A fine example of military pork barrel spending

[GoSlash27]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130428/POLITICS03/304280328


Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams.

But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."

It's the inverse of the federal budget world these days, in which automatic spending cuts are leaving sought-after pet programs struggling or unpaid altogether. Republicans and Democrats for years have fought so bitterly that lawmaking in Washington ground to a near-halt.

Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.

"If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past week.

Why are the tank dollars still flowing? Politics.

Keeping the Abrams production line rolling protects businesses and good paying jobs in congressional districts where the tank's many suppliers are located...

This is why nobody takes Republicans seriously when they talk about fiscal responsibility. Getting our gargantuan budget deficits under control requires eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, duplication of effort, and inefficiency in every department of the Federal government, and military spending is no exception.
We have veterans out there who can't get their benefits, units that aren't getting necessary training or missing deployments entirely due to lack of funding. We would be able to handle those commitments a lot more effectively if we weren't chucking hundreds of millions of dollars into tanks the Army doesn't want.

[smokin3000gt]

I'd rather see money spent to improve current weaponry then snail penis/cow fart research, obama phones, ect. We may not need a better tank today but you bet your ass Russia isn't putting the brakes on new tanks/weapon development/production.

[GBMelBlount]

Getting our gargantuan budget deficits under control requires eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, duplication of effort, and inefficiency in every department of the Federal government, and military spending is no exception.

I agree.

That is our only shot at saving this country.

Unfortunately our politicians are worse than a trophy wife with a no-limit American Express.

[GoSlash27]

I'd rather see money spent to improve current weaponry then snail penis/cow fart research, obama phones, ect. We may not need a better tank today but you bet your ass Russia isn't putting the brakes on new tanks/weapon development/production.

You'd rather see hundreds of millions of dollars squandered down *this* hole rather than some other hole? Good luck with that deficit problem.
And "new tanks/ weapon development"? Don't make me laugh. This is a marginal and overpriced upgrade to a 35 year old design the Army doesn't even want!

[Craic]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130428/POLITICS03/304280328



This is why nobody takes Republicans seriously when they talk about fiscal responsibility. Getting our gargantuan budget deficits under control requires eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, duplication of effort, and inefficiency in every department of the Federal government, and military spending is no exception.
We have veterans out there who can't get their benefits, units that aren't getting necessary training or missing deployments entirely due to lack of funding. We would be able to handle those commitments a lot more effectively if we weren't chucking hundreds of millions of dollars into tanks the Army doesn't want.

I do suggest however, that you read the rest of the article. The army doesn't want a complete shutdown of the Abrams line. They want a three year hiatus until the new line of Abrams are produced. Meanwhile, the lawmakers (both Republican AND DEMOCRAT), are worried that a shutdown will virtually obliterate the industry and they won't be able to pull it back together in three years, since most of the businesses that provide the secondary work would have disappeared.

In short, do you spend some money now to keep up something that you may not want, but are able to move straight into producing what you most definitely want in three years, or do you shut down the money now, and then risk a 3, 5, maybe even 7-10 year startup with massive cost overruns when the industry has to start again from scratch, since many of the people had to move on to other jobs.

[Seven]

I'm not in the majority when it comes to the defense budget. Which is to say I definitely don't support cutting military funds. If the Army doesn't want this technology, though, I would suggest allocating the money in other areas. However, I expect there is probably more to this than the military simply "not wanting" the tanks.

[NJarhead]

"If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past week.


Like what, your 10th uniform change in as many years??? No one wastes money like the Army does. No offense to soldiers.

[Hindes204]

Like what, your 10th uniform change in as many years??? No one wastes money like the Army does. No offense to soldiers.

The Marines started it with thier ridiculous digital uniforms. Should have just kept all 3 services in BDUs....never made sense to me to switch every service over to a unique uniform

- - - Updated - - -

And don't get me started on the ridiculous waste with Navy uniforms, they have like 10 different uniforms for different situations

[GBMelBlount]

What I am taking away from the comments of Hindes & Jar is simply that there is waste in our military just like everywhere else.

Whether the cuts are in the form of fewer tanks or uniform costs are things that can be figured out.

The larger point is that we need to tighten our belts everywhere to turn things around.

[NJarhead]

The Marines started it with thier ridiculous digital uniforms. Should have just kept all 3 services in BDUs....never made sense to me to switch every service over to a unique uniform

Hey now, Camo is pretty important in the USMC. The Marines did some research and determind their best move and stuck with it. They're very happy with their uni's whereas the Army is on what, their 4th change since then? I'm not sure if the EGA in the print was necessary, but who gives a fuck. They have the smallest budget of all the services and they chose to implement it, so I won't begrudge them that.

[Hindes204]

Hey now, Camo is pretty important in the USMC. The Marines did some research and determind their best move and stuck with it. They're very happy with their uni's whereas the Army is on what, their 4th change since then? I'm not sure if the EGA in the print was necessary, but who gives a fuck. They have the smallest budget of all the services and they chose to implement it, so I won't begrudge them that.

Heres my beef with the Marines uniform. They did thier research and found that it was the most durable and camofloged uniform out there. The uniform has been lauded by many for being the best. So what do they do...they patent the uniform and throw a fit if any other service has a uniform idea that's even remotely close to the Marine uniform, as was evidenced by the outcry when the Army combat uniform looked "a little too much like the Marine uniform"....the Marines threw a fit.

if they have the best uniforms, the most durable, a d most camofloged, why not adopt that uniform across all of the services. The Marines are not the only ones on the battlefield.

/rant

back to the original purpose of the thread

[smokin3000gt]

You'd rather see hundreds of millions of dollars squandered down *this* hole rather than some other hole? Good luck with that deficit problem.
And "new tanks/ weapon development"? Don't make me laugh. This is a marginal and overpriced upgrade to a 35 year old design the Army doesn't even want!

Sorry slash, but it's going to take more then one article from 'detroitnews' to have the facts necessary to form a valid opinion. I know a lot of people want to make cuts to the military but I don't agree with them. Every country is on edge right now and there are better places to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from than the military. I'm not saying let's piss it away because we can, because we certainly can't but there is more to the story. Like you said, it's a 35 yr old design. 35 years old. Might be time to consider new ideas. I doubt for the price tag the Army is putting spinners and leather interior in/on our tanks. At least "this hole" keeps our forces strong and us safe versus the other holes like turtle fences to keep turtles safe.

[NJarhead]

Heres my beef with the Marines uniform. They did thier research and found that it was the most durable and camofloged uniform out there. The uniform has been lauded by many for being the best. So what do they do...they patent the uniform and throw a fit if any other service has a uniform idea that's even remotely close to the Marine uniform, as was evidenced by the outcry when the Army combat uniform looked "a little too much like the Marine uniform"....the Marines threw a fit.

if they have the best uniforms, the most durable, a d most camofloged, why not adopt that uniform across all of the services. The Marines are not the only ones on the battlefield.

/rant

back to the original purpose of the thread

Again, not sure of the reasons. But they patented their uniform by adding the EGA to the pattern. They can throw a fit if the Army, or who ever, has a similar pattern, but as long as no one else has the EGA that's where the dispute ends.

In any event, the Marines did it in one try. The Army is now on their 4th in 10 years. That is a tremendous waste of money.

[Hindes204]

Again, not sure of the reasons. But they patented their uniform by adding the EGA to the pattern. They can throw a fit if the Army, or who ever, has a similar pattern, but as long as no one else has the EGA that's where the dispute ends.

In any event, the Marines did it in one try. The Army is now on their 4th in 10 years. That is a tremendous waste of money.

The patent is for the pattern/color itself, not just the ega symbol.

And I agree with the Army statement, they have had plenty of time to research and get it right, they just can't seem to get it done............which is why I advocate for everyone wearing the same uniform. If the Marines already did the research, and their design has already been deemed the best, why waste anymore money at all on uniform research, just give every service the Marine uniform. It worked for years when we were all wearing the BDUs

[NJarhead]

The patent is for the pattern/color itself, not just the ega symbol.

And I agree with the Army statement, they have had plenty of time to research and get it right, they just can't seem to get it done............which is why I advocate for everyone wearing the same uniform. If the Marines already did the research, and their design has already been deemed the best, why waste anymore money at all on uniform research, just give every service the Marine uniform. It worked for years when we were all wearing the BDUs

Dunno Brother. But I'd guess it's because they want to be unique in appearance as well as mission and reputation. Just one of those things.

[Hindes204]

Dunno Brother. But I'd guess it's because they want to be unique in appearance as well as mission and reputation. Just one of those things.

Damn jarheads and thier illogical logic :chuckle:

[NJarhead]

Damn jarheads and thier illogical logic :chuckle:

haha. Yep! Semper Fi, fuck the other guy! :chuckle:

[Craic]

Damn jarheads and thier illogical logic :chuckle:


haha. Yep! Semper Fi, fuck the other guy! :chuckle:

You know the real reason the Marines are dependent on the other branches of the military, right?
Someone has to be able to read them their orders.

:wink02:

[SCSTILLER]

haha. Yep! Semper Fi, fuck the other guy! :chuckle:

It really is true that the Marines are an extension of the Navy! :behindsofa:

[Hindes204]

It really is true that the Marines are an extension of the Navy! :behindsofa:


They love it when you tell them that they are just a portion of the Department of Navy

[GoSlash27]

Sorry slash, but it's going to take more then one article from 'detroitnews' to have the facts necessary to form a valid opinion. I know a lot of people want to make cuts to the military but I don't agree with them. Every country is on edge right now and there are better places to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from than the military. I'm not saying let's piss it away because we can, because we certainly can't but there is more to the story. Like you said, it's a 35 yr old design. 35 years old. Might be time to consider new ideas. I doubt for the price tag the Army is putting spinners and leather interior in/on our tanks. At least "this hole" keeps our forces strong and us safe versus the other holes like turtle fences to keep turtles safe.

If only. In reality, we've got literally *thousands* of these MBTs just sitting out in the desert doing nothing and the Army has no intention of using them. In fact, they're looking at giving 400 of them to Greece for free. Hardly "keeping us strong and safe"; your tax dollars will go to propping up a socialist government that isn't bothering to pay their bills anymore.
Look... If you want to back obvious political graft in the procurement system, that's fine... I'm just sayin' don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you complain about how out- of- control the Federal budget is.

- - - Updated - - -

The real reason we keep a Marine detachment on our carriers is because sheep are too obvious :D

[NJarhead]

It really is true that the Marines are an extension of the Navy! :behindsofa:

Department of the Navy. Back in 1775, they needed brave men willing to board the enemy ship and take it over. The Navy had none.


They love it when you tell them that they are just a portion of the Department of Navy

Men's Department. :chuckle: