C-17 for America?

[VaYank5150]

C-17 FOR AMERICA

UPDATE: The fight's not over. Senator McCain's (R-AZ) amendment to strip funding for the 10 C-17 aircraft is still in play. Votes on the Senate Defense Appropriations bill are expected next Tuesday.




The need to contact Senators to vote "NO" for the amendments is IMMEDIATE. Please CALL your Senators or use the buttons on the right of the screen to send letters to your elected officials. Click here to find your Senator's office number.



Feature Story: Why Ten More C-17s Are Important to America, by Rebecca L. Grant, Lexington Institute. "Debate is raging on Capitol Hill about whether to buy ten more C-17 military airlifters. It's astonishing, given that the C-17 is perfect for "the wars we are in" as the Pentagon likes to say. Right now, a C-17 is probably executing a lights-out landing on a dark field in Afghanistan. Another C-17 could be air-dropping ammunition, food and water to a remote firebase there...".



We could try to say it better, but we won't. Click here to read the full story and understand why the C-17 is so important for our troops.

Who supports this and why?

 

[del]

C-17 FOR AMERICA

UPDATE: The fight's not over. Senator McCain's (R-AZ) amendment to strip funding for the 10 C-17 aircraft is still in play. Votes on the Senate Defense Appropriations bill are expected next Tuesday.




The need to contact Senators to vote "NO" for the amendments is IMMEDIATE. Please CALL your Senators or use the buttons on the right of the screen to send letters to your elected officials. Click here to find your Senator's office number.



Feature Story: Why Ten More C-17s Are Important to America, by Rebecca L. Grant, Lexington Institute. "Debate is raging on Capitol Hill about whether to buy ten more C-17 military airlifters. It's astonishing, given that the C-17 is perfect for "the wars we are in" as the Pentagon likes to say. Right now, a C-17 is probably executing a lights-out landing on a dark field in Afghanistan. Another C-17 could be air-dropping ammunition, food and water to a remote firebase there...".



We could try to say it better, but we won't. Click here to read the full story and understand why the C-17 is so important for our troops.

Who supports this and why?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/90149-annnnd-here-we-go-again.html

 

[VaYank5150]

I'm not trying to rehash the AirBus vs. Boeing conversation. It is my understanding that the 10 new tankers are truing to be eliminated from the defense budget. However, when I see the banner at the top of the USMB website, run by Boeing and they are trying to tie this contract with American jobs, I wonder who supports it and why?

 

[VaYank5150]

Would this NOT be like a government handout? We all know how the conservatives hate government handouts...

 

[EriktheRed]

Would this NOT be like a government handout? We all know how the conservatives hate government handouts...

Cons don't hate government handouts when they go to defense contractors.

 

[VaYank5150]

Would this NOT be like a government handout? We all know how the conservatives hate government handouts...

Cons don't hate government handouts when they go to defense contractors.

Wait a second. Wouldn't that be a little hypocritical of them?

 

[brewerboy]

Would this NOT be like a government handout? We all know how the conservatives hate government handouts...

Really, you're going to compare Congress buying 10 more C-17s for use in the Middle East to handouts totally billions of dollars to save failed banks/mortgage lenders all across the country?

So much for intellectual honesty eh?

 

[VaYank5150]

Would this NOT be like a government handout? We all know how the conservatives hate government handouts...

Really, you're going to compare Congress buying 10 more C-17s for use in the Middle East to handouts totally billions of dollars to save failed banks/mortgage lenders all across the country?

So much for intellectual honesty eh?

We dono't need them right now. We are trying to find ways to trim the budget. WHY is this be protrayed as saving Americans jobs? If our government apprved this money for something we don't really need right NOW, then how is it NOT just another government handout?

 

[VaYank5150]

Now where did that intellectually honest brewerboy go?

 

[brewerboy]

Would this NOT be like a government handout? We all know how the conservatives hate government handouts...

Really, you're going to compare Congress buying 10 more C-17s for use in the Middle East to handouts totally billions of dollars to save failed banks/mortgage lenders all across the country?

So much for intellectual honesty eh?

We dono't need them right now. We are trying to find ways to trim the budget. WHY is this be protrayed as saving Americans jobs? If our government apprved this money for something we don't really need right NOW, then how is it NOT just another government handout?

Who determines we dont need them right now? Certainly not you. So perhaps you could share your info.

Even comparing ordering 10 more C-17s off of Boeing to the billions we've dumped into companies that are "too big to fail" in the past year is well....retarded. And not really a comparison at all.

 

[VaYank5150]

Really, you're going to compare Congress buying 10 more C-17s for use in the Middle East to handouts totally billions of dollars to save failed banks/mortgage lenders all across the country?

So much for intellectual honesty eh?

We dono't need them right now. We are trying to find ways to trim the budget. WHY is this be protrayed as saving Americans jobs? If our government apprved this money for something we don't really need right NOW, then how is it NOT just another government handout?

Who determines we dont need them right now? Certainly not you. So perhaps you could share your info.

Even comparing ordering 10 more C-17s off of Boeing to the billions we've dumped into companies that are "too big to fail" in the past year is well....retarded. And not really a comparison at all.

Nope. John McCain.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_13455605

 

[brewerboy]

We dono't need them right now. We are trying to find ways to trim the budget. WHY is this be protrayed as saving Americans jobs? If our government apprved this money for something we don't really need right NOW, then how is it NOT just another government handout?

Who determines we dont need them right now? Certainly not you. So perhaps you could share your info.

Even comparing ordering 10 more C-17s off of Boeing to the billions we've dumped into companies that are "too big to fail" in the past year is well....retarded. And not really a comparison at all.

Nope. John McCain.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_13455605

Obviously someone thinks we need them if the White House version of the bill is to fund 3 more airplanes.

 

[VaYank5150]

Who determines we dont need them right now? Certainly not you. So perhaps you could share your info.

Even comparing ordering 10 more C-17s off of Boeing to the billions we've dumped into companies that are "too big to fail" in the past year is well....retarded. And not really a comparison at all.

Nope. John McCain.
Boeing C-17 clears major hurdle in Senate - ContraCostaTimes.com

I suggest you re-read your article there bud.

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected an effort led by Sen. John McCain to end funding for Boeing's C-17 and close the Long Beach assembly plant by mid-2011, but the Arizona Republican is set to make a similar motion today.

And below the article under "Whats next for Boeings C-17"

1. Sen. John McCain indicated he will introduce a similar measure Thursday to strip C-17 funding despite his effort Wednesday being rejected on a 64-34 vote. If that fails, the C-17's fate will next move to the House of Representatives.

2. The Senate will meet with the House in the coming week to finalize the nation's Fiscal Year 2010 defense budget, currently valued at $626 billion. The Senate version includes $2.5 billion to fund 10 more C-17 s, while the House version includes about $650 million to fund just three more airplanes.


Looks like you have it bass ackwards. If John McCain thought they were needed, why is he trying to strip funding for them?

NEXT

Are you retarded? Can you not read what you typed yourself? Is it a comprehension issue? I hate to make you look like a complete ass, but since it is quite easy with you, here goes. I stated that we do not need more C-17s. YOU asked, "Who says so? Certainly not you". I stated "Nope. John McCain".

See, in ENGLISH, this means that I didn't say we don't need more C-17's, John McCain did. Hence, John McCain is trying to strip them from the defense spending bill. Is that clear enough for you Skippy? I don't think I have the ability to draw you pictures on this message board....

 

[brewerboy]

Would this NOT be like a government handout? We all know how the conservatives hate government handouts...

Really, you're going to compare Congress buying 10 more C-17s for use in the Middle East to handouts totally billions of dollars to save failed banks/mortgage lenders all across the country?

So much for intellectual honesty eh?

We dono't need them right now. We are trying to find ways to trim the budget. WHY is this be protrayed as saving Americans jobs? If our government apprved this money for something we don't really need right NOW, then how is it NOT just another government handout?

Why is this protrayed as saving American jobs???

Maybe because it is, perhaps?


From your own article:

Wednesday's 64-34 vote marks a major milestone in continuing production at California's last major aircraft assembly plant through at least mid-2012, securing some 5,000 jobs in Long Beach and about 25,000 more around the country where parts for the aircraft are designed and built.

 

[brewerboy]

Nope. John McCain.
Boeing C-17 clears major hurdle in Senate - ContraCostaTimes.com

I suggest you re-read your article there bud.

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected an effort led by Sen. John McCain to end funding for Boeing's C-17 and close the Long Beach assembly plant by mid-2011, but the Arizona Republican is set to make a similar motion today.

And below the article under "Whats next for Boeings C-17"

1. Sen. John McCain indicated he will introduce a similar measure Thursday to strip C-17 funding despite his effort Wednesday being rejected on a 64-34 vote. If that fails, the C-17's fate will next move to the House of Representatives.

2. The Senate will meet with the House in the coming week to finalize the nation's Fiscal Year 2010 defense budget, currently valued at $626 billion. The Senate version includes $2.5 billion to fund 10 more C-17 s, while the House version includes about $650 million to fund just three more airplanes.


Looks like you have it bass ackwards. If John McCain thought they were needed, why is he trying to strip funding for them?

NEXT

Are you retarded? Can you not read what you typed yourself? Is it a comprehension issue? I hate to make you look like a complete ass, but since it is quite easy with you, here goes. I stated that we do not need more C-17s. YOU asked, "Who says so? Certainly not you". I stated "Nope. John McCain".

See, in ENGLISH, this means that I didn't say we don't need more C-17's, John McCain did. Hence, John McCain is trying to strip them from the defense spending bill. Is that clear enough for you Skippy? I don't think I have the ability to draw you pictures on this message board....

Haha, I got caught.

I misread. Notice my edit in my post.

So much for my super stealthy editing skills.

 

[VaYank5150]

Really, you're going to compare Congress buying 10 more C-17s for use in the Middle East to handouts totally billions of dollars to save failed banks/mortgage lenders all across the country?

So much for intellectual honesty eh?

We dono't need them right now. We are trying to find ways to trim the budget. WHY is this be protrayed as saving Americans jobs? If our government apprved this money for something we don't really need right NOW, then how is it NOT just another government handout?

Why is this protrayed as saving American jobs???

Maybe because it is, perhaps?


From your own article:

Wednesday's 64-34 vote marks a major milestone in continuing production at California's last major aircraft assembly plant through at least mid-2012, securing some 5,000 jobs in Long Beach and about 25,000 more around the country where parts for the aircraft are designed and built.

I see. So it IS a comprehension problem for you. Yes, this might save jobs. However, IF our Federal government is going to spend my taxpayer dollars to save jobs by continuing a project we do not need, YOU TELL ME HOW IT IS NOT A GOVERNMENT HANDOUT?

 

[brewerboy]

We dono't need them right now. We are trying to find ways to trim the budget. WHY is this be protrayed as saving Americans jobs? If our government apprved this money for something we don't really need right NOW, then how is it NOT just another government handout?

Why is this protrayed as saving American jobs???

Maybe because it is, perhaps?


From your own article:

Wednesday's 64-34 vote marks a major milestone in continuing production at California's last major aircraft assembly plant through at least mid-2012, securing some 5,000 jobs in Long Beach and about 25,000 more around the country where parts for the aircraft are designed and built.

I see. So it IS a comprehension problem for you. Yes, this might save jobs. However, IF our Federal government is going to spend my taxpayer dollars to save jobs by continuing a project we do not need, YOU TELL ME HOW IT IS NOT A GOVERNMENT HANDOUT?

And again, obviously SOMEONE thinks we need at least 3 of these things. So whats the prob?

Would you call it a handout if it was agreed that we needed all 10?

 

[VaYank5150]

Why is this protrayed as saving American jobs???

Maybe because it is, perhaps?


From your own article:

Wednesday's 64-34 vote marks a major milestone in continuing production at California's last major aircraft assembly plant through at least mid-2012, securing some 5,000 jobs in Long Beach and about 25,000 more around the country where parts for the aircraft are designed and built.

I see. So it IS a comprehension problem for you. Yes, this might save jobs. However, IF our Federal government is going to spend my taxpayer dollars to save jobs by continuing a project we do not need, YOU TELL ME HOW IT IS NOT A GOVERNMENT HANDOUT?

And again, obviously SOMEONE thinks we need at least 3 of these things. So whats the prob?

Would you call it a handout if it was agreed that we needed all 10?

We have over 400 of these things now. Who in their right mind would agree that NOW is a good time to buy 10 new ones?

 

[VaYank5150]

Brewerboy?