Trump cutting military budget?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Maine USA
Age: 82
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trump's future actions are unguessable at this point, not necessarily because he is erratic, but because the mainstream media has been, and continues to be, unhinged in its hostility to him (check the Washington Post's opinion pages for examples).
This means that practically nothing is known about the actual man, and opinions about him are being based on vicious caricatures. We will just have to wait to see what he does.
This means that practically nothing is known about the actual man, and opinions about him are being based on vicious caricatures. We will just have to wait to see what he does.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny how the people claiming the electoral college system that elected President Trump is not legitimate, but had no complaints when that same electoral college system elected President Obama twice and President Clinton twice.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to the F-35 DOALL- its just the TFX( F-111) all over again. It might be useful as high cover at long range for the A-10- F-16- f-18 types- but to risk it on a ground mission without absolute air superiority and ground to air missiles supressed is just not realistic -IMHO
As to the F-35 DOALL- its just the TFX( F-111) all over again. It might be useful as high cover at long range for the A-10- F-16- f-18 types- but to risk it on a ground mission without absolute air superiority and ground to air missiles supressed is just not realistic -IMHO
1. a lot of the grim and gritty support was by attack helicopters in the danger close range.
2. Some (for my taste, not enough) was by that lovely beast the A-10
3. No small amount was various F series aircraft that didn't come in low to release weapons. Between LGB's and GPS guided munitions, you can provide what the ground commander needs without diving into the dirt. Technology advances.
4. There are some mortars and other ground launched munitions that now mimic guided airborne weapons.
All said and done, the call for fire has a lot of ways to peel the onion (even a decade ago) and moreso since. For example, the old standard 2.75" rockets now have a mod that allows them to be guided rather than ballistic munitions. (Attack helicopter folks really appreciate that, not sure how many suck and blow sorts will want that load out).
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This means that practically nothing is known about the actual man, and opinions about him are being based on vicious caricatures. We will just have to wait to see what he does.
As far as Donald and the F-35 and/or AF One replacements, stay tuned, a half dozen or more Donald positions will be offered, modified, explained by his staff, reoffered, etc. Facts are, the F-35 is a Congressional program, not a Presidential program and will continue as such. There will be lots of blabbering and gnashing of teeth about costs but the program will go onward in spite of the Donald...
Part of our system's working prevents a Helmut Kohl (16 years as PM) from happening here, or a Margaret Thatcher (12 years), since the 22d amendment was passed. (Now, if you liked Kohl or Thatcher, you might think term limits bad, and if you didn't like Kohl or Thatcher, you might think term limits were good).
That amendment happened thanks to some of the side effects of an extended time in that office by one individual and the political reaction to it. I might add, that amendment was passed by using the tools present in the same constitution that the EC is in. This means, to Stay On Topic, that Donald has either 4 or 8 years to change whatever he thinks he needs to change, and make a deal with Congress to do so. It'll be interesting to watch.
What does any of that have do with the subject at hand, mein freund, in terms of defense spending? It makes long term thinking harder to do, except that the purse strings have always been in Congress. So whatever whim a given President has tends to get mitigated/tempered by Congress, be it to grow or to shrink, or to pursue a particular pet project or series of them.
If your whinge is about American politics in general, I'd suggest you head over to Jet Blast. There's plenty of noise there for you to join in on. It's many v many.
If you want to talk about the impact on the Defense Budget, and specifically military aircraft and related systems, then by all means engage on those topics.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 26th Dec 2016 at 05:09.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Understanding why a US President (including Donald Trump) does not have sole authority to dictate the annual DoD budget is just as important as understanding that our President and Vice President are elected by the electoral college system and not by national popular vote results.
The US federal budget providing funding for various agencies each fiscal year is determined by legislation originating in the US House of Representatives, which then is passed to the US Senate, and then is submitted to the President who can either veto it or sign it into law.
The US federal budget providing funding for various agencies each fiscal year is determined by legislation originating in the US House of Representatives, which then is passed to the US Senate, and then is submitted to the President who can either veto it or sign it into law.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By attacking LM/Boeing Trump draws the attention of his (many) supporters to some things that a lot of Congress would rather not talk about, They will up the pressure on Congress to "do something" and they will - if only because in 2 years many of them will not want to run against people claiming they are in the pockets of Big Aerospace........
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By attacking LM/Boeing Trump draws the attention of his (many) supporters to some things that a lot of Congress would rather not talk about, They will up the pressure on Congress to "do something" and they will
What Congress will do is reminding and emphasizing to their constituents the benefits programs (including Defense spending, the F-35 Program, etc.) have on their wellbeing and employment or unemployment if things don't go correctly. US Defense spending is a big deal, almost $700B annually.
Trump has yet to demonstrate he understands Federal Government relationships existing between Executive, Legislative and Judicial arms of our government, it's not the same as running Trump, Inc.
Just so you understand, the President and his financial wizards suggest fiscal year programs and a budget which is presented to Congress. Congress (House of Representatives) initiates their review on the proposed budget and programs, coming up with their plan. Oh, don't forget the lobby interests (K Street) going on hot and heavy at this time. Individualistic state program needs and new spending formerly known as "ear-marks" are added into the mix. Once passed, the House budget version is sent to the Senate that massages it and often modifies the House version, passing their own plan. Then, both Legislative bodies get together to iron out the differences and come up with an approved Congressional plan submitted to the President for approval or (gasp), veto. If the President elects to veto the budget, the government shuts down, government employees don't get paid, including the military and there are a lot of pissed constituents nationwide and the blame is mainly directed at the President... Will be interesting to see how Trump handles all the flak he will be receiving from his "many supporters" he once had during the election campaign. The worm turns as time goes on...
That increase is about the size of the entire U.K. defense budget is it not?
Given that it is to fund things for which the R&D and commissioning is already paid for then that is a lot of shiny new kit and folks in uniforms. I'm liking it.
WWW
Given that it is to fund things for which the R&D and commissioning is already paid for then that is a lot of shiny new kit and folks in uniforms. I'm liking it.
WWW
He says "win or don't fight at all."
Sure, Mr President, the world is that simple. (Crap, I just strained my forehead by rolling my eyes).
Sure, Mr President, the world is that simple. (Crap, I just strained my forehead by rolling my eyes).
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
President Trump's proposed $54B increase in the FY'18 defense dept. budget seems huge on its own. However, consider that the improper payments made by the Medicare/Medicaid programs alone amount to over $60B each year. Simply cutting waste/fraud in all federal entitlement programs would free up several times that amount each fiscal year.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the start of time people have claimed that "cutting waste/fraud" is an answer to many Govt. problems - but it never seems to happen whatever the ideology of the govt. -- which suggest it's actually the price you pay for any big programme ......................
I'm afraid the media can no longer be trusted to report on Trump's actions in a responsible or accurate way, the focus is entirely on his mis-steps - something they certainly need to report, but it needs to be balanced.
One example is his move to block personnel who are key decision makers in the acquisition chain from signing multi-billion dollar contracts with manufacturers who they later work for on retiring from the military. It has always been a clear violation of independence requirements but he is the first President to declare his intention to stop it. But you will have to do some digging to find a story about it.
I don't agree with everything he is doing in the military space, the acquisition of the proposed F/A-18XT being one example - but he is forcing the military to re-evaluate a lot of things they take for granted, and that is never a bad thing in my opinion.
One example is his move to block personnel who are key decision makers in the acquisition chain from signing multi-billion dollar contracts with manufacturers who they later work for on retiring from the military. It has always been a clear violation of independence requirements but he is the first President to declare his intention to stop it. But you will have to do some digging to find a story about it.
I don't agree with everything he is doing in the military space, the acquisition of the proposed F/A-18XT being one example - but he is forcing the military to re-evaluate a lot of things they take for granted, and that is never a bad thing in my opinion.
What our president has to fear more than anything else is the bright light of the truth. He wants us to live in a world of half truths and make us identify with his narcissistic views, where we would accept his exaggerated self-praise and let him rob us materially and morally of all we hold dear.
May the truth survive and may the American people settle for nothing less.
As to "the truth" ... most people can't handle the truth.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid the media can no longer be trusted to report on Trump's actions in a responsible or accurate way, the focus is entirely on his mis-steps - something they certainly need to report, but it needs to be balanced.
I used to believe the BBC but since they earned the title the Biased Broadcasting Service I stopped trusting them too.
Shame really when you stop trusting what you hear or what you read - just exacerbated with the 'fake' news phenomenon.
Ha ha, I think you should have stopped after the ninth word . . .
I used to believe the BBC but since they earned the title the Biased Broadcasting Service I stopped trusting them too.
Shame really when you stop trusting what you hear or what you read - just exacerbated with the 'fake' news phenomenon.
I used to believe the BBC but since they earned the title the Biased Broadcasting Service I stopped trusting them too.
Shame really when you stop trusting what you hear or what you read - just exacerbated with the 'fake' news phenomenon.
I am grateful that neither CNN, Fox News or The NY Times are the only media voices. And I am grateful for the multiple voices coming from congress and even the administration as they all help us appreciate how much confidence we can have in any one statement.
As Lonewolf50 suggests, perhaps we can't stand the truth. In today's world, few people have attention span to critically ponder the information we receive. Hence, the election we saw last November. Shame on us.