1.75 Billion for fighter jests we don't need backed by Senators who, for the most part, want to kill legislation for Health Care.. That's one/tenth of of what the Health Care Bill would cost over ten years. These guys (and gals) are sick puppies. There is no humanity in that Senate. I say tie to the Bill a rider that calls for them to lose their health care if this Bill dies or is watered down to become meaningless. Meaningless. Like their own pathetic careers. Nauseating...

Saxby Chambliss is my Senator (I live within five miles of the Smyrna, Georgia Lockheed-Martin plant that Steve referred to), and for the life of me, I can't understand why many of my fellow Georgians who insist that they're against government handouts insist on getting government handouts.

The M/I Complex is no different from the corner drug pusher.

Why? Because the other day, on the Senate floor, Senator Chambliss said that we will SELL these useless, unreliable and expensive killing machines to other countries.

Like addictive drugs, bombs and bullets get used, requiring another "fix". . .

I'm almost thinking that another purpose of the F-22 purchase is for those 25,000 to not be laid-off. I'm not entirely sure if this is a valid argument, considering that any new technology would also provide newer jobs. But, it could be a slight possibility...

Make no mistake, I am not in support of wasting $1.75 billion on outdated technology...but like I said, the 25,000 jobs could be a rationale for the Senators.

they can make 100s of 'em, and fly them around the country to elementary school parking lots and dazzle little ten year-old boys.

so even tho they arent needed anymore for directly killing anybody, they'll keep up the war spirit in this country by making sure our children know we are a warlike nation...

we like war, it's as american as apple pie.

I certainly hope that Obama vetoes a bill with the F-22s, particularly if they attach a hate crimes provision. Do not get me wrong--I think crimes against people because of their color, religion, sexual preference etc should have harsh punishment, but the idea that someone who murders another human being out of hatred is worse than someone who murders another human being to rob them or just for fun seems a lot like a thought crime to me.

Money spent on defense-related industries isn't necessarily wasted, as it keeps many people employed in high paying technical jobs. The money would be better spent, however, investing in products we actually can use.

the idea that someone who murders another human being out of hatred is worse than someone who murders another human being to rob them or just for fun seems a lot like a thought crime to me.

So what's a worse crime to you: someone who kills someone during a mugging, or someone who drowns his wife in a bathtub for the insurance money? If you punish them differently, isn't that punishing thought crime?

If, as you say, we should not consider what people's thoughts are -- ie their motives -- when committing a crime, you're advocating that we re-haul our entire criminal justice system from scratch and throw out over 500 years of English common law for a completely new system.

...you're advocating that we re-haul our entire criminal justice system from scratch and throw out over 500 years of English common law for a completely new system.

If that's the price we pay, Mnemosyne, for keeping our national supply of Matthew Shepards and James Byrd Jr.'s going, then we'll just have to pay it.

But Steve, you don't understand. Military spending is *free*!

Remember the Republicans lying about Obama wanting to cut the military budget when all he proposed was to reduce its rate of increase? At a time when we already outspend the rest of the world combined? If you look at the ongoing catastrophes in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's clear we get a piss-poor return on investment for all that spending, never mind the opportunity costs.

We can't afford a trillion dollars over ten years to provide cost-effective health care to every American, but military spending is sancrosanct. This situation -- with the work spread over so many Congressional districts -- proves yet again that Eisenhower was right.

And anyway, what the hell is Saxby Chambliss doing leading this charge? Didn't his party lose the Senate?

Feh.

There's an additional problem with shelving the F22 that doesn't get aired much-- with unmanned drones and cruise missiles doing reconnaissance and bombing, respectively-- and now, with no more need for fighter aircraft-- what, exactly, is the Air Force for?

How about attaching the F-22s to a the health care public option and calling it a deal.

What Aaron just said.

So we're paying $1.75B for a hate crime bill?

How is one supposed to take our political system srsly?

Congress has had a nasty habit for ages of wasting huge sums of money on military projects the Pentagon doesn't want. Hurray for the military-industrial complex.

It is pork - so why not do a establish a political trading system -- cancel the useless military hardware in exchange for an equal or better amount of other spending in the district / state.
For some of them it is already stated - greater F-35 purchasing.
For others - offer a trade off to be redeemed in the next 2 or 3 years.

Steve, your take on why the hate crimes amendment is being included with teh defense bill may be the correct one.

But just in the interests of fairness, on NPR this morning they had the statement by Harry Reid, where he states that hate crimes was attached to the defense bill because Republicans wouldn't let the hate crimes bill come up in the normal course of Senate business.

For whatever reason...

If Georgia loses the Raptor,it will shut Lockheed down in Georgia.Texas denutted that plant by destoying all manufacturing in the plant by selling or scrapping untold millions of dollars in capability and out sourcing all production. Your respodents think the F-22 is a waste of money. I am not so sure. If the shit ever hits the fan I would want to send the young people that fight these conflicts in the best equipment that money can buy. The Raptor is the point of the spear and could likly defeat all adversaris in a conflict given sufficent numbers. When these young peoples lives are on the line I can bear a greater burden.

EC-

We'll have nearly 200 F-22's ready to go if Obama has his way. Not to mention our already existing jets (like the F-18, which has less than 1/3 of the price tag of a -22) that can fly circles around anything currently being produced by our potential competitors.

When you factor in that the soon-to-be constructed F-35's perform more reliably, and are much cheaper than the F-22, there doesn't seem to be any reason at all to order more -22s.

We own the skies and that's not going change, F-22's or no. But at this time, it would be better to give our troops, sailors and airmen what they really need.

-Mitch in NorCal

that's not going change
Mitch in NorCal
You must be a young person.Young people tell you whats going to happen. Old people tell you what has happened. I prefer to be over armed and secure than left to the whims of what will happen.
Veteran said that

It's not just the F-22s that should be vetoed. There needs to be more outrage over the "proposed monkey farm" in Guayama City in Puerto Rico.

The British & PETA are against the monkey farm because they believe the monkeys will be used for federal programs of "Chemical & Biological Warfare."

The monkeys - Macaques (Macaca Fascicularis) from Mauritis should not be used for any form of testing.

***BTW, when India discovered the monkeys were being used for testing, they stopped supplying them. Additionally, there are rumors that monkeys are the cause of the AIDS virus in humans through research, that was used as body parts and/or blood products.

Today, there's rumors that pigs are now carrying the Ebola Virus.

with no more need for fighter aircraft-- what, exactly, is the Air Force for?

Posted by: MattF

Why, the more important job of moving the Army, of course.

Seriously, though, how "cutting edge" can a fighter plane that first flew in 1990 really be?

What's driving the electronics, a state-of-the-art Amiga 3000?

I remember the hue and cry back when B-2 production went from 132 to 21, but it appears the USAF survived that little catastrophe.

I prefer to be over armed and secure than left to the whims of what will happen.

But we already are over-armed. We spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined.

Besides, your first comment gave away the game -- this isn't about military security; it's about pork for industry.

I'm almost thinking that another purpose of the F-22 purchase is for those 25,000 to not be laid-off.

Sure, but for the cost you could give those 25,000 people each a $30,000 severance package, replace the planes planned to be purchased for that $1.75 billion one-for-one with F-35's (which would add to the jobs in the F-35 program), and still have money left over.

The F-22 has not been used in either war. Buying more would only make it harder for the Air Force to shift money into aircraft like unmanned intelligence drones and the more adaptable, cheaper-to-fly F-35 fighter, which is set to begin production in 2012.\

Sadly, the F-35 is as big a stinker as the F-22 in the final result, but different. it is overweight, its overall performance is below what was specified, it is behind schedule, and it is going over-budget.

But hey, the F-18 the Navy uses, even in its most modern updated version that bears practically no connection to the original other than a similar "look" (even though it's 35% bigger), has also yet to achieve the original performance specifications that were issued back in 1974.

Funny thing - the updated F-15I (for international) that Northrop(McDonnel-Douglas) has proposed outperforms the F-22 and the F-35 on everything but "low observables" (stealth) and is "stealthy enough" without having to have 5 maintenance man-hours/flying hour added on to basically repainting the thing after each flight.

Abnd of course, absolutely not one of these is of the slightest value when it comes to providing close air support to troops in high-altitude/hot-climate conditions (like one finds in "Af-Pak").

But you'd have a better chance of getting every Hair Farce General to submit to extraction of all their teeth in one session without anesthesia before you'd get them to go along with developing the one kind of airplane that would actually be USEFUL nowadays, which would be an undated better-performing A-10.

UPDATED, not "undated"

Senators McCain and Levin have written an amendment to cut the extra F-22 funding, and it will probably be voted on Monday afternoon. If you want to tell your senators to vote yes on the amendment, go here: http://www.capwiz.com/peaceactionwest/issues/alert/?alertid=13750386