Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20110113/capt.photo_1294932877377-1-0.jpg?x=213&y=142&xc=1&yc=1&wc=410&hc=273&q=85&sig=q3onsyej27HX0oVFhudvbw--

What is 382BILLION divided by 2,334?

More than Big Al makes in a year, and still just barely enough for the US to build "the latest and greatest".

F-35 looking more like white elephant - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110113/pl_afp/usmilitaryaerospacef35_20110113153609)

I won't ever understand how this program cannot be put on hold for 4 years, and see where the economy is then. We are not talking about research to maintain our edge, we aren't talking about shoring up a weak spot or creating a defense against China's latest and greatest, we aren't talking about replacing planes that are falling out of the sky. We are simply talking about ongoing defense spending that is out of control and needs to be SLLLOOOOOWWWWWEEEEED down.

It's defending programs like these that make republicans look stupid. We can defend our nation, but we shouldn't put it in the poor house for the General's new toy.

Trying to crush important programs like this is what makes democrats look stupid.

This aircraft will replace many old ones....commonality in components = mammoth cost savings, its going to save us a lot of money in the long run. We're going to be able to eliminate up to three different + types of aircraft when the F-35 goes online.
Some of the technology its replacing is over 40 years old.

Trying to crush important programs like this is what makes democrats look stupid.

This aircraft will replace many old ones....commonality in components = mammoth cost savings, its going to save us a lot of money in the long run. We're going to be able to eliminate up to three different + types of aircraft when the F-35 goes online.
Some of the technology its replacing is over 40 years old.
Just a note, I'm not a democrat. Spending 382 Billion (156Million per plane) is OVERKILL. That 40 yr old technology has been upgraded and is currently capable of defending against any current (and reasonably foreseeable) threat.

We spend more on defense than the combined defense expenditure of the next 5 closest competitors, and its rationale like above that enable rampant military spending.

Ask yourself this, how much do you spend a year on home security systems? Even include your percentage of local and state police through taxes. Is it more than your house payment or rent? More than your yearly health expenditures (including health insurance and tax subsidies to your local hospital)?

Fact of the matter is that while having a defense that can protect the US is important, the military has been built up far beyond a point that any legitimate threat to the US country would require.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20110113/capt.photo_1294932877377-1-0.jpg?x=213&y=142&xc=1&yc=1&wc=410&hc=273&q=85&sig=q3onsyej27HX0oVFhudvbw--

What is 382BILLION divided by 2,334?

More than Big Al makes in a year, and still just barely enough for the US to build "the latest and greatest".

F-35 looking more like white elephant - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110113/pl_afp/usmilitaryaerospacef35_20110113153609)

I won't ever understand how this program cannot be put on hold for 4 years, and see where the economy is then. We are not talking about research to maintain our edge, we aren't talking about shoring up a weak spot or creating a defense against China's latest and greatest, we aren't talking about replacing planes that are falling out of the sky. We are simply talking about ongoing defense spending that is out of control and needs to be SLLLOOOOOWWWWWEEEEED down.

It's defending programs like these that make republicans look stupid. We can defend our nation, but we shouldn't put it in the poor house for the General's new toy.

Last time I checked we had a democrat in office and the dems had control of congress. So I guess Obama and friends look just as stupid or could we say look like an ASS. LOL. As far as the cost goes I really don't know if its worth the cost or not. I think it would take a bunch of research on the topic to form that opinion but both parties are responsible for the spending on defense.

from Wikipedia, but you certainly can find other current docs for proof:
The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending and is over six times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).[30][31][32]

Last time I checked we had a democrat in office and the dems had control of congress. So I guess Obama and friends look just as stupid or could we say look like an ASS. LOL. As far as the cost goes I really don't know if its worth the cost or not. I think it would take a bunch of research on the topic to form that opinion but both parties are responsible for the spending on defense.

Fair enough. Blame 'em both

Last time I checked we had a democrat in office and the dems had control of congress. So I guess Obama and friends look just as stupid or could we say look like an ASS. LOL. As far as the cost goes I really don't know if its worth the cost or not. I think it would take a bunch of research on the topic to form that opinion but both parties are responsible for the spending on defense.

Funny how you seem to pick and choose when both sides are responsible for something.

We could probably cut military spending by 25% by just cutting the waist. My buddy operates a tug boat for the military and the waist he tells me about is just crazy.

Funny how you seem to pick and choose when both sides are responsible for something.

I was just pointing out that its not just a rep. problem as he stated. Both parties are guilty of spending and waisting our money and I say that all the time. I'm tired of all the waisted money from both parties. I don't pick and choose on that issue.

Me personally, scrap the jet and give the military a pay raise.

On the other hand I firmly believe that No piece of equipment shuld be more than 50 years old. It's a tough balancing act.

If they do roll this out and it can replace more than 1 type aitrcraft and is upgradeable for about 50 years then do it. If this jet is a one trick pony then it isn't worth it. For the amount of money it should be able to manuever, dogfight, spy, bomb, and be stealthy and do all of it as good as or better than anything else out there.

I haven't read up on it so I am not up to speed on it.