By my observation, something like only one in four DoD contracts actually work. However only an Enron executive (or business school graduate) would solve problems by cutting spending. That never addresses the problem. The problem is directly traceable to those who authorize spending by coming from the business schools rather than from where the work gets done.

The problem is not too much money. The problem are too many experts without fundamental knowledge making decisions. That results in more layers of bureaucracy and more waste. The solution was well defined by W E Deming. It starts by addressing the only reason for so many DoD contracts that have no purpose. Management.

Only the most naive solve problems by using cost controls. Cost controls always increase costs. Solution always come from those who know how the work gets done. But as business school types promote more of their own, then costs increase.

No different than in GM where top management could not even drive a car. So of course Rick Wagoner said GM's only problem was the economy. He was just as dumb as the executives who approve DoD R&D without even a science degree.

Need we again cite Carly Fiorina as the only reason for HP's problems back then? A history major from Stamford and a salesman for Lucent. Therefore she too would only harm an R&D company. And then in the meeting I attended, she said she would solve these problems with better costs controls and a new accounting system. Could she be any dumber? Her solution was also costs controls. Solve problems by controlling spending rather than learn about the product.

How to fix our problems? Every Senator and Congressman must fill out his own tax returns by hand and without assistance. Currently tax accountants do it for them because they do not even understand the tax laws they have created. Just like those who approve DoD spending, Rick Wagoner, and Carly Fiorina. Always go after the problem. Not its symptoms (ie cash flow).

Again, that's a good reply to a statement I didn't make. Please point to the part where I said cutting costs was the solution? Cutting costs would be a welcome and needed byproduct of cutting out the fraud, waste, and abuse in the R&D process. You're so quick to regurgitate your factoids that you don't even stop to contemplate whether you do in fact disagree with a post.

The trouble is, as far as I can see, that as soon as you start trying to zero in on waste and unnecessary expenditure, vested interests in some service areas are so powerful that the spotlight just kind of glides over them before coming to rest firmly over the service areas without powerful vested interests to protect them.

Consequently, even though it often starts out as a genuine attempt to streamline and make government fairer and more cost effective accross the board, it ends up being about limiting the help available to the weakest in society, whilst cushioning the blow for more powerful sections of society.

So you want this to be about your intelligence. I have no problem discussing you and UG as the same intellectual micro-brains. You make it so easy.

You can stop being a scumbag now because numbers such as the 70 Hp/l engine were too complicated for you. Best you stop the cheapshot and deal with facts as posted.

Ridiculous is a military where the world's largest Air Force is the US Air Force. And the world's second largest Air Force is the US Navy. At what point do our allies start contributing to world stability? We have no business being the world's only policeman. And that is exactly what the Project for a New American Century (and the George Jr administration) wants. After all, we must protect 'our' oil in Iraq.

Only those who love excessive military and who invent enemies need a military that massive. Only dying empires maintain a military that excessive.

The question is about where we waste our resources. Two perfectly ideal example are the US military and the paper dollar bill. Perfect examples because extremists do not want to address these major problems.

As DanaC said: That problem exists only when Congress is dominated by extremists rather than pragmatists. When the political agenda is more important than the nation.

Unless the problem is overspending.

For the record, Spexx - this is the type of post that interferes with discussion on the issues.

OK, now can you find in this thread where I said we should have the 2 largest air forces in the world? Next can you find in this thread where I've said we should be the world's police force? After you're done with that can you find where I've said it is our job to maintain global stability?
For bonus points I'd like you to cite something that would make you believe I disagree with this.

I'll wait.

For goodness sake, tw. You really are arguing at a tangent from Lookout there. He very clearly stated that he would want to drastically cut down military spending. Just that he wuold do so by gutting the wasteful and fraudulent elements of RnD, and stop having soldiers posted in bases all over the globe. he specifically said he would want the US military to stop being a global police force and concentrate on having the best and most effective army possible for the defence of the nation.


[eta[ and please, please stop with the nasty personal insults.

On that we agree. But anything you might say is not the point. I deal with the realities. The topic is waste and excessive spending. No problem. I gave two simple examples of why even what you have posted cannot happen.

If we cannot even eliminate $1 billion per year wasted on paper dollar bills, then we have too many extremists in Congress. And too few people to address the real problems.

extremist

The tangent is the real problem and the only viable solution.

Yes, we do have too many troops overseas. Our extremists want to station as many troops in Iraq as we already have in Korea. That makes no sense. But the solution is not found in cutting costs. The solution is found in addressing the only reasons for those costs.

And again, that cannot happen when we cannot even eliminate the paper dollar bill.

But that's precisely the point. By bringing those soldiers home and closing the bases you cut down costs.



[eta] hang on what? Wtf has eliminating paper money got to do with anything?

OK, now if we take your straw man currency issue off the table for a moment (mind you I don't disagree with that issue, it just isn't directly associated with the issue we were discussing) can you not see you got all hot and bothered jumping to regurgitate your same ol' same ol' as a response to something... you agreed with?

Ah. there's the rub.

Proposals like the flat tax, Ryan's budget or yours assume they will result in more money coming into the treasury.

But they are based on economic growth assumptions that the incentives will be so great for consumers and businesses to spend and invest that the economy will grow faster and higher than any time in recent history, at rates of 7% or more annually. I think we've only seen a 7% growth rate once in the last 30-40 years.

Reagan's former budget director recently described it as Alice in Wonderland economic assumptions.

Oh and everyone does pay something into the federal treasury, in the form of federal excise taxes (eg gas tax) and payroll taxes (FICA), in which those with wages under $100K pay a higher percentage than those over $100K (since payroll taxes are only on the first $100K).

Start with the penny.

It cost 1.79 cents to produce one penny. Eliminate the penny, save $billions.

Yeah. But...that penny gets used many times.