Can You Answer These Questions?

[Truth Detector]

Good post Rambo, at least you're striving for some rationality these days. Ask Vice Adm. Peter Daly for me where in the world such imminent threats exist and to explain what they are and if he knows what a nuclear powered aircraft carrier cost to build and operate

I am sure he already knows those answers as expressed in my link. Do you think there are ZERO threats in the world these days?

and how much national debt he thinks is enough national debt and how much crumbling America's infrastructure is enough crumbling American infrastructure and how many crummy public schools are enough crummy public schools,

How many times do I have to type that defense spending is not the reason for the above issues? Another one hundred?

Do you stupidly believe that if you ask the same stupid question again and again you expect the answer will change?

OK Rambo?

That's a cute meme; sucks as a debate tactic.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Do you think there are ZERO threats in the world these days?

Trump should start nuking the border immediately, maybe even a few hundred miles inside because KILLER BEES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Truth Detector]

Reagan damned near tripled the national debt,

Presidents cannot increase the debt. Do you remember that Reagan had a Democrat congress that declared every one of his budgets DOA? Of course you don't. It doesn't fit your narrow myopic world view.

the Bush's doubled it

Bush I also had a Democratic Congress that ignored his budgets and passed their own agenda. Bush II had to contend with a failing economy and 9-11. Not to mention two wars that were passed by a bi-partisan majority in the Congress.

Do you know of any wars that were fought with a surplus? That was rhetorical question whose answer is obviously no; I'm just trying to get you to think.

Clinton never really balanced a budget, funny calculating the Socialist Insecurity so-called-"fund" as part of the general fund and the Dot.com boom caused the budget to appear to be balanced.

Clinton did not; but the Republican Congress did. A Republican majority that had not existed for the previous five decades of fiscal buffoonery by Democrats.

Yes, the dot.com boom helped to create wealth and tax revenues, but the Republican congress for the first time stopped spending MORE than it was taking in.

Entitlements, national defense waster fraud and abuse, and everything the feds do is the problem. BIG government that you vote fore is the problem.

I am amused that you think a nation with nearly 324 million people covering 50 states and covering 3,796,742*square*miles is going to have a small government.

But again, the defense budget is NOT the problem. Perhaps if I type a hundred more times it will sink in. It is apparent that you are allowing the FAKE media to misinform you of what the problems really are.

I also find it amusing that you think Presidents can pass budgets.

 

[Truth Detector]

Trump should start nuking the border immediately, maybe even a few hundred miles inside because KILLER BEES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Robo]

This is very true; but after two world wars and the Korean conflict, we realized that without our leadership, the world goes down a shit hole. It is a LOT cheaper to project strength to prevent despotism than it is to react after the fact at great cost and lives.

Who’s preventing the “RED INK” shit hole we’re burying ourselves in these days? Who’s gonna pick up the baton after our bankruptcy?

Again what God died and made America the world protector and Europe’s BIG stupid bankrupted brother?

As do all of us; but that $20 trillion has NOTHING to do with defense spending.

Then you have your head in tha vat of cool-aid that claims there’s no waste fraud and abuse in defense spending and adding another 50 to 100 billion to the military budget won’t add boocoos to the debt, right?

The crumbling infrastructure has NOTHING to do with defense spending. I am amused that you think there is a cause and effect here.

It only has to do with there’s no money for infrastructure, the debt is 20 trillion and we’re about to add 50 to 100 billion to defense and infrastructure is estimated to cost 1 trillion over the next decade. I’m amused but not surprised you cannot see the correlation Rambo.

@Rambo. That is funny.

You’re a John McCain/Lindsey Graham BIG War Hawk aren’t ya? Rambo would be proud, huh?

 

[Robo]

I am sure he already knows those answers as expressed in my link.

By what evidence are you sure? He’s just another Rambo ain’t he? War at any cost, spend till ya drop!

Do you think there are ZERO threats in the world these days?

I think there are next to ZERO threats of an international world war or even any serious threat from any single nation and that won’t change if America cut it’s nuclear powered aircraft carrier fleet in half. Prove that opinion wrong with rational arguments Rambo.

America’s largest threat today is America’s national debt and insane federal spending and annual deficits in my opinion.

How many times do I have to type that defense spending is not the reason for the above.

While it’s not the single reason for the national debt, it’s certainly ONE OF THE REASONS. A dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers and a new class of them at that and 50 to 100 billion added to the defense budget is fucking nuts!

Do you stupidly believe that if you ask the same stupid question again and again you expect the answer will change?

NO! I expect the answers to be more stupid and I’m not being suprised.

That's a cute meme; sucks as a debate tactic.

Well Rambo is a cute fellow and talented too. He’s the only hero War Hawk I ever saw knock down a helicopter throwing a rock at it. And your Hollywood fantasies of warring boogiemen threatening America fit the bill for your new code name.

 

[Sailor]

Being a Navy vet myself, I have to wonder about what I’m seeing from the Trump agenda concerning a rebuild of the military.

I’ve ask this question several times in the past without any satisfactory answers coming from anyone on a political forum, old Navy vet friends, or letters to my congress critters. Why does America have and keep consistently in commission 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and sometimes just 10 in commission and now Trump is calling for a 12 nuclear carrier Navy and a whole new class of nuke carriers?

As far as I can determine, the rest of the world combined only has 2 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, one in China and France has one. Why the American overkill?

Why aren’t the multi-billion dollar nuclear carriers simply sitting ducks in a world of highly technological weaponry?

As far as I know, it takes at least a dozen other ships just to protect the carrier and it takes over 2000 crew mwmbers for a single carrier.

What in hell is “conservative” about a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers?

I am surprised no one from the Navy could not answer that. It all has to do with 1) The 2007 Defense Authorization bill and our maritime strategy. It is law that the U.S. cannot go below 11 Carriers. This has only been reduced to 10 temporarily because so one could be retired before the newest one was commissioned. 2) Combat power in two regions, the Arabian/Gulf/Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific (2 hubs). To provide coverage, 2 carrier have to be on station, one will be heading home, one will be heading over, one will be in training. Extended and routine maintenance are the reason for the other 3 carriers ( one in maintenance for each Hub, one in extended maintenance). That is the 11 Carriers.

The reason for the new carriers is the U.S. feels the need for another hub in the Med as the maritime strategy plan has been updated in 2015.

 

[anatta]

^ thank you so much for that explanation -it really helps to have a SAILOR in the mix!
I heard Trump mention "12 carriers"at Newport News the other day..now it all fits

 

[Sailor]

^ thank you so much for that explanation -it really helps to have a SAILOR in the mix!
I heard Trump mention "12 carriers"at Newport News the other day..now it all fits

Anytime. Thanks!

 

[Norah]

I don't think this is a good investment of our money. From a politics point of view it always looks good publicly to put a lot of money towards the military and to build big powerful weapons but the reality is that we can't afford it. We need to start paying our debts and reducing our spending, even military, if we hope to even have an economy that can even support a military in the future.

 

[Midas Whale67]

I don't think this is a good investment of our money. From a politics point of view it always looks good publicly to put a lot of money towards the military and to build big powerful weapons but the reality is that we can't afford it. We need to start paying our debts and reducing our spending, even military, if we hope to even have an economy that can even support a military in the future.

The unfortunate fact is our military arsenal, on all levels of armed forces, is severely depleted.

Go look into how capable we are right now with our current inventory and see what we are arming our current military with on the battlefield. I think your opinion may change.

 

[Norah]

The unfortunate fact is our military arsenal, on all levels of armed forces, is severely depleted.

Go look into how capable we are right now with our current inventory and see what we are arming our current military with on the battlefield. I think your opinion may change.

Our military budget is more than all other countries combined. If our armed forces are depleted on all levels then that's an incompetence issue to me from leadership. Also I believe that our capability would get better if we weren't stretched across the Earth, nation building, and getting involved in everything. If we cant operate an efficient and organized military on the budget that it currently has then major changes need to happen that has nothing to do with money in my opinion.

 

[Midas Whale67]

Our military budget is more than all other countries combined. If our armed forces are depleted on all levels then that's an incompetence issue to me from leadership. Also I believe that our capability would get better if we were stretched across the Earth, nation building, and getting involved in everything. If we cant operate an efficient and organized military on the budget that it currently has then major changes need to happen that has nothing to do with money in my opinion.

Well, my concern is where we are today in the middle of all this terrorism. I want my military to be able to handle any and all threats on our homeland. We aren't prepared.

I am not willing to sit by and watch any state in the US get bombed or be caught unprepared. Won't be much use helping out the world while Democrats want to let terrorists Pell Mell into our country intent on destroying it.

Yes. Obama spent the last eight years obliterating our military and left them handicapped and vulnerable.

I agree totally it is a leadership issue.

 

[Norah]

Well, my concern is where we are today in the middle of all this terrorism. I want my military to be able to handle any and all threats on our homeland. We aren't prepared.

I am not willing to sit by and watch any state in the US get bombed or be caught unprepared. Won't be much use helping out the world while Democrats want to let terrorists Pell Mell into our country intent on destroying it.

Yes. Obama spent the last eight years obliterating our military and left them handicapped and vulnerable.

I agree totally it is a leadership issue.

I'm sorry I meant to say that our capability would get better if we weren't stretched across the Earth, not were.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Anytime. Thanks!

Did you bring guile back with you, after your time in the corner?

 

[signalmankenneth]

Simulation: DF-21D 'Carrier Killer' destroying aircraft carrier

Can America Defend Against the DF-21D?

http://errymath.blogspot.com/2015/02/simulation-df-21d-carrier-killer.html#.WLpHzjvysdU

 

[Bill]

I'm sorry I meant to say that our capability would get better if we weren't stretched across the Earth, not were.

He won't be as afraid of terrorism if we spend zillions more on air craft carriers & their groups

You are 100% correct IMHO............

They are awash in cash & yet there is no way to stop some of these lone wackOs & haters out to do harm on innocent ppl.........

 

[Robo]

Presidents cannot increase the debt. Do you remember that Reagan had a Democrat congress that declared every one of his budgets DOA? Of course you don't. It doesn't fit your narrow myopic world view.

Actually the truth is Presidents can and do run up debt by spending the money that Congress appropriates. While Congress controls the purse strings, Presidents direct the federal agencies and bureaucracies that spend the loot.

Reagan and Tip O'Neal, (House Speaker) were famous Irish drinking buddies that met regularly at the White House. Tip agreed to push Reagan's tax cuts and military spending through the House in exchange for Reagan signing on to the House expansions of welfare programs. Together they damned near tripled the debt.

Bush I also had a Democratic Congress that ignored his budgets and passed their own agenda. Bush II had to contend with a failing economy and 9-11. Not to mention two wars that were passed by a bi-partisan majority in the Congress.

Bush started both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and spent over a trillion dollars on them. Obama was left with both of them and also had a Republican Congress for the majority of his terms.

Do you know of any wars that were fought with a surplus? That was rhetorical question whose answer is obviously no; I'm just trying to get you to think.

Do you know of any wars that were fought with constitutional congressional declarations of war since WWII? Unlike you I think issues all the way through without partisan biases.

 

[Robo]

I am amused that you think a nation with nearly 324 million people covering 50 states and covering 3,796,742*square*miles is going to have a small government.

I'm amused that you can't distinguish between "small" and "BIG" relative to total population and landmass. The federal government could be operated on 1/3 of the loot, regulations, other laws, bureaucracies/agencies and porno watching deadbeat federal (alleged) workers. 2/3 of what the feds do has no authority in the Constitution and is awarded by the Constitution to the States.

But again, the defense budget is NOT the problem. Perhaps if I type a hundred more times it will sink in. It is apparent that you are allowing the FAKE media to misinform you of what the problems really are.

I also find it amusing that you think Presidents can pass budgets.

I find it amusing that you think Congresses can pass budgets without a Presidential signature.

 

[Robo]

I am surprised no one from the Navy could not answer that. It all has to do with 1) The 2007 Defense Authorization bill and our maritime strategy. It is law that the U.S. cannot go below 11 Carriers. This has only been reduced to 10 temporarily because so one could be retired before the newest one was commissioned. 2) Combat power in two regions, the Arabian/Gulf/Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific (2 hubs). To provide coverage, 2 carrier have to be on station, one will be heading home, one will be heading over, one will be in training. Extended and routine maintenance are the reason for the other 3 carriers ( one in maintenance for each Hub, one in extended maintenance). That is the 11 Carriers.

The reason for the new carriers is the U.S. feels the need for another hub in the Med as the maritime strategy plan has been updated in 2015.

I repeat, what God died and left the authority and responsibility over God's oceans to the taxpayers of the United States? Where's all of those U.S. allies and their share of the nuclear powered carriers to defend and guard free passage of God's oceans?