MY COUSIN IS WORKING ON THE NEW "RAIL" GUN IN VIRGINIA

HI-TECH WEAPONS LIKE THESE MAKE MORE SHIPS UNNECESSARY

Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/23/2012 6:53:00 PM (view original):
And there really isn't a need to spin it.

Obama plainly states that he wants to reduce the number.

The people who build ships in Virginia and Florida are bright enough to figure out what that means for their job security.

I'm pretty sure he plainly stated that he opposes sequestration and doesn't want to reduce the number.  But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Seems like the number of ships in the Navy has been decreasing over the last few decades (as technology improves).....but has actually increased the last few years.

It's also ridiculous to speak in numbers of ships, anyway.  I'm sure the Navy would be giddy if they got a shiny new carrier but had to dump 5 frigates.

The NAVY is coming up with the number of ships that they think they need.

Are you really implying that THEY are so ignorant that they aren't specific in how many of each TYPE of craft they need?

C'mon guys. Stop trying to spin it.

What I find hilarious is that you honestly don't think you're trying to spin it at all yourself...

What are the facts Dahs?

Facts aren't spin.

Are you claiming that Obama doesn't want to reduce defense spending even further?

If you think it's a fact that all high-ranking naval personnel agree on one exact number of ships they need to be successful you're delusional.

They don't all get a say Dahs.

This is what I could find concerning the validity of the 313 claim:

From CNN

"His assertion that 313 ships are required for a fully operational Navy uses an outdated figure – Navy Secretary Ray Mabus dropped the number to 300 ships in April".


That's the OFFICIAL Navy number.

Is your argument "Who cares what the official request is? There may be other high ranking officials that do not agree with that number"?

My argument is that it's an arbitrary number and I can guarantee you that Mabus would agree that it's flexible based on type and utilization and deployment rates of the ships involved.

Honestly, I don't believe that Obama has any real interest in cutting spending on the military.  He's had 4 years already to do that, and honestly if he wanted to do it it would have happened by now.  In debate 2 Romney's constant refrain was "he's got a track record, look at that - don't listen to the rhetoric."  If we're going to be consistent, we have to look at the track record and ignore the rhetoric here.  And that track record suggests that Obama has no intention of making meaningful cuts to the military budget.  He has to pay lip service to cutting the military budget because it resonates with the liberal left and the majority of independents.  But that doesn't mean he'll actually do it.

Frankly, I wish he would.  We could cut 40% of our military spending comfortably while still remaining light years ahead of the Chinese and everyone else in terms of military capabilities and development.  That would cover most of the deficit on its own.  But it's not gonna happen.

IKE- "BEWARE THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX" AND HALIBURTON

Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/23/2012 7:08:00 PM (view original):
Also makes me wonder how you can reconcile the fact that the Navy says they need at least 13 more ships than they currently have with the claim that the military isn't asking for an increase in defense spending.

If they have reduced their request by 13, but still need more ships, isn't that kind of like asking for an increase? Or does that somehow not really count?

You think Romney wouldn't have pointed that out if it was the case?

My bet is you don't understand gov't "budgeting".  


At all.  




Not even a little bit.

My bet is you need to look in the mirror RE: that statement.