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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pscot

(21,023 posts)
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 12:15 PM Apr 2013

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.

Keeping the Abrams production line rolling protects businesses and good paying jobs in congressional districts where the tank's many suppliers are located.

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

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/28/5378015/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but.html#storylink=cpy

7 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) pscot Apr 2013 OP
In the councils of government, markiv Apr 2013 #1
Right on! RevStPatrick Apr 2013 #2
If only today's Republicans were that wises. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #7
I'm sure we could sell them.... Wounded Bear Apr 2013 #3
i'm no fan of marx, and have never quoted him before, but even markiv Apr 2013 #4
This is an old Newt Gingrich stunt jmowreader Apr 2013 #5
Congress doesn't care. Rex Apr 2013 #6
 

markiv

(1,489 posts)
1. In the councils of government,
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 12:21 PM
Apr 2013

we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Wounded Bear

(58,437 posts)
3. I'm sure we could sell them....
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 12:42 PM
Apr 2013

China would be interested, at least, or maybe North Korea...


.
.
.
.
.
.
Or is it?

 

markiv

(1,489 posts)
4. i'm no fan of marx, and have never quoted him before, but even
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 12:53 PM
Apr 2013

a broken clock is right twice a day

The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.” ― Karl Marx.

he sure as hell nailed this one

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
5. This is an old Newt Gingrich stunt
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 05:02 PM
Apr 2013

Every year Newt Gingrich was in Congress, he made sure the Air Force got at least ten new C-130 airplanes. The Air Force had quite enough C-130s, and told Newtie that every year: no more C-130s, please. C-130s are the smallest airlifters the Air Force has, and they needed larger planes rather than more. But Newt, whose district contained the plant where C-130s are assembled, knew better than the Air Force what the Air Force needed...so they got 10 C-130s a year.

What the Army REALLY needs is a replacement for the 6-mpg, aluminum-floored Humvee, but they'll never get that. Trucks are not sexy.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Army says no to more tank...