Debate III.

[777 fixer]

Obama's boys made issue of it not me. Has to look Presidential you know.
How many Generals in history dissed the boss and went on their merry way?
You got all all the military experience and don't know what happens when you step on toes right or wrong?

You know what the difference between me voicing an opinion that might have been right but irked the powers that be and a generals? If no one listened to me thousands of people were not killed and a country did not decend into a civil war.

 

[southwind]

I did not know that. I guess he did not have a choice but to rats taxes and slash spending. I don't think he would be that lucky in the WH. Norquist will eat him for lunch and so will the "I thought you wee not going to raise tax" crowd.

I can gaurantee you one thing Tree, he won't be any worse, at balancing the budget, than the Dude up there right now !

 

[Ms Tree]

And you know this how? Did you actually research something?

He has made promises he cannot keep without rasing taxes and closing tax loop holes. You think Norquist is going to sit around and just let him do it? Look at what Romney did in MA and tell me with a straight face that he can do that on a federal level.

 

[cltrat]

And you know this how? Did you actually research something?

He has made promises he cannot keep without rasing taxes and closing tax loop holes. You think Norquist is going to sit around and just let him do it? Look at what Romney did in MA and tell me with a straight face that he can do that on a federal level.

I ask again, what budget has obama EVER balanced? and what on earth given his track record would make you think he can?

I for one am willing to give the other guy a shot. Will he do some things to do it I don.t like? he very well may but damn something has to be done

 

[Ms Tree]

Obama is not going to balance the budget. We have huge economic problems so that is not going to happen for quite some time. I think saying that you want to give Romney a chance to do it is naive. Look how/why he did it in MA. Saying you want to give Romney a chance is like looking at two people who have one leg and wanting to see if the other one can beat Bolt in the 100m since the first one lost.

Neither of them can or will balance it. Given what Romney wants to spend it would seem he will increase the deficit.

 

[cltrat]

yes we do have huge economy problems and they have gotten worse in the last 4 years

 

[southwind]

Obama is not going to balance the budget. We have huge economic problems so that is not going to happen for quite some time. I think saying that you want to give Romney a chance to do it is naive. Look how/why he did it in MA. Saying you want to give Romney a chance is like looking at two people who have one leg and wanting to see if the other one can beat Bolt in the 100m since the first one lost.

Neither of them can or will balance it. Given what Romney wants to spend it would seem he will increase the deficit.

Balancing the budget is only "One" goal I have for Romney. Repealing ObamaCare is at the top too................don't think Barrack's interested in doing that !

 

[Ms Tree]

yes we do have huge economy problems and they have gotten worse in the last 4 years

I think it has been getting better, Not at the rate most would like but I think that is unrealistic.

 

[Ms Tree]

Balancing the budget is only "One" goal I have for Romney. Repealing ObamaCare is at the top too................don't think Barrack's interested in doing that !

Since Romney is not going to balance the budget I would hope you have aback up plan. Why on earth would Obama repeal the universal health care, it was his plan? Watered down quite a bit but it's a start. It is unlikely Romney will reverse it either. Congress is not going to want to piss of their constituents by repealing all the stuff they like about it especially since Romney has no back up plan of his own.

 

[xUT]

One thing is clear -- Obama has almost zero support from the active duty military, which is why it's so important to make sure their ballots don't count.

Romney's performance in the Monday debate was sly as a fox. He gave no room for Obama to really attack. Instead, he manipulated Obama into going back to discussing the economy, and that's where this election will be lost & won. Jobs and debt.

Think about it... We're scrapping more ships than we're building.

How many jobs does each new keel laid represent?

Drones sound great in that they reduce the number of bodies left on the battlefield, but they can't defend a coastline. And they certainly don't project power like an aircraft carrier can.

So building more 'un-needed' weapons at tax payers expense is not gooberment welfare?
WTF?
B) xUT

 

[Keroseneuser]

So building more 'un-needed' weapons at tax payers expense is not gooberment welfare?
WTF?
B) xUT

Guess it depends on what the mission is. Currently we have 287 ships, Navy has said it needs 313 to be able to do what it is tasked to do right now. Data I saw said it only had funds for 263 so currently we are losing some more. I know Enterprise is on its last cruise right now before decomissioning.

While looking that up i saw that on V-J day in 1945 the Navy had 6768 ships on duty.

 

[Ms Tree]

Do you think the Navy has any incentive at all for wanting more ships? Do you think the US will be fighting any naval battles like it did in 1945 and if so against what country? Did the fleet in 1945 have the same fire power that todays fleet has?

Perhaps our military will have to make do with just a little bit less than they want.

 

[Keroseneuser]

Do you think the Navy has any incentive at all for wanting more ships? Do you think the US will be fighting any naval battles like it did in 1945 and if so against what country? Did the fleet in 1945 have the same fire power that todays fleet has?

Perhaps our military will have to make do with just a little bit less than they want.

1. of course 2. Possibly, China just commissioned its first aircraft carrier (old russian one refit) and is working on their own design. Count as follows China 62 subs us 72, frigates C 48 US 32, Anphib class C 58 US 30, Patrol class (missle) C 80 US 0, Carriers C 1 US 11, Cruisers C 0 US 22. russia still has a decent sized fleet though it is a shell of its former self. 3. If talking about non nuke then yes all things considered including current defenses that the navy would have to deal with, yes more firepower in 45. could the current navy defeat the 1945 navy? Of course, but there never seems to be a 70 year old navy with 70 year old defenses that we need to go blow up anymore. Anything we might have to face will be getting close to our abilities.....so far we have the edge, i would like to keep it that way.

I do hope when we need to fight off an attacking force that our boys and girls in the navy can make do. Maybe Obama can give them an inspiring speech about how he had to make do in college or something to pep them up to take on a larger force. Is that kind of like our troops in Iraq and afghanastan had to make do with unarmored humvees in 2005 until they could ship a bunch of armor to them? Kind of hard to quickly build a ship after it is desperately needed.

 

[southwind]

Since Romney is not going to balance the budget I would hope you have aback up plan. Why on earth would Obama repeal the universal health care, it was his plan? Watered down quite a bit but it's a start. It is unlikely Romney will reverse it either. Congress is not going to want to piss of their constituents by repealing all the stuff they like about it especially since Romney has no back up plan of his own.

Romney's already stated he would keep parts of it ! If Romney balances the budget , as well as Barrack has, it's a win-win !

 

[777 fixer]

1. of course 2. Possibly, China just commissioned its first aircraft carrier (old russian one refit) and is working on their own design. Count as follows China 62 subs us 72, frigates C 48 US 32, Anphib class C 58 US 30, Patrol class (missle) C 80 US 0, Carriers C 1 US 11, Cruisers C 0 US 22. russia still has a decent sized fleet though it is a shell of its former self. 3. If talking about non nuke then yes all things considered including current defenses that the navy would have to deal with, yes more firepower in 45. could the current navy defeat the 1945 navy? Of course, but there never seems to be a 70 year old navy with 70 year old defenses that we need to go blow up anymore. Anything we might have to face will be getting close to our abilities.....so far we have the edge, i would like to keep it that way.

Whne you look at the PLAN most of it is geared towards costal defense. Do they have blue water ambitions, yes. However that still does not change the before mentioned fact.

As for the carrier the Chinese bought it still took them seven years to get it seaworthe. This was a ship that was already built. And just because you have one that is operational does not mean you start operatiing aircraft from it right away. I'll grab a bag of popcorn to watch videos of the accidents they ahve learning to use it. The USN has eleven aircraft carriers. We have been building and opearting them continously since the 1930's. It takes about six years from laying of the keel to it's first deployment for a USN carrier to hit the fleet. How long will it take the Chinese to match those nimbers?