« Putting Terror Into Perspective | Main | A Small Matter of Overstatement »

16 February 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b39369e201116867bef1970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Defense Aspects of the Stimulus Bill:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"But why would the Republicans vote against funding these important defense projects?"

Is that a serious question?

The Defense portion of the mammoth, pork-filled spending bill disguised as a "stimulus" bill is a miniscule 0.012%. They voted against the outrageous 99.987% of that odious bill that they weren't even given time to READ.

I'm afraid your partisanship is showing, pal.

1) Your math is off. The defense portion is 1.2%. And when did actual percentages stop Repubs from accusing Dems of "voting against defense programs" when the tables were turned?

2) It was a rhetorical question. The spending plan includes lots of good funding for health, infrastructure, and strengthening the economy. Shame all the Repubs can say is "tax cut," which doesn't build anything.

3) Never said I wasn't partisan. Generally, when Repubs are stupid like this, I just can't help myself.

Which major private companies is this money being spent with?

Hard to say, Brad. Because the money is mostly in O&M funding that can be spent over a two-year window and is spread out into several accounts, I'm guessing that a good deal will go to smaller firms who work construction and remediation areas. Not likely to go to the big defense firms, but one might see Bechtel, Parsons, Haliburton, similar firms getting some of that money. That's just a guess.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

Daily Thoughts


What I'm Reading

Countering WMDs

National Security

General Military Links

National Security Thinktanks

My Photo

Sigger's Law

  • Sigger's Law: "As any discussion on terrorism grows longer, the probability of attributing terrorists with nuclear weapons (or similar destructive capabilities) approaches 1." Corollary to Sigger's Law: "Once such an observation is made, the discussion is finished and whoever mentioned terrorist possession of nuclear weapons has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."

CBRND Wiki Project

  • CBRND/CWMD in the Wikipedia
    This post is dedicated as a reference site for Wikipedia entries relating to CBRN defense or WMD issues. Some of them badly need improvements and/or references.

Google Search

  • Google

    WWW
    armchairgeneralist.typepad.com

Armed Forces Press Service

Political and Social Commentary Blogs

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog Directories

Notable

Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 12/2004