A pretty expensive Swiss Army knife

I carry a pocket knife everywhere I go; it was part of how I was brought up, and I find that it comes in handy all the time. If I have to leave it at home because I’m going somewhere with a security screening — a Braves game, the state Capitol, etc., it feels a little odd.

I do not, however, choose to carry a Swiss Army knife. Sure, it can do a lot more things than my simple pocketknife, from opening a bottle of wine to sawing through a small branch. But it’s bulky and uncomfortable, and it does nothing particularly well.

Kind of like the F-35 fighter jet, which is supposed to be the Swiss Army knife of the U.S. military.

The F-35 is intended to serve the U.S. Air Force in its standard version, the Navy in its carrier version and the Marines in a third version. It is designed to perform both as an air-to-air fighter — light, fast and quick maneuvering — and as a close-air support platform for infantry engaged with the enemy, which means it has to carry a big bomb-and-missile payload.

However, as an article in Foreign Policy points out, it does none of those things all that well, and it does them at a very high and increasing sticker price:

“How bad is it? A review of the F-35’s cost, schedule, and performance — three essential measures of any Pentagon program — shows the problems are fundamental and still growing.

First, with regard to cost — a particularly important factor in what politicians keep saying is an austere defense budget environment — the F-35 is simply unaffordable. Although the plane was originally billed as a low-cost solution, major cost increases have plagued the program throughout the last decade. Last year, Pentagon leadership told Congress the acquisition price had increased another 16 percent, from $328.3 billion to $379.4 billion for the 2,457 aircraft to be bought. Not to worry, however — they pledged to finally reverse the growth.

The result? This February, the price increased another 4 percent to $395.7 billion and then even further in April. Don’t expect the cost overruns to end there: The test program is only 20 percent complete, the Government Accountability Office has reported, and the toughest tests are yet to come. Overall, the program’s cost has grown 75 percent from its original 2001 estimate of $226.5 billion — and that was for a larger buy of 2,866 aircraft.

Hundreds of F-35s will be built before 2019, when initial testing is complete. The additional cost to engineer modifications to fix the inevitable deficiencies that will be uncovered is unknown, but it is sure to exceed the $534 million already known from tests so far. The total program unit cost for each individual F-35, now at $161 million, is only a temporary plateau. Expect yet another increase in early 2013, when a new round of budget restrictions is sure to hit the Pentagon, and the F-35 will take more hits in the form of reducing the numbers to be bought, thereby increasing the unit cost of each plane.

A final note on expense: The F-35 will actually cost multiples of the $395.7 billion cited above. That is the current estimate only to acquire it, not the full life-cycle cost to operate it. The current appraisal for operations and support is $1.1 trillion — making for a grand total of $1.5 trillion, or more than the annual GDP of Spain. And that estimate is wildly optimistic: It assumes the F-35 will only be 42 percent more expensive to operate than an F-16, but the F-35 is much more complex. The only other “fifth generation” aircraft, the F-22 from the same manufacturer, is in some respects less complex than the F-35, but in 2010, it cost 300 percent more to operate per hour than the F-16. To be very conservative, expect the F-35 to be twice the operating and support cost of the F-16.”

In response, some will argue that whatever the price, we must pay it, and they will make that claim while depicting themselves as defense hawks. But real life doesn’t work like that. The country has a finite amount of capital to invest in defense, and a dollar wasted in one area is a dollar that is not available to be spent in another, perhaps more effective area. Efficiency in military spending is no less important, and in many ways much more important, than in other government operations.

But that’s not how we tend to see things. The hugely excessive and inexcusable GSA convention in Las Vegas cost taxpayers a total of $823,000, and drew congressional hearings over the extravagance. The mindset that allowed such waste is intolerable, but the amount of money involved is a rounding error of a rounding error over a program such as the F-35, which draws little to no public attention.

– Jay Bookman

458 comments Add your comment

Jm

May 2nd, 2012
5:59 pm

The jsf should be reevaluated

getalife

May 2nd, 2012
6:01 pm

Fiscal cons are not very consistent but we can cut the mic in 14.

No more war.

barking frog

May 2nd, 2012
6:02 pm

The USAF will get what it wants. The other services maybe.

saywhat?

May 2nd, 2012
6:02 pm

If Obama were to laud the F-35 program as indispensible, and predict and take preemptive credit for its eventual success, maybe the Republicans would do everything they could to shut it down.

As it is its a stupid program that needs to be shut down.

JohnnyReb

May 2nd, 2012
6:04 pm

It if Flys, Floats or F…s, it cheaper to rent it. Problem is, no one has a F-35 or equivalent for rent.

History is full of defense department cost overruns. It’s easy to identify, but much harder to fix.

If wars were traditional, an F-35 might be needed. But it’s hard to justify that kind of money where the primary use is getting pilot minimum flying time in. Terrorists don’t have air forces.

Willydoit?

May 2nd, 2012
6:04 pm

Did anyone really expect it to be within budget? Never gonna happen in our good ol’boy republic. Too many cousins on the payroll of these projects.

TM

May 2nd, 2012
6:06 pm

Kinda like Obama care. They promise one cost to get it pass and then the true costs come later when it is too late to do anything about it except raise taxes to pay for it.

josef

May 2nd, 2012
6:07 pm

saywhat
@ 6:02

The Obama administration might want to start taking that approach…sad to say, but in today’s climate that makes sense.
******

The military have always been magpies when it comes to shiny objects…

sayin' it like it is

May 2nd, 2012
6:07 pm

if the jet is too expensive, we should shelf it, but liberals only scream about budget cuts when it comes to the military. How much of the federal budget is defense spending in comparison to Obama care, good grief. Except for oil/gas subsidies and defense spending, liberals are no deficit hawks!

ty webb

May 2nd, 2012
6:08 pm

Hip Hip Hooray! Bookman bemoaning Big-Government inefficiency…I’ll drink to that.

getalife

May 2nd, 2012
6:12 pm

Audit military spending and you will have many scandals like missing pallets of money in Iraq.

Giving the military a blank check is ignorant.

I remember how scared the cons were of aq.

Now they man up and want to cut military spending.

Right cons?

slowillie

May 2nd, 2012
6:13 pm

This concept was tried and failed in the 60’s with the FB-111. The only variant that survived was the Air Force version. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, that list is endless!

Willydoit?

May 2nd, 2012
6:14 pm

“Hip Hip Hooray! Bookman bemoaning Big-Government inefficiency…I’ll drink to that”

Now, imagine healthcare costs and bureaucracy thats in our future!!
The same folks that oversee paying for the F-35 will be taking care of healthcare soon!

jconservative

May 2nd, 2012
6:16 pm

Good solid column Jay,

Defense procurement has always been a prime example of incompetency.

No one can name a defense program that came in on budget.

Eisenhower was completely correct.

Fred ™

May 2nd, 2012
6:18 pm

JohnnyReb

May 2nd, 2012
6:04 pm

It if Flys, Floats or F…s, it cheaper to rent it. Problem is, no one has a F-35 or equivalent for rent.

History is full of defense department cost overruns. It’s easy to identify, but much harder to fix.

If wars were traditional, an F-35 might be needed. But it’s hard to justify that kind of money where the primary use is getting pilot minimum flying time in. Terrorists don’t have air forces.
+++++++++++++++++

Woomph there it is. JohnnyReb nailed it. The most “sophisticated” airplane we need for the war on terror is the A-10.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bMfrixJyWc

Nancy

May 2nd, 2012
6:19 pm

Ike warned us in the ’50s about the uncontrollable growth and power of the U.S. military complex. It’s a turnstyle for former lobbyists, politicans and retired military brass filtering into defense contractor jobs and the like that our taxpayer dollars will continue to be wasted and mispent to keep these bozos who continue to feed at the public trough.

josef

May 2nd, 2012
6:20 pm

So, who has the contract to build it? Follow the dollars…

getalife

May 2nd, 2012
6:23 pm

Tell your reps you are not scared anymore cons.

Tell them to cut the mic.

Unity.

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
6:24 pm

Many in Congress will fight to keep it as they support welfare. I’ll say it again – welfare. Saying we’re paying people to work is no answer when we do not need what they are making.

“Hundreds of F-35s will be built before 2019, when initial testing is complete.”

Did you all read that? HUNDREDS will be built and delivered BEFORE initial (that’s INITIAL) testing is complete. Those on the Right scream bloody murder about Solyndra and blowing half a billion on ‘untested’ technology but they’ll go merrily along and blow one and a half TRILLION and think it’s just dandy because “well, someday we just might fight the Chicoms… or A-rabs…. or Columbians… or somebody… and we gotta be ready.”

Check the history of the F-111. Same concept. DoD shelved the Navy version. No Marine version. AF kept it as an unarmed bomber and a jammer and finally retired it.

FA-18s and F-16s are viable options well into the future.

At least until our “best in the world’ aircraft companies figure out how to build a fighter that works.

BTW, Jay mentioned the F-22? Have you heard some of those zipper-suited sun gods flying the Air Force’s premier fighter have requested transfers out of flying F-22s because they don’t want to experience hypoxia and died? The CiC, Air Combat Command’s getting checked out to fly the F-22 to show them it’s safe….

Jay

May 2nd, 2012
6:24 pm

How much of the federal budget is defense spending in comparison to Obama care, good grief.

Glad you asked.

In 2016, three years into full implementation of ObamaCare, the total cost is estimated to be $133 billion. Defense spending is projected to be $679 billion.

kayaker 71

May 2nd, 2012
6:25 pm

“A dollar wasted in one area is a dollar that cannot be spent in another”….. You mean something like food stamps? We spent 78B dollars last year on food stamps . Close to one in seven people are on the food stamp program, more than at anytime in our history. Entitlement spending is also at an all time high, up 41% during the Bozo years. Is that what you mean by spending elsewhere?

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
6:26 pm

Willydoit?

The comparisons isn’t even close.

Perhaps you’d like to enlighten us on how ACA is similar in process, management or cost reviews like the F-35 program?

kayaker 71

May 2nd, 2012
6:34 pm

Bookman, 6:24,

133B? Where did you get those figures? Estimated to cost 133B over the first three years? How about the next seven? The CBO who conveniently estimated Bozo care at 940B over the the next ten years has all of a sudden raised their estimate to 1.7T. That’s roughly double what it was supposed to cost. Bookman, you sure leave out a lot of stuff.

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
6:34 pm

kayaker 71

“. Entitlement spending is also at an all time high, up 41% during the Bozo years.”

Any idea how much of that is comprised of military retired pay and military retirement health care costs?

josef

May 2nd, 2012
6:35 pm

kayaker

What IS it with you and food stamps? Do you think the poor and working class just ought to starve? It’s one of the few government subsidies that actually makes sense and puts people to work…

sayin' it like it is

May 2nd, 2012
6:36 pm

Jay, how can you say that when the CBO just annouced that the cost of Obama care is double what they projected. And in three years those estimates are going to be off too! Again, except for defense, (which I believe should be trimmed somewhat significantly) liberals do not want to cut anywhere on the budget.

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
6:38 pm

sayin’

Do you have selective hearing when Pres Obama states ‘what’s on the table’?

What?

May 2nd, 2012
6:38 pm

As my mom used to say: when the air force has to do a bake sale, then we’ll know education spending and military spending are on the same footing.

sayin' it like it is

May 2nd, 2012
6:39 pm

Paul, I don’t buy it, I’ve heard it…

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
6:41 pm

Anybody on the Right here going to defend the practice of private industry building and delivering to the government products that don’t meet specifications and have not been fully tested?

All the while getting hundreds of millions of supplemental payments for their incompetence and assured of getting hundreds of millions more than originally contracted for?

Anybody?

sayin' it like it is

May 2nd, 2012
6:41 pm

Paul, is planned parenthood on the table, what about NPR, the NEA, food stamps, HUD, not Paul, the current President still wants to redistribute wealth, not balance the budget.

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
6:42 pm

sayin’

You’ve heard what? Pres Obama saying it’s all on the table?

Then how can you say liberals don’t want to cut?

Brosephus™

May 2nd, 2012
6:42 pm

……………………………………..________……………………
………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,………………
………………………..,.-”……………………………..“-.,…………
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,……..
…………………,?………………………………………………\,…..
………………./…………………………………………………..,}….
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}….
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/…..
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../…..
…………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./……..
………../(_….”~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/………..
……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}………..
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……“;,,./`…./”…………../…………
…,,,___.\`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../………….
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”……………
…………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\……………….
………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__………..
,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-,….
…..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\……………………
……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\…………………..
…………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__..
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“…….
…………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\……………
……………………………..,<`.._|_,-&“…………….`\…………..

josef

May 2nd, 2012
6:43 pm

WHAT?

Was your Mama a teacher? I’m certainly in her corner on that one…

sayin' it like it is

May 2nd, 2012
6:43 pm

Paul, what you are asking conservatives, is undefendable, at least to me, I totally agree with you, It is completely wrong to sell the gov’t a plane that isn’t ready! I spent some time in the military, trust me, there can be things that can be cut….

getalife

May 2nd, 2012
6:44 pm

So much for unity.

cons rush to carry water for the mic.

They hate to talk about their welfare and deflect to other welfare.

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
6:45 pm

Enter your comments here

USMC

May 2nd, 2012
6:45 pm

“I carry a pocket knife everywhere I go…”–JAY BOOKMAN

Jay sounds like an angry white man with little penis syndrome…
…you carry a weapon EVERYWHERE you go???

(I am totally kidding you, Comrade Jay, beers at the Brewhouse tonight) :-)

Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")

May 2nd, 2012
6:45 pm

Shame that so many Veterans are suffering and they are pizzing money away on cost overruns for this jet.

Atlanta Mom

May 2nd, 2012
6:46 pm

You carry a pocket knife? A manly man.

sayin' it like it is

May 2nd, 2012
6:47 pm

getalife, have you not been rieading my post? I’ve said twice cut the plane and I’ve said that defense spending needs to be cut!

Jay

May 2nd, 2012
6:47 pm

“How can you say that when the CBO just annouced that the cost of Obama care is double what they projected.”

Easy. Because the CBO did NOT say that. They said nothing close to that.

The initial CBO 10-year cost estimate was for years 2011-2020, I believe. ObamaCare doesn’t kick in fully until 2014, with almost no costs in years 2011-2013, which of course keeps the 10-year cost estimate low.

The latest cost estimate is for the years 2014-2023, years in which the program is in full effect. So of course the 10-year cost estimate went up. In reality, however, the estimated annual ONE-YEAR impact of ObamaCare went down in the lates CBO report.

In other words, that whole charge is a lie and a fabrication, a lie and fabrication that you and others prefer to swallow eagerly rather than take a common-sense look at what the CBO actually said.

I hope that answer suffices.

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
6:47 pm

sayin’

You’ve sure picked out some big-ticket items there.

I know it’s almost a year ago, so you can be forgiven for not remembering (which is different from willfully ignoring) President Obama proposed far-ranging cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

Republicans rejected it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html

getalife

May 2nd, 2012
6:48 pm

Good for you sayin.

sayin' it like it is

May 2nd, 2012
6:48 pm

getalife, I’m saying all welfare needs to go, whether it’s military welfare or social welfare!

Towncrier

May 2nd, 2012
6:48 pm

“Those on the Right scream bloody murder about Solyndra and blowing half a billion on ‘untested’ technology but they’ll go merrily along and blow one and a half TRILLION and think it’s just dandy because “well, someday we just might fight the Chicoms… or A-rabs…. or Columbians… or somebody… and we gotta be ready.””

A tad melodramatic and false, Paul. Being a software engineer, I would never advocate going into production before a product is thoroughly tested. And I am confident I am not the only conservative who feels this way. Perhaps you need to speak to the problem of lobbyists instead.

josef

May 2nd, 2012
6:51 pm

Atlanta Mom

He’s butch, you know, at least by Inman Park standards… :-)

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
6:51 pm

sayin’ 6:43

I agree with you on that.

So, any idea why Republicans in Congress have pledged to NOT cut Defense, and in fact to increase it significantly? Even the Republican heir apparent, when you look at his force structure promises, will evidently keep on with the F-35.

I don’t see how that’s supportable, let alone defendable.

Conservatives regularly accuse liberals of casting a blind eye when it comes to Obama Administration shortcomings. Seems to me, conservatives are doing a preemptive blind eye when it comes to a possible Republican administration.

Jay

May 2nd, 2012
6:52 pm

I’m not thinking it would prove much of a weapon, USMC.

And I’m open to the invitation, although I’ll need slightly more advance warning.

kayaker 71

May 2nd, 2012
6:53 pm

joseph, 6:35,

I sure do not want to see anyone go hungry. If I left that impression, it was not meant to be. However, one in seven people are not on the SNAP program. Soon it will be one in six if we keep going the way we are. You must admit that there appears to be a bit of generational dependence on this program. People get used to someone else paying the bills and the longer it goes on, the more prevalent it becomes. There has to be a limit to this stuff. If we don’t produce a single F-35, we have to do something about this.

josef

May 2nd, 2012
6:53 pm

sayin…
Does that include police, fire, ambulance, streets, highways, sidewalks, teachers, air traffic control, parks…all welfare, you know…

Brosephus™

May 2nd, 2012
6:53 pm

A tad melodramatic and false, Paul.

I’m guessing that you tuned out the Solyndra Chorus here when they went on their world tour? They put on a performance that should have ended with Grammy’s and Tony’s. That chorus was not limited to performing here only either.

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

May 2nd, 2012
6:54 pm

K71 – what is it about you and the Obama welfare president rhetoric? We’ve been over this before:

The teapartyers are screaming LESS this and LESS that. So in response teachers are fired, government employees are fired, fireman, police, and government health care workers are fired. Teapartyers wanted Chrysler to fail, that would’ve closed down jobs for millions of people, they want the TSA disbanded, the Dept of Education disbanded, etc., etc., etc.

With all these people OUT of jobs and no job prospects on the horizon, why are you so upset that these same people would want to EAT and for their families to eat so they apply for food stamps?

Would you rather they just starved to death? Would this bring you joy?

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
6:55 pm

Towncrier

A tad melodramatic?

I lifted that line of argument from conservative responses last couple times I brought up the F-35.

Glad to know you consider conservative responses to be a tad melodramatic.

On that, we do agree -

Brosephus™

May 2nd, 2012
6:56 pm

However, one in seven people are not on the SNAP program.

Ummmmmm, remember that 12%-18% unemployment y’all like to talk about?? Do you think THAT has something to do with more people on SNAP?

Jay

May 2nd, 2012
6:56 pm

And to Josef and Atlanta Mom, I do get a quiet chuckle when, in moments of need in a social situation — say a package has to be opened, or a length of string has to be trimmed or a branch cut — I pull out the pocket knife and people look at me oddly.

getalife

May 2nd, 2012
6:56 pm

sayin wants those on food stamps to starve to death.

Must be a pro lifer.

Towncrier

May 2nd, 2012
6:57 pm

“Efficiency in military spending is no less important, and in many ways much more important, than in other government operations.”

Being 16 millions trillion dollars in debt affords no relative amounts of efficiency, Jay. We had better become maximally efficient in all areas of government spending or the Great Depression is going to seem like a picnic in comparison to what we will be looking at before long. I would like to hear you say that we cannot afford to spend more that we have and that, in order to reduce the deficit, we are going to need to spend LESS than we make for a decade or more – even if that means downsizing or eliminating entire government agencies. I will cop to more taxes. How about you and the other liberals here – ready to cut back on government (and for me that also means the DoD)?

Mary Elizabeth

May 2nd, 2012
6:58 pm

Many in the private sector make millions off of defense programs – and have for generations. Americans are going to have to see through this, and they are going to have to choose between a commitment to life-supporting programs, such as Obamacare, or life-taking programs, such as those generated by the military.

After all, if there were more peace in the world, there would be less need for F-35s, from which private contractions make millions.

And if we build these aircrafts, we are certainly going to find ways to use them, which will mean less peace in the world. “Build them and they will come.”

We can have peace in this world, but average, individual Americas must wake up and see what is going on for profit, and who the beneficiaries are of that war profit. It is the average American who is sent to war and who is permanently maimed or killed, not those who are on the sidelines, hidden from view, making profit, from human destruction.

My vote is with Obamacare.

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
6:58 pm

Towncrier

Just as an exercise in fun, try contacting the heads of the military and appropriations committees, and Spker Boehner’s and Sen McConnell’s office, and make the argument no F-35s should be delivered to the services until software testing is complete and fully certified.

I’ve seen the arguments in the responses. You will not be amused by what you’ll read.

josef

May 2nd, 2012
7:00 pm

kayaker

Those statistics ARE disturbing, but they are the most disturbing as an indicator…sort of like the Dow Jones on the flip side, imauo…food stamps are based entirely on household and income…if we don’t raise the income levels this indicator will continue to point that out…

As for “dependency” that does not correlate to “getting used to someone else paying the bills…”

Much of what you say has a validity, but unless we approach the root causes for solutions, just pointing out that the water’s rising don’t do much good if there’s no pirogue on the horizon to rescue you…

Towncrier

May 2nd, 2012
7:01 pm

“I lifted that line of argument from conservative responses last couple times I brought up the F-35.”

Did you not author the passage I quoted (or do you make of a ghost writer)? YOU were melodramatic in what YOU wrote. That was a more sophisticated kind of deflection, though, I will give you that.

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
7:02 pm

So…. just to be clear (josef – no “a Few Good Men” youtubes, please)

Do any Republicans, or conservatives, or anyone

support continued funding of the F-35 program?

Brosephus™

May 2nd, 2012
7:04 pm

Towncrier @ 6:57

Be careful of what you wish for. What many people tend to forget about is that, at the far end of that “government spending”, there are jobs at stake in both the private and public sector. Cutting spending will decrease the budget, but if you also decrease the number of jobs, you still end up in the same predicament. The government will still spend more than it takes in.

I have no problem with cutting back on spending. My only suggestion is that it’s done using the dexterity required to manipulate a scapel and not simply throwing on a hockey mask and hacking at it with a machete.

Towncrier

May 2nd, 2012
7:04 pm

“I’ve seen the arguments in the responses. You will not be amused by what you’ll read.”

I probably would not. I am not defending them. I am reacting to you broad-brushing conservatives like myself. I wish I could somehow MAKE government act responsibly across the board, but I can see no way to do so at this time.

josef

May 2nd, 2012
7:05 pm

JAY

Same here! Of course, I’m not supposed to take that “weapon” to work!

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
7:05 pm

Towncrier

By ‘melodramatic” I thought you meant the line about “well, one day when we go up against the Chicoms” line.

I did not make that up. I used it to illustrate the logic some here have cited to continue the program.

If that was not what you were citing as melodramatic, what was? That they castigate Solyndra but remain silent, if not supportive, of the F-35?

Brosephus™

May 2nd, 2012
7:05 pm

Jay

Only one knife??? Weakling…. :)

Compared to you, I feel like Tacklebury. I usually have two at a minimum. If I have my travel bag, then there’s at least four, not to mention the other hardware.

TM

May 2nd, 2012
7:05 pm

“The initial CBO 10-year cost estimate was for years 2011-2020, I believe. Obama Care doesn’t kick in fully until 2014, with almost no costs in years 2011-2013, which of course keeps the 10-year cost estimate low.”
Don’t remember Jay pointing out the “of course” deception when he was pumping the benefits and cost savings of Obama Care. They probably relied upon similar 10 year projections when they approved these jets over 10 years ago.

What?

May 2nd, 2012
7:06 pm

josef.

Board of Edumucation.

josef

May 2nd, 2012
7:07 pm

PAUL

How did you know what I was thinking? Did Jay tell you…? :-)

What?

May 2nd, 2012
7:07 pm

Does Jay have a conceal and carry?

barking frog

May 2nd, 2012
7:07 pm

towncrier
to make government act
responsibly across the
board just change your
definition of responsibly.

Brosephus™

May 2nd, 2012
7:08 pm

I wish I could somehow MAKE government act responsibly across the board, but I can see no way to do so at this time.

Follow the Tea Party method. That group had the right idea, but they failed in their execution. Use that type of grassroots organizing, and turn the tables on those who DON’T do what’s in the best interest of the country. To hell with party and/or ideology. Those two things are what got us into this mess in the first place. All it would take is a few serious primary challenges against those who choose to put party over country, and I think most others would get scared into line very quickly.

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
7:08 pm

Towncrier 7:04

I’ve used a broad brush, as you are the first (apparently) to support eliminating this DoD program.

If that is, in fact, what you are advocating.

Which puts you at odds with every Republican in Congress.

Except for Ron Paul.

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
7:09 pm

josef

I’m psychic.

Or psychotic.

Or both.

Jay

May 2nd, 2012
7:10 pm

Crier, I am record as repeatedly endorsing budget cuts, including to entitlements, partnered with tax increases to address our deficit.

Towncrier

May 2nd, 2012
7:10 pm

“I have no problem with cutting back on spending. My only suggestion is that it’s done using the dexterity required to manipulate a scapel and not simply throwing on a hockey mask and hacking at it with a machete.”

Brosephus, if you were 1 million dollars in personal debt and were about to lose your home, car, credit rating, your wife (disgusted at your fiscal irresponsibility) and almost all employment opportunities, would you be thinking “scapel knife”? I am sorry, but 16 trillion is a problem of catastrophic proportions – it requires some pretty serious fixes.

And I don’t agree that government will always spend more than it takes in. That is logically and factually incorrect. That kind of sentiment suggests to me you don’t really think we have a problem, that we should just do what we can and hope for the best.

TaxPayer

May 2nd, 2012
7:11 pm

But… but… Obama.

Solyndra!

:roll:

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

May 2nd, 2012
7:11 pm

Is this the plane we are conversing about ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NInl4UZr3mw

kayaker 71

May 2nd, 2012
7:12 pm

So, Bookman is saying that Bozocare is not going to cost the American consumer more than 130B and change during the first three years. Also the CBO is full of it. Employers are estimating that coverage for a family of four will set them back close to 20K/yr. Hell, they only get fined 2K for not providing coverage for their employees so it is easier to pay the fine rather than provide coverage. That leaves a bucket load of employees without coverage. And what will they do? If Bozo’s mandate survives the Supremes, they will be forced into govt sponsored health care. That was the plan all along. Then, the private insurers drop out of the picture because of govt. restrictions and price increases because of govt edicts and, lo and behold, no more private insurance companies. This whole fiasco will soon be turned around by the Supremes, however. Then without the mandate, Bozocare will fall like a house of cards. Then, back to the drawing board with a little more sensible thought and none of the bribes and lies.

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
7:12 pm

I love coincidences.

Like how most of our conservative friends are nowhere to be found, or only briefly found, when a topic like this appears.

I was hoping for at least one argument in defense of this program that would cause me to seriously consider my position.

sayin' it like it is

May 2nd, 2012
7:13 pm

Paul, I do not know the answer to your question except to say politicians are in washington dc for their own benefit, those who give them the most the support them end of story.

Getalife, I am prolife, I don’t want anybody to starve, you saying that I do is hyperbole.

I get that teachers firemen, police officers are all important, we need them, what is the federal gov’t spending more money on condom distribution, supporting a media outlet, supporting studies on what meth does on teenage sex habits, or studies on what does penis size have to do with gay sex frequency have to do with local firemen, teachers, and police officers?

Jay, there hasn’t been any budget projection in the history of our gov’t that hasn’t been smaller than projected, usually, it’s much larger.

btw, I do think that jet sounds like a huge waste of money, we ought to quit spending on it….

Jay

May 2nd, 2012
7:13 pm

And those who make fun of John Kerry’s volunteer service in Vietnam, when he killed and risked death on behalf of this country, ought to hang your heads in shame.

I mean that sincerely. I was at that GOP convention in which attendees put on those Band-Aids, and I thought it was the most disgusting sign of disrespect to military service that I have ever witnessed. I never saw anyone spit on veterans coming back from Vietnam, but I did see that at the GOP convention.

It was despicable.

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
7:14 pm

Scout

It does look a lot like it….

And given how long it takes DoD to field a major weapons system, it probably is1

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
7:15 pm

kayaker 71

Why all the time on Obamacare and not on the F-35?

Do you have a position on the F-35?

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

May 2nd, 2012
7:16 pm

some are talking budget cuts but what they really want is cuts to programs that fund people. they’ll keep gas subsidies and subsidizing of businesses to take jobs overseas, but they’ll scream bloody murder on programs that help the “little people”.

Brosephus™

May 2nd, 2012
7:17 pm

And I don’t agree that government will always spend more than it takes in. That is logically and factually incorrect. That kind of sentiment suggests to me you don’t really think we have a problem, that we should just do what we can and hope for the best.

And, you didn’t read what I posted as that is not what I said. Go back and re-read my post, and then let me know what was posted.

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
7:18 pm

kayaker 71

” they will be forced into govt sponsored health care”

Yet you volunteered for it and gladly use it?

BTW, how do you feel about the large copay and deductible changes being proposed to reign in the exploding military health care costs, which SecDef Gates described as one of the biggest problems in current and future military budgets?

Towncrier

May 2nd, 2012
7:19 pm

“Which puts you at odds with every Republican in Congress.”

Since when do the members of either party in Congress or in the White House truly represent the people the are “serving”? Think about it – all they give you are slogans but no details or full rationale for their positions or policies. Take, for instance, the GOP mantra that raising taxes on the wealthy will negatively affect job creation. From a commonsense point of view, that seem likely to be true if those wealthy individuals are actually using – demonstratively so – their money to, in fact, create jobs. But how does raising taxes on Johnny Depp, who by his own admission makes “mad money”, affect job creation? I have never seen the GOP come out and explain what they mean with data, charts (Jay would love them then) and reasoned arguments. All we get is the mantra. But this modus operandi applies to Democrats as well. We are being taken for suckers it seems, day in and day out.

Brosephus™

May 2nd, 2012
7:19 pm

Brosephus, if you were 1 million dollars in personal debt and were about to lose your home, car, credit rating, your wife (disgusted at your fiscal irresponsibility) and almost all employment opportunities, would you be thinking “scapel knife”?

Yes. If there is spending that can return a profit, I’m not gonna cut it just for the sake of cutting spending. If there is something that can be cut without affecting anything, then I’d cut it. The problem with that analogy is that we are not in that dire of a situation, so you’re pretty much being, shall I say, melodramatic about what I posted. ;)

sayin' it like it is

May 2nd, 2012
7:19 pm

Debbie do right, we’ve been subsidizing poverty for forty some odd years all in the name of helping “the little people.”

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
7:19 pm

sayin’

So…. would you tell your representative and senators to drop the F-35 program or continue it?

TM

May 2nd, 2012
7:20 pm

“And those who make fun of John Kerry’s volunteer service in Vietnam, when he killed and risked death on behalf of this country, ought to hang your heads in shame.”

Of course your party never said anything shameful about or made fun of GWB’s service to the Country.

Thomas

May 2nd, 2012
7:21 pm

The GSA Vegas conference and the F-35 costs are completely different.

One is trip that the taxpayers may as well have paid for coke going up the noses of Congress.

The F-35 is presumably a strategic asset (not an expense Jay) but nevertheless should be written about. We are far and away the dominant military power so we should make sure to have a President and Congress who will obliterate threats versus doing a multi year, multi trillion $ POLICE ACTION with NO END GAME.

Doggone/GA

May 2nd, 2012
7:21 pm

“Jay sounds like an angry white man with little penis syndrome”

What does carrying one say about me? And just to refresh your memory, I’m female. I carry a pocket knife everywhere I go, too.

Paul

May 2nd, 2012
7:21 pm

breakin’ for supper – later

hope to read some clear “keep or drop” responses

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

May 2nd, 2012
7:22 pm

Three close air support aircraft in all probability saved my life in Nam.

F-8 Crusaders
A-4 Skyhawks
F-4 Phantoms

They all had problems of their own and were expensive for their time.

Let the experts decide.

josef

May 2nd, 2012
7:22 pm

CRIER

There’s a great line from “Rosalie Goes Shopping.”

“If you owe the bank $100,000, it’s your problem; if you owe them a million, it’s theirs”

sayin' it like it is

May 2nd, 2012
7:23 pm

Paul, I would definitely tell them to drop it…period, they are not being good stewards of tax payer dollars if they keep spending on a plan that isn’t ready and cost to much…