DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> National Debt by President (large graphic)
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 87, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/27/2008 02:15:39 PM · #26
Originally posted by Fetor:

there are so many people responsible for why our national debt is so high, but it seems a bit ignorant to hold a the republicans as the ones who are souly responsible.

Republicans have controlled both branches of government which control spending for six of the last seven years -- who else can/should we hold responsible? It's a Republican plan to borrow the money ($12 billion/month) to pay for the war in Iraq, while at the sdame time giving billions in tax cuts to people who already have plenty of money.

That borrowed money is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the government, which is essentially a promise by the government that "someday" they will levy the taxes necessary to repay the loans. Problem is, it is not the borrowers who will be responsible for that repayment -- it is their descendants. It's like buying a house, but telling the bank that any mortgage payments will be made by your grandkids, not by you ... convenient for the home-buyer, but hardly "fiscally conservative" or responsible behavior.

As far as I can see, the only thing today's "conservatives" are interested in conserving is their own personal wealth -- they're certainly not interested in conserving resources or the environment.
03/27/2008 02:18:26 PM · #27
Originally posted by Fetor:

i dont claim to be a political know it all, far from it, but it pisses me off when people blame a debt that high on a single person.

But he's THE Decider. Never was "The Buck Stops Here" a more apt Presidential motto, though the concept of "here" probably needs to be expanded a bit to include several cohorts and maybe some offshore accounts ...
03/27/2008 02:18:34 PM · #28
I give this thread less than an hour to be moved to RANT.

I agree that there are a LOT of factors that increase the National Debt (from both side of the aisle and in most branches of Government and private sectors). We can't continue to blame one person...there is no single person that we can elect to crank down the national debt, right? But then again, I'm no finance guru, or politician!

-drew
03/27/2008 02:20:50 PM · #29
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by Fetor:

i dont claim to be a political know it all, far from it, but it pisses me off when people blame a debt that high on a single person.

A small oberservation i noticed when i was in iraq was the cost of sustainment gear/supplies/food and drink to keep life going on the bases where we operated. during 1 months time the cost of just GATORADE and energy drinks that are served at the dining facilities on my base alone was over 300 thousand dollars, for 1 month. Not to mention we have over 50 bases from small to large in iraq and kuwait some housing thousands of people. And then theres the fact that there is contracting compaines such as Haliberton who rip of the government and over charge them for their services. Point being not 1 person, or party for that matter is to blame for the national debt. there are so many people responsible for why our national debt is so high, but it seems a bit ignorant to hold a the republicans as the ones who are souly responsible.


Does anyone here really think that we would be at war in Iraq if GW Bush wasn't elected president?


I don't think that has a simple answer. Given the same intel (whether it proved to be ultimately correct or not)I don't know what a different president / set of advisors would have done. It's easy to look in hind sight and say this or that would have happened. Conspiracy theories aside, the general belief at the time was that there were WMDs and Iraq was funding terrorists and the majority or America believed that to be true (including Congress). So no, I don't know how an arbitrary "different" president would have responded in that situation.

Now if you are asking if we would STILL be in Iraq with a different president, that's a different story...

Message edited by author 2008-03-27 14:23:31.
03/27/2008 02:25:03 PM · #30
Originally posted by drewbixcube:

I give this thread less than an hour to be moved to RANT.

I agree that there are a LOT of factors that increase the National Debt (from both side of the aisle and in most branches of Government and private sectors). We can't continue to blame one person...there is no single person that we can elect to crank down the national debt, right? But then again, I'm no finance guru, or politician!

-drew


Take a look here.

The big takeaway from that site is this "for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99"
03/27/2008 02:28:49 PM · #31
Originally posted by DjFenzl:

Now if you are asking if we would STILL be in Iraq with a different president, that's a different story...

Yeah, look at how quickly Clinton left Somalia...that place is great now...I think someone is planning a GTG there soon! :-p
03/27/2008 02:30:25 PM · #32
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The big takeaway from that site is this "for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99"

I think you also need to see what the borrowed money is spent on -- I take a different view on borrowing to pay for school lunches than for $500 hammers for the Pentagon ...

Current National Debt is about $9.2 Trillion dollars.
03/27/2008 02:34:30 PM · #33
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by drewbixcube:

I give this thread less than an hour to be moved to RANT.

I agree that there are a LOT of factors that increase the National Debt (from both side of the aisle and in most branches of Government and private sectors). We can't continue to blame one person...there is no single person that we can elect to crank down the national debt, right? But then again, I'm no finance guru, or politician!

-drew


Take a look here.

The big takeaway from that site is this "for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99"


I don't think you can put the blame or praise of national spending soley on the President at that time. Does the President play a role, sure, but last time I checked congress has to approve all spending measures, with few exceptions. So there is more to the equation than just the President. BTW, this is not sticking up for the current administraion and its' cut taxes but increase spending methods.
03/27/2008 02:37:14 PM · #34
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The big takeaway from that site is this "for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99"

I think you also need to see what the borrowed money is spent on -- I take a different view on borrowing to pay for school lunches than for $500 hammers for the Pentagon ...

Current National Debt is about $9.2 Trillion dollars.


You know why there are $500 hammers?

That's how secret projects like the stealth fighter were funded. They can't disclose them in the budget, so those umpteen billions of dollars get put into other programs and the cost of everything in that program gets ridiculous. The $500 hammer likely only cost the government $10, and the other $490 went into some black project that's literally off the books.
03/27/2008 02:41:34 PM · #35
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

You know why there are $500 hammers?

That's how secret projects like the stealth fighter were funded.

Was that another of Ollie North's bright ideas?
03/27/2008 02:41:37 PM · #36
Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by drewbixcube:

I give this thread less than an hour to be moved to RANT.

I agree that there are a LOT of factors that increase the National Debt (from both side of the aisle and in most branches of Government and private sectors). We can't continue to blame one person...there is no single person that we can elect to crank down the national debt, right? But then again, I'm no finance guru, or politician!

-drew


Take a look here.

The big takeaway from that site is this "for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99"


I don't think you can put the blame or praise of national spending soley on the President at that time. Does the President play a role, sure, but last time I checked congress has to approve all spending measures, with few exceptions. So there is more to the equation than just the President. BTW, this is not sticking up for the current administraion and its' cut taxes but increase spending methods.


When the Republicans have had control of both the Congress and the White House, they have NEVER reduced spending. The president is, the LEADER, and while Congress shares the blame, it's the leader who is responsible for the whole.

Message edited by author 2008-03-27 14:44:02.
03/27/2008 02:42:27 PM · #37
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

You know why there are $500 hammers?

That's how secret projects like the stealth fighter were funded.

Was that another of Ollie North's bright ideas?


Actually, it goes way back to WWII.
03/27/2008 02:47:26 PM · #38
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by drewbixcube:

I give this thread less than an hour to be moved to RANT.

I agree that there are a LOT of factors that increase the National Debt (from both side of the aisle and in most branches of Government and private sectors). We can't continue to blame one person...there is no single person that we can elect to crank down the national debt, right? But then again, I'm no finance guru, or politician!

-drew


Take a look here.

The big takeaway from that site is this "for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99"


I don't think you can put the blame or praise of national spending solely on the President at that time. Does the President play a role, sure, but last time I checked congress has to approve all spending measures, with few exceptions. So there is more to the equation than just the President. BTW, this is not sticking up for the current administration and its' cut taxes but increase spending methods.


When the Republicans have had control of both the Congress and the White House, they have NEVER reduced spending.


That might be so but it still doesn't prove that the national spending falls solely on the President. If you want to rail Republicans, by all means go ahead, just don't state that the President is the only one responsible for spending, because it's not true. That's why there are checks and balances, so you can blame multiple people:)
03/27/2008 02:50:22 PM · #39
Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by drewbixcube:

I give this thread less than an hour to be moved to RANT.

I agree that there are a LOT of factors that increase the National Debt (from both side of the aisle and in most branches of Government and private sectors). We can't continue to blame one person...there is no single person that we can elect to crank down the national debt, right? But then again, I'm no finance guru, or politician!

-drew


Take a look here.

The big takeaway from that site is this "for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99"


I don't think you can put the blame or praise of national spending solely on the President at that time. Does the President play a role, sure, but last time I checked congress has to approve all spending measures, with few exceptions. So there is more to the equation than just the President. BTW, this is not sticking up for the current administration and its' cut taxes but increase spending methods.


When the Republicans have had control of both the Congress and the White House, they have NEVER reduced spending.


That might be so but it still doesn't prove that the national spending falls solely on the President. If you want to rail Republicans, by all means go ahead, just don't state that the President is the only one responsible for spending, because it's not true. That's why there are checks and balances, so you can blame multiple people:)


Who signs the budget into law? Papa Smurf?

Message edited by author 2008-03-27 14:51:02.
03/27/2008 03:00:04 PM · #40
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

That's why there are checks and balances, so you can blame multiple people:)

Who signs the budget into law? Papa Smurf?

So if one person is to blame, then one person can fix everything. Somebody find this guy (make sure he's 35 and American born) and put him up for President. He'll veto anything that doesn't cut the national debt! He'll probably lower gas prices, outsource less jobs, and pay my mortage and health care costs too! Quick, everybody...VOTE PAPA SMURF!

Message edited by author 2008-03-27 15:00:31.
03/27/2008 03:00:09 PM · #41
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by drewbixcube:

I give this thread less than an hour to be moved to RANT.

I agree that there are a LOT of factors that increase the National Debt (from both side of the aisle and in most branches of Government and private sectors). We can't continue to blame one person...there is no single person that we can elect to crank down the national debt, right? But then again, I'm no finance guru, or politician!

-drew


Take a look here.

The big takeaway from that site is this "for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99"


I don't think you can put the blame or praise of national spending solely on the President at that time. Does the President play a role, sure, but last time I checked congress has to approve all spending measures, with few exceptions. So there is more to the equation than just the President. BTW, this is not sticking up for the current administration and its' cut taxes but increase spending methods.


When the Republicans have had control of both the Congress and the White House, they have NEVER reduced spending.


That might be so but it still doesn't prove that the national spending falls solely on the President. If you want to rail Republicans, by all means go ahead, just don't state that the President is the only one responsible for spending, because it's not true. That's why there are checks and balances, so you can blame multiple people:)


Who signs the budget into law? Papa Smurf?


Cute. If he were president I guess he would. But have you ever heard of congress being able to override the president if he doesn't sign the bill? Sometimes presidents sign bills b/c they know they don't have a choice, sometimes they don't sign them so there name isn't on the bill but it passes anyway, sometimes they veto it and sometimes congress overrides the veto. Congress has the ability to override the president no matter what, so if the budget is irresponsible they need to step in and change it so it isn't. You are trying to make the national spending issue way more simple than what it really entails.
03/27/2008 03:07:56 PM · #42
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

You know why there are $500 hammers?

That's how secret projects like the stealth fighter were funded.

Was that another of Ollie North's bright ideas?


Actually, it goes way back to WWII.

Too bad even a two-term Republican President and war hero was unable to stem the tide of military-industrial largesse ...

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, 

every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense,
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms
is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat
of its laborers, the genius of its scientists,
the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life
at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war,
it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969), From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953

We merely want to live in peace with all the world,
to trade with them, to commune with them, to learn
from their culture as they may learn from ours,
so that the products of our toil may be used for
our schools and our roads and our churches and not
for guns and planes and tanks and ships of war.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)

I like to believe that people in the long run are
going to do more to promote peace than our governments.
Indeed, I think that people want peace so much
that one of these days governments had better
get out of the way and let them have it.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)

In the councils of government, we must guard
against the acquisition of unwarranted influence,
whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power
exists and will persist.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)

03/27/2008 03:08:56 PM · #43
Originally posted by DjFenzl:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by Fetor:

i dont claim to be a political know it all, far from it, but it pisses me off when people blame a debt that high on a single person.

A small oberservation i noticed when i was in iraq was the cost of sustainment gear/supplies/food and drink to keep life going on the bases where we operated. during 1 months time the cost of just GATORADE and energy drinks that are served at the dining facilities on my base alone was over 300 thousand dollars, for 1 month. Not to mention we have over 50 bases from small to large in iraq and kuwait some housing thousands of people. And then theres the fact that there is contracting compaines such as Haliberton who rip of the government and over charge them for their services. Point being not 1 person, or party for that matter is to blame for the national debt. there are so many people responsible for why our national debt is so high, but it seems a bit ignorant to hold a the republicans as the ones who are souly responsible.


Does anyone here really think that we would be at war in Iraq if GW Bush wasn't elected president?


I don't think that has a simple answer - I don't know. Given the same intel (whether it proved to be ultimately correct or not)I don't know how a different president / set of advisors would have done. It's easy to look in hind sight and say this or that would have happened. Conspiracy theories aside, the general belief at the time was that there were WMDs and Iraq was funding terrorists and the majority or America believed that to be true (including Congress). So no, I don't know how an arbitrary "different" president would have responded in that situation.

Now if you are asking if we would STILL be in Iraq with a different president, that's a different story...


GW and his cohorts wanted to go to war in Iraq. They couldn't find Osama, they knew where Saddam was. They didn't care if the intel was inaccurate. In fact, they destroyed anyone who suggested that WMDs weren't there. They wanted their war and they got it.

Could you imagine if Clinton had done the exact same thing in Iraq for all the same reasons? The Republicans would have had a fit about reasons for gong to war, no time table for withdrawal, the climbing body count, the lack of progress, etc. But since it's one of their own, they give him a pass on all these issues.
03/27/2008 03:32:36 PM · #44
Originally posted by drewbixcube:

I give this thread less than an hour to be moved to RANT.

Wrong again! Maybe I should have taken that meteorologist job I was offered!
03/27/2008 03:34:35 PM · #45
Originally posted by drewbixcube:

Originally posted by drewbixcube:

I give this thread less than an hour to be moved to RANT.

Wrong again! Maybe I should have taken that meteorologist job I was offered!


Especially living in St.Louis, you never have to be right with the weather here:)
03/27/2008 03:42:21 PM · #46
Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by drewbixcube:

I give this thread less than an hour to be moved to RANT.

I agree that there are a LOT of factors that increase the National Debt (from both side of the aisle and in most branches of Government and private sectors). We can't continue to blame one person...there is no single person that we can elect to crank down the national debt, right? But then again, I'm no finance guru, or politician!

-drew


Take a look here.

The big takeaway from that site is this "for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99"


I don't think you can put the blame or praise of national spending solely on the President at that time. Does the President play a role, sure, but last time I checked congress has to approve all spending measures, with few exceptions. So there is more to the equation than just the President. BTW, this is not sticking up for the current administration and its' cut taxes but increase spending methods.


When the Republicans have had control of both the Congress and the White House, they have NEVER reduced spending.


That might be so but it still doesn't prove that the national spending falls solely on the President. If you want to rail Republicans, by all means go ahead, just don't state that the President is the only one responsible for spending, because it's not true. That's why there are checks and balances, so you can blame multiple people:)


Who signs the budget into law? Papa Smurf?


Cute. If he were president I guess he would. But have you ever heard of congress being able to override the president if he doesn't sign the bill? Sometimes presidents sign bills b/c they know they don't have a choice, sometimes they don't sign them so there name isn't on the bill but it passes anyway, sometimes they veto it and sometimes congress overrides the veto. Congress has the ability to override the president no matter what, so if the budget is irresponsible they need to step in and change it so it isn't. You are trying to make the national spending issue way more simple than what it really entails.


The simple fact is that when the Congress is controlled by the President's own party, he is rarely, if ever opposed on anything.

Sure the Congress goes along with him, but the president's in the driver's seat.

03/27/2008 03:46:06 PM · #47
Originally posted by Fetor:

i dont claim to be a political know it all, far from it, but it pisses me off when people blame a debt that high on a single person.

A small oberservation i noticed when i was in iraq was the cost of sustainment gear/supplies/food and drink to keep life going on the bases where we operated. during 1 months time the cost of just GATORADE and energy drinks that are served at the dining facilities on my base alone was over 300 thousand dollars, for 1 month. Not to mention we have over 50 bases from small to large in iraq and kuwait some housing thousands of people. And then theres the fact that there is contracting compaines such as Haliberton who rip of the government and over charge them for their services. Point being not 1 person, or party for that matter is to blame for the national debt. there are so many people responsible for why our national debt is so high, but it seems a bit ignorant to hold a the republicans as the ones who are souly responsible.


And who was in charge when we started this war, that is costing so much?

I used to support DFAS, basically the group that pays everyone in the government. What they agreed to pay for support was blasphemous - something an office admin could have done for $30 was costing the taxpayers $250. Is that the fault of the company, or of the person who agreed to the contract? I also saw more than one case of frivolous use of funding because someone was "owed a favor".
03/27/2008 04:04:18 PM · #48
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by drewbixcube:

I give this thread less than an hour to be moved to RANT.

I agree that there are a LOT of factors that increase the National Debt (from both side of the aisle and in most branches of Government and private sectors). We can't continue to blame one person...there is no single person that we can elect to crank down the national debt, right? But then again, I'm no finance guru, or politician!

-drew


Take a look here.

The big takeaway from that site is this "for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99"


I don't think you can put the blame or praise of national spending solely on the President at that time. Does the President play a role, sure, but last time I checked congress has to approve all spending measures, with few exceptions. So there is more to the equation than just the President. BTW, this is not sticking up for the current administration and its' cut taxes but increase spending methods.


When the Republicans have had control of both the Congress and the White House, they have NEVER reduced spending.


That might be so but it still doesn't prove that the national spending falls solely on the President. If you want to rail Republicans, by all means go ahead, just don't state that the President is the only one responsible for spending, because it's not true. That's why there are checks and balances, so you can blame multiple people:)


Who signs the budget into law? Papa Smurf?


Cute. If he were president I guess he would. But have you ever heard of congress being able to override the president if he doesn't sign the bill? Sometimes presidents sign bills b/c they know they don't have a choice, sometimes they don't sign them so there name isn't on the bill but it passes anyway, sometimes they veto it and sometimes congress overrides the veto. Congress has the ability to override the president no matter what, so if the budget is irresponsible they need to step in and change it so it isn't. You are trying to make the national spending issue way more simple than what it really entails.


The simple fact is that when the Congress is controlled by the President's own party, he is rarely, if ever opposed on anything.

Sure the Congress goes along with him, but the president's in the driver's seat.


That is true, very rarely will a sitting president be opposed by congress when the majority are of the same party affiliation. In those periods you could make the argument that the president is more responsible for the budget and national spending since he has the keys to the car with no one to stop him, or should I say willing to stop him. But there are plenty of periods where the President and Congress are of different party affiliation. Do you really think the President during those periods deserves all the praise or blame when the opposition has the ability to trump him if they feel need be? I don't.

Message edited by author 2008-03-27 16:04:45.
03/27/2008 04:13:50 PM · #49
Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by drewbixcube:

I give this thread less than an hour to be moved to RANT.

I agree that there are a LOT of factors that increase the National Debt (from both side of the aisle and in most branches of Government and private sectors). We can't continue to blame one person...there is no single person that we can elect to crank down the national debt, right? But then again, I'm no finance guru, or politician!

-drew


Take a look here.

The big takeaway from that site is this "for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99"


I don't think you can put the blame or praise of national spending solely on the President at that time. Does the President play a role, sure, but last time I checked congress has to approve all spending measures, with few exceptions. So there is more to the equation than just the President. BTW, this is not sticking up for the current administration and its' cut taxes but increase spending methods.


When the Republicans have had control of both the Congress and the White House, they have NEVER reduced spending.


That might be so but it still doesn't prove that the national spending falls solely on the President. If you want to rail Republicans, by all means go ahead, just don't state that the President is the only one responsible for spending, because it's not true. That's why there are checks and balances, so you can blame multiple people:)


Who signs the budget into law? Papa Smurf?


Cute. If he were president I guess he would. But have you ever heard of congress being able to override the president if he doesn't sign the bill? Sometimes presidents sign bills b/c they know they don't have a choice, sometimes they don't sign them so there name isn't on the bill but it passes anyway, sometimes they veto it and sometimes congress overrides the veto. Congress has the ability to override the president no matter what, so if the budget is irresponsible they need to step in and change it so it isn't. You are trying to make the national spending issue way more simple than what it really entails.


The simple fact is that when the Congress is controlled by the President's own party, he is rarely, if ever opposed on anything.

Sure the Congress goes along with him, but the president's in the driver's seat.


That is true, very rarely will a sitting president be opposed by congress when the majority are of the same party affiliation. In those periods you could make the argument that the president is more responsible for the budget and national spending since he has the keys to the car with no one to stop him, or should I say willing to stop him. But there are plenty of periods where the President and Congress are of different party affiliation. Do you really think the President during those periods deserves all the praise or blame when the opposition has the ability to trump him if they feel need be? I don't.


The real question is: How does the president behave when he does have carte blanche? Do they spend responsibly or do they go hog-wild and borrow even more? The answer for the Republicans is the latter.
03/27/2008 04:27:21 PM · #50
Originally posted by Spazmo99:



You know why there are $500 hammers?

That's how secret projects like the stealth fighter were funded. They can't disclose them in the budget, so those umpteen billions of dollars get put into other programs and the cost of everything in that program gets ridiculous. The $500 hammer likely only cost the government $10, and the other $490 went into some black project that's literally off the books.


There are $500 hammers because of the regulations required to produce them. Special designs, special materials, special quality requirements, special compliance testing, process auditing, tons of reporting and documentation etc., etc. That all comes at a cost. Plus, those hammers are produced in small lot quantities (comparatively speaking) which affects the unit cost.

Nothing more sinister than that, I'm afraid. I work for a large defense contractor and we have gov. officials in our books all the time. If we want to have a price increase, we have to go to great lengths to justify it.

Now if the Military would be satisfied with off-the-shelf hammers, the price would be more in line with what the average person thinks is reasonable.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 03:19:08 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 03:19:08 AM EDT.