Obama Threatens to Veto His Own Defense Bill Over F-22 Funding

Obama Threatens to Veto His Own Defense Bill Over F-22 Funding - Political News - FOXNews.com

It's not every day that a president threatens to veto his own defense spending bill.

But that's the rare position President Obama finds himself taking after senators made an 11th hour addition of $1.75 billion to buy seven F-22 fighter jets whose price tag has ballooned to about $350 million apiece.

The fifth generation fighter jet has been overtaken by the newer F-35, critics argue, and Obama wants to keep with the recommendation of former President George W. Bush and cap the purchase at 187 jets.

The president's not alone in opposing the change. He's also got the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, and his former GOP rival Sen. John McCain -- a war hero himself -- on his side.

But with jobs on the line, other senators are putting up a fight for the F-22.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., whose state would lose at least 2,000 jobs should the cap be imposed, pushed for the seven extra F-22's to be built.

"While the administration is emphasizing winning current conflicts, its stance regarding the F-22 does not adequately account for other kinds of threats," Chambliss said.

But the F-22 requires 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying time and costs the taxpayer about $44,000 an hour to fly, according to confidential Pentagon test results.

First Off their should be no Cap on the F-22 this 350 Million Price tag is a bogus claim and has been all along. As for the Pentagon Report I call some real BS on this. I know for a fact that the numbers the USAF stated and what actually is in the field are far and wide try maybe 11.5 hours for every 2 hours of flight. But hey if the USAF wants to start throwing these number around then I say great lets release what the numbers are for the F-16 Block 45-65 and the F-15E Block 50 or the B-1B and B-52. Or better yet how about what the time is for 89th Airlift Wing which provide 24/7 SAM to the White House and Congress.

As for the F-35 please that junk box want even be in active squadrons for at least 5 more years and into the Fleet for at least 6.

Makes sense to me. It's not popular to say it, but the military is one of the most wasteful parts of our government. If Obama can shave over a billion dollars off of the deficit by forgoing a needless expense, kudos to him.

Kandahar said:

Makes sense to me. It's not popular to say it, but the military is one of the most wasteful parts of our government. If Obama can shave over a billion dollars off of the deficit by forgoing a needless expense, kudos to him.

Click to expand...

And how many more folks would you like to put out of work huh just asking so we can have a number we can work with.

Also would you like to go up and tell the F-15 or F-16 Pilot who is flying 25+ Year Old Aircraft that the USAF has said need to be replaced by drum roll please THE F-22 with in the next two to three years that they will not get the new plane and that they will be putting their life at a larger risk then they are now flying aircraft that have pulled major hours on the Airframe

Scorpion89 said:

And how many more folks would you like to put out of work huh just asking so we can have a number we can work with.

Click to expand...

Everyone who works for the government. Teehee.

Scorpion89 said:

And how many more folks would you like to put out of work huh just asking so we can have a number we can work with.

Click to expand...

So you're in favor of wasting taxpayer money just to keep people on the government payroll?

Scorpion89 said:

Also would youlike to go uo and tell the F-15 or f-16 Pilot ho is flying 25+ Year Old Aircraft that the USAF has said need to be replaced by drum roll please THE F-22 with in the next two to three years that they will not get the new plane and that they will be putting their life at a larger risk then they are now flying aircraft that have pulled major hours on the Airframe

Click to expand...

It sounds like military experts are saying that this is obsolete and the F-35 is better. The pilots can be retrained for the new aircraft.

Candidly I've always wondered why it is right to spend $300,000,000.oo to keep a pilot safer but not $1,000 to keep someone in the infantry safer? The question is not whether there is a danger to pilots, but the cost to lose ratio in relation to what makes the best defense overall? 5 slightly inferior fighter aircraft might provide more defense than 1 ultimate state of the art aircraft? There is a limit to how many hundreds of billions of dollars we can afford because pilots are 10,000 times more important than anyone else in the military.

Kandahar said:

It sounds like military experts are saying that this is obsolete and the F-35 is better. The pilots can be retrained for the new aircraft.

Click to expand...

The F-35 won't be in the field for another 5 years. Do we need something to close that gap?

apdst said:

The F-35 won't be in the field for another 5 years. Do we need something to close that gap?

Click to expand...

I don't know, but it sounds like the military experts in both the Defense Department and the Senate Armed Services Committee have concluded that we do not.

joko104 said:

Candidly I've always wondered why it is right to spend $300,000,000.oo to keep a pilot safer but not $1,000 to keep someone in the infantry safer? The question is not whether there is a danger to pilots, but the cost to lose ratio in relation to what makes the best defense overall? 5 slightly inferior fighter aircraft might provide more defense than 1 ultimate state of the art aircraft? There is a limit to how many hundreds of billions of dollars we can afford because pilots are 10,000 times more important than anyone else in the military.

Click to expand...

Pilots are expensive to train, soldiers are not.

joko104 said:

Candidly I've always wondered why it is right to spend $300,000,000.oo to keep a pilot safer but not $1,000 to keep someone in the infantry safer? The question is not whether there is a danger to pilots, but the cost to lose ratio in relation to what makes the best defense overall? 5 slightly inferior fighter aircraft might provide more defense than 1 ultimate state of the art aircraft? There is a limit to how many hundreds of billions of dollars we can afford because pilots are 10,000 times more important than anyone else in the military.

Click to expand...

If the pilot doesn't survive, that means the aircraft doesn't survive and that means that the guys on the ground won't get the air support that has meant the difference between winning and losing countless battles in the past 70 years.

So, ultimately, the money is being spent on the infantryman who is using speed, tactics, terrain and firepower to close with the enemy and destroy him. A good portion of that firepower comes from our air forces.

When you look at it from that reality, how can we possibly put a price tag on the equipment?

Kandahar said:

So you're in favor of wasting taxpayer money just to keep people on the government payroll?

Click to expand...

Thank you, nice to know you, out of all people, do not favor the bailout.

DarkWizard12 said:

Thank you, nice to know you, out of all people, do not favor the bailout.

Click to expand...

No, I do not favor a bailout of the auto industry.

I do favor a bailout of the finance industry for reasons completely unrelated to keeping people on the government payroll. But let's stay on the subject.

joko104 said:

Candidly I've always wondered why it is right to spend $300,000,000.oo to keep a pilot safer but not $1,000 to keep someone in the infantry safer?

Click to expand...

Simple. Pilots are harder to replace than infantry. A lesson the Japanese learned the hard way in WWII.

Kandahar said:

I don't know, but it sounds like the military experts in both the Defense Department and the Senate Armed Services Committee have concluded that we do not.

Click to expand...

No actually that is not what we in the DoD have been saying as a matter if fatc most of us have been bitching about any more cuts, You do understand that they average age of our Fighter aircraft is 27 Year and with in two year that number will jump to 31.

Also the Senate AremedSevice Committee is against cutting the F-22 also.

celticlord said:

Simple. Pilots are harder to replace than infantry. A lesson the Japanese learned the hard way in WWII.

Click to expand...

I think it is more like the different products have different vendors, and the plane guys have better parties and kickbacks.

Kandahar said:

So you're in favor of wasting taxpayer money just to keep people on the government payroll?



It sounds like military experts are saying that this is obsolete and the F-35 is better. The pilots can be retrained for the new aircraft.

Click to expand...

No it's not wasting Taxpayer money you do understand for every 1 Military related Job it creates 4 more job in the private sector.

To give you some sort of an idea how far and wide the F-22 program reaches the following types of Business are effected.

Steel Factorys,Raw Plastic Factory,Glass Factorys,Shipping Companys,Electronic Companys,Rubber Companys.

Then their is the Local Business that have nothing to do with the actual building of the F-22 but do rely on the workers for business, Mom and Pop Stores, Gas Stations,Restruants,Grocery Stores.

Military Experts my arse all those folks are pencil pusher who have no idea what the difference between a F-16 Block 45/2 and a F-22 Block 10 is. As for the pilots sure I guess you have never work around or with Pilots then.

Scorpion89 said:

No actually that is not what we in the DoD have been saying as a matter if fatc most of us have been bitching about any more cuts, You do understand that they average age of our Fighter aircraft is 27 Year and with in two year that number will jump to 31.

Click to expand...

According to the article, both Bob Gates and Mike Mullen have said that we don't need anymore F-22s.

Scorpion89 said:

Also the Senate AremedSevice Committee is against cutting the F-22 also.

Click to expand...

It hasn't been voted on yet, so we'll see. But both the ranking Democrat (Levin) and the ranking Republican (McCain) think it's wasteful.

Kandahar said:

According to the article, both Bob Gates and Mike Mullen have said that we don't need anymore F-22s.



It hasn't been voted on yet, so we'll see. But both the ranking Democrat (Levin) and the ranking Republican (McCain) think it's wasteful.

Click to expand...

I've said it before and I'll say it again Sect.gate is the worst Sect of Defensive outside of Sect.McNamare we have ever had.

As for Sen. Levin and Sen. McCain that isn't what they have actually siad on the record they are against total funding of the 359 F-22 nothing about capping at 187. Which is rather funny folks because right now on the production line is far more then the 187 airframes try about 190.

Kandahar said:

No, I do not favor a bailout of the auto industry.

I do favor a bailout of the finance industry for reasons completely unrelated to keeping people on the government payroll. But let's stay on the subject.

Click to expand...

wait a minute! You support the bailouts, but don't support private companies taking on government contracts? A little redundant of you. Yes?

apdst said:

wait a minute! You support the bailouts, but don't support private companies taking on government contracts?

Click to expand...

I do not support an auto bailout for the same reason I do not support wasteful military spending: I don't see any economic benefit in propping up the manufacturing industry by giving them free taxpayer money. That's true regardless of whether it's an overt giveaway in the form of a bailout, or a more subtle giveaway in the form of buying stuff we don't need from them.

The banks are different, because credit is the lifeblood of our economy. My reasons for supporting a bank bailout have nothing to do with keeping people employed in banks, and are unrelated to the subject at hand.

apdst said:

A little redundant of you. Yes?

Click to expand...

I don't know what word you're looking for, but I'm pretty sure it isn't redundant.

Kandahar said:

I do not support an auto bailout for the same reason I do not support wasteful military spending: I don't see any economic benefit in propping up the manufacturing industry by giving them free taxpayer money.

Click to expand...

I dicked that one up.

Kandahar said:

I do not support an auto bailout for the same reason I do not support wasteful military spending: I don't see any economic benefit in propping up the manufacturing industry by giving them free taxpayer money.

The banks are different, because credit is the lifeblood of our economy. My reasons for that have nothing to do with keeping people employed in banks, and are unrelated to the subject at hand.



I don't know what word you're looking for, but I'm pretty sure it isn't redundant.

Click to expand...

man you have no idea about the Defense Industry at all you do understand that for ever 1 Job they have they create 4 to 6 un-related Jobs, I suggest you go and re-read my above post on what Company would be effected and how broad the Defense industry is.

As for the banks mmm wonder how all of those Defense Related Credit Unions would do huh or you do under stand that Wall Street was build on the back of the Defense Industry and its off shots.

Scorpion89 said:

man you have no idea about the Defense Industry at all you do understand that for ever 1 Job they have they create 4 to 6 un-related Jobs, I suggest you go and re-read my above post on what Company would be effected and how broad the Defense industry is.

Click to expand...

Alot of our political counterparts have zero business sense. Beats all I ever seen; the group that prides themselves on being smarter than the rest of us and don't have the first damn clue about how business works.

apdst said:

But, you do support propping up a labor union, so it's members can sit at home and draw bennies?

Click to expand...

I do? What are you talking about? What part of "I do not support an auto bailout" did you not understand? I don't think I can be more clear than that.

apdst said:

Where's the economic benefit in that? Awarding a military contract to a company isn't, "propping up". And, by no means is the money, "free". Just think of all the taxes that are going to be made back on that money, both in income taxes and sales taxes.

Click to expand...

It is propping them up if the only reason we're buying stuff from them that we don't need is because you don't want people to lose their jobs.

Just like in maufacturing, pilots will be replaced with drones before long, and all this controversy will be mute. Sorry Scorpion.