It’s patriotic to want more ‘bang for the buck’

You know, stories like this leave me angry and frustrated:

“Development costs for the Pentagon’s major weapons systems soared last year, helping drive overruns that are “staggering,” the Government Accountability Office said in a report released yesterday.

The costs to research and develop fighter jets and other programs have been rising steadily. Last year, they were 42 percent over initial estimates. That compares with 27 percent in 2000, when the cost of the portfolio of programs was half of what it is today…

The figures reflect a weapons development and procurement system that is woefully broken, analysts say, and one that President Obama has vowed to begin to correct.

(GAO analyst Michael J. Sullivan said that) because most major weapons systems involve costly advanced technologies and investments in factories and workers, and have no commercial market, contractors typically demand that the government cover their risk by reimbursing them for unanticipated costs in “cost-plus” contracts….

The report said that the cost estimates for 10 of the Pentagon’s 96 largest weapons programs have grown by 32 percent, rising to $177 billion. That was a primary factor behind decisions by the military to reduce weapons purchases last year by almost a third, the GAO said.”

The Pentagon is, by almost any measure, the least efficient and probably most corrupt purchasing agent in the federal government. We tolerate mistakes, incompetence and conflicts of interest in the Defense Department that would get people put in jail in other agencies. And why?

Because in part, those who point out the Pentagon’s obvious problems are often dismissed as anti-defense, anti-military and unpatriotic. Well, baloney, or words to that effect. Twenty billion dollars wasted on an overpriced system that doesn’t work is $20 billion that we can’t spend on a system that could save actually American lives. It makes us weaker, economically as well as militarily.

For example, the F-22 fighter being built up the street in Marietta is an exquisitely beautiful piece of military overengineering, and it is sucking up billions that could otherwise produce “more bang for the buck.” It’s not unpatriotic to point that out — Defense Secretary Robert Gates may do so himself in the next few weeks, as part of a larger effort to remake military contracting. What’s unpatriotic is defending a wasteful defense program solely because it means jobs for the local economy.

By the way, according to the GAO, the cost of the F-22 has jumped 62.7 percent over its initial 2003 budget and is running 33 months behind its promised timeline.

169 comments Add your comment

Brad Steel

March 31st, 2009
3:44 pm

The bombs are still smarter than our kids.

Maybe those yellow ribbons should be green. Please bring back our troops and our money.

Lee

March 31st, 2009
3:45 pm

Don’t overlook the fact that much of military spending is really politicians bringing home the pork. Appropriations bill get laden with spending in well-connected politicians home states irregardless of what the military wants (or needs).

Corporal

March 31st, 2009
3:48 pm

Jay:

Sorry, we had BETTER start spending a whole lot more !!!

HEADLINE: Report: Chinese Develop Special “Kill Weapon” to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers …

https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp

Corporal

March 31st, 2009
3:50 pm

P.S. TO JAY:

By the way, you can run but you can’t hide …………….

“Petraeus makes stance on torture clear …” Your words but that pesky Army manual still has a lot of torturous things in it!

“The Army Field Manual allows use of isolation for 30 days or more, sleep deprivation, modified sensory deprivation, use of fear/manipulation of phobias, some use of sensory overload, use of drugs in interrogation — all of these are forms of banned cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment.”

This is the Army manual that General Petraeus supports.

Is he still your hero or are you going after him?

George American

March 31st, 2009
3:51 pm

Once again. Typical unAmerica commie propaganda from the drive-by left-wing media. Better $20 billion spent on bombs than $.02 spent on welfare moms and shiftless gov’t teet-sucking bumbs.

Corporal

March 31st, 2009
3:53 pm

HEADLINE: Miss Universe Describes Gitmo Tour as ‘Fun’ and ‘Relaxing’..

Well, there you go !!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511879,00.html

WhoCares

March 31st, 2009
3:53 pm

Tell us more. What better bang for the buck could we get other than the F-22? Maybe we should take some stimulus money and buy that AND the F-22

DB, Gwinnettian

March 31st, 2009
3:54 pm

Or, as an America-hating peacenik put it:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children…This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

And I feel certain that ol’ Ike would say “double that again” for the kinds of over-runs reported in that WaPo piece you linked, were he around to see this.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
3:54 pm

Corporal has agreed to paying more taxes.

Corporal

March 31st, 2009
3:55 pm

HEADLINE: “Angry French workers take bosses hostage …”

Now that Obama has started ignited a “class war” in the United States look for some of this here. Thank you Mr. President.

Corporal

March 31st, 2009
3:57 pm

Taxpayer:

Depends on what it goes for.

Federal funding of abortion – no.

Appropriate and useful military hardware – yes.

This is not brain surgery.

Corporal

March 31st, 2009
3:59 pm

It’s so refreshing to see a Democrat with integrity…

AMAZING ……… GOD BLESS HIM.

HEADLINE/WASHINGTON (CNN) – Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has signed a bill into law banning the use of state funds for embryonic stem cell research.

The move puts the DNC chairman at odds with President Obama, who signed an executive order earlier this month reversing the Bush administration’s ban on federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells.

DB, Gwinnettian

March 31st, 2009
3:59 pm

Off-topic, but too good not to share: latest VF piece on The Man Who Ate the GOP.

The dirty little secret of conservative talk radio is that the average age of listeners is 67 and rising, according to [Jon] Sinton—the Fox News audience, likewise, is in its mid-60s: “What sort of continuing power do you have as your audience strokes out?”

DB, Gwinnettian

March 31st, 2009
4:01 pm

Better $20 billion spent on bombs than $.02 spent on welfare moms and shiftless gov’t teet-sucking bumbs.

that’s a great slogan. By all means, run with it, George!

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
4:04 pm

It must be brain surgery since we the people have already told you that you cannot have your expensive worthless weapons and that you are just going to have to accept the fact that Roe v Wade still stands.

Truth Seeker

March 31st, 2009
4:07 pm

How can some US citizens call themselves Patriotic; And would like to see President Obamas administration fail? Can someone ask O’Reily, Limbaugh, Fox News,etc.)??????

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
4:08 pm

DB,

The conservatives (Republicans) are truly armchair warriors — they’re too old to even get up any more. They just sit there and complain Why, I remember when I stood side by side with Ike and Patton and all them real warriors and we fought back the enemy. Now, all they want to do is talk! Then, they fall back asleep until supper time.

jasper

March 31st, 2009
4:08 pm

Spot on Jay, just another case of government corruption and inefficiency, be it military, mortgage underwriting, securities and investment regulation, healthcare, or just plain governing. I’m sure we’re all tickled with our new president’s symbolism, but its time to stop the madness of idol worship and get back to the business of mistrusting and scrutinizing self serving crooked politicians. (all apologies for the redundancies)

mike

March 31st, 2009
4:16 pm

“Because in part, those who point out the Pentagon’s obvious problems are often dismissed as anti-defense, anti-military and unpatriotic.”

I think this is a straw-man argument. John McCain is probably the best known critic of wasteful Pentagon spending and I don’t remember anyone calling him any of the above.

Jay’s point about wasteful spending is well taken. His complaint about having patriotism questioned is superfluous to his argument. To be fair, this may be in deference to his regular posters who can’t engage in a conversation unless they can bash Republicans or conservatives, frequently by hypocritically questioning their patriotism.

bugger

March 31st, 2009
4:17 pm

32% overrun on the ten largest defense projects is not really a runaway in the world of government contracts, and spending projects. We should obviously try to do things more efficiently, but to make the totally unsubstantiated claim that the pentagon is the most corrupt and least efficient agency in the federal gov’t. is absurd.

By far the largest cause for cost overruns in any federal project is changing specs on products after the bids. With the entire congress, and military leadership making little changes here and there, living within an original bid is impossible.

As an example, just a few days ago you stated the Atlanta airport was one of the most effecient in the country. This was in response to the prospect of the state taking over the airport. How do you explain the hugh cost overruns for the new terminal then. Does this mean that Decosta in corrupt. Of course not. It was because of changes in the specs. Now if I were rabidly anti Decosta, I could probably make a halfway decent case that he was incompetant, and hint at corruption.
This would be wrong however. Just as you are wrong letting your anti military bias guide your pencil across the page.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
4:17 pm

Jay – DB-Gwinnettian

Okay, I’ll get personal for a bit. Especially for some of the newbies like G.

Far as I can tell, the only regular posters on this forum who have called for a decrease in defense expenditures have been AmVet and…. (can you guess?) – me!

DB – while the issue has historically been framed as ‘guns or butter’ that’s one of those ‘either or’ arguments I find misleading. I think in terms of ‘guns AND butter’ – just not to excess for either.

Costs soar because the systems take years to develop. As the report points out, many of the technologies are developed along the way. And as the years roll by, the users think up new things to add. So the system today is in many ways different from what was proposed. And that drives up costs.

Interesting to not cost-plus contracts developed in response to past poor practices. Just to keep in mind, simply put, cost-plus means we pay contractors for time and materials and an agreed-upon profit. If the gov’t changes requirements, wants some stuff dropped off that cost gazillions to develop, or says ‘now we want it to do this, too’ – the contractors don’t eat it.

But a real culprit in all this is Congress – no matter what happens, they keep appropriating the money.

But back to the initial point – even during the campaign I lamented how both candidates – Democrat and Republican – called for increases in defense spending. And Pres Obama’s budget shows he really, really likes spending money on defense.

If there was one area I’d like to see him exercise leadership, this is it.

But even Spkr Pelosi and Sen Reid won’t take this one on -

mike

March 31st, 2009
4:18 pm

One other point that illustrates that Jay’s regulars are as uninformed as they are mindless in their partisanship:

The poster boy for corrupt and wasteful Pentagon spending is Jack Murtha. Last I looked, he is neither a conservative, nor a Republican.

I challenge any of the partisans on this board to point to a current Congressman who is worse on this count than Murtha.

T

March 31st, 2009
4:19 pm

Military spending is not a bad thing. Over spending on technology that is worthless, or does not protect soldiers(recall on protective vests) are.

Nice story on China’s capabilities Corpral. Do you have any on the advancements of our own technology that is not in developmental stage?

TW

March 31st, 2009
4:20 pm

*shiftless gov’t teet-sucking bumbs*

Is that Wall Street’s new handle? Or the meth head white republican welfare trash in North GA? Wait…being that he and band of merry morons are drawing retirement, ‘shiftless gov’t teet-sucking bumbs’ can only mean the al qaeda propaganda team that occupied the White House for the last eight years. Yes, that’s it. After all, never has there been a more egregious abuse of the welfare concept than the coin paid to ‘w’ for doing nothing but taking a dump on the Red, White, and Blue.

mike

March 31st, 2009
4:21 pm

Paul

“But even Spkr Pelosi and Sen Reid won’t take this one on -”

Are you kidding? Pelosi tried to make Murtha House Majority Leader.

Corporal Punishment

March 31st, 2009
4:21 pm

we have to blow up the chinamen. if we can’t blow them up, we need to torture them into submission. especially if they have abortions. – yes.

no amount of money is too much for arms if we use them on the chinamen, who are gonna blow us up if we don’t – just ask the Oblamatang.

Eric

March 31st, 2009
4:22 pm

Wow…a government agency spending money inefficiently. Stop the presses. What a shock.

mike

March 31st, 2009
4:22 pm

Looks like TW is trying to fill Trash’s void in the hateful bigotry department. Nice to see the a “tolerant” liberal in action.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
4:26 pm

Truth Seeker

O’Reilly was on the View yesterday and said (again) he hopes Pres Obama succeeds.

He’s on Letterman tonight.

Taxpayer 4:08

I couldn’t tell – are you calling for cuts in defense?

BTW – it’s times like this I like to remind people that when Rumsfeld was appointed SecDef he had a terrible time – because he proposed the Pentagon call a halt to the major weapons systems in development (he called it ’skipping a generation’). And, Republicanwarmongeringneocon that he was, he canceled a huge Army program, saved gazillions of dollars. One of those Army generals who was so critical of him and the Bush Administration used to manage the program. Imagine that.

DB, Gwinnettian

March 31st, 2009
4:26 pm

Paul @ 4.17, no argument from me.

I hauled out Ike’s quote just to note that a) there’s nothing new under the sun; people have been decrying opportunity costs on this stuff for forever; and b) as Jay writes, there’s nothing unpatriotic about expecting bang for the buck.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
4:27 pm

Mike

By ‘take this one on’ I meant cuts in the Defense budget.

DB, Gwinnettian

March 31st, 2009
4:28 pm

Mike @ 4.18, if you get your dream-come-true and see Murtha’s head on a pike tomorrow, does that eliminate the problem, here?

Somehow, I doubt it.

mike

March 31st, 2009
4:32 pm

DB –

“Mike @ 4.18, if you get your dream-come-true and see Murtha’s head on a pike tomorrow, does that eliminate the problem, here?”

Your straw man argument demonstrates that you missed my point entirely. My point was that the folks on this board who reflexively bash Republicans ignore the fact that Democrats are just as guilty. My post called outhypocrite posters, not teh Democrat Party.

Unlike most of the folks on this blog, I am not foolish enough to believe that either party has any moral or ethical high ground.

mike

March 31st, 2009
4:33 pm

Paul –

I understand that. That is why wanting to make Murtha your #2 demonstrates that you have no intention of doing so.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
4:37 pm

mike

Thanks for the clarification.

By that same line of reasoning, Spkr Pelosi taking no action to strip Rep Rangel of his Ways and Means chairmanship shows all the calls about ‘the Republican culture of corruption’ are nothing more than self-serving, rank politics.

mike

March 31st, 2009
4:39 pm

Paul –

Well I thought that was self-evident :)

DB, Gwinnettian

March 31st, 2009
4:41 pm

I am not foolish enough to believe that either party has any moral or ethical high ground.

Well neither do I–I just happen to think the GOP sucks a lot more than the Democratic party, is all.

BTW, how does my noting that you’ve been carrying on about Murtha in a way that suggests you have an unhealthy obsession with the man constitute a “straw man” argument? Are you saying you wouldn’t like to see the man’s head on a pike? (career-wise, of course, not literally.)

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
4:44 pm

I like cutting wasteful spending, so called ‘defense spending’ included. As I recall, that is Obama’s plan as well. All he has done so far is approve what was already planned by Bush and unless you have already reviewed all the planned expenditures and critiqued them, I would assume that it would be difficult to do otherwise.

mike

March 31st, 2009
4:47 pm

DB –

I wasn’t “carrying on” about Murtha. I was using him as a very clear illustration that despite the partisan ranting of the folks at the top of the page, this was a bi-partisan issue.

I never said that I wanted the guy’s head on a pike, so your claim that I wanted that is a straw man. I don’t care for the guy, but I don’t think he is any better or worse than most Congressmen, just more powerful. I put him on the same level as pork-grabbing Mitch McConnell.

Regardless, my post was a criticism of the partisan Republican-bashers, not of politicians.

ByteMe

March 31st, 2009
4:49 pm

Yes, defense appropriations in Congress and project management and procurement at DoD need to change.

BUT… Defense contractors employ high $$, high skill employees. their R&D creates astounding advances. High $$ employees pay higher taxes and have greater purchasing power.

Much more skill and high $$ employees than, say, building a road to nowhere in Alaska. There’s something to be said for that.

I Report/ You Whine

March 31st, 2009
4:52 pm

Gosh, a government program with cost over runs!

Why, I never!

mike

March 31st, 2009
4:54 pm

ByteMe -

Make sure your send Robert Byrd a note and tell him to stop wasting billions on Corridor H.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
4:54 pm

Taxpayer 4:44

Pres Obama has promised, both as candidate and as president’ to go thru the Fed budget ‘line by line’ and eliminate wasteful spending. (I’m really, really looking forward to his results).

He also said, as candidate, he would increase defense spending.

He may cut or delay certain programs, but overall defense spending is up, up, up.

Your SURE he’s a Democrat?

:-)

DB, Gwinnettian

March 31st, 2009
4:55 pm

mike @ 4.47, point duly noted.

My declaration of your Murtha mentions as “unhealthy” is hereby rescinded.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
4:58 pm

You just gotta love these people that get on here and complain about other bloggers for being so-called partisan Republican-bashers. They’re so funny.

RW-(the original)

March 31st, 2009
5:01 pm

What’s unpatriotic is defending a wasteful defense program solely because it means jobs for the local economy.

That’s some truly whacked out definition of unpatriotic even if it wasn’t a strawman.

Mike

March 31st, 2009
5:01 pm

DB –

Many thanks!

Taxpayer –

Well, if the shoe smells…

You were the one bleating about Republicans in response to Jay’s post. But that level of mindless partisanship is the only discourse in which you can engage. You don’t know/care if folks like Murtha are the worst offender. You just dive in head first with mindless Republican bashing.

Joey

March 31st, 2009
5:01 pm

Singling out the military for cost overruns does not come close to addressing the problem. Any government sponsored development exceeds the original estimate by large amounts.

Public transit is one of the worst, design, R/W acquisition, construction of stations, purchase of trains and buses, all big over runs. Roads and Bridges, when designed and managed by Government have unpredictable cost. You name it the Federal Government can and will mis-manage.

Social Security? So why give them our medical care? Our auto-makers? Our banks? Why?

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
5:03 pm

Paul,

I’d have to see the context for the claim that Obama would “increase” defense spending. All I recall off the top of my head is that he agreed to something like a 5% increase for the initial bill and I think that was a number that dated back to the previous year. I don’t recall any commitment from him to generically increase defense spending. Such a statement is meaningless when taken out of context.

ByteMe

March 31st, 2009
5:03 pm

mike @4:54: pretty sure he doesn’t read his own mail anymore. And his staff doesn’t give a rat’s ass about anyone not in WV. But, yes, anyone who gets to head the appropriations committee is pretty corrupt when it comes to who gets money for what.

TW

March 31st, 2009
5:06 pm

That the GOP now defends frivolous spending on this front only goes to confirm the death of conservatism. Real Republicans would have the same problem with this as you, Jay. Instead, as you see here on the board, the filth that has infected the real Republican Party is all too happy to waste money on anything expect less fortunate fellow Americans.

Explains why they lose:)

mike

March 31st, 2009
5:11 pm

TW –

Your argument is a great illustration of my point. Jack Murtha is the worst example of a corrupt Congressman who uses Pentagon spending to stay in office. Folks like yourself are far more interested in partisan bashing than you are in solving the problem. If you really were so offended by wasteful Pentagon spending, you would call out Democrats as much as you call out Republicans. Obviously that is not the case.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
5:12 pm

Well, some people just need to make up their minds. One time it’s partisan Republican-bashing and the next it’s mindless Republican bashing. What next! Will it be a declaration from this non-bashing non-partisan non-discriminating, etc., person that everyone else, except himself, is a mindless partisan fill-in-the-blank basher or other such blogger. Poor pitiful thing just needs some attention, doesn’t he. Awwwww. :sad:

mike

March 31st, 2009
5:14 pm

Look, the truth is clear:

Our Congressional system is predicated on Congressmen staying in office by bringing pork home for their districts. It is a bipartisan plague and anyone who tries to claim otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or a cynical partisan. Pork spending is public record and both parties are equally to blame.

Pogo

March 31st, 2009
5:15 pm

DB. Your comment on the average age of the conservative listeners of conservative radio and to Fox News is proof positive that people really do become smarter as they get older. The only people who could fall for the bull crap that Obama is laying out to us are the people that are willing to sacrifice everything, including their personal freedom and their personal rights to prove that what they believe and voted for has been the “right” thing. Even as Obama and his pixies rush us towards some Orwellian government-dependent society you sit and you worship him. There are many parallels to be drawn between todays political/economical situation and pre-Nazi Germany with one big exception; even Hitler didn’t abide laziness and Obama and the democrats do and in fact they reward it by the “re-distribution” of wealth. One day the blinders will come off and you will find yourselves sitting in your 8′X 10′ cubicle with a government provided monitor telling you what you must think while you sit and await your government provided food, health care and your safety. Individualism? That is gone under this man. Oh, and I’m not 67. I’m 49 and I have seen enough and read enough to know that what the Dims are throwing out is going to damage this country for many, many years. God help the children that come after. Anyhoo, I’m off to Fox Nation. Lots of good stuff there. Not the same old bitter liberals with the same old tired drivel.

mike

March 31st, 2009
5:18 pm

Taxpayer –

In your case it is mindless partisan Republican bashing. Your posts at the top of this blog are all the evidence one needs.

You don’t care about wasteful Pentagon spending. If you did, you would call out guys like Murtha. Instead, your rely on mindless partisan Republican bashing, which is the beginning and end of all of your posts.

Your silly claims that my posts are based in a need for attention is just evidence that you can’t justify anything you say with facts. But hey, there is nothing new about that. Why don’t you tell me I need a hug next. That will really substantiate your argument.

WhoCares

March 31st, 2009
5:18 pm

Tastes Great!

Paul

March 31st, 2009
5:19 pm

Taxpayer 5:03

Well, I did a quick review, and while some would say Obama was all over the place (telling one group he’d cut Defense by 15 percent) most analyses showed an overall increase. One point by point comparison of a breakdown of defense spending showed almost no difference between candidate Obama and candidate McCain, and that was on a Republican site, which concluded with

“It doesn’t seem like a lot of cost-cutting will be going on in the defense department. In fact, it looks like there may very well be quite an increase in spending by both candidates. One can only wonder how much that increase will be and how either candidate can claim to have a position on fixing the economy without discussing the costs associated with programs that they advocate. Maybe their stances on the other issues will be more specific in that regard (I doubt it). Until I compared both men’s positions side by side, however, I never would have guessed that Barack Obama might be the candidate who planned to spend the most on defense!”

From ABC’s “This Week on Sunday” “Obama, now the Democratic nominee, was asked on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to cite examples of where he would be willing to break with his own party.

“I’ve said that we need to increase the size of our military,” Obama answered, noting that such legislation might anger some on the left.”

He’s stated he wants to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps. Personnel cost are the biggest driver in the defense budget. It seems most of the ‘cuts’ are in future costs and overall Defense spending will still rise.

So that’s the context.

TW

March 31st, 2009
5:21 pm

mike – I officially announce that Jack Murtha is a rat for using Pentagon spending to stay in office. I have no problem with him paying a poltical price for doing so.

I assume you wanted ‘w’ impeached for misleading us into a war in Iraq? You know, being that you’ve got your Pelosi skirt on…

BTW – that Iraq move lead to any increased Pentagon spending?

@@

March 31st, 2009
5:22 pm

jay: Got your skirt caught up in “the revolving-door” of Pentagon waste, have ‘ya? Lobby your representatives.

~~~~~~~~~~OO~~~~~~~~~

The Russians, at least, are looking forward to a “meet and greet” with Obama in Europe.

No agreement on Iran until there are concessions on the ABM. What are the concessions, you might ask?

The Russians would entertain a comprehensive ABM system, jointly developed and presumably under some sort of international control, as opposed to American BMD installations along Russian borders. Reasonable?

Only if we’re willing to surrender critical technologies via a blank check and military bases in Poland and the Baltics. Nope! All they’re wanting is for those regions to serve as a neutral buffer zone.

If Obama concedes on that point, then NATO (under internal pressure already) would be dead in the water. No guarantees built into NATO membership.

As with the rest of the meetings, there is a superficial collegiality in place. Beneath the surface, it is a very different meeting. Obama tabled his Afghanistan plan on Friday, setting up a discussion of European contributions to the effort. Medvedev rejected the American proposal on BMD-Iran last night, letting the Americans know — if they didn’t already — that there would be no deal. Everyone is putting their cards on the table. It is not clear whose cards are better at the moment, but it is clear the stakes are getting higher.

Whose gonna fold?

I have been without my Stratfor for four days due to accessibility problems. I may have to swap my husband for a guy named Solomon at Stratfor. He comes to my rescue every time.

mike

March 31st, 2009
5:24 pm

TW –

“mike – I officially announce that Jack Murtha is a rat for using Pentagon spending to stay in office. I have no problem with him paying a poltical price for doing so. ”

Well if that is the case, why is your whole rant above directly solely at Republicans?

“I assume you wanted ‘w’ impeached for misleading us into a war in Iraq?”

Well, I don’t think he misled anyone any more than Hillary did, but what have I said that would lead you to assume I want anyone impeached? You are just ranting again.

“You know, being that you’ve got your Pelosi skirt on”

This makes no sense. What is this supposed to mean?

“BTW – that Iraq move lead to any increased Pentagon spending?”

Sure it did. As does Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan. But, I wasn’t complaining about Pentagon spending. I was complaining about partisan hypocrites.

TW

March 31st, 2009
5:25 pm

Pogo – if the rightwing really has that big a problem with an ‘Orwellian government-dependent society,’ why did they deliver us to it’s doorstep?

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
5:25 pm

Yet, you keep coming back for more even when there is none of this so-called mindless partisan Republican bashing that you, the self-proclaimed blog filter for all that does not fit within your limited realm of worthiness for posting, claim to be highlighting for all other bloggers. I wouldn’t hug you with your mama’s arms. Now, why don’t you continue with your expected dissertations. Perhaps, I’ll even give you some more attention, poor thing. :sad:

DB, Gwinnettian

March 31st, 2009
5:30 pm

Pogo, tell the folks over at Fox Nation that they don’t look a day over 70, honest!

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
5:30 pm

Paul,

I still prefer to reserve judgment on the spending issue. There are many ways to interpret some things. For example, I too expected to see an increase in spending to take care of our soldiers but I also expected to see a cut in wasteful pie-in-the-sky programs that simply do not fit into the world as we see it today. The net could still be a reduction in military spending. Or, things could change. We’ll see.

TW

March 31st, 2009
5:31 pm

mike – aw, c’mon. I throw you a bone with my Murtha comment and you can’t even fathom the idea that ‘w’ did something even a little bit wrong? Too much O’Reilly, mike. You’re response, of lack thereof, only shows how deep Limbaugh’s tongue has touched your subconscience. You define partisan hack…wait…no…that’s it! You are a liberal troll – no doubt! After all, leftwing money can’t buy better advertising than posts like yours.

Well done :)

mike

March 31st, 2009
5:32 pm

Taxpayer –

When did I proclaim myself the “blog filter”. I simply comment on other people’s post just like you do.

This reminds me of your silly rants about how anyone who disagreed with you was “whining”. I guess your new form of debate is to deem that anyone who disagrees with you “needs attention.”

Whatever. Your arguments are still pathetic and you are incapable of logical debate. Whoopee.

I Report/ You Whine

March 31st, 2009
5:35 pm

Social “Security” and Medi”Care” have over run their original budget estimates by $4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and will one day consume the entire US government in it’s entirety, and the libs want to whine about defense “spending,” what, about .00000000000000000000000000002% of the budget.

Whackjob.

mike

March 31st, 2009
5:39 pm

TW –

“I throw you a bone with my Murtha comment and you can’t even fathom the idea that ‘w’ did something even a little bit wrong? ”

Acknowledging that Murtha is the worst offender of the subject at hand is not throwing anyone a bone. It is admitting commonly know facts. I don’t think that Bush did anything wrong by invading Iraq, so I don’t know what you want me to say.

“Too much O’Reilly, mike. You’re response, of lack thereof, only shows how deep Limbaugh’s tongue has touched your subconscience.”

These are silly things to say. I think that O’Reilly and Limbaugh are partisan blowhards, much like Olbermann and Maddow. But hey, if you want to pin stereotypes on me for not sharing your views, you have lots of company on this blog.

“You define partisan hack…wait…no…that’s it! You are a liberal troll – no doubt! ”

Sure I am a partisan hack who called out McConnell. O’Reilly, Limbaugh and the Republican party just in today’s posts. But again, if you need to pin stereotypes on me….

“After all, leftwing money can’t buy better advertising than posts like yours.”

I’m glad that vapid statements like this bring a smile to your face. You are a true intellectual.

Go back and read your rants above and tell me about partisan hackery.

I Report/ You Whine

March 31st, 2009
5:41 pm

Ooops, typed too fast-

Social “Security” and Medi “Care” have over run their original budget estimates by $4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, give or take one or two zeros, and will one day consume the entire US government, and the libs want to whine about defense “spending,” what, about .00000000000000000000000000002% of the budget?

Whackjobs.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
5:43 pm

Taxpayer 5:30

I’ll wager that even after cutting programs, overall the Defense budget will increase. Yet some will claim “Pres Obama cut Defense!” Here’s how:

Much of the ‘cuts’ will take place in future budgets – they do a lot of ‘outyear’ planning at the Pentagon. Any reduction in a planned, future cost is a ‘cut.’

Say you get out of college and begin a job at 50 grand a year. They tell you your pay will increase at ten grand a year, so after five years you’ll be making a hundred grand. Well the first year (like Obama’s endorsement of Bush’s budget) you get your ten grand. So you’re making 60 grand. Then your employer tells you you won’t get ten grand a year increase for the next four years, you’ll get five grand each year. You expected 10 for four years, you got 5. So you started at 50 grand and at year five you’re making 80 grand, not the 100 you expected.

So you tell all your friends and family your pay was CUT 20 grand! That’s the ‘cut’ you’ll see in Defense, even though the budget increases every year!

Don’tcha’ just love it?

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
5:44 pm

Pull out all the posts of other individual bloggers that I have attacked first. As I recall, this exchange started, as usual, with you attacking my post because you did not like it. Get over yourself. My generic attacks of conservatives (Republicans) is what gets under your skin. You poor thing. :sad:

mike

March 31st, 2009
5:45 pm

Paul –

Please don’t try to confront with math. You should have seen his math on how much the interest on $900 billion of debt would be. It was pretty sad.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
5:49 pm

mike

Seems some people don’t have much interest in the interest.

I had to say that -

mike

March 31st, 2009
5:52 pm

Taxpayer –

Hmm. Well on this thread you have responded to Corporal’s posts, Paul’s posts and my posts. Of course, when I respond to your posts I am “attacking” them. Just as anyone who disagrees with you is a “whiner” and “needs attention.”

Actually this exchange stated when you responded to (or as you would say “attacked”) my “generic” attack of “mindless Republican bashers”, so spare me your incessant hypocrisy.

Also, even if you didn’t “attack” other people’s posts (which you do on a regular basis), since when is it against the rules to respond to someone else’s posts? Who said that we must generically attack whole segments of society? Who named you the “blog filter”?

Boy, you can sure fit a lot of hypocrisy in a small amount of words :)

mike

March 31st, 2009
5:55 pm

Paul –

LOL.

Actually Taxpayer did have such an interest. He multiplied the debt by an interest rate and declared it the total interest to be paid, utterly ignoring the costs of interest compounding over decades. As you can tell, he is much more “interested” in making generic attacks on people who don’t share his narrow views than he is in educating himself on the subjects of which he speaks.

TW

March 31st, 2009
5:56 pm

Congrats to Senator Al Franken.

The year is 2000. The question – how will the moron ‘w’ fair as president?

So bad he’ll leave us in economic disaster. Worse than that, he’ll leave us mired in two wars. Worse than that, he’ll do so bad that the GOP won’t be able to run a war hero after him and win. He’ll do such a bad job as president that the Democrats will be able to run a comedian for a senate seat…and win.

geez…

Mrs. Godzilla

March 31st, 2009
5:56 pm

IRYW
PLease link to data on that outrageous claim in your 5:41.
It does not pass the smell test.

From RealClearPolitics:

Obama Announces Procurement Reform Effort

highlights:

“In addition, today I’m announcing that part of this deficit reduction will include reforms in how government does business, which will save the American people up to $40 billion each year. It starts with reforming our broken system of government contracting. There is a fundamental public trust that we must uphold. The American people’s money must be spent to advance their priorities — not to line the pockets of contractors or to maintain projects that don’t work.”

“But I reject the false choice between securing this nation and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars. And in this time of great challenges, I recognize the real choice between investments that are designed to keep the American people safe and those that are designed to make a defense contractor rich.”

“We want to see if we can partner with Senator McCain and Senator Levin to get this done as soon as possible. And thanks to Secretary Gates, some of the reforms that they’ve talked about are already beginning to take shape. And I’ve asked him to work with Senators Levin and McCain on developing this legislation as it moves forward, and Bill Lynn, who is heading up procurement issues at our White House as Deputy Secretary of Defense is going to be leading the charge on this, as well.”

Read the whole piece here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/obama_announces_procurement_re.html

Chill. Obama’s got this too.

I Report/ You Whine

March 31st, 2009
6:00 pm

Thomas Sowell knows the score-

What is even worse than making mistakes is having sycophants telling you that you are doing fine when you are not. In addition to all the usual hangers-on and supplicants for government favors that every President has, Barack Obama has a media that will see no evil, hear no evil and certainly speak no evil.

mike

March 31st, 2009
6:01 pm

Mrs. Godzilla –

Sounds great to me. I hope he can pull it off.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
6:02 pm

Paul,

If that planned future cost was included in a budget and subsequently removed, I think that counts as a cut in spending. However, if it was never included in a budget, and claimed as a cut anyway, then that is certainly not on the up and up. I don’t know. I don’t have enough information yet about our new leader to see if he is going to play those sorts of games.

Corporal

March 31st, 2009
6:04 pm

HEADLINE/CBS: Taliban Leader Vows To Attack D.C. “Soon” …

Would someone please tell this poor guy that according to Obama and our new administration that he is “not” a terrorist; he is just “amorously challenged”.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/terror/main4905657.shtml?tag=topHome;topStories

Corporal

March 31st, 2009
6:06 pm

Taxpayer:

Regarding your 4:04 ….

1) They will until the next attack.

2) Dred Scott didn’t stand forever.

Corporal

March 31st, 2009
6:09 pm

Truthseeker:

Re: your 4:07 …. ask me ….

1) I want to see Obama fail when any policy is harmful to the U.S.
2) I want to see Obama succeed when any policy is beneficial to the U.S.

It’s really quite simple.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
6:10 pm

I defy you to identify a single post where I even mention your label. And, look at your posts. You just can’t seem to get enough of me. I am flattered that you think about me so much but I’m married and straight and have no interest in you beyond your entertainment value on this blog. You poor thing. :sad:

Corporal

March 31st, 2009
6:13 pm

Taxpayer:

Re: your 4:08

“Dulce Bellum Inexpertis”

P.S. Let’s all be nice now ……………

I Report/ You Whine

March 31st, 2009
6:14 pm

Duhzilla- Perhaps you could ask the White House, oh wait a minute, no you can’t, they haven’t a clue-

So here’s what the White House is telling American reporters – and by extension the American people – about Britain. It’s laid out in an inch-thick “press kit”, with the Seal of the President of the United States emblazoned on the cover, handed out to each of us on board the White House press charter en route from Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington to Stansted.

The United Kingdom, we are told, is “slightly smaller than Oregon”.

Uh, duh.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
6:15 pm

Oooh! Look what I typed to Corporal:

Taxpayer March 31st, 200 93:54 pm Corporal has agreed to paying more taxes.

I bet Corporal really got all bent out of shape over that one since it was such a personal attack.

HaHaHaHaHahahahahaha. Attack!

Paul

March 31st, 2009
6:18 pm

Taxpayer 6:02

My point was just that a federal budget can continue to grow every year by huge amounts and a politician will say it’s ‘cut.’

They all do it. At least they’re consistent.

@@

March 31st, 2009
6:23 pm

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said March 31 that Russia should join NATO. He made the comment to Gazeta Wyborcza, one of Poland’s largest daily newspapers. Sikorski added, “This would require not only the democratization of (Russia’s) system but also the introduction of civilian control over the army and the need to calm border disputes.” Sikorski’s statement comes before the 60th anniversary NATO summit to be held in Baden Baden, Germany, and Strasbourg, France, on April 3-4.

God love him.

Corporal

March 31st, 2009
6:28 pm

Taxpayer:

No more than my 6:13 to you ……….. :o )

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
6:33 pm

Hi Corporal,

I hope I did not offend you.

Taxpayer

March 31st, 2009
6:34 pm

Paul,

I agree that the budget can indeed continue to grow. Inflation alone can accomplish that even if all else remains constant.

Paul

March 31st, 2009
6:38 pm

Taxpayer

True, too. But at least Pres Obama has gone on record to eliminate wasteful programs OR (and this is significant) programs that no longer do what they were designed to do.

IF by elimination of the programs he means cutting not just program funding but ALSO eliminating all the federal employees who are assigned to the program, we will see real, substantive savings.

For the first time ever. And with a Democratic president.

But I doubt he’ll cut the federal workers.

And I doubt his party’s Congressional leadership will support him in this.

But it’s nice to dream -

caz1158

March 31st, 2009
6:39 pm

I dont know if anyone has spoken about this-Murtha states “If I’m corrupt it’s because I have a good reason”. Now they don’t even try to hide it,amazing.

Corporal

March 31st, 2009
6:40 pm

Taxpayer:

Not in the least.

But since Jay is hiding on this one, I would appreciate your thoughts on my 3:50. Jay painted the General yesterday as a “saint” but this doesn’t look good ………..

Frederick Douglass

March 31st, 2009
6:43 pm

A couple of questions to anyone on the right: (1) If my grandkids are already here now, and their parents (my kids) are losing their jobs,
losing their homes, and the aforementioned kids aren’t being properly
educated what then? (2) Explain to me how my progeny will be better off
if they starve to death while Obama sits on his hands and does nothing as you people on the right would have him do? Those are common sense questions, the kind that can’t be answered by catch phrases, Limbaughisms, and ideology. I’m not talking about receiving handouts, my
kids work hard, as have their ancestors, since arriving on these shores
by slave ships. Tell me how tax cuts to the rich, will directly affect my family?

@@

March 31st, 2009
6:46 pm

Trend in Pakistan looking dangerous?

Details of the March 30 militant attack against a police academy near Lahore, Pakistan, remain sketchy but the strategy behind the attack is clear. By hitting a target at the country’s core and so close to the Indian border, —–>militants are hoping to create tensions between Pakistan and India and engender fear<—– in India and the West that Pakistan is spiraling out of control.

The two Lahore attacks also suggest that the militants are now resorting to more daring guerrilla-style tactics involving multiple-man teams of gunmen assaulting moving as well as fixed targets. Although security facilities have been attacked since late 2006, this particular target is unique because of its location, only a few kilometers from the Indian border. The militant’s objective was likely to create tensions between Pakistan and India and engender fear in India and the West that Pakistan is spiraling out of control. Militants hope that this perception will elicit greater pressure on the Pakistani state and perhaps even result in the military involvement of foreign powers, which would work to the militants’ advantage.

I remember how you leftists said Bush fell right into Osama’s trap.

What say you about Obama?

I Report/ You Whine

March 31st, 2009
6:48 pm

We cut, they develop, still don’t believe me that the libs hate the United States and want to kill it?

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a “kill weapon” developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

Wonderful.

Maybe we can throw Obamabucks at them?

Paul

March 31st, 2009
6:55 pm

@@

Nasty question!