• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Army to Congress: Thanks but no tanks

RJKarl said:
The guy who "knows how to run a company" wants to spend $1T more than the DOD wants or needs. That shows real business sense.

He also wants to cut $2.8T in taxes from the Top 5% and says he will "balance" that out by eliminating loopholes. The problem is if he ended ALL loopholes it would only total $1.7T.

We're down $2T from where we are today before we even get started.

That's a really good way to run the "business" of the government.
Click to expand...

ok probably shouldnt have included that last sentence because i knew that certain posters would only talk about that piece and not my actual point.

i want to thank tuffalo for actually addressing my main point
 
how would you propose capital budgeting for federal agencies with large capex needs would go?
 
He's been saying it for over a year. Which Mitt do you believe?
 
Dented said:
how would you propose capital budgeting for federal agencies with large capex needs would go?
Click to expand...

you don't just throw money at programs the entities don't want. That's a great starting point.
 
RJKarl said:
you don't just throw money at programs the entities don't want. That's a great starting point.
Click to expand...

thanks. pretty sure we all agree on that. good thoughts. keep up the stellar work.
 
yeah, throwing money is bullshit b/c it flutters around; much easier if you just hand it over or put it in an envelope.

unless you're makin' it rain, obvi
 
Another "problem" with 5 to 10 year planning is that elected officials and their appointees heading large departments serve terms that last between 2 and 6 years. Setting a 5 year plan is something very different than seeing one through. Government is filled with tradeoffs between efficiency, equity, responsiveness to the electorate, and a host of other forces.
 
I would definitely take one of these as my own personal tank. Just sayin'
 
TWDeac said:
I would definitely take one of these as my own personal tank. Just sayin'
Click to expand...

True. Maybe the federal government can make money by renting tanks for football season. They'd be great for tailgating.
 
Can you imagine how much fun you could have with an Abrams and a few thousand gallons of jet fuel?
 
Deadbolt said:
I've heard similar stories like this from some friends in the military of billions of dollars in surplus equipment (in some cases brand new) sitting around collecting dust. I had one friend in the Coast Guard who told me the story of how they bought two new helicopters they had no need for because if they didn't spend the money, they wouldn't get it again the next year. This kind of budgeting is what is killing us all across the public sector.
Click to expand...

This happens every year at every agency. My ex's dad worked for the VA and every year they got either new furniture or new computers because if they didn't use their entire budget then it was reduced the following year.
 
I got it! What with all these extra tanks and unreliable ships, we need to make sure that our next war is a land, and not a naval, conflict. I mean we are pretty free to choose whom to atttack. Amirite, amirite?
 
By the middle of a Romney term, he wants to be able to let people walk across the decks from Sicily to France.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top