Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by cheryl, Dec 20, 2014.

  1. cheryl

    cheryl I started this. Staff Member

    Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want -

    The new defense spending bill includes $120 million for tanks that the Army has repeatedly said it doesn't want.

    For three years, the Army in numerous Congressional hearings has pushed a plan that essentially would have suspended tank building and upgrades in the U.S. for the first time since World War II. The Army suggested that production lines could be kept open through foreign sales.

    Each time, Congress has pushed back. Last week, Congress won again in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015.
  2. Indecisi0n

    Indecisi0n Well-Known Member

    I'd take one.
  3. Big Arrow Down...D

    Big Arrow Down...D Leave the gun,take the cannoli

    Tanks a lot
  4. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Welfare comes in many forms.
  5. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    I need one to make sure I can commute to work during the winter and when idiots block the roads to celebrate some injustice for a criminal .
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  6. NEnewbie

    NEnewbie I feel like an elf.

    They are preparing for the coming civil war. Tanks will be very useful in dealing with gun toting, prepping constitutionalists.

  7. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    So I take it that you will be cheering for crowds that are rioting ?
  8. raceanoncr

    raceanoncr Well-Known Member

    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  9. realbrown1

    realbrown1 Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.

    On these issues, you are correct. Another form of corporate welfare abuse that should be eliminated.
  10. realbrown1

    realbrown1 Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.

  11. bottomups

    bottomups Bad Moon Risen'

    Any congressman that votes to force tanks onto the military that doesn't want them should have those funds deducted from any appropriations going to their district. Assume this would solve most of the problem.
  12. The Other Side

    The Other Side Well-Known Troll Troll

    This is more a problem of lobbyists and paybacks from those in congress.. they have no choice but to approve these millions in funds. Their lobbyists friends payed for their campaigns and all you see is the payback for that help.

    There is no controlling spending. The lobbyists on both sides will always get their money no matter who is in charge.

  13. cheryl

    cheryl I started this. Staff Member

    Press release from retiring Oklahoma senator Tom Coburn:


    Gambling monkeys, dancing zombies and mountain lions on treadmills are just a few projects exposed in Wastebook 2014 – highlighting $25 billion in Washington’s worst spending of the year.

    Wastebook 2014 — the report Washington doesn’t want you to read —reveals the 100 most outlandish government expenditures this year, costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

    “With no one watching over the vast bureaucracy, the problem is not just what Washington isn’t doing, but what it is doing.” Dr. Coburn said. “Only someone with too much of someone else’s money and not enough accountability for how it was being spent could come up some of these projects.”

    “I have learned from these experiences that Washington will never change itself. But even if the politicians won’t stop stupid spending, taxpayers always have the last word.”

    Congress actually forced federal agencies to waste billions of dollars for purely parochial, political purposes.

    For example, lawmakers attached a rider to a larger bill requiring NASA to build a $350 million launch pad tower, which was mothballed as soon as it was completed because the rockets it was designed to test were scrapped years ago. Similarly, when USDA attempted to close an unneeded sheep research station costing nearly $2 million every year to operate, politicians in the region stepped in to keep it open.

    Examples of wasteful spending highlighted in “Wastebook 2014” include:

    • Coast guard party patrols – $100,000
    • Watching grass grow – $10,000
    • State department tweets @ terrorists – $3 million
    • Swedish massages for rabbits – $387,000
    • Paid vacations for bureaucrats gone wild – $20 million
    • Mountain lions on a treadmill – $856,000
    • Synchronized swimming for sea monkeys – $50,000
    • Pentagon to destroy $16 billion in unused ammunition -- $1 billion
    • Scientists hope monkey gambling unlocks secrets of free will – $171,000
    • Rich and famous rent out their luxury pads tax free – $10 million
    • Studying “hangry” spouses stabbing voodoo dolls – $331,000
    • Promoting U.S. culture around the globe with nose flutists – $90 million

  14. cheryl

    cheryl I started this. Staff Member

    Two Critics Of Government Spending Are Forcing The Army To Build Tanks It Doesn’t Want - Think Progress

    Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) are the two members of congress at the helm of the effort to spend $436 million on upgrading the Abrams tank, “a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.” The reason? Both represent Ohio, home to the nation’s only tank manufacturing plant, which would profit from the money.

    The move is contradictory for the two politicians; both are also vocal advocates for fiscal austerity, and have made careers insisting that the government cut what they see as wasteful spending. It would seem that pushing for tank production against the will of the Army — as Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno put it, “If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way” — is in direct contradiction to that aim.
  15. cheryl

    cheryl I started this. Staff Member

    Congress forcing military to keep unwanted assets, programs despite spending cuts, report says - Fox News

    Idle aircraft and pricey ship deployments underscore the contradictions and conflicts as Congress orders the Pentagon to slash $487 billion in spending over the next 10 years and another $41 billion in the next six months. Yet, at the same time, lawmakers are forcing the services to keep ships, aircraft, military bases, retiree benefits and other programs that defense leaders insist they don't want, can't afford or simply won't be able to use.
  16. BadHombre

    BadHombre Well-Known Member

    Too bad Sen Coburn didn't try harder to stop all that waste. He had no problem blocking a bill designed to stem the epidemic on Veteran suicide. He thought $22 million was too much. There are 22 Veteran suicides a day. Every day. That's 7810 as of today, 7898 by Christmas.

    Coburn is a hypocrite.
  17. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    If we are being honest that bill was fairly stupid and just gave a failing VA system more money to duplicate existing programs.
  18. BadHombre

    BadHombre Well-Known Member

    Ask the families of the 22 who died today. Why do Veteran's organizations support the bill? $22 million too much?

    Tell me what part of the bill is so onerous that it should not be passed? Here is the bill:

    This is not the first time Dr Coburn has stood in the way of Veteran's benefits. The same Veteran's that he voted to send to a phoney war.

    It appears we have more than one hypocrite.
  19. cheryl

    cheryl I started this. Staff Member

    I'm not a fan of what Coburn did there simply because the veterans need our support and it just wasn't that much money in the grand scheme of government budgets. It seemed as if most veteran's groups supported the bill. The secretary of the VA supported the bill.

    On the other hand I also don't think that throwing more money into a dysfunctional VA would have by itself solved the epidemic of veteran's suicides. Maybe we need to look at the bigger picture. Could the DOD and VA be in bed with Big Pharma? Follow the money.

    Pharma-Tied Military Consultants Insist Suicides Not Caused By Drugs (That Are Documented to Cause Suicide…)

    In a series called "Medicating the Military," Military Times reports that one in six service members was on a psychoactive drug in 2010 and shows graphs of the suicide and prescription drug increases that exactly match.

    When it comes to Big Pharma and the military, there appear to be no firewalls. Matthew Friedman, executive director of the VA's National Center for PTSD, unabashedly admits receiving AstraZeneca money in a video and served as a Pfizer Visiting Professor while helming a government organization. AstraZeneca makes Seroquel on which the VA spent $125.4 million in 2009 alone.

    Elspeth Ritchie appeared in a webcast funded by AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly while serving in the U.S. Army Surgeon General's Office and praised the drugs made by the companies.

    It is no secret that the military is one of Big Pharma's last, reliable revenue streams. In just nine years, the VA spent $717 million on risperidone, the generic form of Risperdal, to treat PTSD in troops--even though it worked no better than placebo. Thanks, guys. I have personally interviewed military families who show me shoe boxes full of drugs given to their family members for no clear reason and with no explanation. Some of the family members perished under the drug cocktails. The abuse of service members at the hands of Big Pharma is an underreported story and a national disgrace.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  20. BadHombre

    BadHombre Well-Known Member

    The bill provided incentives for Psychiatrists to work for the VA, and provide collaboration with community based non profits to assist in suicide prevention efforts, as well as peer support. It was not a give away to big pharma.

    Coburn won't be missed. The 22 who died today will be.