KRC Posted March 17, 2006 Author Share Posted March 17, 2006 That's funny, blaming the minority party for a lack of leadership. How about how pathetic that the supposed 'conservative' marjority party had 52 senators vote for this bill, and the supposed 'conservative' president doesn't oppose it. And I think the Democrats would do much better with more dynamic leaders than Reid and Pelosi. 633208[/snapback] It is pathetic that the "conservative" congress voted for this and that the "conservative" president will probably sign it. BTW, just because you are the minority party, does not mean that you do not show leadership. Without it, you will always remain the minority party. Time for them to take responsibility and show why people should vote for the Dems. So far, I have seen no reason at all to vote for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 It is pathetic that the "conservative" congress voted for this and that the "conservative" president will probably sign it. BTW, just because you are the minority party, does not mean that you do not show leadership. Without it, you will always remain the minority party. Time for them to take responsibility and show why people should vote for the Dems. So far, I have seen no reason at all to vote for them. 633216[/snapback] I can agree with your statement, but many voters don't start paying attention to who they're going to vote for until a couple months before the election, so leadership at this point won't necessarily translate into votes in November. You can disagree with his opinions, but I give Russ Feingold credit for having the balls to take a stand on issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 I can agree with your statement, but many voters don't start paying attention to who they're going to vote for until a couple months before the election, so leadership at this point won't necessarily translate into votes in November. You can disagree with his opinions, but I give Russ Feingold credit for having the balls to take a stand on issues. 633416[/snapback] I'm certain that you didn't mean it too, but your post comes across as sounding like you think it is ok for the minority party to demonstrate leadership and provide ideas for 2 months every 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 17, 2006 Author Share Posted March 17, 2006 I'm certain that you didn't mean it too, but your post comes across as sounding like you think it is ok for the minority party to demonstrate leadership and provide ideas for 2 months every 2 years. 633658[/snapback] Senators only need to show leadership and ideas 2 months out of every six years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 As my favorite senator of all time (Zell Miller) once said.. As long as they can blame each other, they will never solve the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Senators only need to show leadership and ideas 2 months out of every six years. 633663[/snapback] But they're getting better. They spent an extra two weeks this year keeping the !@#$ing sand !@#$s out of our ports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 As my favorite senator of all time (Zell Miller) once said.. As long as they can blame each other, they will never solve the problem. 633891[/snapback] I like old Zell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 No...maybe. Maybe just a little one, since Congress has the ability quibble over line items, but the executive has to accept or reject it as a whole, so when Congress spends a few billion dollars on a de facto jobs program by ordering six new ships that the Navy doesn't even want (which actually happened in the FY06 budget), the president's choice is to accept the extra billions Congress tacks on, or shut down the entire government (as I recall Clinton did...which I supported.) 632356[/snapback] Could you expand on this story or Congress ordering six new ships that the Navy doesn't even want? As a Navy employee, I've been hearing for a couple of years that the fleet is getting to small. Navy brass has been talking about the fact that costs have to come down in all other areas so the ship building can go up. I'm not saying you're wrong. I can see how it might happen. I can see how the Navy might want to stop funding a particular shipbuilder for instance, but politics get involved and Congress earmarks money for additional ships to be built by that ship builder, thus making the cost per ship higher than it need be. Also, didn't Clinton shut down the government because he wanted more money for many discretional domestic spending programs than Congress passed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Could you expand on this story or Congress ordering six new ships that the Navy doesn't even want? As a Navy employee, I've been hearing for a couple of years that the fleet is getting to small. Navy brass has been talking about the fact that costs have to come down in all other areas so the ship building can go up. I'm not saying you're wrong. I can see how it might happen. I can see how the Navy might want to stop funding a particular shipbuilder for instance, but politics get involved and Congress earmarks money for additional ships to be built by that ship builder, thus making the cost per ship higher than it need be. Also, didn't Clinton shut down the government because he wanted more money for many discretional domestic spending programs than Congress passed? 634764[/snapback] How can you get six ships without also increasing manpower? I thought manpower ceilings on the services were not in the defense budget, per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 How can you get six ships without also increasing manpower? I thought manpower ceilings on the services were not in the defense budget, per se. 634765[/snapback] Generally speaking, the fleet is shrinking. Six new ships is probably an anomoly to the trend. I know that Los Angeles Class submarines are being retired faster the Virginia Class subs are being built. The "jobs program" is really at the ship yard, which is a contractor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Generally speaking, the fleet is shrinking. Six new ships is probably an anomoly to the trend. I know that Los Angeles Class submarines are being retired faster the Virginia Class subs are being built. The "jobs program" is really at the ship yard, which is a contractor. 634769[/snapback] How many Virginias are they building? I thought there was only going to be a pretty small amount. So, they are just reassigning/recoding the slots from ships coming out of the line then. I also thought the Navy wanted to really ramp up brown water capability, which makes sense. I'm pretty sure the Air Force is getting about a zillion more C-130's they don't want either. What hurts is that there a lot of things in DOD that really need funding, that are not supported as well as they should be. But, Congress Critters don't have any stake in operational funding, other than bases. Just toys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Could you expand on this story or Congress ordering six new ships that the Navy doesn't even want? As a Navy employee, I've been hearing for a couple of years that the fleet is getting to small. Navy brass has been talking about the fact that costs have to come down in all other areas so the ship building can go up. I'm not saying you're wrong. I can see how it might happen. I can see how the Navy might want to stop funding a particular shipbuilder for instance, but politics get involved and Congress earmarks money for additional ships to be built by that ship builder, thus making the cost per ship higher than it need be. It's complicated. From what I understand, the Navy wants to expand to 300+ ships (325, I think) over the next two decades, but do so in a logically planned manner. As such, 2007-10 are sort of "transition years", where old ship designs are to be phased out of construction and new ones (LCS, DD(X), CVNX) introduced...which means that 07-10 are likely to be very lean years for shipyards under the Navy's plan. Thus, the Navy only requested four (or five, depending on the source - the first LCS was intended to be financed under R&D, not procurement, so sometimes it's included, sometimes not) ships for '06. Naturally, Congress hates that. The Senate added funding in the '06 budget to start construction on three more ships in '07. The House doubled the Navy '06 procurement from four ships to eight (including an extra T-AKE and SSN, I think, and accellerating the build of the new LHA®), to keep shipyards working (just like they bought precisely one F-15E in '06...so Boeing would keep the line open until the Singapore and Korean orders are finalized). And both the Navy AND shipbuilders have issues with that: the Navy doesn't want to pay the operational costs for ships it doesn't want and can't man; the shipbuliders hate the woefully inefficient way Navy procurement is handled. Most of this I'm getting from stories in 2005 in Defense News...most copies of which I've thrown out, and their online search is pitiful. But that's the gist of it: Congress funded anywhere from three to seven ships (depending on what you're reading; reality is probably something like 4) for '06 that the Navy didn't want, to keep shipyards open. Also, didn't Clinton shut down the government because he wanted more money for many discretional domestic spending programs than Congress passed? 634764[/snapback] I don't really know...but that's not relevant to my point that the executive DOES have that as an option in budgetary battles with Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 It's complicated. From what I understand, the Navy wants to expand to 300+ ships (325, I think) over the next two decades, but do so in a logically planned manner. As such, 2007-10 are sort of "transition years", where old ship designs are to be phased out of construction and new ones (LCS, DD(X), CVNX) introduced...which means that 07-10 are likely to be very lean years for shipyards under the Navy's plan. Thus, the Navy only requested four (or five, depending on the source - the first LCS was intended to be financed under R&D, not procurement, so sometimes it's included, sometimes not) ships for '06. Naturally, Congress hates that. The Senate added funding in the '06 budget to start construction on three more ships in '07. The House doubled the Navy '06 procurement from four ships to eight (including an extra T-AKE and SSN, I think, and accellerating the build of the new LHA®), to keep shipyards working (just like they bought precisely one F-15E in '06...so Boeing would keep the line open until the Singapore and Korean orders are finalized). And both the Navy AND shipbuilders have issues with that: the Navy doesn't want to pay the operational costs for ships it doesn't want and can't man; the shipbuliders hate the woefully inefficient way Navy procurement is handled. Most of this I'm getting from stories in 2005 in Defense News...most copies of which I've thrown out, and their online search is pitiful. But that's the gist of it: Congress funded anywhere from three to seven ships (depending on what you're reading; reality is probably something like 4) for '06 that the Navy didn't want, to keep shipyards open. I don't really know...but that's not relevant to my point that the executive DOES have that as an option in budgetary battles with Congress. 634805[/snapback] God, you're a Geek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 How many Virginias are they building? I thought there was only going to be a pretty small amount. So, they are just reassigning/recoding the slots from ships coming out of the line then. I also thought the Navy wanted to really ramp up brown water capability, which makes sense. Originally, they were supposed to get 30. Given the unit cost (the "low cost alternative" to the $2.2B/copy Seawolf is coming in at $3.3B each ), there's serious talk of capping the procurement at four. I'm pretty sure the Air Force is getting about a zillion more C-130's they don't want either. But that's different. That's part of the FCS program...if the Army doesn't get their four-engined Osprey variant for carting their 20-ton "tank" around. What hurts is that there a lot of things in DOD that really need funding, that are not supported as well as they should be. But, Congress Critters don't have any stake in operational funding, other than bases. Just toys. 634775[/snapback] DoD procurement is so broken it's not even funny anymore. I certainly wouldn't advocate giving DoD carte blanc, but one has to wonder if Congresscritters worried about their states and districts are going to do well by DoD procurement as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts