The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere • Hacker News Board

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#41

Post by danmaz74 » Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 2:20 PM UTC

spodek wrote: post #7

It would appear this nation's military is a fat, bloated welfare recipient, feeling entitled and too powerful for anyone to do anything about it, impoverishing the nation. We all know it has many brilliant and capable individuals and teams in it who can do great work, but the system is anything but. The money ultimately goes to people, meaning we are paying people to do unproductive work, though I'm sure plenty of it…

Did those $400BN go to the military? Or to the private contractors that designed and built the plane?

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#42

Post by pinaceae » Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 2:22 PM UTC

oh yeah, all military spending is just soooo stupid ... say people writing comments on something originally funded by the very same military-industrial complex, living in an area largely funded through said complex after ww2.

but we like drones and robots, right? boston dynamics, the darpa challenge, ... oh what a WASTE.

and the technology invented and developed for this plane will appear nowhere else, ever. that's how tech innovation works, all dead ends.

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#43

Post by jebblue » Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 2:22 PM UTC

spodek wrote: post #7

It would appear this nation's military is a fat, bloated welfare recipient, feeling entitled and too powerful for anyone to do anything about it, impoverishing the nation. We all know it has many brilliant and capable individuals and teams in it who can do great work, but the system is anything but. The money ultimately goes to people, meaning we are paying people to do unproductive work, though I'm sure plenty of it…

>> It would appear this nation's military is a fat, bloated welfare recipient

This can also be said in regards to a large populace of Democratic voters.

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#44

Post by jebblue » Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 2:23 PM UTC

Obama runs the Whitehouse and has for 6 years, so is he responsible? It didn't take him long after signing on to fire the NASA administrator.

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#45

Post by JPKab » Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 2:28 PM UTC

carlosft wrote: post #37

I recently called my senators and congressman about this issue. None of the staffers were able to provide me with their public opinions on the project. Two mentioned that they haven't received any calls on the matter. If you care about this issue, and are a US citizen, call ( http://www.contactingthecongress.org/ ) your elected officials.

This is by design. Lockheed first learned how to game congress with the B1B (another useless plane).

Here's the recipe:

Talk to the military, see what's giving them a hard-on these days. Get them to start coming up with a project to put on contract.

Military issues Request for Information/Request for Proposal based on requirements you told them to use

Contact any and all congressman. Let them know that you intend to make widget X for Aircraft Z in their respective District. Ensure that virtually every congressional district in the country contains a business that is making at least one or two parts for the aircraft.

A new general comes in who is honest, realizes the weapons system is useless, wants to can it. Congress says no, we need it. Who wants to be the guy who threw away jobs in his district?

Critical general leaves, is replaced by politically minded General who wants to be in charge of a "successful" program, drinks the kook-aid and pretends its not a giant boondoggle.

Profit.

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#46

Post by timbre » Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 2:29 PM UTC

themartorana wrote: post #21

gavanwoolery wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this type of spending, whether or not it does create jobs, is that it is inherently wasteful. If it were a good plane, and not a political show pony, I'd let it off the hook. But billions are being poured into this fancy paperweight, when that money could more readily benefit programs like NASA (I am a fan of private space enterprise, but if we are going to go nuts with the political budget, might as…

It's true, but the same people voting yes "because jobs" vote no on infrastructure repair and improvement projects - desperately needed work that would also create jobs and have a huge, noticeable positive impact on the general citizenry. Govn't spending to create jobs is always welfare, no matter where we put the money. Why not put it somewhere that will create the same number of jobs, and have something other than…

Defense job creation is appealing because it's an easy way to use federal money for local benefit. If you want to fix bridges or something, you have to deal with people saying it's your state's or city's responsibility, but everyone agrees that defense is the feds' job.

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#47

Post by Someone1234 » Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 2:29 PM UTC

lostgame wrote: post #11

... $399 billion could virtually end hunger in America. ... Or, you know, we could kill more innocent people halfway across the world. Yeah, let's do that. America!!!

This isn't Reddit. I don't come to HK to read memes or "jokes." Please contribute something more substantive.

You could have made your point about hunger and priorities without it turning into an "America!!!" gag. Then maybe someone else would have replied and the conversation would have moved forward.

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#48

Post by aeturnum » Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 2:30 PM UTC

jebblue wrote: post #43

spodek wrote: post #7

It would appear this nation's military is a fat, bloated welfare recipient, feeling entitled and too powerful for anyone to do anything about it, impoverishing the nation. We all know it has many brilliant and capable individuals and teams in it who can do great work, but the system is anything but. The money ultimately goes to people, meaning we are paying people to do unproductive work, though I'm sure plenty of it…

>> It would appear this nation's military is a fat, bloated welfare recipient This can also be said in regards to a large populace of Democratic voters.

Sure, if you consider 4% large [1]. Or maybe you're thinking of the 15% too poor to feed themselves. Which is about the same thing as building a $400B plane.

[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#49

Post by washedup » Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 2:30 PM UTC

Tloewald wrote: post #18

lostgame wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Veterans, yes. But how about all the people who lost their jobs in the US over the last 20 years because of the obvious incompetence of the government to budget in any way that makes sense. Priorities. If you have a ton of starving and jobless people in your country, you do not spend a quarter of a TRILLION dollars on killing more people. I'm sorry, you just don't.

Actually government jobs programs kind of directly affect joblessness and hunger. The question is whether this is the right kind of jobs program. Fixing infrastructure would create more jobs with a greater multiplier (construction workers are lower paid and spend more of their income) and produce lasting value. Edit: weird typo.

Bingo. Although I am one to generally scoff at jobs programs, if it's going to be done, this is how you do it. VERY expensive jobs programs such as the F-35 shuffle large amounts of cash around, and make it appear that the economy overall is healthy and growing, which it is, but it all relies on program success. The F-35 is a long way from being successful. It's not impossible, but it becomes more unlikely with each problem. That being said, the F-35 program was most likely never meant to be a jobs program. It just turned out that way as funding ballooned (probably after some very successful lobbying).

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#50

Post by Someone1234 » Wed, Jul 09, 2014, 2:33 PM UTC

jebblue wrote: post #44

Obama runs the Whitehouse and has for 6 years, so is he responsible? It didn't take him long after signing on to fire the NASA administrator.

Obama is definitely partly responsible.

This isn't a party political issue anyway, both the Democrats AND Republicans support this program and have for quite a while. As the article says contractors exist in 45 states, so that's 45 senators who have a vested interest in its future.

This 10,000 pound gorilla has been around for quite a few years before Obama and while it would have been political suicide to try and kill it, it would be interesting to see if Obama could have killed it (since he is in command of the military, but congress actually makes a lot of the acquisition decisions).

I'm sure Obama could have ordered the US military to not buy the F-35 anymore but then what? The contracts still exist and the military's budget is based around those purchases (i.e. the money likely cannot be used for alternatives without approval).