Congress orders 200 million in Gulfstream Jets!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Full of Win, Aug 5, 2009.

  1. Full of Win macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #1
    Name and shame these wasteful bastards of both parties! We are giving future generations monstrous debt, and congress goes out and gets themselves 3 Gulfstream jets! SHAMEFUL.

    http://www.rollcall.com/media/37552-1.html
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    200 million isn't really very much money, its 1/5000th of the overspend on healthcare or 1/3000th of the defence budget for example.

    That said they could probably have gone for cheaper jets, surely the cheapest ones don't cost $70 million each.
     
  3. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    Did you read the article?

     
  4. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #4
    I was reflexively a bit shocked the first time I heard one of these stories, so mission very nearly accomplished, but then I did a bit of research.

    It turns out the operating cost per hour of a Gulfstream is surprisingly reasonable provided you're flying at near capacity. Surprisingly, with a full load it's actually less expensive per person than many commercial coach-class tickets would be for the same route. When you factor in the savings in additional security and time delays associated with commercial travel, and the fact that passengers on a C-37 are equipped to perform even classified work in-flight, the savings are greater still.

    As for the upfront cost, just think of it as one and a half of the F-22 Raptors we now won't be buying, except the C-37s will actually ever be used for their designated purpose.
     
  5. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #5
    :( Those are great planes.
     
  6. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #6
    That have fired zero shots at enemy targets. But we totally need 200 of them.
     
  7. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #7
    Good way to look at it, Gelfin.

    Although it doesn't look good for those in Congress who bawled out the auto executives for doing essentially the same thing.
     
  8. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #8
    Queen Pelosi wants a new ride. She was the first speaker who decided they deserved to fly all the time privately.


    Aristocrats all of them. $200 million while chump change compared to the deficits they run up is more deficit spending and should be prevented. So I guess many are willing to not only allow us to be wholesale dropped into debt but want to make sure we nickled and dimed as well?


    Term limits, hell, they should go to prison after serving in Congress
     
  9. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #9
    When you balance your budget not worrying about a lot of the small things is what ends up biting you in the ass. This crap has been going on forever, all the more reason to put an end to it starting with the small stuff.
     
  10. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #10
    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_nancy_pelosi_order_up_a_200-seat.html

    To put it bluntly, either get your facts straight or get out of PRSI.
     
  11. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    You should always trim the largest excess expenses first. It'd be crazy not to.
     
  12. Signal-11 macrumors 65816

    Signal-11

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Location:
    2nd Star to the Right
    #12
    It's not as simple as that. I think that the Senate made the correct decision BUT to imply that we don't need them at all is also fallacy.
     
  13. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #13
    I agree, the fundamental problem was the number of F-22s that were in the budget, not the fighter's existence. Although, I have a feeling that the F-22 may never be used in a significant theater and will wind up, much like its predecessors, either used in a minor strike role or not at all.
     
  14. Signal-11 macrumors 65816

    Signal-11

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Location:
    2nd Star to the Right
    #14
    Yeah, I dunno.

    The calculus becomes extremely complicated for this sort of thing the moment you actually start considering the problem in any depth versus what sounds good in an internet argument.

    No American grunt's been killed by enemy aircraft since the Korean War. If the air superiority is so superior that the enemy air force just runs away, doesn't that mean the fighter jocks have done their job, just by being around? How much is that capability, or more to the point, that reputation worth in terms of dollars and lives?

    Anyone who claims to have a simple answer just hasn't put much thought into it.
     
  15. rhsgolfer33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    #15
    That is not always the case. As someone with some knowledge of accounting I can tell you that its is often easier to cut many small costs than it is to cut one large one. Of course if you can find a cost that is wasteful and large to cut, then go for it, but often that is a lot easier said than done, especially in the public policy realm where any large cut is bound to anger or upset someone (and that is always a concern, particularly when an official is facing reelection). Eliminating many small costs can easily have as big an effect as eliminating one big one (and possibly be less blinding to the publics eyes), especially when talking about how our government spends money. Many companies, and individuals for that matter, fail financially because they don't worry about the small expenses (particularly small expenses that are recurring).

    The thing is, it really shouldn't matter how large or small an expense is, if its excessive or wasteful it should be cut, that doesn't happen because wasteful and excessive are often subjective to the politics of whoever is looking at the cost or expense.
     
  16. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #16
    I agree. I think the important aspect is to consider the whole field of fighters currently available as well as future acquisitions when compared to our possible enemies. Currently, China and Russia are the only ones even capable of fielding 5th-generation fighters and assuming no other advantages or disadvantages, we have more than both put together with the combined F-22/F-35 fleets. Add in our AWACS and other C3, and we may outmode both forces even more.
    And, this is assuming that we do engage in direct combat within the next 30 years and that the UAV programs don't replace the F-22 frames before that horizon.

    On the other hand, since Korea, we've fought in multiple engagements in which strike, CAS, S&R, and cargo missions have been far more important, leading one to wonder if the F-22 program has taken money away from other, possibly more valuable programs.

    It's hard to make these kinds of decisions, when the B-52 was first conceived I surely doubt that anyone thought the airframe would be flying racetracks and dropping 500 pound bombs on caves and mud-huts.
     
  17. Full of Win thread starter macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #17
    Thinking like this has given us trillion dollar deficits and an 11 trillion dollar debt. Both parties are guilty of this, to some degree.
     
  18. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #18
  19. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #19
    Do you have any idea what socialism is? Obama has even approached "socialism". :rolleyes:

    (from wiki)
     
  20. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #20

    Once again, this graph is appropriate:

    [​IMG]

    Socialism my ass.
     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #21
    psh, you and your facts always getting in the way, when will you learn?:rolleyes:
     
  22. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #22
    I resent the sort of thinking exemplified by, "Hey, it's only $200 million." But there are 535 of them, each with his own $200 million-sized ideas, and many which are much larger.

    They're not royalty; they don't need some giant entourage. Let 'em fly coach like the rest of us. I'm fed up with this behavior as though they think they're some sort of little tin gods.

    Aw, well. Let's go spend ourselves into prosperity. It's the American Way!

    Oh: Bringing Hastert's style of travel into the equation merely shows that Pelosi is as much of a (bleep) as Hastert. Where's the change? :D

    'Rat
     
  23. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    Agreed, congress preaches down on failing businesses about cutting costs and makes executives drive hybrids to come see them, meanwhile they sit on top of their own huge failure of a business and think they deserve to fly private on the tax payers dime. Maybe sitting in the airport waiting for the plane to board will give them time to read some of these bills they are passing.
     
  24. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #24
    You'll get your answer when Palin is in the Oval Office (BEHIND the desk.)
     
  25. spillproof macrumors 68020

    spillproof

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #25
    Sadly, I doubt that will ever happen.

    *stuffs money in mattress*
     

Share This Page