Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
Yes, and that is why North Korea is a country where half of the population is starving to death. But that still does not change the fact that they spend such a puny amount on their military and yet they are considered some big threat. I'm pretty sure that the might of your military is not determined by the percentage of your GDP that you send.
|
I didn't say they
shouldn't be starving to death. This wasn't a discussion of what they
should be spending their money on - it was one of relative amounts spent on defense.
Oh, and I guess nuclear weapons in the hands of a known madman is no big deal, right? No one is saying that their "might" is directly due to expenditures. It's due to what they spent it on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
So by that measure, our military should be 100 times the size and power of North Korea. Is it? Truely doubtful.
|
It is. Not in terms of sheer size, but in terms of capability. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you? N. Korea has buttloads of artillery - some with better range than ours. Our answer? Superior airpower - take out the guns from the air. Do we need more tubes to "answer" them? Nope. Intelligent expenditures.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
But then, that is not the goal of spending all of that money. The goal is simply to spend the money. The military budget is maybe 25% real military spending and 75% overbloated corporate welfare.
|
Ah. Back to the military/industrial complex. Eisenhower must be so proud. You so don't have a clue.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
And yes, my personal experience with dealing with the US military is that if you know someone on the inside, you can get them to spend extra money and you can avoid the bid process.
|
Sounds like your buddy is about to go down for fraud, waste, and abuse. My job currently centers almost entirely on purchasing. Go ahead and "educate" me on the process.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
And they always make sure to use up every last penny in their budget for fear that if they don't use it this year, it will be taken away from them in future years. So instead of bargaining with you like they should, they tell you how much they have to spend, and you charge them that amount.
The only difference here, is that the contracts my company does are for several thousand dollars, while the ones we are talking about here are in the billions. And even though I personally benefit from the current system, I know it is wrong and do think it needs to be changed.
|
Ah, the real issue. You only get "thousands" off the government teat, while others drop that much on the ground on the way to the bank with their "billions."
I bargain with sales people on a daily basis. That's where the "small purchase cap" is a useful tool. "Sorry Mr. Salesman. I can only spend $2499.00 at most." I'm sure that's where your business gets busted. I'll bet most of your government contracts are for $2499.00, right? Looks like your buddies in the government don't want to do the legwork of a real contract. I pass more money to my civilian account executive than you get in a given year. No shame on you in that, but it certainly is illuminating as to your frustration toward government spending.
The entertainment continues...
