yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the point
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
What recent war has warplanes mattered?
All of them for the past 100 years?
How many airplanes does ISIS engage us with? How many planes did Iraq or Afghanistan engage us with? I guess I should have been more clear. Why invest in old school war planes when we can use drones?
I totally get you don't understand how war works and that's fine. We haven't shot down an enemy aircraft since 1991. An F-15 from Oregon shot down an Iraqi MIG with two AIM-120A's.
The military knows this and that's why the Air Force only has one air superiority training school for the F-15C/D, F-22, and F-35 platforms and they only graduate around 28 pilots a year. That's not the point.
The reason why we haven't had to shoot down an enemy since 1991 is because we are currently in a theater where the air war was almost non-existent. However, if we were to ever engage with anyone else on the shit list, be it Russia, China, Korea, etc. The air war wouldn't be a given. Our entire war fighting doctrine is based on air superiority, period. We don't have fighter drones yet because they aren't fast enough and can't maintain length during combat maneuvers. That will one day be resolved, no ETA on those though.
The Air Force is smaller today than it was in 1947 when it started. The Army and Navy are much smaller as well. When you have a smaller force that is built for efficiency and minimal casualties you have to be completely air dominant. We have ancient air superiority aircraft. We need to spend the money to change that.
I once attended a talk in DC by one of the directors of the design/development teams for the F-16 and A-10. He maintained that, if we jammed today's electronics and weapons systems into the F-86 airframe, and he got to pick his pilots, he could defeat any air force in the world with 100 planes.
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the point
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
What recent war has warplanes mattered?
This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen written here.
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the point
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
What recent war has warplanes mattered?
This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen written here.
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the point
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
What recent war has warplanes mattered?
This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen written here.
And there's a lot of dumbest shit to choose from.
But, yes.
It's up there in Handa's greatest hits with Hindu/Muslim relations and radio journalist surveys.
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the point
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
What recent war has warplanes mattered?
This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen written here.
And there's a lot of dumbest shit to choose from.
But, yes.
It's up there in Handa's greatest hits with Hindu/Muslim relations and radio journalist surveys.
Trump also said on Monday he would talk about his plans for infrastructure spending in a speech to Congress on Tuesday. "We're going to start spending on infrastructure big," he said
This is from reuters.
where is this money coming from?
three sources:
1. The Bond fairy
2. Savings from the elimination of bureaucratic saboteurs inside government
yes. because the country that spends more on the military than the next 7 countries combined needs more military spending.
but how dare anyone say we can afford universal healthcare.
He also says he wants to leave entitlements alone and cut taxes. Which will balloon the deficit.
Even fox admits it.
"By increasing defense and leaving Medicare and Social Security untouched, the Trump final budget plan is sure to project sizable deficits."
It'll be interesting to see how this goes over with the freedom caucus
While yes spending more on the military without cuts or raising taxes would increase the deficit and that might not be a smart idea, I always hate when people use total dollars spent for their comparison instead of GDP. This isn't to say we don't spend a lot, but with respect to the GDP we don't spend that much. Entitlements are about 14% of the GDP while defense is 3.5%.
We don't need to spend 3.5% is the point
This is incorrect and here is why; our Air Force and missile defense systems are extremely outdated.
Do we need to spend that much every year? No. We do however need to get the F-22 and F-35 projects finished. The F-15/16/18 platforms are Cold War era fighters. The A-10 is post-Vietnam.
We are unbeatable because of our air superiority. A lot of that has to do with the weapons systems, but the aircraft matters a great deal as well. A single F-22 can take out an average of seven F-15's in a dog fight scenario.
The F-22 program was scrapped after about 1/3rd of the original order was built and about 1/10th of the F-35's from the original order number have been built.
What recent war has warplanes mattered?
All of them for the past 100 years?
How many airplanes does ISIS engage us with? How many planes did Iraq or Afghanistan engage us with? I guess I should have been more clear. Why invest in old school war planes when we can use drones?
I totally get you don't understand how war works and that's fine. We haven't shot down an enemy aircraft since 1991. An F-15 from Oregon shot down an Iraqi MIG with two AIM-120A's.
The military knows this and that's why the Air Force only has one air superiority training school for the F-15C/D, F-22, and F-35 platforms and they only graduate around 28 pilots a year. That's not the point.
The reason why we haven't had to shoot down an enemy since 1991 is because we are currently in a theater where the air war was almost non-existent. However, if we were to ever engage with anyone else on the shit list, be it Russia, China, Korea, etc. The air war wouldn't be a given. Our entire war fighting doctrine is based on air superiority, period. We don't have fighter drones yet because they aren't fast enough and can't maintain length during combat maneuvers. That will one day be resolved, no ETA on those though.
The Air Force is smaller today than it was in 1947 when it started. The Army and Navy are much smaller as well. When you have a smaller force that is built for efficiency and minimal casualties you have to be completely air dominant. We have ancient air superiority aircraft. We need to spend the money to change that.
I once attended a talk in DC by one of the directors of the design/development teams for the F-16 and A-10. He maintained that, if we jammed today's electronics and weapons systems into the F-86 airframe, and he got to pick his pilots, he could defeat any air force in the world with 100 planes.
That is true. The AIM-9X and AIM-120C/D platform make a P-51 unstoppable with the right avionics and radar. I know this because it was actually a prototype to cut down on flight per hour costs.
The issue is those missiles are extremely expensive and we don't have that many of them.
If we get into a legit air war I hope we have something better than 9G aircraft.
All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.
All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.
Oh hell just come out and liberal, commie asshat snowflakes! They're the rot.
All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.
Oh hell just come out and liberal, commie asshat snowflakes! They're the rot.
All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.
Native American Tribes will acquire America with their casino winnings long before the banana, cocoa and coffee growers make a dent. Whitey loves his games, but the house always wins.
All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.
Native American Tribes will acquire America with their casino winnings long before the banana, cocoa and coffee growers make a dent. Whitey loves his games, but the house always wins.
All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.
Native American Tribes will acquire America with their casino winnings long before the banana, cocoa and coffee growers make a dent. Whitey loves his games, but the house always wins.
All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.
Native American Tribes will acquire America with their casino winnings long before the banana, cocoa and coffee growers make a dent. Whitey loves his games, but the house always wins.
All great civilizations of the past were conquered, one way or another. Cutting defense and focusing more on other (still important) issues sets us up to be another ancient, conquered civilization. Is what it feels like, atleast.
America will not be conquered from the outside. It will be from the inside, like Rome, from an increase of societal rot, violence and depravity, if anything. If the barbarian nations in central and South America intend to conquer, they will have to wait a few more centuries to accomplish the task.
Native American Tribes will acquire America with their casino winnings long before the banana, cocoa and coffee growers make a dent. Whitey loves his games, but the house always wins.
Comments
But, yes.
where is this money coming from?
three sources:
1. The Bond fairy
2. Savings from the elimination of bureaucratic saboteurs inside government
3. Tax revenues from increased economic activity.
The issue is those missiles are extremely expensive and we don't have that many of them.
If we get into a legit air war I hope we have something better than 9G aircraft.