Should defense cuts equally be on the table as we approach t

Davian wrote:

jpete wrote:

Davian wrote:
Demand for goods drives jobs, not tax cuts. IE, a strong middle class with purchasing power creates more jobs and drives our economy.

Everyone agrees with this. The question is how do you get there. I don't think you can tax your way to prosperity.

I dont think more tax cuts will help either though. Taxes are already at historically low levels and there has been zero growth to show for it. Doubling down on them isn't going to help. Going back to the rates of the 1990s isn't going to destroy us either...especially given that those were the lowest rates in decades before Bush cut them further.

How about we go back to the M3 levels of the 90's too?

But whatever. If you think it's OK for the government to sit on it's collective hands or actively try to injure you despite what the Constitution says then nothing I say will matter.[/quote]

Sir...by the sounds of it you don't like to be told to do anything, your way is the right way/only way and if anyone has a modicum of difference from your view they are communist/socialist/marxist or whatever, label you can come up with. Diplomacy in your venture to "pursuade" others in your ideology would take you a long way! [/quote]

I haven't called anyone any names. You talk about what I've said to my boss. I have a degree in machining and nearly 20 years of experience on shop floors. My boss was a mechanical engineer. Which one of us would you reckon knows how to cut titanium or Monel 400 in a safe and efficient manner?

I didn't tell him how to draw pretty pictures with SolidWorks. I told him why it was impossible to produce his pretty pictures in the real world.

Solid Works will tell you (maybe) if you have a problem. In the real would, you destroy a $1500 boring bar or a 60 lb slug of stainless steel comes crashing through the window of your machine at a high rate of speed.

Same thing with what we are talking about here. When you have read and studied and argued as much about economics and monetary policy as I have, then you can tell me I'm wrong.

Go to http://www.mises.org and visit the book store. I own most of it. Curl up on the couch with Rothbard, Mises, and whomever else you find there and then we can talk.

I'm not trying to "persuade" anybody of anything. I learned a long time ago that that's an impossible mission. A person has to WANT to know and then go find out for themselves. I'm not going to convince you, and you aren't going to convince me.[/quote]

Reading a website and a few books makes an expert? Come on! I realize you "believe' your arguments are flawless....but, reading, studying and arguing your ideology put you no further ahead than anyone else....Getting supporters in the afformentioned and moving to "act' on that support to make a "difference" depends on the "$$$$" you have to make that happen! Please save us with your infamous knowledge and wisdom good sir! We need all the guidance we can get!

I'll try to make this brief:

Should we cut the military budget deeply? No, we are nowhere near the readiness we need to be at, but I am not sure we can afford to maintain the readiness we have had for the last decade either.

The US Navy has a ship life of about 30-35 years. Prior to President Clinton, we had a fleet of about 600 ships, but with that president we dropped to 300 ships. Due to the prolific decommissioning of ships due to age, we need to replace 10 ships per year. Today we are replacing 2 ships per year, with 1.5...I might proudly add...coming from the shipyard I work at. Doing the math is pretty easy, we are -8 ships per year which is NOT good for our nation.

But at 1 billion per ship for the type I build...the question is, can we afford it? The bigger question is: can we afford NOT to?

I cannot answer those questions at the current time.

Northern Maine wrote:Reading a website and a few books makes an expert? Come on! I realize you "believe' your arguments are flawless....but, reading, studying and arguing your ideology put you no further ahead than anyone else....Getting supporters in the afformentioned and moving to "act' on that support to make a "difference" depends on the "$$$$" you have to make that happen! Please save us with your infamous knowledge and wisdom good sir! We need all the guidance we can get!

So if reading, studying and arguing doesn't put you further ahead than someone watching "American Idle" and eating Cheetos, why does anyone bother to go to school?

I didn't say I was an "expert", I said I know more that YOU.

jpete wrote:

Northern Maine wrote:Reading a website and a few books makes an expert? Come on! I realize you "believe' your arguments are flawless....but, reading, studying and arguing your ideology put you no further ahead than anyone else....Getting supporters in the afformentioned and moving to "act' on that support to make a "difference" depends on the "$$$$" you have to make that happen! Please save us with your infamous knowledge and wisdom good sir! We need all the guidance we can get!

So if reading, studying and arguing doesn't put you further ahead than someone watching "American Idle" and eating Cheetos, why does anyone bother to go to school?

I didn't say I was an "expert", I said I know more that YOU.

Sir...Educating oneself is actually a really good thing! Yet utilizing that knowledge to purvey a point in an intelligent argument is quite another! Hence your knowing more than I in any particular area is very vague and unfounded at best! School yourself via a "debate class" and that may very well further your purview to the point of success with the knowledge you hold!

NoSmoke wrote:I'll try to make this brief:

Should we cut the military budget deeply? No, we are nowhere near the readiness we need to be at, but I am not sure we can afford to maintain the readiness we have had for the last decade either.

The US Navy has a ship life of about 30-35 years. Prior to President Clinton, we had a fleet of about 600 ships, but with that president we dropped to 300 ships. Due to the prolific decommissioning of ships due to age, we need to replace 10 ships per year. Today we are replacing 2 ships per year, with 1.5...I might proudly add...coming from the shipyard I work at. Doing the math is pretty easy, we are -8 ships per year which is NOT good for our nation.

But at 1 billion per ship for the type I build...the question is, can we afford it? The bigger question is: can we afford NOT to?

I cannot answer those questions at the current time.

You make some really valid points here! However, I do believe the class of ship that you build does and has outperformed any of it's predecessors. That being said, I also believe that to be true with most of the newer built vessels in our naval arsenal. I think it's pluasable that one ship can replace two of "yester" years ships due to there increased abilities. I'm of the opinion that shear numbers don't necessarily mean that our naval force is any weaker. Just my opinion though.

Well Northern Maine, there in lies the problem...

You are not really correct, but I say this educationally and I am in no way talking down to you here, it is just the way the Navy works...

We have (3) Zumwalt Class destroyers we are building, which are state of the art and are...well in the interest of national security...I will just say impressive, if they can do what they are claimed to do with their new weapons systems. But the Navy does not trust anything new, so they build a new type of ship...try them out...and then if they like them, order more. In the meantime, they stick with what they already have...

We are in the midst of building two new style destroyers, and one old style destroyer. Those are being built as we speak and well under way. Then we will go back and build 1 new style destroyer again, and then go back and build a pile of old destroyers. I think it is like 15 of the old style in total.

The new style of ship costs about 4 billion to build, where as the old style are about 1 billion.

But here is the kicker; the old style require 300 sailors to operate, where as the new ship requires about 165 so the labor cost alone is significant. The other thing is maintenance. One issue the Navy has is with maintenance. The new ships cost a lot more because their design is maintenance free. This costs more up front, but when 25% of the Navy's budget goes to maintenance costs, in the long run a fleet of no maintenance ships will be cheaper to operate.

Which is better? I am not sure. World War II was won (in part) by America's ability to out-build the German's even though Germany often had superior equipment. For instance; the Sherman Tank was a baby compared to the Panzer, BUT when you can build a pile of them quickly, sheer numbers won the war. It was the same thing with Liberty Ships, (and yes this shipyard did build them as well), they took days to build. It was said that when Hitler heard a Liberty Ship could be built in 17 days, he said "we have lost the war." True words!

But that was in the 1940's...you at least had to show up on the battlefield. Without disclosing too much information about these new ships, lets just say that if you are a bad guy, one of these ships does not need to show up on your coastline for you to have a bad day, it just has to be within a thousand miles of you, to have a bad day. So it is possible that 1 of these new ships could do a lot of damage single-highhandedly.

I really don't know which is better: 4 ships that still give a bad guy a bad day, but cost more in maintenance and use twice as many sailors to operate, or a single ship that is bad to the bone, but costs 4 times as much but has no maintenance and half the crew to operate it.

NoSmoke wrote:Well Northern Maine, there in lies the problem...

You are not really correct, but I say this educationally and I am in no way talking down to you here, it is just the way the Navy works...

We have (3) Zumwalt Class destroyers we are building, which are state of the art and are...well in the interest of national security...I will just say impressive, if they can do what they are claimed to do with their new weapons systems. But the Navy does not trust anything new, so they build a new type of ship...try them out...and then if they like them, order more. In the meantime, they stick with what they already have...

We are in the midst of building two new style destroyers, and one old style destroyer. Those are being built as we speak and well under way. Then we will go back and build 1 new style destroyer again, and then go back and build a pile of old destroyers. I think it is like 15 of the old style in total.

The new style of ship costs about 4 billion to build, where as the old style are about 1 billion.

But here is the kicker; the old style require 300 sailors to operate, where as the new ship requires about 165 so the labor cost alone is significant. The other thing is maintenance. One issue the Navy has is with maintenance. The new ships cost a lot more because their design is maintenance free. This costs more up front, but when 25% of the Navy's budget goes to maintenance costs, in the long run a fleet of no maintenance ships will be cheaper to operate.

Which is better? I am not sure. World War II was won (in part) by America's ability to out-build the German's even though Germany often had superior equipment. For instance; the Sherman Tank was a baby compared to the Panzer, BUT when you can build a pile of them quickly, sheer numbers won the war. It was the same thing with Liberty Ships, (and yes this shipyard did build them as well), they took days to build. It was said that when Hitler heard a Liberty Ship could be built in 17 days, he said "we have lost the war." True words!

But that was in the 1940's...you at least had to show up on the battlefield. Without disclosing too much information about these new ships, lets just say that if you are a bad guy, one of these ships does not need to show up on your coastline for you to have a bad day, it just has to be within a thousand miles of you, to have a bad day. So it is possible that 1 of these new ships could do a lot of damage single-highhandedly.

I really don't know which is better: 4 ships that still give a bad guy a bad day, but cost more in maintenance and use twice as many sailors to operate, or a single ship that is bad to the bone, but costs 4 times as much but has no maintenance and half the crew to operate it.

Thanks for that explanation! Kinda what I wanted to say, but do not have the knowledge you have to say it...I say build the maintenance free ships!

Northern Maine wrote:

NoSmoke wrote:Thanks for that explanation! Kinda what I wanted to say, but do not have the knowledge you have to say it...I say build the maintenance free ships!

Here Here!

Thanks for the info No Smoke. Good to see my brothers up north are still hard at work keeping the Surface Navy the best there is.

Of course down here we have it easier...our boats sink.

I did not disclose that information about our new Destroyers, but they sink as well! Granted yours goes deeper; our only sinks up to the Bridge, but it is pretty hard to spot a 600 foot ship when all but 50 feet of it is underwater! With the ability to produce its own weather, stealth technology, carbon fiber and some other tricks; the bad guy only sees a lobster boat on his radar screen....and a lobster boat obscured by fog on top of that.

Its a pretty cool ship to build!

In a word.....WOW.

And John Kerry would say that the dummies go into the military! Gonna need some educated young men and women to run that baby.

Kevin

KLook wrote:And John Kerry would say that the dummies go into the military! Gonna need some educated young men and women to run that baby.

Kevin

Dummies that go in the Navy end up painting, cooking and cleaning....and every ship needs it's share!

A few months ago I got selected to weld frame one of this new class of ship. To put that in perspective, it is the very bow of the ship, with some tremendous thickness to it, special steel, and it will be the first weld to hit the first wave this new class of ship ever encounters, and every wave it hit thereafter. That was pretty cool, but I think I was chosen because I do a good job welding; no blarney here, I figure since am given the time and materials to do a good job, and knowing that there are 165 sailors whose life could potentially depend upon my welding skills, I do the best I can for them.

As for the American People paying for this...

A few years ago a ship over by the Ivory Coast got attacked by pirates. They sent out a distress call but never knew if it was received. The next morning as their Captain was kidnapped they looked behind them to see a US Destroyer cutting the waves and baring down on them...a ship we built. Can you imagine how it felt to feel so helpless and alone out on the sea and to look behind you and see 300 sailors ready to help you out with a ship that has run full throttle for hours to reach your position? To make a long story short, there was no loss of American life and the ship flying American colors was returned unharmed.

What an amazing tale: to know that as an American, your life is so valued, that even captured on the high seas, there is enough US Naval might and technology to be protected.

I am certainly proud to do my part in that, even if it is just one weld at a time.

This is why I wonder if maybe being in 4 places at the same time may be better than a single ship...even if it is better. Please do not get me wrong here though; these "old" ships are very, very capable onto their own right.

I still think we should have an open season on pirates. Sell a hunting charter. Should be able to raise some good money. That would curb the practice if the thieves if knew they we being hunted.