PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Deficit: Things that drive me insane


Amnorix
09-18-2012, 01:31 PM
I want to note that although this particular pot shot is directed at Eric Cantor, House Republican leader, it's nto specific to either him or his party, but rather just a fine example of why we are where we are. Absolutely MADDENING!



he aircraft carrier McGarrett calls is the Enterprise, commissioned in 1961, and the oldest active ship in the fleet. In 2008, the Navy wanted to retire her. Congress instead voted out a $662 million refurbishment, as a giveaway to the congressional delegation of Virginia, where her home port is located. In 2010, the refitted Enterprise went back to sea; she will be decommissioned at a December ceremony in Newport News.

That's $662 million to keep an obsolete boat afloat three extra years, when the Navy already has 10 times as many carriers as the rest of the world combined and faces no blue-water threat. Wonder why the national debt is skyrocketing? Congress keeps throwing money out the window, or in this case, overboard. The appropriation was supported by now-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, who constantly denounces federal spending, unless the money goes to his state.

http://espn.go.com/espn/playbook/story/_/id/8392213/only-week-2-boo-birds-were-force-super-bowl-teams-greg-schiano

Pitt Gorilla
09-18-2012, 01:33 PM
It was clearly the right thing to do.

Radar Chief
09-18-2012, 01:50 PM
Just for FYI purposes, what the Enterprise has been up to since being refurbished.
From her Wiki page:

2010s
In April 2010, the Navy announced that the cost of refurbishing the carrier had risen to $655 million and was scheduled to be completed the same month.[31] On 19 April 2010, Enterprise left the Northrop Grumman shipyard to conduct sea trials in preparation for return to the fleet.[32] The total cost of refurbishing the carrier was $662 million, which was 46% over budget. Also, it took eight months longer than scheduled. The Navy said it planned to use the carrier for two six-month deployments before her scheduled 2013 decommissioning date.[33]
On 1 January 2011, the Virginian-Pilot leaked highlights from the final video of a set entitled "XO Movie Night" that was filmed on Enterprise and aired via closed circuit television on select Saturday evenings. The videos, which were not meant for release outside the command, were produced by Capt. Owen Honors when he was executive officer (XO) of the ship in the 2006Ė2007 timeframe and included profanity, anti-gay slurs, and sexually suggestive scenes.[34][35] Capt. Honors received public support from Navy personnel,[36] but on 4 January 2011, Adm. John C. Harvey Jr., the commander of the United States Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk removed Honors for demonstrating poor judgment. Capt. Dee Mewbourne was appointed as replacement commander.[37] Forty officers and enlisted sailors, including six flag officers, were later disciplined to varying extents over the incident.[38]
The carrier and her strike group deployed on 13 January 2011. Accompanying the carrier on the cruise to the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean were Carrier Air Wing One, guided missile cruiser Leyte Gulf, and guided missile destroyers Barry, Bulkeley, and Mason.[39] In February 2011 the Enterprise was involved in an incident with Somali pirates, an event that ended in the deaths of four American citizens and four pirates.[40]
The carrier returned to Norfolk on 15 July 2011. During its deployment, it had participated in operations that captured 75 Somali pirates and its strike group made missile strikes against the Libyan government.[41]
On 9 April 2012, the Navy announced that the Enterprise and her group, Carrier Strike Group Twelve, would be assigned to join the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) in the Persian Gulf. The mission was described as routine, not a response to a specific threat. Upon completion of this mission, the Enterprise is scheduled to be deactivated (Fall 2012).[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)

SNR
09-18-2012, 03:06 PM
It's that goddamn Greg Schiano's fault!

DaneMcCloud
09-18-2012, 03:08 PM
It's that goddamn Greg Schiano's fault!

I knew it!

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 03:09 PM
Yep, pretty wasteful.

Lightrise
09-18-2012, 04:28 PM
I want to note that although this particular pot shot is directed at Eric Cantor, House Republican leader, it's nto specific to either him or his party, but rather just a fine example of why we are where we are. Absolutely MADDENING!



he aircraft carrier McGarrett calls is the Enterprise, commissioned in 1961, and the oldest active ship in the fleet. In 2008, the Navy wanted to retire her. Congress instead voted out a $662 million refurbishment, as a giveaway to the congressional delegation of Virginia, where her home port is located. In 2010, the refitted Enterprise went back to sea; she will be decommissioned at a December ceremony in Newport News.

That's $662 million to keep an obsolete boat afloat three extra years, when the Navy already has 10 times as many carriers as the rest of the world combined and faces no blue-water threat. Wonder why the national debt is skyrocketing? Congress keeps throwing money out the window, or in this case, overboard. The appropriation was supported by now-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, who constantly denounces federal spending, unless the money goes to his state.

http://espn.go.com/espn/playbook/story/_/id/8392213/only-week-2-boo-birds-were-force-super-bowl-teams-greg-schiano

It does seem maddening, except that what it also accomplished was aligning the decommissioning with the availability of a new carrier entering the fleet. It seems like a bad deal but in fact it did make sense.

What doesn't make sense is what republicans did 2 months ago, force the Navy to keep three other surface ships that will NEVER be upgraded at a cost of over 300 million in maintenance. The Navy doesn't even want the ships. But once again, it is a republican congressman, Randy Forbes, who is in the middle of it.

LiveSteam
09-18-2012, 04:33 PM
That's $662 million to keep an obsolete boat afloat three extra years, when the Navy already has 10 times as many carriers as the rest of the world combined

http://espn.go.com/espn/playbook/story/_/id/8392213/only-week-2-boo-birds-were-force-super-bowl-teams-greg-schiano

I believe the US Navy has a total of 11 active Carriers. 10X is a lil deceiving

Amnorix
09-18-2012, 04:48 PM
I believe the US Navy has a total of 11 active Carriers. 10X is a lil deceiving


Not with the rest of the world barely has one to rub between them...

Bottom line here is that the US Navy ITSELF DIDN'T WANT the damn carrier, but freaking Congresscritters, for votes and money and pork reasons ONLY, forced them to refurbish it so we could keep it around for two stinking years at a cost of more than half a billion dollars.

Donger
09-18-2012, 04:49 PM
Not with the rest of the world barely has one to rub between them...

Bottom line here is that the US Navy ITSELF DIDN'T WANT the damn carrier, but freaking Congresscritters, for votes and money and pork reasons ONLY, forced them to refurbish it so we could keep it around for two stinking years at a cost of more than half a billion dollars.

Totally agree.

Radar Chief
09-18-2012, 04:57 PM
Not with the rest of the world barely has one to rub between them...

Bottom line here is that the US Navy ITSELF DIDN'T WANT the damn carrier, but freaking Congresscritters, for votes and money and pork reasons ONLY, forced them to refurbish it so we could keep it around for two stinking years at a cost of more than half a billion dollars.

The Enterprise didnít sit in port on her backside polishing her purdy planes and lining up dumby ordinance for parade while waiting for retirement. It was on duty serving this country. Could that same duty have been performed by an existing carrier group at less of a charge? Possibly but then a carrier group has to be pulled from their patrols in a different area to cover what the Enterprise took care of.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 05:13 PM
Not with the rest of the world barely has one to rub between them...

Bottom line here is that the US Navy ITSELF DIDN'T WANT the damn carrier, but freaking Congresscritters, for votes and money and pork reasons ONLY, forced them to refurbish it so we could keep it around for two stinking years at a cost of more than half a billion dollars.

I'd like to hear more about the circumstances under which the Navy said they didn't want it. Do they not want it even if money is no object because they want a different platform that makes more sense for their mission or do they not want it because they've been directed to make drastic cuts to their budget and this was a desirable line item that just didn't make the cut.

mnchiefsguy
09-18-2012, 05:13 PM
Not with the rest of the world barely has one to rub between them...

Bottom line here is that the US Navy ITSELF DIDN'T WANT the damn carrier, but freaking Congresscritters, for votes and money and pork reasons ONLY, forced them to refurbish it so we could keep it around for two stinking years at a cost of more than half a billion dollars.

I agree. We need to trust our military. If the Navy says they don't the boat, then don't waste $600 million dollars fixing up a boat they don't need or want.

Rain Man
09-18-2012, 05:55 PM
I wish there was a way to isolate senators and congressmen when they're elected, so they can never make deals to trade votes. When they're elected, you could put them in a big lead-encased cube for their term that has no windows and no way to communicate other than a button for yes or no. Food and legislation are delivered, and they serve their country, and at the end of their term they choose whether to run again.

Amnorix
09-18-2012, 09:04 PM
The Enterprise didnít sit in port on her backside polishing her purdy planes and lining up dumby ordinance for parade while waiting for retirement. It was on duty serving this country. Could that same duty have been performed by an existing carrier group at less of a charge? Possibly but then a carrier group has to be pulled from their patrols in a different area to cover what the Enterprise took care of.


Yes, and the navy though they could cover the gap fine but what do they know? More is always better!!!

Amnorix
09-18-2012, 09:05 PM
I'd like to hear more about the circumstances under which the Navy said they didn't want it. Do they not want it even if money is no object because they want a different platform that makes more sense for their mission or do they not want it because they've been directed to make drastic cuts to their budget and this was a desirable line item that just didn't make the cut.

God forbid they not have a blank check. If money is no object, why not 20 carrier groups! More is always better!!

BigRedChief
09-18-2012, 09:14 PM
How about making it mandatory two engines for every plane built?

How about building things that the DOD doesn't want. Goes to Congress and says we dont need that. Congress says tough, your getting that billion $ thing anyway.

patteeu
09-18-2012, 09:18 PM
God forbid they not have a blank check. If money is no object, why not 20 carrier groups! More is always better!!

I'm questioning your assertion that the navy didn't want it. I don't doubt that you're being honest based on the information you have, but I'm questioning whether or not you've been misled. If they were told they couldn't have it by the WH and then their request reflected that fact, that's not the same as the Navy analyzing the global threat environment and concluding that the ship was superfluous to it's mission.

Radar Chief
09-19-2012, 08:28 AM
Yes, and the navy though they could cover the gap fine but what do they know? More is always better!!!

I donít know what they know, Iím not a Navy guy.
But the ship was performing a duty so it obviously wasnít ďonly for money and porkĒ.
Do you have information that the same duty could have been covered by another carrier group?

Radar Chief
09-19-2012, 08:36 AM
How about making it mandatory two engines for every plane built?

How about building things that the DOD doesn't want. Goes to Congress and says we dont need that. Congress says tough, your getting that billion $ thing anyway.

How about something more than whining.

Amnorix
09-19-2012, 08:47 AM
I'm questioning your assertion that the navy didn't want it. I don't doubt that you're being honest based on the information you have, but I'm questioning whether or not you've been misled. If they were told they couldn't have it by the WH and then their request reflected that fact, that's not the same as the Navy analyzing the global threat environment and concluding that the ship was superfluous to it's mission.

I have only the source I cited. Five minutes of Googling fails to turn up anything either way.

I categorically reject the implicit assumption in your posts, however, that the military should have a blank check. God forbid they should ever prioritize anything.

Amnorix
09-19-2012, 08:50 AM
I donít know what they know, Iím not a Navy guy.
But the ship was performing a duty so it obviously wasnít ďonly for money and porkĒ.
Do you have information that the same duty could have been covered by another carrier group?


Based strictly on the statement that the Navy was looking to decommission the ship without spending the ~650 million on refurbishments, and the fact that even after refurbishment we're going to go for 2+ years with a 10 carrier fleet (far more than the rest of the world combined), I'm feeling fairly confident that the Navy thinks it can get the job done without it.

Hell, the damn thing was out of commission for 18+ months while being refurbished, and we had only 10 servicable carriers during that timeframe also.

Radar Chief
09-19-2012, 08:56 AM
Five minutes of Googling fails to turn up anything either way.

Thatís pretty much what I ran into.
Iím certainly not opposed to cutting the military, I just donít know the back story on this and an ESPN article talking about a TV show isnít exactly providing much in the way of details.

patteeu
09-19-2012, 08:59 AM
I have only the source I cited. Five minutes of Googling fails to turn up anything either way.

I categorically reject the implicit assumption in your posts, however, that the military should have a blank check. God forbid they should ever prioritize anything.

There was no such implicit assumption in that post. However, what the Navy thinks it needs shouldn't be constrained by artificial budgetary constraints. The needs list should be based on the threat. If the needs list is unaffordable, it should be prioritized so that difficult cuts can be made.

Amnorix
09-19-2012, 09:04 AM
Thatís pretty much what I ran into.
Iím certainly not opposed to cutting the military, I just donít know the back story on this and an ESPN article talking about a TV show isnít exactly providing much in the way of details.



Gregg Easterbrook is pretty brilliant, all around. His takes/analysis on football are witty and insightful, and he (as you can see) lays in additional commentary on many other topics, some interesting, some less so (just skim/skip). I recommend him highly.

He's basically the exact opposite of Bill Simmons (The Sports Guy), who I also like, but who is basically just Joe Fan.

He's fundamentally libertarian, and some of the stuff he writes about regarding politics is pretty brilliant, giving unusual insight into the stupidities of government. One thing he has railed about in years past is unnecessarily large security details for minor politicians who basically need to feel special and look important.


Gregg Edmund Easterbrook (born March 3, 1953) is an American writer, lecturer, and a senior editor of The New Republic. His articles have appeared in Slate, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Reuters, Wired, and Beliefnet. In addition, he was a fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C. think tank. During the National Football League season, Easterbrook writes a column called Tuesday Morning Quarterback, currently on ESPN.com. He often intersperses pop culture commentary and observational humor throughout his columns, such as when he followed a discussion of the Pittsburgh Steelers with an aside about how "The Dark Knight," the Warner Bros. Batman sequel, used Pittsburgh, Chicago, and New York to film the fictitious city of Gotham.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Easterbrook

Amnorix
09-19-2012, 09:05 AM
There was no such implicit assumption in that post. However, what the Navy thinks it needs shouldn't be constrained by artificial budgetary constraints. The needs list should be based on the threat. If the needs list is unaffordable, it should be prioritized so that difficult cuts can be made.


After many years of reading your posts, I'm not entirely sure there's any military expenditure you don't like, or that any budgetary constraint isn't "artificial" if it limits military spending.

Just sayin'

patteeu
09-19-2012, 09:14 AM
After many years of reading your posts, I'm not entirely sure there's any military expenditure you don't like, or that any budgetary constraint isn't "artificial" if it limits military spending.

Just sayin'

I'm in favor of military experts deciding on what our military needs are, not deficit hawking accountants or social spenders who are looking for a source of funds.

Furthermore, when the time comes to trim our federal budget in order to address the deficit (and that time has long since come), domestic spending, especially entitlement spending, should be the primary target. That's where disproportionate budgetary growth has come from over the past several decades, and that's the part of the budget that continues to grow at an alarming rate, so let's address the deficit problem at it's source instead of sacrificing national security to buy time before the real problem finally has to be addressed.

Lightrise
09-19-2012, 09:18 AM
Dear Lightrise,

You have received a warning at ChiefsPlanet.

Reason:
-------
False Thread Title or fake news

Misleading thread title full of false news. Suck it!
-------

Original Post:
8925569
Romney said. "I think people would like to be paying taxes." Well he chose to reveal this on Fox News today. LOL So for all you republicans mesmerized by the Grover Norquist blackmail pledge...READ HIS LIPS...LMAO

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
ChiefsPlanet

Wait a second here. That is an outright fraud to suggest this. There is nothing misleading about that at all. It is clear to me that you do not intend anything other than to suppress opinion that is contrary to your own. Not only did I provide an exact quote, but I told you where the statement was made from. This is not a news site here. It is entirely of opinion. This is a pathetic email.

Saul Good
09-19-2012, 09:28 AM
After many years of reading your posts, I'm not entirely sure there's any military expenditure you don't like, or that any budgetary constraint isn't "artificial" if it limits military spending.

Just sayin'

You're just arguing in circles. What is your argument? Is it:

A) the military doesn't want it

Or

B) we need to cut spending, so the military needs to learn to do without

The first is a statement of "fact" that you don't seem to have any support to confirm it's veracity. The second is an opinion, and, while you are entitled to it, it certainly doesn't carry as much weight as a statement from the military brass flatly asserting that the ship is unwanted.

Amnorix
09-19-2012, 09:38 AM
You're just arguing in circles. What is your argument? Is it:

A) the military doesn't want it

Or

B) we need to cut spending, so the military needs to learn to do without

The first is a statement of "fact" that you don't seem to have any support to confirm it's veracity. The second is an opinion, and, while you are entitled to it, it certainly doesn't carry as much weight as a statement from the military brass flatly asserting that the ship is unwanted.


(B) is certainly true, though many here would disagree. That being the case, anything the military doesn't want/need (we could debate this also), clearly it shouldn't get.

This is hardly the first time Congress has forced stuff on the military. The V-22 Osprey being one of the better, more well-known, examples.

King_Chief_Fan
09-19-2012, 09:39 AM
I want to note that although this particular pot shot is directed at Eric Cantor, House Republican leader, it's nto specific to either him or his party, but rather just a fine example of why we are where we are. Absolutely MADDENING!



he aircraft carrier McGarrett calls is the Enterprise, commissioned in 1961, and the oldest active ship in the fleet. In 2008, the Navy wanted to retire her. Congress instead voted out a $662 million refurbishment, as a giveaway to the congressional delegation of Virginia, where her home port is located. In 2010, the refitted Enterprise went back to sea; she will be decommissioned at a December ceremony in Newport News.

That's $662 million to keep an obsolete boat afloat three extra years, when the Navy already has 10 times as many carriers as the rest of the world combined and faces no blue-water threat. Wonder why the national debt is skyrocketing? Congress keeps throwing money out the window, or in this case, overboard. The appropriation was supported by now-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, who constantly denounces federal spending, unless the money goes to his state.

http://espn.go.com/espn/playbook/story/_/id/8392213/only-week-2-boo-birds-were-force-super-bowl-teams-greg-schiano

sounds like every elected official to me

Saul Good
09-19-2012, 11:01 AM
(B) is certainly true, though many here would disagree. That being the case, anything the military doesn't want/need (we could debate this also), clearly it shouldn't get.

This is hardly the first time Congress has forced stuff on the military. The V-22 Osprey being one of the better, more well-known, examples.

Again, what evidence do you have that this is being forced on the military?

Amnorix
09-19-2012, 11:23 AM
Again, what evidence do you have that this is being forced on the military?


WTF. I don't need "evidence". I cited an author who is pretty bright and has a pretty good track record of not just making things up. This also isn't the first time Congress would have overruled military preferences in favor of local contractors etc. If true then it's a travesty. If false then it ain't. If you want to reserve judgment until you have some sworn affidavits in hand, then that's fine.