We can't refuel an aircraft carrier?

The navy has announced that it will delay refueling the USS Abraham Lincoln because of budget concerns. Note that, not budget short falls but budget concerns. This comes a day after it was announced the delay of the deployment of the USS Harry S. Truman to the Persian Gulf which cuts our military might in half. A couple of cruise missiles strikes and we have no air support.

http://news.usni.org/2013/02/08/navy...rier-readiness

Here is my quandry; we are scheduled to spend more this year than last year but we are having money problems in the military (recall my post earlier this week where Leon Pantyliner is talking about cutting military pay). We are spending more and we can't deploy a carrier to a trouble site. We are spending more and we can't refuel a carrier which puts it out of commission. We are spending more and Obama apparently wants to "balance" his budget on the backs of the men and women wearing the uniform of this country. Of course, he has no budget and he cares nothing about balancing anything.

http://articles.dailypress.com/2013-...nt-budget-bill

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/20...-for-military/

Defense of this country is the FIRST, MOST IMPORTANT responsibility of this government especially the CIC Obama. He is failing in an epic fashion. He has allowed Americans to be killed through inaction. He has violated the law, he has violated his oath of office, he has lied (BIIIGGGG Lies) to the American people, he has allowed sensitive technology to be transferred to China, he has the mentality of a foreigner regardless if he was born in Hawaii or not.

Air force spent all the funds. One billion on a computer system that they are scrapping.

I guess they will not accept our credit card over in the Persian gulf.

Cutting essential spending instead of cutting wasteful spending is a political tactic. It makes it look like all government spending is necessary; the liberals want people to think if we cut a penny, we immediately suffer.

There is enormous waste in the four trillion dollar federal budget. To say that controlling spending is going to require that we must compromise national security is nonsense. When it comes to reducing spending, liberals never cut fat; they always cut muscle and bone. They don't fire administrators and eliminate redundant programs, they fire teachers, cops and firemen.

Aren't aircraft carriers run on nuclear power?

Yes the USS Abraham Lincoln is nuclear powered. I guess "delaying the refueling" could mean uranium or diesel used for generators.

If they ran on bullshit it would be easy to refuel them.

The navy has announced that it will delay refueling the USS Abraham Lincoln because of budget concerns. Note that, not budget short falls but budget concerns. This comes a day after it was announced the delay of the deployment of the USS Harry S. Truman to the Persian Gulf which cuts our military might in half. A couple of cruise missiles strikes and we have no air support.

http://news.usni.org/2013/02/08/navy...rier-readiness

Here is my quandry; we are scheduled to spend more this year than last year but we are having money problems in the military (recall my post earlier this week where Leon Pantyliner is talking about cutting military pay). We are spending more and we can't deploy a carrier to a trouble site. We are spending more and we can't refuel a carrier which puts it out of commission. We are spending more and Obama apparently wants to "balance" his budget on the backs of the men and women wearing the uniform of this country. Of course, he has no budget and he cares nothing about balancing anything.

http://articles.dailypress.com/2013-...nt-budget-bill

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/20...-for-military/

Defense of this country is the FIRST, MOST IMPORTANT responsibility of this government especially the CIC Obama. He is failing in an epic fashion. He has allowed Americans to be killed through inaction. He has violated the law, he has violated his oath of office, he has lied (BIIIGGGG Lies) to the American people, he has allowed sensitive technology to be transferred to China, he has the mentality of a foreigner regardless if he was born in Hawaii or not. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

That's all bullshit mind games for the LIV's out there. The administration puts this crap out and the complicit press propogates it to the masses. Nothing more than scare tactics to give the libtards traction on budget issues.

If they ran on bullshit it would be easy to refuel them. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Then send them some of yours, you've got more than your "fair share"...

I could be wrong, but I believe that the only petro - fuel on a carrier is for the aircraft. ALL the rest of the power on board a nuke boat comes from the power of ther reactors. Hopefully no one in the Persian Gulf would have fuel for one of our carriers.

How is having one more aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf defending the United States? It's keeping the price of oil low, perhaps, but not defending out country. Perhaps the U.S. petroleum industry should pay to have it refueled.

Perhaps the U.S. petroleum industry should pay to have it refueled. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

And who would repay the U.S. petroleum industry?

Here is my quandry; we are scheduled to spend more this year than last year but we are having money problems in the military (recall my post earlier this week where Leon Pantyliner is talking about cutting military pay). We are spending more and we can't deploy a carrier to a trouble site. We are spending more and we can't refuel a carrier which puts it out of commission. We are spending more and Obama apparently wants to "balance" his budget on the backs of the men and women wearing the uniform of this country. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

This is why I do not understand all of the crisis type of comments on the sequester issue. If we are still spending as much as we did last year where is the problem. Will they have to budget better and work on eliminating waste? Of course. But how is that a bad thing? The key is that the cuts are reductions of increases and not real cuts. The entire federal government should have no increases for a few years.

Then send them some of yours, you've got more than your "fair share"... Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

You first.

Why the concern about the sequester? (by the way, aircraft carriers run on nuclear power and a "refueling" takes a long time) Imagine your household budget. Lets go with $100,000 of annual income but the family spends $130,000-$150,000 every year. They have also signed a number of documents obligating them to paying for cars, boats, the main house, the vacation house, college educations, charitable donations, etc but the family owes people over $2,000,000 that they don't have. The ratio is much higher but lets not get into numbers that people can't understand. The father (Obama) puts it to the mother (Congress) that they spend way too much and he thinks she should ask for a raise at her job. She replies that she could only expect to get another $2,000 (taxes on the rich) a year and if they stop going out every Friday for movies (green energy) then they would save over $2,000 a year. If the father would stop going out at the end of everyday for happy hour (union/crony paybacks) they could save another $2,000. If the family stopped buying new shoes for the kids every month (pet pork projects) the could save $3,000 for the year. In fact, the mother says that we should scale back their spending to what it was 12 years ago when the father said things were good. Instead the father says that he will start withholding payments for car insurance and homeowners insurance (not like we ever use them). The father says that we should have the dogs put to sleep to save money on food (the military) but he refuses to give up his happy hour and the fun weekends.

There is so much waste in our budget (if they actually had a budget) that they could save over a trillion dollars over ten years (why do we use ten years as a marker? Oh, yeah, Obama speak) and the government would barely notice it. But the typical democratic fear tactic used by city, state, and federal democrats has always been to threaten to cut something important unless they get a pay raise. Take our own Kansas City. The mayor wanted a tax increase so what did she do (Kay Waldo Barnes)? She said that unless she got the increase she would have to furlough police officers and firemen while still spending money of art projects for the airport and renovationg her office for over a million dollars. The firemen were her biggest supporters and she would never screw them over (she got them a 13% pay raise) but the local media carried her message to the public supported by the city council (100% democrat). It was an off year election so turnout was less than 15% and taxes went up. Fear and lies! The weapons of the liberals.


In case you were wondering; an overhaul of a carrier is almost 3 years and that is when refueling takes place. The side of the ship has to be opened up and several decks cut out.