Why are there no threads about our new Aircraft Carrier?

[charrison]

Rahvin,

I did not try to have it both ways. I did say reagan could have veto'd the spending.

I was off on the unemployment number, I was still pretty young in 1980 please forgive me. 1982 the avg unemployment was 9.7% and dropped to 5.5% by 1988.
Unemployment started dropping after the final phase of the taxcuts where in place.
unemployment figures

You are right, the economy grows and that creates more tax income. However the the tax income doubled. The economy did not double in the time period, nor did the number of taxable workers double. If you say the growing economy caused the tax income to double, please show me the links. I await an explaination with some fact behind it.

 

[Train]

people shouldnt complain about the incresed military spending in the 80's, it was an absolute neccesity, we were at war, a cold war, the worst kind, we won, and the leading communist country fell apart. A large national debt was inevitable.

I think Reagan was a great president. As most americans do.

 

[guyver01]

<< I saw where it stated that 45,000 tons of steel were used to build it.
The biggest carrier we have today displaces 102,000 tons (more than twice the size of any other nations carrier, hence the reason for its *super* designation).

Anyone know what its final weight will be? Where does the extra 55,000+ tons come from?
>>



Don't forget, that 45,000 tons of steel is empty... add crew of 6,000+, a few hundred aircraft, fuel and supplies and i think that comes close to a few dozen ton.

 

[CoolTech]

hrmm, uss abraham lincoln has a much better ring to me.

 

[charrison]

USS Lincoln

 

[Pacfanweb]

BTW, our Nimitz class aircraft carriers do not displace 195,000 tons. Lose the &quot;1&quot;. It's like 95,000. Actually, I think it's more like 97,500 tons.

As far as I know, the only ships bigger than aircraft carriers are the super oil tankers.

 

[Windogg]

The USS Ronald Reagan is not the first ship to be named after a living person. The Attack Transport USS Bob Hope was also named for a person that was not deceased. Adm. Arleigh Burke had the honor of an entire ship class (Burke Class Multirole Destroyers) named after him for his contributions to the navy.

Windogg

 

[SuperSix]

I could give 2 sh!ts about a new carrier, just billions of our tax dollars wasted. Why is it going to be the last Nimitz-class made? No threat that requires that type of weapon or armament.

Bleah..

 

[JellyBaby]

<< No threat that requires that type of weapon or armament. >>

SuperSix,

Perhaps the reason there is no threat requiring that type of weapons system is because that type of weapons system discourages a weapon system that might combat it...?

 

[Windogg]

Economically, it makes more sense to build aircraft carriers and sink them on their maiden voyages than it does to not build them. The economic benefit of jobs, production, support services, etc... brings for economic benefit than if shipyards, factories, and workers stay idle.

 

[NaughtyusMaximus]

<<that type of weapons system discourages a weapon system that might combat it...?>>

I think you've got it backwards. Ever heard of an arms race?

 

[Pacfanweb]

<<I think you've got it backwards. Ever heard of an arms race? >>

No, he had it right. Who can challenge us in an arms race these days? Remember the USSR? They tried until Reagan made them go broke trying to keep up.
No country is an any kind of shape to try to match our navy.

 

[shiner]

<< I could give 2 sh!ts about a new carrier, just billions of our tax dollars wasted >>



Sure it's wasted...uh huh...yeah...what a waste...you might want to rethink that stupid comment next time you post, or exercise the right to vote, freedom to choose your own church(or not to go at all), the next time you got to a public school, or the next time you look at our flag which represents this country and the wonderful freedoms it offers. Yep the flag that many MANY people better than your sorry @ss have died defending.

 

[rahvin]

<<Where do you think the Democrats came up with the money to increase spending? Because of Reagan's tax cuts.>>

You don't know ANYTHING about economics. Governmental spending increases the economy, especially middle class spending. Tax cuts to the wealthy have an almost non-effect on the economy. Besides the fact that you apparently can't comprehend what I wrote before.

<<You don't think the wealthy should have had a tax cut? You don't think it helped anything?>>

My beliefs are irrelevant, but in fact no I don't believe they should. Those that benefit most from the american system should bear a heavier burdan than those that suffer under it. But that is irrelevant to this discussion. And no, the reduction in the top bracket from 70% to 36% didn't do anything for our economy other than allowing a large super wealthy class to be created.

<<What do you think started all that extra money rolling into the IRS?>>

Job creation from a cut in interest rates. Plain simple and a proven fact.

<<The rich started investing more since they weren't being unfairly penalized for making money, and guess what: that money started rolling downhill to everyone else.>>

Baloney. The gap between rich and poor for the past 20 years has been increasing. Accounting for inflation the poor are getting poorer. In the CIA WorldFactbook 2000 edition the US entry listed the gap between rich and poor as the US's greatest threat.

<<We can disagree about some of the things Reagan accomplished, but winning the cold war and jump starting the economy are arguments you can't win based on any kind of fact.>>

Oh yes, he did spend the Soviets into collapse on that I do and always have agreed but I will not ever credit him with ANY kind of economic recovery because the facts and history do NOT support it. Alan Greenspan is responsible for the recovery in the 80's and the long running boom of the 90's, the only credit Reagan deserves is for nominating Greenspan to the Fed.

<<I was off on the unemployment number, I was still pretty young in 1980 please forgive me. 1982 the avg unemployment was 9.7% and dropped to 5.5% by 1988.
Unemployment started dropping after the final phase of the taxcuts where in place.>>

You cannot seperate the taxcut data and pork spending that was occuring. Pork spending is MUCH more stimulating to the economy than a tax reduction for 1% of the population ever could be.

<<You are right, the economy grows and that creates more tax income. However the the tax income doubled. The economy did not double in the time period, nor did the number of taxable workers double.>>

Actually the economy did double, where do you think tax revenue comes from? GNP in 1980 was 2784.2B and increased to 5743.8B in 1990. That is about a 60% increase in the GNP, a measure of value of the total economy.

Go here to see GNP data.

One of the options in that link is to government spending and you can view the change from 1980 of 572.8B to 1176.1B in 1990 and see a 500billion increase in spending over a ten year period. If I remember from economics class correctly, goverment $'s spent multiply in the economy by a factor of anywhere from 4-10x. Assuming a 5x multiplication of government spending you end up with 2500B in additional GNP, nearly what the economy increased. Now my analysis is very amatuerish, and if Michael or one of the other CPA's wanna jump in and correct me if I made a big mistake please do it.

 

[Pacfanweb]

<<Job creation from a cut in interest rates. Plain simple and a proven fact.>>

Proven by whom? I disagree. I've seen many articles that disagree also. Many factors contributed to the economy.

<<Alan Greenspan is responsible for the recovery in the 80's and the long running boom of the 90's, the only credit Reagan deserves is for nominating Greenspan to the Fed.>>

Oh well, so much for credibility. Greenspan didn't take his position until 1987.(took over to finish out someone else's term.)
And I guess you will give president Bush due credit for nominating Greenspan to his 14 year term in 1992, won't you? I guess by your reasoning that gives Bush credit for the economic growth in the 90's.

<<. Governmental spending increases the economy, especially middle class spending. Tax cuts to the wealthy have an almost non-effect on the economy. >>

No proof of this. Anyone who believes as I do can provide as much or more proof that the tax cuts of the 80's were a BIG factor in the economic boom. Besides, who was behind much of that governmental spending. YOU can't have it both ways. First you say the Dems. in congress helped by spending money, then you say to someone that Reagan could've held the debt down by vetoing those same bills.

<<Besides the fact that you apparently can't comprehend what I wrote before.>>

Ah, there we go, the true liberal colors....start insults and name calling when your argument doesn't hold up.

<<He kicked employment up through deficit millitary spending, and quadrupled our debt in the process. All those Job's he created are long since gone, he created a defense spending economy that was unsustainable and most of those high paying defense jobs are gone the way of the dodo. >>

Wait, I thought governmental spending increased the economy. Must only work when Democrats do it.

<<And no, the reduction in the top bracket from 70% to 36% didn't do anything for our economy other than allowing a large super wealthy class to be created. >>

Wrong. All taxpayer's income taxes were cut by Reagan, NOT just the top earners. That was a 25% cut ACROSS THE BOARD, not just the rich folks.
You can't tell me it's not ridiculous to think someone should have to pay even 1/2 of their salary in taxes, much less 70%.
By your own reasoning, since you say Reagan wasn't responsible for the economic growth in the 80's, but the Fed was, I guess you can't credit Clinton for the growth in the 90's either. Greenspan better get all the credit for that, too. At least Greenspan was actually employed by the Fed in the 90's. BTW, the economic growth in the 90's started in early 1991 under then-president BUSH.

 

[GreenBeret]

THis isn't the first time a fighting ship. There was a guided missile frigate named after somebody and they attended the launching...

oops!! windogg beat me. And he knew the name USS Arleigh Burke.

 

[shiner]

Cut the idiot some slack...I'm sure he's just regurgitating the liberal anti-Reagan BS he was taught in school and has heard the media pound into his skull since Reagan's term was over.

 

[SuperSix]

Don't play the patriotic angle, Shinerburke.

There is no need for a ship of that class. I agree with Windogg, it would be a shame to lose the support and infrastructure that is built from the assembly of such ships, their is just no need for them.

I can't believe you a waving a flag about this. You are way off base.

Wanna play that angle? Ok

My Grandfather was a highly decorated WW2 and Korean War vet

My father died in Vietnam when I was 2

The armed services wouldn't take me because I am deaf in one ear.

Take your patriotic bullsh!t and stuff it up your ass

 

[Green Man]

Thought for the Day:
Trickle down econonomics is like giving hay to the horse in order to feed the sparrows.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< There is no need for a ship of that class >>

Without carrier groups, no modern era wars could have been fought. US foreign policy, right in some case, wrong in others calls for a mobile project of US power world-wide. I'm sure the Pentagon would sure like a few more of these carriers. Maybe if france can fix the propeller on their carrier we could borrow it?

But yes for something like an invasion of Canada we wouldn't need any flat-tops. Just a bunch of Artic Cat sleds and snow shoes and silverware to eat all their poutine.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Trickle down econonomics is like giving hay to the horse in order to feed the sparrows. >>

SpookyFish,

I wonder if the sparrow would prefer to wait in line to use food stamps to &quot;buy&quot; seed from a government office?

 

[shiner]

<< There is no need for a ship of that class. >>



Sure there is...the carrier and it's battle group are used to project U.S. power in regions where we have no other presence. Take Taiwan last year...China was taking an aggressive stance and threatening invasion....we sent in a carrier group as a show of force and the Chinese backed down. We don't have bases all over the world in every possible hot spot so we need the carriers to get us there, give us a base of operations, and to protect our interests. Each of the super carriers is capable of doing more damage on it's own than more than 95% of the rest of the world's military. If you don't think they are necessary then you are kidding yourself. Peace is maintained through strength...not weakness. Look at the two times we became involved in a world war....the military had been cut back and the U.S. was perceived as being weak and thus an easy target. Admiral Yamamoto said after attacking Pearl harbor and thus drawing the U.S. into the war that he feared they had &quot;awakened a sleeping giant.&quot; We cannot let our guard down for one instant and be seen as lax in our national defense. Whether you think so or not the world is still a dangerous place. In some ways it is even more dangerous now than it was during the Cold War.

The fact that your Grandfather was a WWII vet is wonderful!! Those guys saved the world as we know it.

I'm terribly sorry about the loss of your father in Vietnam.

 

[pen^2]

enuff of all this political babble, could someone provide us with some fascinating facts about this particular warship. i love watching history channel and learning about war machines

 

[mcveigh]

KpocAlypse you beat me to it about there being a USS Enterprise CVN-65. I'm suprised that no one else said any thing earlier.
If memory serves correctly, it is the olargest warship afloat, a little bigger than a Nimitz class
since it was one of if not the first glow in the dark carrier (nuclear powered)

 

[Pacfanweb]

Mcveigh, the Enterprise is the first nuclear aircraft carrier. It is, however, a bit smaller than the Nimitz class. They are totally different ships, the Enterprise being a one-off model.