Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists

[jim49er]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Built to dominate the enemy in combat, the Army's hulking Abrams tank is proving equally hard to beat in a budget battle.

Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams.

But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."

It's the inverse of the federal budget world these days, in which automatic spending cuts are leaving sought-after pet programs struggling or unpaid altogether. Republicans and Democrats for years have fought so bitterly that lawmaking in Washington ground to a near-halt.

Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.

"If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past week.

Why are the tank dollars still flowing? Politics.

http://news.yahoo.com/army-says-no-more-tanks-115434897.html

[RM918]

Happens all the time and I believe there was a story recently that stated this and showed an entire field of brand new, never-before-used tanks (that they still spend money on maintaining) that the military doesn't need but were manufactured to benefit the crony buddies of the people in congress making the orders.

[kcchiefs6465]

This is the jobs they create. (subsidize) Not realizing that paying someone to build shit that destroys shit to pay to rebuild is an incredibly ridiculous waste of money.

The same with the V-22 Osprey, the B-2 stealth bomber, and the Seawolf class submarine.

Welfare, plain and simple.

[phill4paul]

Congressional backers of the Abrams upgrades view the vast network of companies, many of them small businesses, that manufacture the tanks' materials and parts as a critical asset that has to be preserved. The money, they say, is a modest investment that will keep important tooling and manufacturing skills from being lost if the Abrams line were to be shut down.

Perhaps THE most important part of this piece.

If the government hadn't destroyed America's industrialized base then this wouldn't be a problem. The company could produce any number of products and if the need arose then could have turned around and retooled for war products. When we have to buy entire bridges from China because they cannot be built in the U.S. we are well and truly fooked!

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Republicans and Democrats for years have fought so bitterly that lawmaking in Washington ground to a near-halt.


Where the fuck do they live, and what the fuck are they talking about?

[fr33]

These congressmen will say that this is supporting the troops but really it just supports an industry that uses the blood of troops to grease the wheels.

[kcchiefs6465]

My bet is that the tank is spread out across many different districts. The Congressmen from said districts get lobbyist monies to never decrease the amount of money they get. The Congressmen write it off as jobs creation. They openly stated as much with the B-2 stealth bomber. The Congresswoman from South Central, Los Angeles said that they needed the jobs. To hell with if the Air Force needed it, or wanted it.

It is welfare. Corporate welfare.

I bet if someone did some looking into where this is built at you'd find some interesting things.

[kcchiefs6465]

I posted before I read the article. I see that my thoughts on this were covered in the article.

[kcchiefs6465]

Equally important part,


The facility is owned by the federal government but operated by the land systems division of General Dynamics, a major defense contractor that spent close to $11 million last year on lobbying, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Why they won't cut it,


General Dynamics estimated in 2011 that there were more than 560 subcontractors throughout the country involved in the Abrams program and that they employed as many as 18,000 people.


A letter signed by 173 Democratic and Republican members of the House last year and sent to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta demonstrated the depth of bipartisan support for the Abrams program on Capitol Hill.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's business as usual for the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex.

[Lafayette]

Where the fuck do they live, and what the fuck are they talking about?

I know, right? They pass so many new laws so fast that they don't even have time to read whats in them.