Bush seeks 401.7B defense budget for 2005

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-01-23 09:24pm

Geebus, where's this money coming from?!

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-23 09:28pm

Taxpayers, of course.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 09:28pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Geebus, where's this money coming from?!

From this year's tax receipts.

Rev Prez

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-01-23 09:29pm

He`s pretty sure he`ll win again.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-01-23 09:30pm

I never thought I'd be criticizing the Bush administration for excessive spending, of all things.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-01-23 09:31pm

So what progams is he proposing they deprive funds of for this?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-01-23 09:31pm

Rofl. More overpriced toilets for the Pentagon

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-23 09:32pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:So what progams is he proposing they deprive funds of for this?

Probably none. There are no major programs that Bush has cut heavily (there are some he hasn't funded as much as the Dems have wanted, but that's to be expected).

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 09:33pm

Transformation ain't cheap.

Rev Prez

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-23 09:35pm

Hamel wrote:Rofl. More overpriced toilets for the Pentagon

That was bad cost allocation, not actual overpayments.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-01-23 09:38pm

Joe wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:So what progams is he proposing they deprive funds of for this?
Probably none.

Because, of course, there is a surplus of money to spend on this... especially with the tax cut!

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-23 09:47pm

The tax cut is spread out over ten years and won't grow with GDP. If you take a look at the projected GDP for the next 10 years (140 trillion) the effects of the tax cut become quite miniscule.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-01-23 09:51pm

What do they plan to do with all that defense money???

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-23 09:54pm

More planes, hopefully.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-23 09:55pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Geebus, where's this money coming from?!

From the FUTURE!

I'd like to see some F-22s and JSFs out of this.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-01-23 10:04pm

They might actually get the F/A-22 out of that pretty expensive paperweight phase it's been going through. Why, $401.7bn will buy you, ooh, at least 1 and 4/5 of an aircraft.

But hey, it looks good and kicks arse and ain't no one else got this baby in the world!

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-01-23 10:12pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:They might actually get the F/A-22 out of that pretty expensive paperweight phase it's been going through. Why, $401.7bn will buy you, ooh, at least 1 and 4/5 of an aircraft.

You're kidding me, right?

I can understand the US military wants an expensive but smaller force, since that's better for today's world, but I think 1 and 4/5 of a plane is cutting it too close, we would say.

They should use that money to pay for stuff we really need, like something about that ammunition and weapons shortage problem some troops in Iraq have been experiencing.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-01-23 10:16pm

Shinova wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:They might actually get the F/A-22 out of that pretty expensive paperweight phase it's been going through. Why, $401.7bn will buy you, ooh, at least 1 and 4/5 of an aircraft.
You're kidding me, right?

I can understand the US military wants an expensive but smaller force, since that's better for today's world, but I think 1 and 4/5 of a plane is cutting it too close, we would say.

They should use that money to pay for stuff we really need, like something about that ammunition and weapons shortage problem some troops in Iraq have been experiencing.

I'm going to give you a cookie because I like your face.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-23 10:20pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:They might actually get the F/A-22 out of that pretty expensive paperweight phase it's been going through. Why, $401.7bn will buy you, ooh, at least 1 and 4/5 of an aircraft.

But hey, it looks good and kicks arse and ain't no one else got this baby in the world!

I don't get what people have against that plane.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-01-23 10:20pm

Joe wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:They might actually get the F/A-22 out of that pretty expensive paperweight phase it's been going through. Why, $401.7bn will buy you, ooh, at least 1 and 4/5 of an aircraft.

But hey, it looks good and kicks arse and ain't no one else got this baby in the world!
I don't get what people have against that plane.

Nothing... just the cost.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-23 10:31pm

And agonizingly slow development. I don't think people have anything against the aircraft, they have problems with the program.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-01-23 10:34pm

EFA has also come under fire for overruns in cost and timetable, but they basically say that you can't tell the gov't the real cost otherwise you'd never get funding whereas a half complete project is usually allowed to live.

The technologies are nothing but excellent, the rest of the show is what drags it down and I've been waiting for both aircraft since I could pronounce aeroplane.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-24 12:00am

They should use the F-22 the next time US starts fights another war. The effectiveness of the plane would shut up any critics.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-24 12:14am

Durandal wrote:I never thought I'd be criticizing the Bush administration for excessive spending, of all things.

You must not have noticed when he passed the largest farm subsidy (read: giant handout to huge agro-corporations) bill of all time.