Budget cuts leaving Marine Corps aircraft grounded

mmi · May 14, 2016

fmw said:
No I said it was poor management.

Yes, and I noted where most of the poor management comes from.

>>It certainly isn't a partisan issue.

It certainly is if you open yer eyes. Just look at the history.

>>All of government begs for money constantly in order to improve its power and control.

Empty rhetoric. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP has been steady between seventeen and twenty-one percent since 1952, when Uncle Sam and friends were busy managing to defend South Korea from a takeover by an invading dictatorship. The outliers since 1961 are four periods totalling fourteen of the fifty-five years:

1965-66, when it dropped despite a Democratic policy of fighting a war in Southeast Asia and expanding social welfare programs
1981-86, when it jumped under a GOP administration that did squeeze domestic spending, but precipitated a severe and persistent recession with an overly tight monetary policy … and spent a lot on the military
1991-92, when we had another GOP recession that cut production
2009-12, as we suffered through the effects of the GOP SSE Great Recession.

I was willing to hire Kasich, but he couldn't get enough votes in the primaries. I don't want Frumpy the Clown managing my affairs. I don't see a reason to ignore partisan differences.

austrianecon · May 16, 2016

mmi said:
You can repeat this ridiculous nonsense as many times as you like, but it will NEVER make even the tiniest bit of sense. How the eff do you know that we wouldn't have spent a few billion dollars on military aircraft maintenance if we had not spent trillions of dollars on a disastrous overseas adventure? Yer pulling that straight out of the same orifice that produces yer other bizarre opinions.

Earlier in this thread, you said that "Funding for wars doesn't come out of DoD budget." That's a stupid lie, as I've noted. You also said that "because we did go to Iraq, DoD spent heavily to extend the life cycles of equipment like F/A 18s and Sea Stallions." I found that we spent $2.2 billion on the F-18s. You said that "we have spent so far $1.3t on the F-35 program." Another stupid lie. The figure is around $400 billion. Before you tell me that I don't "understand how Government works," you should try getting the facts straight. Then you can move on to an effort to acquire common sense.

1) Don't ever try to argue with me about budgetary costs. Cost of a program goes through it's life cycle, not the development cost. It's a $1.5t program. Try elsewhere.

2) It doesn't make any sense to you because you don't understand how budgets work. US standard DoD budget is fixed but subject to cuts, it gets the standard % increase as every other part of the US budget. The increased funding to DoD came from War time funding, no war time funding, no dramatic DoD budget increase.

3) No, War time funding doesn't come out of DoD budget. Never has. There is what know as the Overseas Contingency Operations budget. It's off books.

mmi · May 16, 2016

austrianecon said:
Cost of a program goes through it's life cycle, not the development cost.

Yes, the total cost of a program accumulates over its life cycle. However, as I've clearly indicated, you said ""we have spent so far $1.3t on the F-35 program." The production run will now likely extend beyond 2035 and the planes are expected to be in service until 2070. As I noted, expenditures to date total around $400 billion. The remaining $1.1 trillion is budgeted over the next fifty-six years.

>> Don't ever try to argue with me about budgetary costs.

Somebody has to — you don't know what yer talking about.

>>you don't understand how budgets work.

I acquired a little knowledge thirty years ago completing a masters program in public administration. Having grown up on a naval air station, I've always taken an interest in fighter aircraft. In any event, whatever understanding I have in this area, and however limited that may be, it seems clearly to exceed yours.

>>US standard DoD budget is fixed but subject to cuts, it gets the standard % increase as every other part of the US budget.

What the hell does any of that mean? Are you referring to continuing resolutions? What about sequestration and exceptions?

>>The increased funding to DoD came from War time funding, no war time funding, no dramatic DoD budget increase.

You seem to be carrying on a conversation with yerself.

>>War time funding doesn't come out of DoD budget. Never has. There is what know as the Overseas Contingency Operations budget. It's off books.

More senseless drivel. The OCO budget … is part of the DOD budget. It's a separate account that is not subject to spending caps included in budget agreements enacted in recent years. That's what people mean when they say it's "off-budget." I can assure you that it's money appropriated for and allocated to the Department of Defense. How else would you say it's accounted for?

I have no idea what it is yer trying to say, and I am close to losing all interest in the matter.