Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

A Little Weird

(1,754 posts)
Sun Apr 28, 2013, 01:21 PM Apr 2013

Army Says No To More Tanks, But Congress Insists

I think this story deserves wider attention.

http://www.lex18.com/news/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/

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.





15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Army Says No To More Tanks, But Congress Insists (Original Post) A Little Weird Apr 2013 OP
i'm sure the tanks are built in someone's congressional district...therefore ....... spanone Apr 2013 #1
Tanks but no tanks. Robb Apr 2013 #2
Indeed! arcane1 Apr 2013 #5
I sometimes wonder what the military budget would be Revanchist Apr 2013 #3
Me too A Little Weird Apr 2013 #4
...while our economy tanks. L0oniX Apr 2013 #6
Quick, slash SS & Medicare, the military (does not) need tanks! DJ13 Apr 2013 #7
It would be nice to know who owns stock in whatever company Paper Roses Apr 2013 #8
The company A Little Weird Apr 2013 #9
I was sure this was the Onion! Rec'd. nt raccoon Apr 2013 #10
I probably should have addeed "not satire" to the title A Little Weird Apr 2013 #12
Look no futher than Ohio. Lima, particularly. Auggie Apr 2013 #11
Because this isn't enough... octothorpe Apr 2013 #13
Zoom out a bit, it gets better Brother Buzz Apr 2013 #14
Wow! A Little Weird Apr 2013 #15

Revanchist

(1,375 posts)
3. I sometimes wonder what the military budget would be
Sun Apr 28, 2013, 01:28 PM
Apr 2013

I sometimes wonder what the military budget would be if they were allowed to decide what to spend the money on instead of congress.

DJ13

(23,671 posts)
7. Quick, slash SS & Medicare, the military (does not) need tanks!
Sun Apr 28, 2013, 01:40 PM
Apr 2013

The priorities in DC (both parties) are about as fucked up as possible.

A Little Weird

(1,754 posts)
9. The company
Sun Apr 28, 2013, 02:00 PM
Apr 2013

The company that operates the production facility is called General Dynamics. The article says they spent $11 million dollars on lobbying last year.

A Little Weird

(1,754 posts)
12. I probably should have addeed "not satire" to the title
Sun Apr 28, 2013, 02:07 PM
Apr 2013

It's getting harder to tell them apart these days.

Auggie

(31,167 posts)
11. Look no futher than Ohio. Lima, particularly.
Sun Apr 28, 2013, 02:07 PM
Apr 2013

From the article:

If there's a home of the Abrams, it's politically important Ohio. The nation's only tank plant is in Lima. So it's no coincidence that the champions for more tanks are Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman, two of Capitol's Hill most prominent deficit hawks, as well as Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. They said their support is rooted in protecting national security, not in pork-barrel politics.

"The one area where we are supposed to spend taxpayer money is in defense of the country," said Jordan, whose district in the northwest part of the state includes the tank plant.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Army Says No To More Tank...