Obama on insurance companies

Putting a few aircraft carriers into storage will free up some money as well.

ACtually I think the number of Carriers is Fine, but there are PLENTY of military projects that could be canned. The DDX Stealth Destroyer, the F-22A and the biggest White Elephant of them all: the Missile Shield.
 
Too many carriers. There is no need for 11 right now. There just isn't.
A lot of projects can get canned too.
F-22A... not really. It's expensive as hell but I think it'll have its purpose. As a complete replacement of the F-15... NO. Hell no. It's way too expensive. It'll serve in the sort of capacity the F-117 served in, except with the addition of air superiority duties.
DDX has been cancelled for all I know. But I could be wrong.

The concern I have with a lot of these new projects is that in the past strategic planners (along with their math whizzes) would come up with parameters for what would be a necessary weapon to fulfill their strategic needs. Weapons would be built to fulfill these parameters.
Nowadays it's like Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics needs to keep a damned plant open and will deliver some kind of new super weapon that doesn't even have a mission. It's like they have to create a mission for these new wonder weapons that cost a fortune to develop and end up with so many bugs they're practically useless.
 
Too many carriers. There is no need for 11 right now. There just isn't.
A lot of projects can get canned too.
F-22A... not really. It's expensive as hell but I think it'll have its purpose. As a complete replacement of the F-15... NO. Hell no. It's way too expensive. It'll serve in the sort of capacity the F-117 served in, except with the addition of air superiority duties.
DDX has been cancelled for all I know. But I could be wrong.

The concern I have with a lot of these new projects is that in the past strategic planners (along with their math whizzes) would come up with parameters for what would be a necessary weapon to fulfill their strategic needs. Weapons would be built to fulfill these parameters.
Nowadays it's like Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics needs to keep a damned plant open and will deliver some kind of new super weapon that doesn't even have a mission. It's like they have to create a mission for these new wonder weapons that cost a fortune to develop and end up with so many bugs they're practically useless.
F-35 replaces F-117 & F-16 & F-22 replaces F-15. They're making a huge gamble that 187 F-22s & 1700 F-35 will get the job done for 10-20 years. Considering the spreading missle & nuclear know how we need a shield before some nut that doesn't care about consequinces does something.
 
Too many carriers. There is no need for 11 right now. There just isn't.
A lot of projects can get canned too.
F-22A... not really. It's expensive as hell but I think it'll have its purpose. As a complete replacement of the F-15... NO. Hell no. It's way too expensive. It'll serve in the sort of capacity the F-117 served in, except with the addition of air superiority duties.
DDX has been cancelled for all I know. But I could be wrong.

The concern I have with a lot of these new projects is that in the past strategic planners (along with their math whizzes) would come up with parameters for what would be a necessary weapon to fulfill their strategic needs. Weapons would be built to fulfill these parameters.
Nowadays it's like Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics needs to keep a damned plant open and will deliver some kind of new super weapon that doesn't even have a mission. It's like they have to create a mission for these new wonder weapons that cost a fortune to develop and end up with so many bugs they're practically useless.

A lot of projects can get canned too.
F-22A... not really. It's expensive as hell but I think it'll have its purpose.

For what it is worth the F-22 is history. Congress has removed funding from the Defense Budget. There will not be any further F-22 other than the current 187.

President Obama during his speech to the VFW commented on his ideas for future service needs.
 
Repealing the Bush Tax Cuts, eliminating HMO subsides in Medicare, taxing revenues from the HMO and Drug companies. Furthermore Bush's war in Iraq will be coming to an end in 2011 and that will be saving us a bundle.
Yes America's war in Iraq may be moving to A'stan and costing us another bundle. God forbid we should conserve money.
Repealing tax cuts, gee I wonder who's taxes are going up?
HMOs don't "subsidize" Medicare.
Tax pharmaceutical manufacturers and insurance companies and guess who they pass the costs on to?
 
Yes America's war in Iraq may be moving to A'stan and costing us another bundle. God forbid we should conserve money.
Repealing tax cuts, gee I wonder who's taxes are going up?
I hate to mention it but we're fighting two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, and 2 minus 1 equals 1. Therefore, less money will be spent.

And the taxes that will be going up will be the same people whose taxes were cut. And it wasn't mine.
 
A lot of projects can get canned too.
F-22A... not really. It's expensive as hell but I think it'll have its purpose.

For what it is worth the F-22 is history. Congress has removed funding from the Defense Budget. There will not be any further F-22 other than the current 187.

President Obama during his speech to the VFW commented on his ideas for future service needs.
The manufacturer has said it won't or can't reassemble the production line once it is dismantled, regardless of the situation. The line might have been preserved for a while with foriegn sales, but Air Force Magazine said that Dem. Senators for several years prevented any spending by the Air Force to even study an export version.
 
So the F-22 won't even get spare parts??
Sheesh.

Yeah I know the theory that the F-22 is the F-15 replacement but quite honestly looking at the price, there is simply no way. Maybe they can reopen the F-22 production at a later date when it becomes more affordable. I think regardless of what they say, it will be used like the F-117.
 
I hate to mention it but we're fighting two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, and 2 minus 1 equals 1. Therefore, less money will be spent.

And the taxes that will be going up will be the same people whose taxes were cut. And it wasn't mine.

Wrong math Other Guy. As one war decreases, the other will continue to draw increasing resources ergo, still sucking gigantic bucks.
If you think your taxes won't go p to cover the costs of the healthcare scheme then I think you're kidding yourself unless, of course you make no money at all now and don't plan to in the future. If that's the case, you may just benefit from this deal after all.
 
Last edited:
So you think we're spending less fighting TWO wars than we would if we were only fighting ONE???


I'm gonna need a breakdown of that one.


BTW, he's talking about the bracket being higher than his income.
 
Sure, more resources will be diverted to Afghanistan but even if everything in Iraq moved to Afghanistan (which won't be the case) it would still be cheaper because they're in the same theater of operations and tend to feed off the same logistical lines.
Trust me, it's cheaper to have one larger war than it is to have two slightly smaller wars.
 
That very statement should be self-evident why going to WalMart for Healthcare is a bad idea. Do you really want a bank to be managing your health? They are worse than insurence companies. And its fair to take a shot at Walmart as their corporate policies in the past have been questionable at best.

Id rather have a vampire take my blood pressure, at least its motives are clear...

I have to agree
 
Sure, more resources will be diverted to Afghanistan but even if everything in Iraq moved to Afghanistan (which won't be the case) it would still be cheaper because they're in the same theater of operations and tend to feed off the same logistical lines.
Trust me, it's cheaper to have one larger war than it is to have two slightly smaller wars.
Why would I trust you? Trust me when I say Afghanistan will grow to be a huge commitment in manpower and resources. Personally, I think it needs to be but that's not going to help B.O. pay for his health care scheme. It's only going to be funded with more taxes, taxes, and more taxes.
We won't need the same resources that we're using in Iraq. Different war, different terrain etc., etc., and so on. We'll need new a different technology ($$), we'll need different training ($$), and we'll need more manpower ($$).
 
You should trust him because he said it costs less to have one big war than 2 small ones. maybe 60 years ago if he had said that he'd be wrong, but in todays world. he is correct. the way its going now we pay to send troops and supplies to Iraq, and to Afghanistan, I'm not saying that in teh long run it won't become more expensive, I'm just saying right now he's right.
BUT neither war heva a connection to civilian health care. And ANYBODY who says the troops don't need the totally best health care available needs to be shot.
 
Getting back on topic...Here is a George Will column talking about the up coming Rubio-Crist Florida battle for US Senate. That isn't on topic, but what is is the comment about how Florida State Govt. set up a State Insurance program that is undercutting private insurance companies on the subject of property insurance. The result is many of them are pulling out of Fla. If Govt health coverage option occurs they will push out private companies & then the Dems are on thier way to adding health care to thier power base, the Nanny State.
 
Back
Top