Barney Frank is an Idiot

[mtnsldr]

From the Massachusetts SouthCoastToday.com site: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/...=2008810240332

NEW BEDFORD — After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.

The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said.

"The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection," he said. "It's extraordinary." The Maliki government in Iraq "can't sell (the withdrawal deal with the U.S.) because it sounds like we're going to stay too long."

"I was teasing (U.S. Rep.) Jack Murtha (a key supporter of military budgets) and I said to him, 'For the first time, somebody else has got a bill that's almost as big as yours.' We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."

Rep. Frank called on President Bush to appoint a senior official to guide the economic stimulus packages through the transition to the Barack Obama or John McCain administration when it takes office in January.

And he said that if the Democrats can't find an adequate agreement on a stimulus package in the lame-duck Congress, they would rather wait until the new Congress takes over — likely with many more Democrats, if polling results bear fruit in the November voting.

The new package, he said, will be aimed at easing fears about lending and investing. "The psychological problem is even worse than the real problem," he said.

"There is money to lend and projects worth borrowing money to do. But people are afraid to lend. That's what we're trying to unfreeze."

States have many infrastructure projects — bridges, highways, etc. — that have been shut down because of a cash-flow problems, he said. So it is not the case that a stimulus will take months or years to wait for design and approval, since projects are already in progress or ready to go.

Also, he said, "we'll increase the federal share of medical care so states won't have to lay off people." Unemployment insurance benefits won't increase, he said, but the period of collecting them will, and eligibility requirements might be relaxed.

And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually," he said.

Contact Steve Urbon at surbon@s-t.com

We don't need any new weapon systems? All that "new fangled" stuff isn't worth the cash? Jeez... hope my crusty old M16 thats been refurbished year after year can stand up for another tour... or those new shiny M4s that rated the highest amount of stoppages over all other systems in a recent test disseminated by the Army Times...

[DoubleHelix]

So basically he wants to cut our military down and allow the weapons systems to become outdated?

My big gripe with the things mentioned there are the unemployment benefits. I understand that when SOME people lose their job thats something that they may need. However, I've seen plenty of people get laid off for piss poor performance (or in a past friends case, a spider bite somehow causing him to miss 2 months of work.) EDD doesn't bother checking these people's stories when they claim their looking for work and they just continue to issue the checks.

I shouldn't be paying for someone, who lost a job due to laziness, to go out and take his girlfriend out for dinner and fun. Oh man, I am really looking forward to being able to cast my first ballot in a presidential election, but it sure as hell isn't going for this man.

[mtnsldr]

I am for oversight of weapons systems, there are certain weapons out there that to me, are generally useless. Or at the very least, could be postponed a few years in favor of larger impact redesigns now.

However, from my reading, this would not be a tactical restriction of specific projects, but an overall reduction on all programs, severely hurting those military members who are already suffering with outdated or lackluster products.

[Woody]

Depends on the weapon system frankly. We all like shiny new toys ,but if it cant be used in afgan or Iraq it can go to the back of the queue .
Weapon system procurment is more to do with jobs and politics than what
is needed to defend the country .

[DoubleHelix]

Originally Posted by mtnsldr

I am for oversight of weapons systems, there are certain weapons out there that to me, are generally useless. Or at the very least, could be postponed a few years in favor of larger impact redesigns now.

However, from my reading, this would not be a tactical restriction of specific projects, but an overall reduction on all programs, severely hurting those military members who are already suffering with outdated or lackluster products.

So if I'm understanding you, that could also lead to some serious impact in the civilian sector as far as jobs with the firms and companies that design and manufacture these weapons?

Obama talks a lot about creating new jobs, but things like this will do nothing but hurt the job market. If the military is forced to downsize under him, thats just putting more people on the street looking for jobs. Not to mention if companies like Lockheed and Boeing have to start letting their workers go too.

I do believe that the money we spend on weapons should be spent towards perfecting the current ones we have that are useful, obviously with some being spent towards new designs.

[mtnsldr]

It is key to have constant R&D on weapons in the inventory, however, we've made some mistakes in the past. The Crusader is a great example. Another is the amount of money spent on the small arms upgrades for the Army. The OICW testing that apparently wasn't done properly from a contracting perspective, and now that money is lost and we don't have a weapon.

However, the answer lies in refining of the processes involved, and oversight, not a restriction of budgets to try and force someone's hand. That just hurts the end user, the fighting troop, and is a bad way to conduct business. Our politicians should know better.

Oh, and yes, this will probably have a significant impact on private sector military contractors and developers.

[pingjocky]

If we had scrapped all the money for weapons development, we'd still be using the bow and arrow to kill each other. R&D is vital. Technology is always increasing, and if we don't take advantage of it, our enemies will...then we'll be screwed.

R/
Pingjocky