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 02-02-2014, 12:58 PM
 
3,557 posts, read 3,462,699 times
Reputation: 1632

Advertisements

The end of the tank? The Army says it doesn

Quote:
Military officials say they’ve given careful thought to their strategy and they simply can’t afford to pay for more upgraded tanks.

Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army’s chief of staff, made its case before Congress in 2012.

“We don’t need the tanks,” he said. “Our tank fleet is 2 1 /2 years old average now. We’re in good shape, and these are additional tanks that we don’t need.”
Congress gave the Army $320 million more than requested for tank programs in 2014. Why should anybody take the GOP leadership seriously about the deficit when they are forcing the military to spend money it doesn't want? The GOP House version was actually larger than the conference final version.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2014, 01:06 PM
 
Location: texas
9,137 posts, read 6,757,379 times
Reputation: 2374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grsz11 View Post
The end of the tank? The Army says it doesn



Congress gave the Army $320 million more than requested for tank programs in 2014. Why should anybody take the GOP leadership seriously about the deficit when they are forcing the military to spend money it doesn't want? The GOP House version was actually larger than the conference final version.
No way in hell is any rep gonna make cuts to his district. Defense jobs are good paying and support vast communities in this country.

I just wish GOP stop claiming they are for "smaller governmen"t...and "federal government does not create jobs".

Stop it already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 01:13 PM
 
29,775 posts, read 16,458,563 times
Reputation: 13840
Well its both parties:
Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists | Fox News

Quote:
A letter signed by 173 Democratic and Republican members of the House last year and sent to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta demonstrated the depth of bipartisan support for the Abrams program on Capitol Hill. They chided the Obama administration for neglecting the industrial base and proposing to terminate tank production in the United States for the first time since World War II.
Keep looking through those partisan goggles while rome burns around you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 01:14 PM
 
3,557 posts, read 3,462,699 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniStanko View Post
Army could take that money and up armor on old tanks, up the horsepower, just overall upgrade the old klunkers they have. Remember the problems incurred with old equipment when Iraq was invaded, and the criticism which followed about using old outdated HumVees and other equipment?
They have to spend the money exactly how Congress says. Some of that may be maintaining existing ones that will never be used, but mostly its buying new ones that will just sit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 01:15 PM
 
3,557 posts, read 3,462,699 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Well its both parties:
Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists | Fox News


Keep looking through those partisan goggles while rome burns around you.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 01:18 PM
 
29,775 posts, read 16,458,563 times
Reputation: 13840
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.
"campaigning" (), we could substitute the word lying and your statement would still be correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 01:21 PM
 
11,642 posts, read 5,937,704 times
Reputation: 1695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grsz11 View Post
The end of the tank? The Army says it doesn



Congress gave the Army $320 million more than requested for tank programs in 2014. Why should anybody take the GOP leadership seriously about the deficit when they are forcing the military to spend money it doesn't want? The GOP House version was actually larger than the conference final version.
Maybe the tanks are not for the army.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,304 posts, read 11,549,845 times
Reputation: 4317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Well its both parties:
Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists | Fox News


Keep looking through those partisan goggles while rome burns around you.
Im pretty sure you understand that the word partisan could technically mean 172 Republicans and 1 Democrats.

So how many of the 173 were Democrats ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 01:26 PM
 
3,557 posts, read 3,462,699 times
Reputation: 1632
Production for the sake of giving people jobs? And righties say healthcare is socialist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2014, 10:35 PM
 
Location: Where they serve real ale.
7,248 posts, read 6,672,187 times
Reputation: 3497
More accurately the Army says they have more than enough takes for their needs not that they don't want to have tanks. This sort of wasteful spending, spending that the Pentagon says it doesn't even need or want, makes up at least 25% of the military budget and probably more like 33%. There are mountains of junk the military doesn't want but which congress forces them to take because some lobbyist has bribed the right congressman.
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