U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2014, 03:40 AM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
6,954 posts, read 4,423,762 times
Reputation: 2764

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grsz11 View Post
Production for the sake of giving people jobs? And righties say healthcare is socialist.
Posters in the forum that have claimed they are conservative have said exactly that, that people have jobs and are producing. See it is OK for money to be wasted on tanks and jet engines that the military does not want but economic stimulas or social programs that waste are bad. Too hold that view is selective conservatism and reeks of Mussolini style fascism. Is it any wonder that the {R}s rake the lions share from defense contractors?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2014, 04:07 AM
 
Location: Here.
13,889 posts, read 12,640,916 times
Reputation: 16266
As a conservative Republican, this angers me to no end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2014, 04:52 AM
 
79,122 posts, read 33,597,768 times
Reputation: 15835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grsz11 View Post
It is both, but it isn't Democrats that are campaigning on reducing spending and the size of the government. That and contributions from the defense industry go 60-40 for the GOP.
No but they do run on cutting defense and as the link shows a good percentage of them are arguing against cuts here. We have post after post after post where people insist on blaming one side when both sides are the problem. I just don't get it.

As an aside.....

In York, there’s “sadness that somebody that has worked here 35 years and is close to retirement is getting laid off,” said Alice Conner, a manufacturing executive at the factory.

If they are laying off the most senior workers there are three possibilities. One is that the problem isn't laying off 35 year senior employee's, it's that the plant is going out of business. Two is that if they are laying off senior employee's with 35 year experience as opposed to newer employers, that it their choice. Lastly, they are lying.

I believe it's likely a mix of one and three.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2014, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Where they serve real ale.
7,248 posts, read 6,668,931 times
Reputation: 3497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
As a conservative Republican, this angers me to no end.
I agree but let's not pretend this isn't an every day thing or that a large chunk of the military budget isn't made up of stuff exactly like this. Yet if anyone dares to say we should cut the bloated and waste filled military budget, which makes up over half of the discretionary budget (I.E. the nonmanditory spending part of the budget) then Republicans whine and cry to no end and try to stop it. The reason is simple. Republicans use the military budget as a slush fund to reward the lobbyists who bribe them with "campaign donations" (which is ends up getting laundered into their own pockets).

Now, Democrats do the same thing but with a different group of lobbyists with a different portion of the budget. The wasteful spending in the military budget is mostly a Republican special interest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2014, 10:42 AM
 
24,022 posts, read 11,935,291 times
Reputation: 10202
No new tanks are being built nor will they be built in the future. Instead, older vehicle will get upgrades.

That is where the smart money is going.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2014, 10:50 AM
 
79,122 posts, read 33,597,768 times
Reputation: 15835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
I agree but let's not pretend this isn't an every day thing or that a large chunk of the military budget isn't made up of stuff exactly like this. Yet if anyone dares to say we should cut the bloated and waste filled military budget, which makes up over half of the discretionary budget (I.E. the nonmanditory spending part of the budget) then Republicans whine and cry to no end and try to stop it. The reason is simple. Republicans use the military budget as a slush fund to reward the lobbyists who bribe them with "campaign donations" (which is ends up getting laundered into their own pockets).

Now, Democrats do the same thing but with a different group of lobbyists with a different portion of the budget. The wasteful spending in the military budget is mostly a Republican special interest.
Senators who backed Syria resolution got 83 per cent more defense lobby money than those who voted against it, campaign finance numbers show

Read more: Senators who backed Syria resolution got 83 per cent more defense lobby money | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sabers rattle: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez and ranking Republican Bob Corker, two 'yes' votes, received a combined $130,850 from defense contractors

The phenomenon crossed party lines. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of three Republicans to vote in the affirmative, collected the largest amount – $176,300 – for his campaigns. The next largest numbers belonged to Democrats, including $127,350 given to Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and $101,025 given to Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine.

Again, why people try and blame one party for stuff like this boggles the mind but it explains why it never stops. It seems for many politics far trump principle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2014, 10:52 AM
 
3,557 posts, read 3,460,904 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
No new tanks are being built nor will they be built in the future. Instead, older vehicle will get upgrades.

That is where the smart money is going.
The money is for upgrades and new procurement, both of which the Army has said are not necessary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2014, 10:54 AM
 
3,557 posts, read 3,460,904 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Senators who backed Syria resolution got 83 per cent more defense lobby money than those who voted against it, campaign finance numbers show

Read more: Senators who backed Syria resolution got 83 per cent more defense lobby money | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sabers rattle: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez and ranking Republican Bob Corker, two 'yes' votes, received a combined $130,850 from defense contractors

The phenomenon crossed party lines. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of three Republicans to vote in the affirmative, collected the largest amount – $176,300 – for his campaigns. The next largest numbers belonged to Democrats, including $127,350 given to Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and $101,025 given to Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine.

Again, why people try and blame one party for stuff like this boggles the mind but it explains why it never stops. It seems for many politics far trump principle.
They all serve on foreign relations and armed services committees. The industry targets them because they are the most frequently involved in relevant issues. I don't particularly see any conspiracy here, just that those on the committees are typically more hawkish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2014, 10:55 AM
 
79,122 posts, read 33,597,768 times
Reputation: 15835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grsz11 View Post
They all serve on foreign relations and armed services committees. The industry targets them because they are the most frequently involved in relevant issues.
And they vote the money regardless of party.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2014, 10:55 AM
 
24,022 posts, read 11,935,291 times
Reputation: 10202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grsz11 View Post
The money is for upgrades and new procurement, both of which the Army has said are not necessary.
No new procurement, just upgrades.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top