The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-10-2012, 10:33 AM   #1
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,890
Default More Obama green energy money wasted.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...detroit-visit/


The work you’re doing will help power the American economy for years to come.”

-- President Obama in a Sept. 13, 2010 phone call to battery maker A123 Systems, congratulating the firm on using the bulk of a $249 million government grant to open new facilities in Michigan.

President Obama travels to Detroit today to talk about the need for increased taxes on top earners to finance federal spending, and is using an announcement of a $100 million investment from German auto giant Daimler to illustrate that his economic prescription is working.

Obama is not likely to discuss another big business story of the day – the sale of the assets of battery maker A123 to a Chinese competitor. A123 spent at least $132 million of its $249 million stimulus package grant to build two Detroit-area factories, including one in Livonia, right next door to Redford Township, where Obama is speaking today.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2EfwD0Qih


Meh just a couple hundred million more down the ****ing drain.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 12-11-2012, 11:28 AM   #2
Jetmeck
Not a Chief's board
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,378
Default

FOXnews....lol

businesses fail all the time.......fact is green energy is a good thing and rather someone try to get more of that going or do you prefer we keep giving billions in tax subsudies to oil companies that your Republican bretheren won't let us get rid of ?
Jetmeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 09:40 PM   #3
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

What has the $1T+ in extra military spending (above and beyond war spending even) in the last decade bought us?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 11:51 PM   #4
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
What has the $1T+ in extra military spending (above and beyond war spending even) in the last decade bought us?
Just like a liberal change the subject when they can not add something meaningfully to the topic.


Just gave away a 132 million in Nobama money to the Chinese and that was the best commet you have?

Perhaps that is not a lot of money to a liberal, but it is to me. you know a 100 mil here and another 132 there and few other boondoggles in green pearls and all of a sudden you have another trillion wasted.
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 12:11 AM   #5
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
Just like a liberal change the subject when they can not add something meaningfully to the topic.


Just gave away a 132 million in Nobama money to the Chinese and that was the best commet you have?

Perhaps that is not a lot of money to a liberal, but it is to me. you know a 100 mil here and another 132 there and few other boondoggles in green pearls and all of a sudden you have another trillion wasted.
The point is we piss away at least 10x more than $132m every day on military spending, yet I never hear cutlet complain about that.

R&D is risky. The bulk of it fails. The expectation that every (or even more than a small percentage of) project/grant/etc. will produce a positive ROI is hysterically out of touch with reality.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 12:54 AM   #6
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,890
Default

I'm all for cutting any military spending that isn't needed. What big projects have the liberals thrown out for me to agree or disagree with?

Some of the big projects off the top of my head would be new aircraft carriers, one of which is already being built i believe. The f-35 i guess right? And then i think some new submarines. Then of course the new stealth destroyer that was scuttled, but then Obama restarted it to have i think 4 of them built. They are literally that expensive where even with our spending we can only build a few.

So the new Carrier actually has the updated powerplant. The old nuclear reactor powerplant was outdated and has some serious problems. I think its pretty important to move forward with the new Ford class which gets delivered first one 2015. Maybe though as we get the new ones we could go from having an 11 carrier fleet to a more modern 9 or 10 carrier fleet. But really the money is in staffing them. 250 million a yr to run a carrier. They have a 50 yr lifespan so just saying have 1 less actually is a big deal over 50 yrs.

f-35? I guess we could order less of them but we have to have them.

Really the biggest saving on the military would have to come be cutting troops. I like the idea of young people being able to join the military. Not sure i want it cut the amount it would take to save any real money. Tell me how many troops do you want to say go find a new job?

The point on the green energy is that Obama wasted a ton of money and its not smart to do that. Solar is a loser. Here in Calif we have a stupid mandate to get 20% from solar. All it has done is raise rates through the roof. Forcing this stuff is stupid. Having a strong military isn't.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 12:56 AM   #7
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,890
Default

so we throw away according to you 10x 132 million each day. Wouldnt that be over 1 billion a day? So we are throwing about over 365 billion a yr on the military we dont need. Im no math guy but those numbers seem a bit odd to me Fed.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 12:57 AM   #8
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,890
Default

I know we have some waste but i doubt its that much lol. We did spend 1000 on a hammer once or something like that. lol.

I think a better way to stop the runaway military spending is cap there increases. That way we slowly reign it in instead of handing 50 thousand young men and women a pink slip and having them hit the unemployment line.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 01:10 AM   #9
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
so we throw away according to you 10x 132 million each day. Wouldnt that be over 1 billion a day? So we are throwing about over 365 billion a yr on the military we dont need. Im no math guy but those numbers seem a bit odd to me Fed.
As I've pointed out many times before. We're curently spending around $350bn a year (inflation adjusted) more on military than we were in 2000. This is where the 10x comment comes from.

What has that done for us?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 01:12 AM   #10
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I know we have some waste but i doubt its that much lol. We did spend 1000 on a hammer once or something like that. lol.

I think a better way to stop the runaway military spending is cap there increases. That way we slowly reign it in instead of handing 50 thousand young men and women a pink slip and having them hit the unemployment line.
Hey, after several dozen times of me saying this is looking like you are finally catching on!

Of course, it's hilarious that _now_ cuts to future spending are "real" cuts for you.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 12:12 PM   #11
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,890
Default

Whats funny to me is you don't see lawmakers on the dem side crying we need tons of defense cuts. In fact one of the biggest ticket items, the stealth destoryer was re-instated after Bush and Cheney cut it citing cost. Hmmm i bet those liberal politicians in maine had something to do with it. Thats why cutting military so hard. Both sides have their hand in the kitty. Also if you start cutting troops it will get political for Obama. Do you cut the bases in red states, or blue states? it matters because you close a base and a town usually goes with it.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 12:13 PM   #12
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,890
Default

Fed also you need to realize that 10 yrs ago China didn't have their own advanced fighter being built or an aircraft carrier development program. They are spending by some accounts 10 times more on the military then they report. Don't think for a second they can't catch us in another 10 yrs.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 12:17 PM   #13
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Fed also you need to realize that 10 yrs ago China didn't have their own advanced fighter being built or an aircraft carrier development program. They are spending by some accounts 10 times more on the military then they report. Don't think for a second they can't catch us in another 10 yrs.
Bull****.

They got a retread USSR boat that they mangled into an "aircraft carrier" that they have no experience in properly using. We've got decades of experience in carrier tactics that will take China decades to learn.

What is it with you right-wingers and your desperate desire for an enemy? Too much reading of Clancy thinking it's non-fiction or what?
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 12:30 PM   #14
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Bull****.

They got a retread USSR boat that they mangled into an "aircraft carrier" that they have no experience in properly using. We've got decades of experience in carrier tactics that will take China decades to learn.

What is it with you right-wingers and your desperate desire for an enemy? Too much reading of Clancy thinking it's non-fiction or what?
We use an 11 carrier strategy. How far would you reduce that down? Carriers have a 50 yr lifespan, cost 225 million a yr to run, have what 5000 troops on them? and the newest design, the Ford class gets delivered in 2015. Then we are supposed to get another one every 7yrs i think it is as we retire the old one. I believe we have one retiring very soon though i dont know the name.

So China needs at least another 2-3 yrs just to trian enough pilots to land on a real carrier. When they finally get it down, practicing with their Russian POS, it will probably be close to 7 yrs from now. So yes a ways away. But once they do learn they could churn out 2-3-4 carriers 15 yrs from now. Maybe 20.

Carriers take a long time to build and if we don't keep building them you lose the shipyards ability to build them. They dont just sit there tooled up waiting for the govt to say ok build another one.

i believe in the 11 carrier strategy, but i would agree since we are broke it could be paired down to a 10 carrier strategy.

China is lame now but working hard and spending billions to catch us. Russia hates us again and can't be trusted. People get complacent and think the world could never have a huge war again but your wrong. Eventually when resources dry up the superpowers are going to tangle all over the world.

Thats why we are building 3 of the zumwalt class destoryers. They can fire rocket propelled artilliary 500 miles. 1000 pound shells 500 miles. Think about that for a second. That is built for one reason, to control the sea around Thialand, phillipines, japan etc.

Don't kid yourself we go at it with China. Having the biggest military is expensive but we need it. The reason we havent had big wars is because we are so much more powerful countries fear our reprisals. Like I said you don't hear Obama talking about military cuts being so important. ITS TAXES TAXES ALWAYS TAXES.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 12:31 PM   #15
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,890
Default

Funny how i say aircraft carrier development, which is 100% accurate and not a flamboyant remark. But the response is BS BS BS. Even when people make measured comments the liberals on the board scream fire.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 01:24 PM   #16
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
We use an 11 carrier strategy. How far would you reduce that down?
5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown
Don't kid yourself we go at it with China. Having the biggest military is expensive but we need it. The reason we havent had big wars is because we are so much more powerful countries fear our reprisals.
Boy, are you stupid.

It's your thinking, and the demand for a global imperial military, that will bankrupt us without the Chinese, or anyone else, having to fire a single shot.

Do you even ****ing get that?

PS - Is your dick 2" long and you're trying to compensate, or what?
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 01:34 PM   #17
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Carriers today are able to hit 9 times as many targets as they were only 10 years ago. Our carriers today are equal to 100 carriers from just a short time ago.

Sestak is right. Our military spending needs to be cut, and deep. Not just because we need to balance the budget, but because there is simply not a need for so large a military anymore, particularly on the quantitative side.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 01:40 PM   #18
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,890
Default

I like to debate in the real world. You all know that not Congress or the White House would want a 5 carrier strategy. So....Your right we might as well just insult each other.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 01:59 PM   #19
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
5.



Boy, are you stupid.

It's your thinking, and the demand for a global imperial military, that will bankrupt us without the Chinese, or anyone else, having to fire a single shot.

Do you even ****ing get that?

PS - Is your dick 2" long and you're trying to compensate, or what?

Reducing to 5 CVNs means the United States would have ONE CVN to provide world wide coverage at any given time. There is a maintenance & training life cycle that CVN and submarines and their crews go through that bring a number of ssets off line at any given time and make them ineligible for tasking. In reality to meet all the current missions and taskings there should between 12 and 14 carriers and between 15 to 20 air wings.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 02:07 PM   #20
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
Reducing to 5 CVNs means the United States would have ONE CVN to provide world wide coverage at any given time. There is a maintenance & training life cycle that CVN and submarines and their crews go through that bring a number of ssets off line at any given time and make them ineligible for tasking. In reality to meet all the current missions and taskings there should between 12 and 14 carriers and between 15 to 20 air wings.
Which is why even saying maybe we could stretch them thin and go with 10 is IMO reasonable. Whats funnier is the shipyard on the east coast are in liberal areas, i doubt they want them closed down.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 02:07 PM   #21
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
Reducing to 5 CVNs means the United States would have ONE CVN to provide world wide coverage at any given time. There is a maintenance & training life cycle that CVN and submarines and their crews go through that bring a number of ssets off line at any given time and make them ineligible for tasking. In reality to meet all the current missions and taskings there should between 12 and 14 carriers and between 15 to 20 air wings.
So reduce the current missions and "taskings" so that 5 suffices.

We can't afford to be a global imperial power any more.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 02:25 PM   #22
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Fed also you need to realize that 10 yrs ago China didn't have their own advanced fighter being built or an aircraft carrier development program. They are spending by some accounts 10 times more on the military then they report. Don't think for a second they can't catch us in another 10 yrs.
Considering most of their defense related company's are state owned even less Is really reported.

Something that we have to do is keep the sea lanes open for those cheap mports everyone has to have.
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 02:32 PM   #23
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Funny how i say aircraft carrier development, which is 100% accurate and not a flamboyant remark. But the response is BS BS BS. Even when people make measured comments the liberals on the board scream fire.
Most of the assclowns have never been in the military and do not have a clue on what is required to keep them operational. Nor the manning of such.

I suspect their " REAL" knowledge of the military is from their commie professors in college.

Which explains all of the stupidity.

Last edited by lonestar; 12-12-2012 at 03:32 PM..
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 02:35 PM   #24
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
5.



Boy, are you stupid.

It's your thinking, and the demand for a global imperial military, that will bankrupt us without the Chinese, or anyone else, having to fire a single shot.

Do you even ****ing get that?

PS - Is your dick 2" long and you're trying to compensate, or what?
Wild A ss Guess is making funnies again.

As for the dick remark. I have heard it takes one to know about!!!

Last edited by lonestar; 12-12-2012 at 03:33 PM..
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 02:45 PM   #25
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
Most of the ass clowns have never been in the military and do not have a clue on what is required to keep them operational. Nor the manning of such.

I suspect their " REAL" knowledge of the military is from their commie professors in college.

Which explains all of the stupidity.
What good is a military that drives the economy that supports it into the ground because of its exorbitant cost?

For example, the F-35 JSF:

Quote:
The jets would cost taxpayers $396 billion, including research and development, if the Pentagon sticks to its plan to build 2,443 by the late 2030s. That would be nearly four times as much as any other weapons system and two-thirds of the $589 billion the United States has spent on the war in Afghanistan. The military is also desperately trying to figure out how to reduce the long-term costs of operating the planes, now projected at $1.1 trillion.
WTF?!?
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:19 AM.


Denver Broncos