All sorts of completely pointless military projects were getting lavish spending in the Bush years. It's nice to see a line drawn in the sand.

If a real major conflict we're to occur, we would need weapons designed to win wars, not weapons designed to win contracts.

Please explain to me how a tactical fighter with in-air refueling capacities and a varied mission-oriented weapons load capacity is not designed to win wars?

TheCloudBoy:

Please explain to me how a tactical fighter with in-air refueling capacities and a varied mission-oriented weapons load capacity is not designed to win wars?

That would be a pretty good description of the F-15 or the F-16, actually.

Gosh folks, does it really have to do anything? Can't we just admire the F22 as a wonderfull piece of machinery.

Did the pyramids do anything? How about the Taj Mahal? Or the Alps?

The F22 makes jobs. That's good for families, and that's good for children. Won't anyone think of the children? Aren't our children good enough for the F22?

Speaking of pyramids, the term "pyramid building" has been used to describe government programs designed solely to provide employment. What would be directly more beneficial for families and children is health insurance, if they don't already have it. We need fewer weapons makers and more doctors. Remember, you can't hug a child with nuclear arms. (Oh, that is sooo corny. I can't believe I wrote that. Apologies.)

Player101:

Gosh folks, does it really have to do anything? Can't we just admire the F22 as a wonderfull piece of machinery.

Did the pyramids do anything? How about the Taj Mahal? Or the Alps?

The F22 makes jobs. That's good for families, and that's good for children. Won't anyone think of the children? Aren't our children good enough for the F22?

How about a universal health care system? Isn't that something to admire? Aren't the children good enough for that?

How about a universal health care system? Isn't that something to admire? Aren't the children good enough for that?

How about obeying the United States Constitution -- is our children's freedom worth doing that? There is no constitutional authority for a health care plan -- there certainly is one for military spending.

The F22 is a much more capable design than the 30-year-old F-16 or the 40-year-old F-15. We had our ass handed to us in an exercise with INDIA'S air force just two years ago. How? They'd upgraded all the radar and avionics on Soviet and French aircraft whose designs were 20 years old. You can read about this in an article called "The Last Ace," available on Atlantic Magazine's web site.

Ben Franklin was right -- the people who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for the people who didn't.

trapdoor:

How about obeying the United States Constitution -- is our children's freedom worth doing that? There is no constitutional authority for a health care plan -- there certainly is one for military spending.

That "argument" makes absolutely no sense at all. Nobody here suggested that all defense spending be eliminated. The US currently spends more on its military than all other nations on the face of the planet combined. Is that somehow mandated by the US Constitution? Is that the honest price of freedom? I think you're being swindled.

Of course they're good enough for the children and no doubt your children are good enough to fight in any of the wars we might be fighting with the F-22.

Wayhey: The argument makes as much sense as the one it countered. I wasn't suggesting that all military spending is being cut -- merely that cutting the world's best fighter plane in an ongoing threat environment is ill-advised, and that spending on health care is unconstitutional. If you disagree, I invite you to search the Constitution to find authority for that spending.

Congress has the power to tax and spend. How about looking at the general welfare clause? Apparent you are of the viewpoint that anything not specifically stated in the constitution must be unconstitutional. Good luck pursuing that in the courts.

Fine, but you should never argue with an asshole.

"Soldiers (Children) are the military's greatest asset."

There, is everyone happy or have I managed to piss everyone off?

The Constitution has nothing to do with military spending or healthcare. The Constitution doesn't say you should/can't buy a bunch of airplanes, nor does it say you have to/can't do a health care plan. Universal Healthcare and the F-22 won't be making it onto a Supreme Court docket any time soon.

The exercise with India, from what I have read, was not a true test of military capability. We fought that with 1 or 2 hands behind our back. Apparently the exercise was set up to have us be largely outnumbered and we fought without using our best current tech. There is some conjecture that the exercise was set up in this way at the behest of both nations. Both to inflate India's deterrrent capability, and to give the US Air Force a justification for...more F-22's!

A Dude: Your analysis of the India exercise may be correct, but it isn't according to the article I cited -- do you have additional information I can see?

As for the Constitution, the document is supposed to define the powers the people are allowing the government to have. The government has these enumerated powers and no others. Among the enumerated powers is the power to provide for the common defense -- meaning the government can provide military force that defends the entire country, separate from any state-level militia force.

People get mixed up because in the same sentence that contains the provision for common defense (in Article I, Section 8) appears the power to provide for the general welfare -- but "general welfare" meant that the government had no power to spend funds for something that didn't benefit all, generally, and only benefitted a specific segment of the population.

James Madison wrote this about the words "general welfare" in their two apperances in the Constitution: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." (emphasis added). As Madison was the Constitution's primary author, I think we can accept himi as an authority.

So the power to provide for the common defense DOES authorize the purchase of equipment -- like the F-22 -- making that defense possible. The power to provide for the general welfare does NOT provide the authority to create a program that aids only a small segment of the population. Current polls indicate 80 percent of Americans are happy with their health care -- a plan that benefits the other 20 percent aids that 20 percent, but is not a provision of "general welfare." It is a provision of specific welfare -- which for which the federal government has no authority.

If you think a health care provision will not be challenged via the federal court system in its first year of implementation, I think you're not paying attention.

trapdoor:

... the world's best fighter plane ...

By what objective measure do you conclude that the F-22 is "the world's best fighter plane," since it has never been used in actual combat?