Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Debating with the enemy


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-14-2011, 11:32 AM   #16
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,364
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

To get our budget in line, we need to look at everything, that includes defense, and social services.

I looked at the stats on the Wiki article, but let me ask you this: how are those 8000 tanks getting to our soil (or Japans for that matter).
You want to have concern about Chinese developments, look at their anti aircraft carrier missile development - THAT threatens our regional influence (not our homeland security mind you). Show me a country that is developing a stealth mega-fortress troop carrier that can land 10000+ troops on mexican or canadian soil with no warning, and I will genuinely believe in the need for a full scale replacement of our jet fighter corps but you can't, now or in the next 10 years.

Yes China has advanced stealth fighters (in a few years) but you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech. No where did I say I was against an R&D budget, BUT 2,334 new planes is not an R&D budget, it is a full scale replacement. You do that when the budget is in the black OR when your current equipment is on it's last legs. Ours has proven it's not. (for the record, I was in the military in 1991-1996, no conversation here is meant to demean the soldiers that use our equipment, only the political bosses that spend with reckless abandonment and playing on citizen fears to justify their position)
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 01-14-2011, 11:56 AM   #17
Playmaker
 
Alvin Walton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 4,232
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

CRedskinsRule wrote: you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech.

This would imply a conflict with China, which is plausible.
So lets say we have a C-5 and C-17 lifeline to Japan/Korea from Hawaii.
How do we protect them over the ocean?
__________________
REDSKINS FAN SINCE 1968
Alvin Walton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 12:09 PM   #18
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,364
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

From SS33's article on Chinese stealth:

Quote:
Considering China’s records in combat aircraft development, a project like the J-12 may prove challenging. It will involves technology advancement in a number of fields including materials, high-performance aviation engine, electronics, flight control software, and stealth technologies. A project of this scale will also require huge amount of investment and considerable knowledge of complex project and manufacturing management. While China may be able to benefit from some “off-the-shelf” dual-use technologies available in the commercial market, it will almost definitely seek assistance from its traditional military technology suppliers such as Russia and Israel. However, none of these two countries possess the experience of developing an advance fighter of this class.

Brigadier Govinda M. Nair wrote in 2005 that "A stealth fighter, XXJ, equivalent to the US F-22 is likely to be inducted by 2015." According to the PLA's Deputy Commander He Weirong, the Chinese fifth generation fighter was expected to be in service with the PLAAF by 2017-2019. In August 2008, a RAND study raised questions about the ability of US tactical aircraft, including the F-22, to counter large numbers of Chinese aircraft in a Taiwan Strait scenario. Though at that time the F-22 was assumed to be able to shoot down 48 Chinese Flankers when outnumbered 12:1 without loss, this did not take into account less-than-perfect US beyond-visual-range performance, or possible deployment of a new Chinese stealth fighter around 2020 or 2025.

In a speech delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates (Economic Club of Chicago, 16 July 2009), he stated "by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese..."
Seriously, we can't put the production on hiatus for 3 to 4 years, when China (our main theoretical war risk) won't have any until 2020 or after?
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 12:19 PM   #19
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,364
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alvin Walton View Post
CRedskinsRule wrote: you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech.

This would imply a conflict with China, which is plausible.
So lets say we have a C-5 and C-17 lifeline to Japan/Korea from Hawaii.
How do we protect them over the ocean?
Hmmm? how does a stealth fighter with limited range reach our planes over the ocean? Further, see the dogfight expectation and comparable quantities available of fighters. In 2020, they may send their force of 50 valuable fighters to attack a C-5 or C-17 lifeline that is guarded by a United States Carrier battle group or two with electronic surveillance monitoring support from Japanese and US naval bases. Maybe they even down one? maybe, at the expense of their full production run? Is it a war scenario, I suppose. Is it one that we can't reasonably defend against with our current assets and reasonable intelligence data, I doubt it
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 12:41 PM   #20
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
To get our budget in line, we need to look at everything, that includes defense, and social services.

I looked at the stats on the Wiki article, but let me ask you this: how are those 8000 tanks getting to our soil (or Japans for that matter).
You want to have concern about Chinese developments, look at their anti aircraft carrier missile development - THAT threatens our regional influence (not our homeland security mind you). Show me a country that is developing a stealth mega-fortress troop carrier that can land 10000+ troops on mexican or canadian soil with no warning, and I will genuinely believe in the need for a full scale replacement of our jet fighter corps but you can't, now or in the next 10 years.

Yes China has advanced stealth fighters (in a few years) but you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech. No where did I say I was against an R&D budget, BUT 2,334 new planes is not an R&D budget, it is a full scale replacement. You do that when the budget is in the black OR when your current equipment is on it's last legs. Ours has proven it's not. (for the record, I was in the military in 1991-1996, no conversation here is meant to demean the soldiers that use our equipment, only the political bosses that spend with reckless abandonment and playing on citizen fears to justify their position)
When a country makes a landing on another nation that actually has the means to fight back its never going to be by surprise. Yes we have done so to smaller nations but thats only because they did not have the army to really fight back a landing. Like I said earlier I think we could reduce our spending on the military by just cutting waist.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 12:45 PM   #21
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,317
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
To get our budget in line, we need to look at everything, that includes defense, and social services.
Agree 100%, but the F-35 as a replacement for the F-16s and F-18s is the wrong place to look.

Quote:
I looked at the stats on the Wiki article, but let me ask you this: how are those 8000 tanks getting to our soil (or Japans for that matter).
You want to have concern about Chinese developments, look at their anti aircraft carrier missile development - THAT threatens our regional influence (not our homeland security mind you). Show me a country that is developing a stealth mega-fortress troop carrier that can land 10000+ troops on mexican or canadian soil with no warning, and I will genuinely believe in the need for a full scale replacement of our jet fighter corps but you can't, now or in the next 10 years.
Those 8000 tanks could pretty easily get to India, S. Korea, or into the Middle East without much resistance from anyone. And yes, the anti-aircraft carrier missle is a major concern. However, complete air dominance would allow us to destroy any of those missle sites if necessary.

Quote:
Yes China has advanced stealth fighters (in a few years) but you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech.
you actually fight them with a better fighter, like the F-35 and advanced missle tech.

Quote:
No where did I say I was against an R&D budget, BUT 2,334 new planes is not an R&D budget, it is a full scale replacement. You do that when the budget is in the black OR when your current equipment is on it's last legs. Ours has proven it's not.
The F-16 & F-18s were put into service in the late 70s early 80s, they are reaching the end of their lifecycle.

You put the program on hold for 3-4 years, what happens to all the jobs this program creates? What costs will be associated with re-starting the program? Does there need to be better oversight of these large gov't procurment programs, absolutely. But again, there also needs to be better oversight of SS & Medicare. We need to look at fixing SS & Medicare and repealing Obamacare immeidately as the price tags and financial sustainment models of these programs are way out of whack and will be pushing the US far more quickly into insolvency than the F-35 program.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 01:04 PM   #22
Playmaker
 
Alvin Walton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 4,232
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Yea sure, if your crystal ball knows that China is the only one to be concerned about.
Meanwhile the airframes on our A-10s, F-16s and Harriers get older and older.
__________________
REDSKINS FAN SINCE 1968
Alvin Walton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 01:53 PM   #23
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,364
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Agree 100%, but the F-35 as a replacement for the F-16s and F-18s is the wrong place to look.
Sorry but it's as good a place as any. 92(hence the AH ref) MILLION dollars a piece and rife with overruns/waste etc makes this the perfect place to start. Cut the production to 500 till 2020, we still will have more than the world combined.

Quote:
Those 8000 tanks could pretty easily get to India, S. Korea, or into the Middle East without much resistance from anyone. And yes, the anti-aircraft carrier missle is a major concern. However, complete air dominance would allow us to destroy any of those missle sites if necessary.


Given that the distance from China's border to Tehran is 3000 miles (or the distance from DC to SF approximately), I don't think we are going to see a vast tank column headed that way anytime soon. No those tanks are going to guard a border to their north where another military power just might be more of a concern to china. IF though an 8000 tank strong column approached Iran (through India who just happens to have nuclear bombs) I think they just might meet a little resistance before our military was called upon.

Quote:
you actually fight them with a better fighter, like the F-35 and advanced missle tech.
again given that China won't have any fighters produced before 2020, and we will have 1100, I think we are ok.

Quote:
The F-16 & F-18s were put into service in the late 70s early 80s, they are reaching the end of their lifecycle.
Just an FYI:
Aero-News Network: The Aviation and Aerospace World's Daily/Real-Time News and Information Service
Quote:
You put the program on hold for 3-4 years, what happens to all the jobs this program creates? What costs will be associated with re-starting the program? Does there need to be better oversight of these large gov't procurment programs, absolutely. But again, there also needs to be better oversight of SS & Medicare. We need to look at fixing SS & Medicare and repealing Obamacare immeidately as the price tags and financial sustainment models of these programs are way out of whack and will be pushing the US far more quickly into insolvency than the F-35 program.
Here is the first (and only) argument for me which is semi valid. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with military necessity, or the value of the program, but simply a logistical question. Now if this is the rationale for keeping this program going, I am assuming you were in favor of the various auto maker bailouts through the years, and 0 unemployment policies that say it's in the States interest to make sure all it's citizens have high paying specialized jobs?

Budget realities should dictate, when our defense is not at stake. If we can't legitimately scale back this type of mammoth program when there is no real aggressor in the next few years than I would imagine we never will be able to.
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 01:57 PM   #24
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,364
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alvin Walton View Post
Yea sure, if your crystal ball knows that China is the only one to be concerned about.
Meanwhile the airframes on our A-10s, F-16s and Harriers get older and older.
Did ya see the stat - the US and our allies account for 75% of all military spending in the world. Iraq had what was considered the best non-superpower armed forces. How did that work out for them?
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 02:31 PM   #25
Playmaker
 
Alvin Walton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 4,232
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Gulf war 1?
That was 21 years ago.......
__________________
REDSKINS FAN SINCE 1968
Alvin Walton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 02:50 PM   #26
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,364
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alvin Walton View Post
Gulf war 1?
That was 21 years ago.......
Military intelligence is capable of basically estimating threats to our country. Right now, China would be considered the main war threat. But realistically, no "sane" country is purposefully going to pick a fight against us. I referenced Gulf War 1 because it was the last time any nation-state attempted to go head on against ours. Certainly any other nation-state outside of China, Russia (or in some bizarre, but theoretically possible, world calamity, Western Europe) would have about the same luck against our current military strength.
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 02:56 PM   #27
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,364
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
When a country makes a landing on another nation that actually has the means to fight back its never going to be by surprise. Yes we have done so to smaller nations but thats only because they did not have the army to really fight back a landing. Like I said earlier I think we could reduce our spending on the military by just cutting waist.
I can't cut my own waist, let alone sifting through the military bureaucracy to pin down what is waste and what is not. The way to trim govt is to take projects out of its hands. We don't need a leaner meaner govt approach, we need a Lap band surgical approach, cut it out, and make the system adjust to less demand.

Here is a good article on potential savings by trimming waste in the Defense budget.
Defense Spending « The Harvard Political Review
I don't think 25% is realistic by cutting waste only.
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 03:10 PM   #28
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,317
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
Given that the distance from China's border to Tehran is 3000 miles (or the distance from DC to SF approximately), I don't think we are going to see a vast tank column headed that way anytime soon. No those tanks are going to guard a border to their north where another military power just might be more of a concern to china. IF though an 8000 tank strong column approached Iran (through India who just happens to have nuclear bombs) I think they just might meet a little resistance before our military was called upon.
Probably not, but China doesn't have to go through India. And if whatever the circumstance was that China was rolling tanks into the Middle East to control the oil supplies I don't expect they would have too much concern about or resistance from India without our involvement.

Quote:
again given that China won't have any fighters produced before 2020, and we will have 1100, I think we are ok.
Given that we would be massively outnumbered in troops and tanks we would need all the air power we have. Also, actual delivery of the F-35 isn't scheduled until 2016.

This reinforces my point that the F16 & F18s are very near the end of their life cycle and the F-35 production is needed for their replacement so we don't waste $$$ on a stop-gap measure.

Quote:
Here is the first (and only) argument for me which is semi valid. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with military necessity, or the value of the program, but simply a logistical question. Now if this is the rationale for keeping this program going, I am assuming you were in favor of the various auto maker bailouts through the years, and 0 unemployment policies that say it's in the States interest to make sure all it's citizens have high paying specialized jobs?
You know me better than that. The automakers should've went into bankruptcy to shed the bad labor deals that were crushing them and restructure their debt. If a state wants to implement some sort of 0 unemployment policy...well we both know they won't be solvent very long and will be like CA & NY, shortly hitting Uncle Sam up for a bailout.

Quote:
Budget realities should dictate, when our defense is not at stake. If we can't legitimately scale back this type of mammoth program when there is no real aggressor in the next few years than I would imagine we never will be able to.
Our defense is at stake. And by eliminating the F-35B (VTOL version, which I agree can be eliminated) there will be significant savings and rollouts to the AF & Navy will be faster.

BTW, This is a multi-year program and Secretary Gates has already improved oversight and withheld performace $$$ from the contractors. Again, no problem with killing the USMC version, but delaying or killing the F-35 is the wrong move. Let's say the costs increase to $ 350B for the program, and the planes are delivered over 10 years, we're looking at about $ 35B / yr.

What are some other things the Fed spends over $ 35B / yr on?
- Interest on the debt in 2009 - $ 187B / yr. Anything tangible, nope.
- Medicare & Medicaid - $ 676B / yr., some estimates are 20% is fraud, let's be conservative and say 10% is fraud, that's $ 67B / yr. Anything tangible here, nope just "waisted" (per FD) Fed $$$.
- Social Security - $ 678B / yr., let's say fraud there is at 5%, another $ 34B, more wasted Fed $$$.


How about these duplicate programs (as of 2005, it's certainly worse now):
  • 342 economic development programs;
    130 programs serving the disabled;
    130 programs serving at-risk youth;
    90 early childhood development programs;
    75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities;
    72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;
    50 homeless assistance programs;
    45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations;
    40 separate employment and training programs;
    28 rural development programs;
    27 teen pregnancy programs;
    26 small, extraneous K-12 school grant programs;
    23 agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics;
    19 programs fighting substance abuse;
    17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies;
    17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements;
    12 food safety agencies;
    11 principal statistics agencies; and
  • Four overlapping land management agencies.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 03:24 PM   #29
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,317
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
Here is a good article on potential savings by trimming waste in the Defense budget.
Defense Spending « The Harvard Political Review
I don't think 25% is realistic by cutting waste only.
LOL, I know this wasn't your point, but from the article:

Congressman Barney Frank’s Sustainable Defense Task Force demonstrates the difficult choices required to truly reduce defense spending. Frank commissioned a review panel to suggest a number of significant cuts to American military capabilities. In June, the group recommended significant cuts to American military capabilities. The task force’s proposals, in total, could reduce defense spending by $960 billion over the next ten years.

Barney Frank on cutting defense spending, the same guy that said the following about Fannie & Freddie:

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Oh yeah, since Frank's statement Fannie and Freddie cost taxpayers roughly $150 billion in the two years since they were nationalized.

Frank is a far left-wing buffoon!
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 03:30 PM   #30
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,364
Re: Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Probably not, but China doesn't have to go through India. And if whatever the circumstance was that China was rolling tanks into the Middle East to control the oil supplies I don't expect they would have too much concern about or resistance from India without our involvement.
any route China takes it's tanks to the Middle East, it's hitting resistance, Pakistan and India are both nuclear powers, Afghanistan, or the other northern "-stan" countries? Um if they get tank columns through there, well a 7-9 team will win it's division first! oh wait LOL

Quote:
Given that we would be massively outnumbered in troops and tanks we would need all the air power we have.
I think Russia would be willing to lend some tanks and troops to the cause if China did. But seriously, is there any expectation of this scenario, I don't think so. The reason China has 8000 tanks is because it shares a border with Russia, and those two don't like each other.

Quote:
Also, actual delivery of the F-35 isn't scheduled until 2016.

This reinforces my point that the F16 & F18s are very near the end of their life cycle and the F-35 production is needed for their replacement so we don't waste $$$ on a stop-gap measure.
and yet it also shows my point that we could extend their life 10 years, reduce the initial production run and still be technologically ahead.

Quote:
You know me better than that. The automakers should've went into bankruptcy to shed the bad labor deals that were crushing them and restructure their debt. If a state wants to implement some sort of 0 unemployment policy...well we both know they won't be solvent very long and will be like CA & NY, shortly hitting Uncle Sam up for a bailout.
I know they were strawmen, and not very good ones either. Just making a point that maintaining jobs is not in and of itself a necessary government or DoD function.

Quote:
Our defense is at stake.
ultimately we will just disagree on this. Without that crystal ball AW mentioned I can no more prove we will survive with a 3-4 year hiatus, then you can prove that a hiatus would be a precursor to the collapse of the US and life as we know it.

Quote:
And by eliminating the F-35B (VTOL version, which I agree can be eliminated) there will be significant savings and rollouts to the AF & Navy will be faster.
Ending the B version would be a good start.

Quote:
BTW, This is a multi-year program and Secretary Gates has already improved oversight and withheld performace $$$ from the contractors. Again, no problem with killing the USMC version, but delaying or killing the F-35 is the wrong move. Let's say the costs increase to $ 350B for the program, and the planes are delivered over 10 years, we're looking at about $ 35B / yr.

What are some other things the Fed spends over $ 35B / yr on?
- Interest on the debt in 2009 - $ 187B / yr. Anything tangible, nope.
- Medicare & Medicaid - $ 676B / yr., some estimates are 20% is fraud, let's be conservative and say 10% is fraud, that's $ 67B / yr. Anything tangible here, nope just "waisted" (per FD) Fed $$$.
- Social Security - $ 678B / yr., let's say fraud there is at 5%, another $ 34B, more wasted Fed $$$.


How about these duplicate programs (as of 2005, it's certainly worse now):
  • 342 economic development programs;
    130 programs serving the disabled;
    130 programs serving at-risk youth;
    90 early childhood development programs;
    75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities;
    72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;
    50 homeless assistance programs;
    45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations;
    40 separate employment and training programs;
    28 rural development programs;
    27 teen pregnancy programs;
    26 small, extraneous K-12 school grant programs;
    23 agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics;
    19 programs fighting substance abuse;
    17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies;
    17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements;
    12 food safety agencies;
    11 principal statistics agencies; and
  • Four overlapping land management agencies.
ok, cut 'em all too, I am really an easy guy in this regard. I believe Govt has gotten way out of control, so much so that the politicians who think they know all the answers and end up simply spending more and more money.

Point of fact is if you are going to dent the massive govt bureacracy, you have to include the untouchables, Defense & social services
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.65520 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

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