Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Poverty

Showing Original Post only (View all)

unhappycamper

(60,364 posts)
Wed Dec 10, 2014, 09:56 AM Dec 2014

More MIC Welfare Means Less For We The People [View all]

Yesterday I talked about a $22.9 billion dollar artist's conception of our 'new' Navy.

Let's talk about MIC welfare.

In addition to pay $12.9 billion dollars for the UNFINISHED USS Gerald R Ford, our congress-critters want to/already have plunked down another $4 billion dollars in an attempt to have Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. build an aircraft carrier that actually comes in at the agreed upon price.

Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Virginia wants to replace all Ohio-class submarines with next-generation nuclear-armed submarines. Virginia-class submarines now cost somewhere between $7 ~ $9 billion dollars each. Good luck with that Randy.

Speaking of Randy, he also wants to stop (military) sequestration. To refresh your memory, sequestration occurred because Rs and Ds could not agree on where the cuts in the discretionary budget should come from. Both sides agreed on $50 billion dollar cuts to military programs AND social programs. Looks like sequestration is for Democrats, not Republicans.





Poor us.

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Agreed Sherman A1 Dec 2014 #1
The Navy will not pay for an unfinished carrier. JayhawkSD Dec 2014 #2
Did you read the GAO report on the USS Gerald R Ford? unhappycamper Dec 2014 #3
Well, it does to me too. JayhawkSD Dec 2014 #4
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Poverty»More MIC Welfare Means Le...»Reply #0