The Stimulus Program

Pima: Again, this is the burning issue of choosing whether to focus on low-intensity conflicts like I&A, or focus on preparing for a large-scale conventional war.
Theoretically, If I were put into the spot to determine where to relocate the funds from the F22 into, I'd probably focus on several things
1) Uparmoring more humvees and purchasing more MRAPs
2.) More funds into infrastructure projects in I&A
3.) Developing the Iraqi Army's logistical and administrative capabilities
4.) Developing and producing a new turboprop plane for the USAF. I read an article about the idea in the Army Times recently, which said that commanders want such a craft that can offer better and more accurate air support than an A10.

But of course, by the time Im old enough to be in such a spot, we'll probably be arguing over whether to suspend the new space-fighter program instead of the F22 :biggrin:
 
I could think of about a million things to divert F-22 money to. I sure a representative of every branch could say that. There are always more ideas than money to support them. Sure would like to update my aging fleet, with 50+ year old ships still operating.
 
Last edited:
I spent a few minutes googling CERP.

This is the site I got info from http://www.sigir.mil/reports/pdf/audits/08-006.pdf
Here is the quick gist that I got out of it. The funding is to rebuild Iraq, and the money we confiscated (remember thetractor trailer filled with billions that Hussein took out of the bank?) were to be used to re-build Iraq. THE US did not use it to pump up our DOD funds. I have no true understanding of the finesse...so anyone and everybody please teach

I will not speak for Bullet about what he saw when he lived in one of Husseins palaces, but as a Realtor I have many military clients. One even stated it was their job to go onto the economy every day and spend THOUSANDS of dollars buying Iraqi products, that were not Iraqi made...i.e. play stations for the base/post. The intention was clear...start the economy humming

It was a shame that our soldiers left without protection, and to be honest I don't know who to blame on that...Bush, MOC's or DOD. Bullet had to travel to several spots to get his Body Armor. He left with us purchasing his Wileys b/c the $$$ weren't there.

The financial and democratic structure of any country let alone I & A is not a military (DOD) issue. DOD and DOS are 2 different entities. They do work hand and hand at times, but their financial budgets aren't conjoined

I understand your point about getting the Iraqi defense up and running and we should assist, but should we divert more funding to get them up and running at the expense of creating unemployment or not protecting our own citizens

As far as the A 10...I will only tell you that people who fly it...absolutely love it. One of our dearest friends was an A-10 prior to the 15... his cal sign was TANKS!

I am not sure how old you are, b/c the 22 is in the inventory the question is just how many...now NASA that is a whole new thread:eek:
 
Last edited:
LITS ...I agree with you.

Before this site I had an unrealsitic belief that all the CG did was stop drug runners and picking up Cubans...sorry! However, with you, Luigi and others I have a whole new respect...you truly are the unsung heroes!
 
I just have to say:

The A-10 is probably my second favorite aircraft ever built. That thing is a beast.

Alright, back on topic...
 
Pima said:
I do understand your point about OUR war, but was it OUR war in Bosnia?

Sometimes, we have to make it OUR war. Hussein was a tyrant, he killed his own son in laws. He gassed his own people. How was it okay to go and fight in Bosnia, but not there?

Not to be antagonistic, but have you gone to Iraq and spoken to the people, or are you basing your decision on the media reporting? The people that don't like us, also are more than happy to kill their own citizens. IMHO those people don't like anybody! The Iraqis for the 1st time are in a true democracy, they had 400 people running for govt, sometimes 33 of them for 1 position. That would have never happened under Hussein. That is something to take pride in.

As far as the economy, it is in a bad position, but economies are cyclical. We are also not as bad off as we were under Carter, so no fear there it is going to take time, but I am with the older folks here, a large part of this was not stimulus it was a chance to push someone's political agenda under the guise of we need it now and let's worry about it later. My analogy of this is like going to a restaurant when you are starving...you order the app, the big meal and dessert, 30 minutes later you complain that your stomach hurts because your eyes were bigger than your stomach:eek:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have not heard first-hand of what these people are like, and I'm going by why I see and read. The media's not to blame. OUR media is, I think.

Sorry, but I dont think economies are cyclical on their own. I might have happened before, but I don't think we should treat every occasion like the rest. I think the risk is too great.
 
Pima said:
Out of curiosity, from your standpoint where should we divert the money to.
Click to expand...

I agree that money should go to parts of the military, more that directly concern the people and less that concern weapons or vehicles (unless, like previously mentioned, it creates/maintains jobs). I think veterans should be helped out more, and less money should be going to welfare. (instead of the pork being put into parks and mice) We should invest more into trying to change our dependence on oil (but not into nuclear power plants).
 
What's wrong with nuclear power plants (in general, not the abysmal way the US has handled nuclear energy)?
 
Cogeneration just isn't very practical in the US with our distribution. No one wants to have the power plant that close if they don't have to.

Breeder reactors would be a great step ahead and if we could kick out Harry Reid so that Yucca can open, then we will be in "fat city." Nuclear is the best option, IMO, to transition from fossil fuel generated electricity to renewables and future tech.
 
hornetguy said:
Cogeneration just isn't very practical in the US with our distribution. No one wants to have the power plant that close if they don't have to.

Breeder reactors would be a great step ahead and if we could kick out Harry Reid so that Yucca can open, then we will be in "fat city." Nuclear is the best option, IMO, to transition from fossil fuel generated electricity to renewables and future tech.
Click to expand...

The ones I'm thinking of burn natural gas and emit vapor which can be directed for heating nearby water pipes (e.g. a college's or prison's showers) thus having great energy efficiency and a clean environment. I don't think people would argue against having a power plant near them if it doesn't make any noise and if it doesn't pollute. Maybe it's too "ugly" but we can't be so picky.
 
unitedstatesAFA2013 said:
The ones I'm thinking of burn natural gas and emit vapor which can be directed for heating nearby water pipes (e.g. a college's or prison's showers) thus having great energy efficiency and a clean environment. I don't think people would argue against having a power plant near them if it doesn't make any noise and if it doesn't pollute. Maybe it's too "ugly" but we can't be so picky.
Click to expand...

Natural Gas is a fossil fuel and I'd rather not be using more of those than absolutely necessary for a multitude of reasons. The "vapor" is water vapor and mostly CO2. As far as "energy efficiency" of doing that, you still have to pump that water and using some good ole' thermodynamic efficiency equations, its not terrific, but I suppose if the prison next door is using it, why not. Definitely not a clean environment with more CO2 and NOX, just doesn't emit sulfur compounds.

What power plant burning something doesn't make noise? I've been in Natural gas plants and near them, they're NOISY. Again though, it does pollute.

I don't mean to seem brash, but this is a major part of my studies and future, post-AF desires. ;)
 
Nuclear energy, if done right (And it has been in many places); is a very safe, efficient, and healthy form of energy.

And economies are cyclical. They HAVE TO BE. If they weren't, a loaf of bread would be $20. But that's OK, because minimum wage would be $64 an hour. There's no way around it. Traditional business cycles undergo four stages: expansion, prosperity, contraction, and recession. After a recessionary phase, the expansionary phase can start again. As the business goes, so does the economy. Here's so decent links. No real debate, just good old fashion data. That's the good thing about math and history. You don't have to defend it or debate it. Numbers defend themselves. Without corrections (Recession); there would be massive Inflation. Recessions may not be cyclical in the manner that they WILL happen every "X" amount of years. But the truth is, they WILL happen. And they HAVE TO HAPPEN.

http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab...d_the_stock_market_in_historical_context.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions
(I like this one because it goes back to the 1700's and shows the world)
 
hornetguy said:
Natural Gas is a fossil fuel and I'd rather not be using more of those than absolutely necessary for a multitude of reasons. The "vapor" is water vapor and mostly CO2. As far as "energy efficiency" of doing that, you still have to pump that water and using some good ole' thermodynamic efficiency equations, its not terrific, but I suppose if the prison next door is using it, why not. Definitely not a clean environment with more CO2 and NOX, just doesn't emit sulfur compounds.

What power plant burning something doesn't make noise? I've been in Natural gas plants and near them, they're NOISY. Again though, it does pollute.

I don't mean to seem brash, but this is a major part of my studies and future, post-AF desires. ;)
Click to expand...

You sure? I know it releases CO2, but I thought that most of its vapor was mostly heated water. Definite can't have these things (whether nuclear or cogenerative) alone, we also need to combine them with elec. hybrids and/or whatnots to have any desirable effects. By cutting oil combustion from cars and mixing it with these plants we could have desirable results. But then again it sounds so far-fetched that it doesn't look like we will live to see an inch of change.

I still think cogenerative p.ps. are cleaner and we can't be trusted to properly get rid of nuclear waste properly (although the government could create a new bureau to make sure it's done properly, and it following it create more jobs?). I don't know, too many pros and cons on either side.

You mentioned breeder reactors? I'm not too familiar with those but I'm guessing they use uranium also?
 
unitedstatesAFA2013 said:
You sure? I know it releases CO2, but I thought that most of its vapor was mostly heated water. Definite can't have these things (whether nuclear or cogenerative) alone, we also need to combine them with elec. hybrids and/or whatnots to have any desirable effects. By cutting oil combustion from cars and mixing it with these plants we could have desirable results. But then again it sounds so far-fetched that it doesn't look like we will live to see an inch of change.

I still think cogenerative p.ps. are cleaner and we can't be trusted to properly get rid of nuclear waste properly (although the government could create a new bureau to make sure it's done properly, and it following it create more jobs?). I don't know, too many pros and cons on either side.

You mentioned breeder reactors? I'm not too familiar with those but I'm guessing they use uranium also?
Click to expand...

Either way, whether you use the exhaust or not, you emit the same amount of gases. The major component of the exhaust is CO2 and water. (Hydrocarbon + oxygen yields CO2 and water) The heat produces NOX compounds (the compounds that cause the brownish haze you see), and some sulfur compounds (SO2) are released, though significantly less compared to coal. Remember where this stuff is coming from. ;)

Hybrids are a dead-end tech. You're taking the worst of both worlds. An underpowered engine and a low-energy capacity battery. The future will be a combination of full electrics in urban areas and hydrogen tech for long distances (doing research on hydrogen storage technologies here right now).

We will see the time for change come, its much closer than you think. The next or concurrent major issue along with energy will be water supplies too.

Nuclear waste isn't that hard to deal with. Put it into Yucca where it can be sealed in an emergency and can't contaminate ground water. The worst parts of the waste only need a meter thick layer of concrete over them to block the radiation.

Cogeneration doesn't remove the most important part: the use of fossil fuels. Still burning oil/gas/coal in huge amounts which means we still will run out, still are polluting, and still will have to rely on foreign sources.

A breeder reactor is 100 times more efficient than current light water reactors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

They can take other radiation sources like thorium and Uranium fission by-products to produce more electricity. They are the Honda Civics of nuclear fission efficiency with the power of a Ferrari.

The last government effort to regulate nuclear energy (see the EPA), has halted nuclear production and made both construction and electrical production cost prohibitive. It takes us twice as long at twice the cost to implement a new reactor compared to France which gets nearly 80% of its electricity from nuclear reactors.
 
Ah, you hit it on the head unitedstatesafa2013, what the United States federal government needs is ANOTHER agency to ensure things are done properly...only because the other agencies apparently won't. Personally I won't be happy until I'm told how many breaths a day I can take, since I too am contributing CO2 to the environment (sure makes the plants happy though).

And certainly with a new agency of "high qualified" GSs, there will be JOBS FOR EVERYONE!!! YAY!!

I want to work in MiniTruth, where do you want to work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top