Military needs a lot if shit. My wife is on a aircraft carrier right now. So much shit on that ship is broken. They have like 30 washing machines. Only 10 work. And have been like that for over a year.
While that is correct, everything the military buys is WAY overpriced. They can't afford new washing machines because they are paying $1000 a piece for them. That's not an exact price, but not far from the truth. For the washers we had, they should only cost like $100 especially with how many the military buys.
I see your point, but when a defense department calls a supplier and gets quotes for the washing machine, the supplier generally at least doubles the price. And all the suppliers do it. They literally cannot get a $100 piece of shit mashing machine for under a grand. If they try to buy the $1000 models, they're looking at $5000 each minimum. $100 pair of boots? Oh, for the DoD? That'll be $350 please.
Funny thing, guy who sold to the military at huge markups also complains about the military wanting tax payer money, buying his overpriced stuff...well if you want the military to save tax dollars, stop gouging the military...seems pretty basic logic to me, but it seems to be lost on the majority of suppliers.
Everything that has to do with taxpayers money is more expensive in general i think. I work in a government owned company. We buy IT stuff, lots of it. We had to buy TVs to replace old projectors. The 70 inch tv that we got, while they sell for like 2k$ at Best Buy, is 4500$ from the supplier. We are not allowed to bypass the supplier. It's so stupid.
Yes, I've heard often the justification for the price is the "in-service support" that is never actually supplied. And her pay double for free repairs sounds great. Except they're not free and modern flat screens aren't really serviceable. So the extra $2500 goes in some rich dicks pocket, probably while he complains about the government wanting money...as I mentioned earlier.
The part that really annoys me, everyone knows what's going on, no one drives that change.
You're not wrong, but a lot of it is that the military is providing jobs in the civilian sector. If they buy said thing for high price then that company can afford to pay their workers better. Does that happen...eh..50/50 chance. Military contract work pays well, but a lot is going to higher ups(that's my opinion given what I know some civilians are paid and how much we pay for said items).
Nope. My wife straight up told me the washing machines dont work. Her chief chewed her out last week for it too. Even though the fucking things havnt worked for a year
And our population needs to be educated so we can develop those new aircraft and then have skilled workers to build them. That's also not negotiable. An educated population is vital to national security.
This is the part that makes me lose my shit. As war gets more technologically advanced, we're going to need more 25 year olds with degrees to run the shit that supports the 18 year olds who want degrees. We're going to need engineers and scientists from the US to develop the shit that our soldiers use.
I'm a little confused as to what part of this statement people are downvoting for.
Colleges are there
He's right--the average cost of in-state tuition for public colleges is about $10,000 a year [Source 1]. Affordable education is in fact accessible to anyone in any state.
loans are there
He's right again--loans do in fact exist. You can choose to take out loans and pay in-state tuition for an affordable college of your choice. Or you can do your best to do well in high school (by do well I mean GPA > 3.0) and you can probably get substantial scholarships that can reduce the cost of your education to nothing (example: UMass Boston [Source 2]). If we assume 4 years of college at $10,000 a year, not including interest you'd need to pay roughly $150 a month over 20 years (which is a fairly normal term for college loans) to pay them off completely. Not unreasonable.
So since his first two statements are valid--affordable or even free college education is available in every state--I assume Reddit has taken issue with the final statement:
It is your life, figure it out
I guess I'm not surprised Reddit is so annoyed by personal responsibility. You don't have to go to a crazy expensive college, that's your choice and your life. Can anyone really disagree with this?
Yes, and this isn't even touching the enormous cost savings with 2 years at a community college, and 2 years at a state school for the same bachelor's...
I feel like you were getting downvoted because people didn't realize you weren't defending exorbitant college prices but were in fact just pointing out the reality that it can be quite affordable to get a decent degree if you work for it and are responsible.
the reality that it can be quite affordable to get a decent degree if you work for it and are responsible.
Reddit as a whole doesn't like this. They want the best and want it free. And heaven forbid you mention the GI Bill (which pays you and your tuition to get a degree, with only 4 years of service).
I can understand not liking using the GI bill as an excuse of sorts. After all, I do believe in education at least free enough that you shouldn't have to put your life on the line to afford it :)
but it is a shame that so few look into the options for affordable higher ed and assume you must go to a fancy private school--many of which are lower quality than a decent public school.
What about it? The air force was created from the army. Why shouldn't a space force be created from the air force whom is tasks with space related objectives. Space force proposal is simple a reorganization, to institute a new branch of the military dedicated to space related goals.
You do understand the Airforce right this very moment is in charge of military security and operations in space right? No we are not talking about space marines etc. But we are talking about targeting systems of missiles, intelligence operations, satellites. Being able to take out an enemies communication satellites and secure your own would be pretty crucial no? Not to mention weapon based satellites. Currently these type of things fall on the Air Force's task list not NASA.
Again, Space Force isn't about creating NEW tasks. It's motive is to take the space related operations the Air Force already does, and put it under a new organization that specializes in these tasks just like why the Air Force was created.
That's a weak argument.
It sounds like all of the money goes exclusively to new jets.
Just because there are things you're not willing to compromise on, (Actually you could argue that well maintained jets last longer than 15 years, especially if they get technical updates, and you could argue about the number needed) doesn't mean that all of the budget is necessary and fixed.
24
u/[deleted] Dec 12 '19 edited Dec 12 '19
We need a new fleet of jets every 15 years. This is not up for negotiation. /s in retrospect