Oops. Not Enough Money To Gas Up The Lincoln

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by pspr, Feb 8, 2013.

  1. pspr


    The U.S. Navy will delay the refueling of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) for an unknown period because of the uncertain fiscal environment due to the ongoing legislative struggle, the service told Congress in a Friday message obtained by USNI News.

    Lincoln was scheduled to be moved to Huntington Ingalls Industries’ (HII) Newport News Shipyard later this month to begin the 4-year refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH) of the ship.

    “This delay is due to uncertainty in the Fiscal Year 2013 appropriations bill, both in the timing and funding level available for the first full year of the contract,” the message said.
    “CVN-72 will remain at Norfolk Naval Base where the ships force personnel will continue to conduct routine maintenance until sufficient funding is received for the initial execution of the RCOH.”

    Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee released a statement denouncing the need for decision.

    Forbes called the delay, “another example of how these reckless and irresponsible defense cuts in Washington will have a long-term impact on the Navy’s ability to perform its missions. Not only will the Lincoln be delayed in returning to the Fleet, but this decision will also affect the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) defueling, the USS George Washington (CVN-73) RCOH, and future carrier readiness.”

  2. pspr


    I found a place where the Navy can save some money so they can fuel the Lincoln.

    A Navy official told FoxNews.com on Monday that sailing the so-called “Great Green Fleet” this month on the 50-50 blend of alternative and conventional fuel is part of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus’ plan to have half the Navy fleet on alternative fuel by 2020.

    The spokesman also confirmed the fuel -- which does not require engine modifications -- costs $26 a gallon compared to $3.60 a gallon for conventional fuel.

    However, he pointed out the cost was for a one-day supply and that prices will drop when the Pentagon, among the country’s biggest fuel users, buys more.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ritical-navy-great-green-fleet/#ixzz2KLymt2Sm
  3. How about the Pentagon prioritize?

    Maybe they could free up some money by treating generals and admirals like government employees and not lavishing CEO lifestyles on them.

    Maybe we don't need bases in 100 countries. Someone remoind me why NATO still exists aanyway? We are really still worried about a massed tank attack from the USSR?

    And how much will we piss away in afghanistan this year?
  4. Defense spending in 2001 (Clintons last budget ) was 366 billion


    Defense spending in 2009 (Bushes last budget ) was 794 billion


    Bush increased defense spending nearly 430 billion dollars a year(And republicans want to increase it even more)
  5. pspr


    Two wars will do that. This thread isn't about who spent more so I'll spare you the inconvient truths about your boy.

  6. [​IMG]
  7. pspr


    AK you are just full of crap as usual. This is what matters. And we've been all over this already.

    One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):

    2008: 20.8 percent

    2009: 25.2 percent

    2010: 24.1 percent

    2011: 24.1 percent

    2012: 24.3 percent

    2013: 23.3 percent

  8. That is not a good way to measure spending.Spending can stay they same but a recession can hit .Good right wing talking point though
  9. pspr


    It's not only a good way but it's the best way. But if you want to look at just the numbers here they are:

    <img src=http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/federal-spending.png>

    <img src=http://www.cristyli.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Obama-Deficit-Spending.jpg>
  10. Those numbers dont include the fact that Bush came into office with a balanced budget and Obama came into office with a trillion dollar deficit.Most of Obamas spending is paying the bills Bush left him



    The Bush Deficit

    Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today's high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart above, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it's worth reviewing the history here, because while it's familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate.

    By the end of the 1990s, the federal budget was in surplus for the first time in decades. Partly that was a product of unusually strong economic growth, during the internet boom, which had swelled tax revenues. But partly that was a product of responsible budgeting, presided over by the most recent two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In order to reduce deficits, lawmakers and those two presidents had agreed both to raise taxes and to reduce spending.

    In the 2000 campaign, Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, campaigned on a promise to, in effect, put those surpluses aside for a rainy day. Bush would have none of it. The government had too much money, he said; the responsible thing was to give it all back to the taxpayers. In office, he did just that, presiding over massive tax cuts that gave, by far, the largest benefits to the very wealthy. Bush promised that the tax cuts would act like a "fiscal straightjacket," preventing government from growing. But then he, and his allies, launched two major wars and enacted a drug benefit for Medicare, all without paying for them.

    Today's fiscal gap is largely a product of those decisions, as the graph above shows. It has very little to do with anything Obama did while in office. In fact, the contrast between the two administrations could not be more striking. Obama's primary undertaking has been comprehensive health care reform. But he insisted that it pay for itself, through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.


    What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.
    #10     Feb 8, 2013