knows. China probably knows this too, and thus they would probably only go to war with us if it was the only option. Also you have to wonder why they would even go to war with us, they wouldn't be able to invade because they don't even have an aircraft carrier! The only reason they would would be because of Taiwan but that's another topic. Boxer has a point that the chances of a war with a somewhat powerful nation right now is pretty slim due to the shape of the world economy. A majority of the past wars have been due to resource disputes and since the world is in a recession, resources are not exactly up for dispute right now (especially oil) :biggrin: The one nation I do think that could actually go to war with us in the near future is Russia, but who knows what could happen in the future, maybe the world WILL end on 2012, you never know.

In regards to the stimulus bill, President Obama (who I did not vote for nor did I support him even though I'm a Democrat) came into office saying he would do something to help the people of our country financially. When it comes down to it, its all about politics. You're a single mother who lost her job and is in desperate need of relief, do you think she would care about the F-22 program or her next welfare paycheck? This stimulus package which has a lot of pros and cons is aimed to at least some of the American people some type of temporary relief, which is what President Obama promised and is what he has now somewhat fulfilled. I'm quite certain that the ordinary citizen probably doesn't know of or care about the pork in the bill, just how it will affect their wallet. At least now President Obama can say he tried to help the constituents who voted for him, this might be his actual plan, who knows.
In the end, I am quite certain President Obama will in fact renew the program once he actually sits down and looks at the numbers, I mean come on...$9 billion dollars over 3 years for 60 planes and saving thousands of American jobs?? That's pretty darn reasonable, especially considering how we seem to throwing around billions of dollars now a days. Also who ever stated the unit price should decrease is absolutely right, basic economics: economy of scale. Especially if the government decides to lift the ban on exports and sell the F-22 to EXTREMELY friendly allies, it would only benefit us. In my opinion, 163 or however many we have right now IS kind of in the middle while 300 or whatever was projected is kind of high. I would say about 240 F-22s or so would be more than adequate to take on any conflict that we might run into in the near future.
I mean granted, there are some saying we should stop the F-22 and just focus now on the F-35 which is A LOT cheaper, but the F-22 is superior to the F-35 in so many ways except possibly in bombing capabilities but we have more than enough bombers in our inventory for that and the A-10 (which isn't slated to leave service until around 2028 and possibly even longer because it's so darn good) should be able to provide more than enough ground support.
I am very certain that the F-22 will continue to be produced and if not, I would be very surprised....
Feel free to correct me on anything.
 
Last edited:
Not for nothing, but Lockheed is afraid right now...in the WAPO they took a full page cover ad explaining how killing the 22 will hurt the economy. Reality is there would be a direct result of 95K jobs lost if they close this pipeline down. Plants will close and not just lockheed...remember those planes are filled with tons of electronics, steel, computers, rubber etc...Think about how many computer chips go into one aircraft, now multiply it, now remember they will need replacement parts, so multiply it again.

Remove this from defense and look at it as a purely economical stand point, there are people who would lose jobs without ever realizing it had to do with the demise of the 22. That woman who lost her job and is now on welfare, might have worked as a receptionist for a rubber company that supplies rubber for some stupid little gasket. She is so low down the totem pole that she never realized that the rubber boought by a manufacturing plant that makes gasket part xxx-45698 for the 22 was what made the difference for her company operating in the red or the black. The loss of that contract meant the loss of her job. So yes she really should care about the 22 surviving. Does anybody here believe that lockheed builds this jet from start to finish without sub-contractors supplying parts? Does anybody believe that these sub-contractors don't also support other industries? We do not live in a vacuum. Steel companies sell to Lockheed. Computer companies supply not only the computer chips for the planes, but also those nifty ones sitting at the employees desk at Lockheed. Lightbulb manufacturers supply the lightbulbs to keep the lights on in these huge production plants. So on and so forth. Shut down the line you are shutting down a lot more than the future air superiority.

You can fight until the cows come home about whether or not the jet is needed, but for right now our economy needs this jet. In the end before you say kill it, you should look at your own companies future. Working for a company making those computer chips...how about the company that makes paint...how about a company that has a janitorial contract with lockheed...even down to a realtor or a mtg company in GA where it is being built(people losing jobs typically don't buy homes or take a mtgs, but as we know the real estate market can kill an economy). Finally, if you own a mutual or 401K, make sure lockheed, GE and the suppliers aren't in your portfolio, because their stock will plummet for killing this plane.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Bullet
BTW. You looking for a job in the Pentagon?

Oh gosh.....I would never wish that upon anyone


TPG, but then you get to miss out on great policy debates like this one.:shake:

Seriously, this EXACT issue has been keeping me busy running through those halls for the past 3 months. Lots of the same arguements going back and forth, but it all boils down to one issue: cost versus risk.

The F-22 provides unmatched capabilities now and well into the future. One thing missing in these discussions is the fact that America's potential enemies AREN't stupid. As much as WE realize the fact that our air-power is a key enabler in any conflict, THEYunderstand that as well. They're sitting in their versions of the Pentagon contemplating that exact issue: How do we neutralize America's advantages in the air? And they are doing more than thinking about it, they are ACTING on it.

Now, we realize they are acting on it, and this leads us to continue to plan for their increased capabilities. Voila! Systems like the F-22 and the F-35 are born! Designed to overcome any potential anit-access threat, both today and for the next few decades. But, these high tech systems come at a price; a BIG price! It's up to us to decide: is keeping our dominance in the air worth the price (risk versus cost)?

We can look at today's battlefields and say "not worth it, they don't provide anything speciaL against a few guys with low tech fighting means". We can also say, "And I don't see any potential threats out there that justify the expense". First arguement I can agree with, the second, not so much...

Now, I'll give you the AF's logic for keeping the F-22 line open. Hint: we (the AF) don't use the "it makes American jobs" arguement. That's not our job, it's Lockheed's. And trust me, Lockheed is more concerned about making money than keeping America safe. They ARE concerned about that little fact, and it makes them feel patriotic in bringing that point within a full-page ad in the post while at the same time making them look good, but they're number one priority is their bottom line. No, what the AF wants is to have enough F-22s to do the JOB, and succeed. THAT is why we've been asking for more. We are told to plan for a range of scenarios, and tell Congress how many jets it would require to succeed. The original number (over 800) was based on a very different scenario than what we use now. The AF asked for 380-ish to meet the current scenarios; Congress told us to stop at 183 because of cost (more of theat risk vs. cost debate!)

Of the 183 F-22s purchased, only 130-ish will be Combat Coded (i.e. all the "toys" kept up and maintained to combat readiness levels). We still need jets to train the new pilots on, jets to use for testing and developement of future systems, jets to create new tactics, and jets to keep in Reserve (we use historical data to realize that we WILL lose a few jets once in a while to accidents and war attrition). 130 combat coded jets won't be enough to do the mission in the future because of attrition. Bottom Line: we need more combat coded jets to be able to tell America that they are safe for the next generation or so. The AF's message is that we need about 240 jets to succeed at the scenarios we were told to plan for because of requirements and attrition, and reducing that number adds risk.

Now, some in Congress ask the question: why not make ALL the F-22s combat coded? Simple answer: it would take more money to UPGRADE the training jets to combat coded than it would be to simple buy the required number of jets needed to ensure we have enough.

So, my PERSONAL opinion, keep the line open for now so we have enough to be able to meet the needs, which equates to three more years of buys.

I know, this is WAAAAAAY off the OP's intent about the stimulus, but I just wanted to present some facts. And Personally, I'd rather our potential enemies remain afraid of us than provide easy-to-maintain ballparks in Conneticut and other pork projects of the similar ilk....:thumb:
 
Not for nothing, but Lockheed is afraid right now...in the WAPO they took a full page cover ad explaining how killing the 22 will hurt the economy. Reality is there would be a direct result of 95K jobs lost if they close this pipeline down. Plants will close and not just lockheed...remember those planes are filled with tons of electronics, steel, computers, rubber etc...Think about how many computer chips go into one aircraft, now multiply it, now remember they will need replacement parts, so multiply it again.

Remove this from defense and look at it as a purely economical stand point, there are people who would lose jobs without ever realizing it had to do with the demise of the 22. That woman who lost her job and is now on welfare, might have worked as a receptionist for a rubber company that supplies rubber for some stupid little gasket. She is so low down the totem pole that she never realized that the rubber boought by a manufacturing plant that makes gasket part xxx-45698 for the 22 was what made the difference for her company operating in the red or the black. The loss of that contract meant the loss of her job. So yes she really should care about the 22 surviving. Does anybody here believe that lockheed builds this jet from start to finish without sub-contractors supplying parts? Does anybody believe that these sub-contractors don't also support other industries? We do not live in a vacuum. Steel companies sell to Lockheed. Computer companies supply not only the computer chips for the planes, but also those nifty ones sitting at the employees desk at Lockheed. Lightbulb manufacturers supply the lightbulbs to keep the lights on in these huge production plants. So on and so forth. Shut down the line you are shutting down a lot more than the future air superiority.

You can fight until the cows come home about whether or not the jet is needed, but for right now our economy needs this jet. In the end before you say kill it, you should look at your own companies future. Working for a company making those computer chips...how about the company that makes paint...how about a company that has a janitorial contract with lockheed...even down to a realtor or a mtg company in GA where it is being built(people losing jobs typically don't buy homes or take a mtgs, but as we know the real estate market can kill an economy). Finally, if you own a mutual or 401K, make sure lockheed, GE and the suppliers aren't in your portfolio, because their stock will plummet for killing this plane.

Although I understand where you're coming from, it sounded like you were trying to say that it doesn't matter what we spend money on as long as it create jobs. Well, I think we should start spending few couple billion on building giant, electric, cake-shaped bomb shelters because god forbid we might just get nuked. Use the same parts we were going to use for the plane, and we're set. I don't think I see a difference between bomb shelters and 60 new F-22s since neither is needed right now. The cost:benefit ratio isn't high.

I don't think they will ever stop the production of 22s. If the government says, in let's say 2013, "You, over there, build me some new 22s for the new graduates of the Air Force Academy" then that's pretty much what will happen. :thumb:

Boxer most wars of epic proportion usually do occur by surprise. The Chinese have been building their military for years. The Russians under Putin have been consolidating power and remembering their previous glory. As for Chavez and the Crazy Mahmoud over in Iran they dont really need any encouragement do they.

Chavez is a joke, I can't understand why he hasn't been shot yet.
 
That woman who lost her job and is now on welfare, might have worked as a receptionist for a rubber company that supplies rubber for some stupid little gasket.

Well I was thinking more like a Circuit City employee or a Detroit auto worker but I guess we can go with that.
 
I don't think I see a difference between bomb shelters and 60 new F-22s since neither is needed right now.

OK, let's take a look at your arguement. You use the key words "right now". I'll grant you that point. RIGHT NOW, America really doesn't need either of them. But how about tomorrow, or 5 years from now, or 10, or 25? Your foresight is that focused that you can predict EXACTLY what is needed in the future? I would have LOVED to be in your shoes in 1988, when we all thought that with the fall of the Berlin Wall America wouldn't be in any wars for a while. Then a little thing like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait popped up, and we ALL spent the next 18 years in combat. I hope your right, just like I hope I live to 95+, but I buy insurance for my family just in case...

You want to build enough bomb shelters so ALL of America has a space in one? How does spending the tens-of-TRILLIONS of dollars it would need to make them? You want to keep our potential enemies concerned about what we CAN do if they decide to act-up? Then spending a few billion more now MAY be a lot cheaper than your first idea...
 
Although I understand where you're coming from, it sounded like you were trying to say that it doesn't matter what we spend money on as long as it create jobs. Well, I think we should start spending few couple billion on building giant, electric, cake-shaped bomb shelters because god forbid we might just get nuked. Use the same parts we were going to use for the plane, and we're set. I don't think I see a difference between bomb shelters and 60 new F-22s since neither is needed right now. The cost:benefit ratio isn't high.

I mean this kindly, but you absolutely missed the point.

The 22 is in production and 95K jobs are directly or indirectly going to feel the effect. Last time I looked the bomb shelter industry does not have the same effect.

Look at what DS stated about the train from Vegas to LA...we live in NoVA, the metro for over 8 yrs has tried to extend the route 5 miles to Tysons...it still has not poured one ounce of concrete. Why? Because they can't get approval for it to go either way...underground or overground. You will be lucky to ride that train in 20 yrs, and I mean either the Vegas or the metro.

Lockheed is making those jets, they are employing people, by cutting the financial support and not cutting the program, money will be going into the system today...cut it and all you are doing is adding to unemployment.

If you look back, the Strike sat in a worse sit in 1981, Reagan had just taken office and we had 20% int. rates, higher gas prices and higher unemployment. Had he or Cong. stopped funding the Strike where would we have been for the Gulf I or OIF? Would Russia have signed treaties with us (look at how they had no respect for us under Carter). Look at Putin and how he is behaving, Chavez, and I'm a Dinner Jacket (Ahlmendijad). You can't think well they are nut balls and their people will get rid of them...2 words...TALIBAN and Hussein...they were both insane regimes, but their citizens kept their mouths shut.

It to me is both the defense of our country, but realistically it is also economic, people are losing jobs daily, do we really believe that 30 million to the salt marsh mouth, or the 335 Million for STDs is a better way to spend it than something like a 22 which will have 20+ yrs of employment opportunities?
 
What's that expression, we're always preparing for the last war?

I just read that Dianne Feinstein's neighborhood got over $3million to protect a mouse, a mouse.

Where is that duct tape, because I am fairly certain my head is going to explode!
 
A lot of good positions and opinions on this topic. But I think some here are forgetting that this is a stimulus bill. A stimulus package pretty much has certain objectives that are accepted universally by just about every economist in the world. Including the CBO. The main objective is that the government re-route funds temporarily to provide the initial capital required to get an individual or company to be able to use that capital in such a way that it produces a profit and thus a means of continuing the cycle.

Tax cuts is one way of doing this. So are government contracts/spending on projects they normally would have held off on because of spending cuts. Normally, government spending directly related to jobs, are products, services, and labor by companies. In other words, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES don't count as "Jobs Created". We don't even want to discuss that. But the other areas where government money helps create jobs are usually the part of the company in question that is their stability. I.e. When the government is a company's ONLY customer, you might as well call them government employees. That's just a redistribution of wealth among taxpayers. Sometimes that's necessary, but that isn't the most practical. But some companies like airplane manufacturers, electronics companies, etc... don't just sell to the US Government. However, the US Government provides the stability in most companies during the slow and fast times. The military is one of the best examples of this. There are few military contractors where the government is their ONLY customer. But without the government's stable contracts, the company could not exist. And these are very specialize goods and services that you can't just turn around a year from now and buy 10 more because you saved up some money.

When the military decides on a plan or weapon system, they balance their budget with the company's ability to produce and the economy it affects. That is one reason they purchase so many of the items over a certain number of years. They do understand the affect they have on the economies. But you can see that even at the lowest levels of economy outside of a military base. Do you think that the local company that provides clean linen for the military motels, dorms, hospital, etc... works only for the military base? Definitely not. They also provides these services to restaurants, hospitals, hotels, motels, etc... all over the city. We have one such company in our area that covers a large area and many local towns. Now, even though the military and other government contracts aren't their biggest contracts, they are their reference of stability. In our area, hotels, restaurants, etc.... BOOM in the summer months and peter out in the winter. It's the government contracts that get these companies through the slow times and prevents them from having to layoff employees and spend more money on retraining employees during their hiring periods.

So yes, stimulating an economy by putting money out there that creates jobs IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. There are no benefits to putting money into the NEA, saving a mouse, or any welfare system. Don't MISREAD WHAT I SAY. We're not talking about the yearly BUDGET where these types are programs are budgeted for. We're talking about a STIMULUS PACKAGE where a certain party is trying to use the fear of the economy as a catalyst for them to get all the OTHER NON-STIMULUS items in that weren't approved in the past because there wasn't enough money in the budget. Here, they can push it through because it ISN'T part of the budget. All it's going to do is create MORE DEBT. Every DOLLAR that can assist in creating a job, has the potential of PAYING ITSELF BACK IN THE FORM OF PAYROLL TAXES. Every dollar spent on non job creating projects such as the National endowment of the arts and field mice, becomes MORE DEBT. It's really quite that simple. There's a difference between the annual budget and a stimulus package. The military stimulates the economy. That is one of the fundamental differences between the 2 parties. While they both have their problems, the main difference is on WHAT they spend money on. Most of the "Feel Good" projects that the government spends money on, becomes 100% pure debt.

As much as some will disagree; the Military to government spending; is like Athletics is to School spending. Many people complain about spending "Limited School Resources" on the athletics department compared to educating the students. When the truth is, the athletic department and their numerous sports, are usually self sufficient or produce a profit that goes to the school. Between donations, ticket sales, sponsors, etc... the different athletic teams usually cost very little to the school. A lot less than many want to believe. At the college level, the athletics department definitely brings in a lot of money. Not only in the areas I mentioned, but also as a means of recruitment of new students. A strong athletics department creates a very popular school where a lot of students want to attend. Well, the military is not much different. They definitely spend a lot of money, but they create more jobs and redistribute funds around the economy more than just about any other government program or department does. Why do you think so many senators and reps FIGHT when they want to close a base in their district. A normal government agency or program is just spent tax dollars. It provides a SERVICE to the people and it's money SPENT. Military expenditures do the same when it comes to providing a service, but they also provide the stability and consistency for many companies to stay in business, hire additional employees, and use their company to support many other industries and companies.
 
Ok, just gonna say a few words here.

Iran

Currently we are allies with Isreal. Iran has vowed to eliminate Isreal from the face of the earth. If Iran went to war with Isreal we might possibly be at war with Iran. This shows how close we are to going to war with Iran.

China

Personally I dont think we will go to war with China because we already are, economically speaking. We are losing bad. But, we need China for some goods, and they need us for other goods. So I dont see a reason besides the spread of democracy to go to war with China.

Russia

I can see us going to war against Russia. This past summer Russia attacked Georgia, they were flexing their old muscle. Was it to test the U.N. and see what they could get away with? Possibly, were they gaining experience for the army to face someone else? another possibly? Also Russia shut down an oil pipeline not to long ago. Millions were without heat in Europe and gas prices spiked here in the states. Russia is a definite threat.



I am not saying we are garunteed to go to war, but you cant look at today, you must also look for tomorrow. I am supportive of more F-22's and for better body armor plates. The army and marines just recalled thousands. We need better plates for today and tomorrow and we need F-22's for tomorrow.
 
CC - if only the rest of the American public had even a basic understanding of economics and the slightest desire to be informed we might not be looking this disaster in the face.

As for the next war...China, Russia, Iran, South America...we probably will not even see it coming. We usually dont want to acknowledge it happening. When Saddam invaded Kuwait we watched the build up and heard the language, but ignored all the signs. Same with the other conflicts like Korea, WWII etc. It is in our nature to believe a war can be avoided, I wish it were in everyone elses.
 
Back
Top