Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sylvester80 who wrote (204372)	9/26/2006 7:50:04 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Can't you read Sly? The majority of that money is not directly tied to the war at all, but to funding the FCS: However, a good portion of the new money the Army seeks is not directly tied to the war, Kosiak cautioned, but rather to new weapons it wants — particularly the $200-billion Future Combat System, a family of armored vehicles that is eventually to replace nearly every tank and transporter the Army has. Furthermore, over the past several years, the Bush administration has deliberately avoided drastically increasing the Army's budget, but electing to have emergency funding bills passed to cover any costs that were in excess of the traditional Army budget.. It provides more accountability and prevents a sudden inflation of the Army budget that would be hard to reduce.. (because that's not what government agencies do).. Even you should understand "Here's your budget.. if you incur additional costs due to the war, then submit a bill to the congress, justifying the expenditures, and we'll provide the money. But they're under pressure to keep these additional fiscal requests as low as possible so they've been delaying new technology research (lots of money there for the civilian defense sector.. yum, yum). So now they want Rumsfeld/White House to just say.. "make our budget larger because 'the army is broken'.. when it's just a cover for more R&D monies.. Personally, I'm not sure which side I'm willing to come down on, except that I think there is room for some budget cuts in the other services in order to focus upon Army readiness.. After all, the Army/Marines is primarily where the "boots hit the ground".. But my impression is that this is DOD politicking.. There is just no way that Congress is going to deny them any additional monies required to fund the cost of the war.. So those will be following along later after the budget is increased under the deception that the budget increase is supposed to be applied to war costs. Hawk

To: sylvester80 who wrote (204372)	9/26/2006 7:53:23 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Can't you read Sly? The majority of that money is not directly tied to the war at all, but to funding the FCS: However, a good portion of the new money the Army seeks is not directly tied to the war, Kosiak cautioned, but rather to new weapons it wants — particularly the $200-billion Future Combat System, a family of armored vehicles that is eventually to replace nearly every tank and transporter the Army has. And this: Army officials said that Schoomaker's failure to file his 2008 Program Objective Memorandum was not intended as a rebuke to Rumsfeld, and that the Defense secretary had backed Schoomaker since the chief of staff raised the issue with him directly. Which means Rumsfeld is letting his Army Chief do the politicking with the White House, because it's more difficult to argue with him than the political appointee, Rumsfeld. Furthermore, over the past several years, the Bush administration has deliberately avoided drastically increasing the Army's budget, but electing to have emergency funding bills passed to cover any costs that were in excess of the traditional Army budget.. It provides more accountability and prevents a sudden inflation of the Army budget that would be hard to reduce.. (because that's not what government agencies do).. Even you should understand "Here's your budget.. if you incur additional costs due to the war, then submit a bill to the congress, justifying the expenditures, and we'll provide the money. But they're under pressure to keep these additional fiscal requests as low as possible so they've been delaying new technology research (lots of money there for the civilian defense sector.. yum, yum). So now they want Rumsfeld/White House to just say.. "make our budget larger because 'the army is broken'.. when it's just a cover for more R&D monies.. Personally, I'm not sure which side I'm willing to come down on, except that I think there is room for some budget cuts in the other services in order to focus upon Army readiness.. After all, the Army/Marines is primarily where the "boots hit the ground".. But my impression is that this is DOD politicking.. There is just no way that Congress is going to deny them any additional monies required to fund the cost of the war.. So those will be following along later after the budget is increased under the deception that the budget increase is supposed to be applied to war costs. Hawk