https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us...cid=spartandhp
The authors don't say it but the dissolution of the US 7th Fleet goes back directly to Obama and his policies. Almost all of the current commanders were placed in the Obama era and all of them worked their way up the ranks during the Obama era where they got their training. Those are those political officers who toe the line on gays, trans, and illegals in the military. More to do with what they will accept that how they are at their jobs.
With the exception of Boatswain Mates, it takes over a year before a sailor is ready to perform his or her duties. They still won't be proficient for another year.
Ships, lets talk about ships. The Gerald Ford CVN-78 hit the water this year. The John F. Kennedy (can you name a ship after a womanizer this year?) CVN-79 is looking to hit the water in 2022. Both these ships were authorized in the Bush era. Other ships after these are becoming problematic as far as funding and strategy. Of course with a six to seven year lead time this is more about jobs than national security. We have only facility in the entire country that can build an aircraft carrier. Don't worry, we still have facilities to change male sailors into female sailors. Plenty of room for that. Thank you Obama.
- the_real_Barleycorn
- 11-23-2017, 09:59 AM
- LexusLover
- 11-23-2017, 10:02 AM
Does that provide at least some explanation for the series of collisions?
And I'm not referring to gender "re-assignments"!
Personnel "re-assignments"!
And I'm not referring to gender "re-assignments"!
Personnel "re-assignments"!
- dilbert firestorm
- 11-23-2017, 11:08 AM
issue here is improper or poor training.
its all about maintaining the important basics of seamanship. apparently this got thrown out during the Obama era.
its all about maintaining the important basics of seamanship. apparently this got thrown out during the Obama era.
- LexusLover
- 11-23-2017, 11:28 AM
issue here is improper or poor training. Originally Posted by dilbert firestormYou left out another .... "inadequate"!
Part of the "training" is "practical." When budget cuts restrain activities, unfortunately "practical exercises" suffer, because of the extensive expense of the effort. And another factor is the display of "practicals" can create a sense in the World that the U.S. is preparing for a conflict and the last thing that wimp taking up space in the People's House for the past two terms wanted to do was give the impression the U.S. was militarily prepared.
Just ask WTF: He wants to disband the military.
- Yssup Rider
- 11-23-2017, 12:45 PM
Another fucking Lie.
CONGRATULATIONS LLIARMAN, ON BEING NAMED 2017 DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR!
CONGRATULATIONS LLIARMAN, ON BEING NAMED 2017 DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR!
- dilbert firestorm
- 11-23-2017, 06:03 PM
- Jackie S
- 11-23-2017, 07:08 PM
and why do you think LXL is lying? Originally Posted by dilbert firestormIt's a reflex response.
Just like every time someone tries to overhaul our insane tax code, the Dems chant in unison "tax break go the rich, tax break for the rich". Most don't even bother to read and understand the bills being proposed. Like "chatty Kathy", when the string is pulled, they all chant in unison.
And of course, the Main Stream Media feeds the frenzy.
It takes an astronomical amount of funding to keep a Navy such as ours up to snuff. This funding doesn't just include personnel. Ships just about start self destructing the instant they go into service. If not properly maintained, they can become derelict in short time.
- dilbert firestorm
- 11-23-2017, 07:25 PM
It's a reflex response.sounds like assup & dems have a bad case of the spamoids.
Just like every time someone tries to overhaul our insane tax code, the Dems chant in unison "tax break go the rich, tax break for the rich". Most don't even bother to read and understand the bills being proposed. Like "chatty Kathy", when the string is pulled, they all chant in unison.
And of course, the Main Stream Media feeds the frenzy.
It takes an astronomical amount of funding to keep a Navy such as ours up to snuff. This funding doesn't just include personnel. Ships just about start self destructing the instant they go into service. If not properly maintained, they can become derelict in short time. Originally Posted by Jackie S
- Munchmasterman
- 11-24-2017, 12:35 AM
Have you read the sennate bill?
Reflexes are developed in response to a reoccurring action.
In this case, it's the fact that the rich get by far, a much better deal in the tax breaks department.
"Tax Policy Center says it would raise taxes on half of Americans
Perhaps the most damning of the new reports came from the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center.
The nonpartisan group's analysis of the legislation found that while all income groups would get a tax cut from the bill in the short term and long term, many Americans would see their taxes increase. From the report:
In 2019: Americans, on average, would see their taxes cut by $1,300, an increase in take-home pay of 1.7%. Americans in the middle quintile of income earners —
People in the top 1% of incomes, more than $750,000 a year, would see a cut of $34,130, on average, and receive 17.6% of the bill's total benefit.
In 2027: The bill's proposed sunset of the individual tax cuts, combined with other changes to the code, means benefits would be substantially less for the middle class. The average cut for all Americans would be just $300, and 50.3% of American households would actually see their taxes increase by this point.
Those in the middle quintile of earners would see a tax cut of just $50, on average, and 65.6% of these people would see their taxes go up.
People in the top 1% of income earners, however, would still get a tax cut of $32,510, on average, and would receive 61.8% of the total tax benefits from the plan. Just 16.8% of people in the top 1% would see a tax increase."
Penn-Wharton budget model says the bill would blow a hole in the deficit
The final rough analysis for the legislation came from a new report from the University of Pennsylvania, using its Penn-Wharton Budget Model to assess the budgetary effects of the bill.
While Trump administration officials say the legislation would pay for itself, some Senate Republicans have been hesitant to support the bill over concerns that it would cause a massive increase in the federal debt.
The Penn model found that the bill would increase the federal deficit by $1.327 trillion over the first 10 years after it becomes law (not including debt-service costs). Even when factoring in the economic boost from the tax cuts, according to the report, the bill would still add $1.271 trillion in debt.
Either way, the model concludes that much like the House version of the bill, the Senate bill would not come close to paying for itself.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...s-text-2017-11
Reflexes are developed in response to a reoccurring action.
In this case, it's the fact that the rich get by far, a much better deal in the tax breaks department.
"Tax Policy Center says it would raise taxes on half of Americans
Perhaps the most damning of the new reports came from the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center.
The nonpartisan group's analysis of the legislation found that while all income groups would get a tax cut from the bill in the short term and long term, many Americans would see their taxes increase. From the report:
In 2019: Americans, on average, would see their taxes cut by $1,300, an increase in take-home pay of 1.7%. Americans in the middle quintile of income earners —
People in the top 1% of incomes, more than $750,000 a year, would see a cut of $34,130, on average, and receive 17.6% of the bill's total benefit.
In 2027: The bill's proposed sunset of the individual tax cuts, combined with other changes to the code, means benefits would be substantially less for the middle class. The average cut for all Americans would be just $300, and 50.3% of American households would actually see their taxes increase by this point.
Those in the middle quintile of earners would see a tax cut of just $50, on average, and 65.6% of these people would see their taxes go up.
People in the top 1% of income earners, however, would still get a tax cut of $32,510, on average, and would receive 61.8% of the total tax benefits from the plan. Just 16.8% of people in the top 1% would see a tax increase."
Penn-Wharton budget model says the bill would blow a hole in the deficit
The final rough analysis for the legislation came from a new report from the University of Pennsylvania, using its Penn-Wharton Budget Model to assess the budgetary effects of the bill.
While Trump administration officials say the legislation would pay for itself, some Senate Republicans have been hesitant to support the bill over concerns that it would cause a massive increase in the federal debt.
The Penn model found that the bill would increase the federal deficit by $1.327 trillion over the first 10 years after it becomes law (not including debt-service costs). Even when factoring in the economic boost from the tax cuts, according to the report, the bill would still add $1.271 trillion in debt.
Either way, the model concludes that much like the House version of the bill, the Senate bill would not come close to paying for itself.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...s-text-2017-11
It's a reflex response.
Just like every time someone tries to overhaul our insane tax code, the Dems chant in unison "tax break go the rich, tax break for the rich". Most don't even bother to read and understand the bills being proposed. Like "chatty Kathy", when the string is pulled, they all chant in unison.
And of course, the Main Stream Media feeds the frenzy.Feeds the frenzy of informing people what is in the bill? Are you saying the information provided by Business Insider is incorrect?
It takes an astronomical amount of funding to keep a Navy such as ours up to snuff. This funding doesn't just include personnel. Ships just about start self destructing the instant they go into service. If not properly maintained, they can become derelict in short time. Originally Posted by Jackie S
- LexusLover
- 11-24-2017, 04:18 AM
- the_real_Barleycorn
- 11-24-2017, 05:02 AM
You hear what Munchies is peddling. Some guy offers to let you keep more of your money but he offers someone else the same opportunity to keep even more of his money. More than you. Munchies says fuck it to the whole deal because he can't get the same amount. I remember back in the early days of Bush, they had a bill that gave every taxpayer an equal bonus refund check. The libs didn't like that either. Said that since the rich won't notice 600 dollars why give it to them. You can win with these idiots.
- LexusLover
- 11-24-2017, 05:32 AM
You hear what Munchies is peddling. Originally Posted by the_real_BarleycornYea. "Rich people" can't shop at Walmart and pay 70 cents a pound for turkey, they have to shop at Kroger's and pay $1.50 a pound!
Munchie never has been good at math or equality!
It has been publicized that currently about 40% of the legal occupants of the United States pay NO TAXES and he's whining because under the current "SENNATE BILL" (sic) they won't get a "tax cut"!
Or "looking" at it another way ... if everyone gets a 10% tax cut across the board 10% of NOTHING = NOTHING~! So he whines!
Apparently, Munchie (and AssUp) have been enjoying that "head of household" SUPPLEMENT annually and they consider that "having to pay more taxes" because they no longer will be getting their SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME FROM THE OTHER TAXPAYERS WHO DO PAY TAXES!
- EXTXOILMAN
- 11-24-2017, 07:24 AM
- LexusLover
- 11-24-2017, 07:57 AM
Fuck you, Assup. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMANNo one wants to "fuck" AssUp ... he can't even get ..
.. that's why he's so "angry" all the time.
But his little "you're a liar" dialogue does remind me of the grade school playground responses to just about everything said!
I'm sure that works wonders every day at the Travis County Courthouse ... and it wins cases all the time in Austin! Typical Austinite bullshit!
- bamscram
- 11-24-2017, 09:19 AM
