USS Ronald Reagan Commissioning Tomorrow 1831
wessman writes "Being an employee at Northrop Grumman's Newport News shipyard, I cannot help but be proud to see one of our products commissioned by the U.S. Navy, especially considering how long it takes to build a $5 billion Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. And I'm sure the other 18,000 workers here feel the same way. The ship is being commissioned Saturday, July 12 at the Norfolk naval base. It is obviously the most technically advanced carrier in the fleet, taking the term "hardware" to new levels. Pick a local story. From the Hampton Roads Daily Press: Anchors Aweigh, Changes Abound Aboard Carrier, Some Wanted CVN-76 Named after Daredevil Flier, 20,000 Expected for Reagan's Rite, USS Constellation Retiring Too Soon?. From the Virginia Pilot: The Carrier Reagan - Ahead of Its Class, Carrier Construction is All in the Family, Former President's Son Michael Reagan Excited about Commissioning."
How appropriate... (Score:3, Informative)
Ronald Reagan's pro-spending, pro-big-government, anti-labor policies are undoubtedly going to lead my beloved country to her death. But with our large military, at least we will make a hell of a lot of noise when everything finally collapses.
Re:One question. (Score:3, Informative)
Screenshots of Nimitzes (Score:4, Informative)
Pictures [fas.org]
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
Ugh. This stuff drives me crazy.
Crack a book. Congress does the budget. Maybe the phrase "Congressional Budget" rings a bell?
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Way too many articles (Score:3, Informative)
From your link:
Nimitz-class ships:
USS Nimitz (CVN 68), San Diego, Calif.
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), Newport News, Va.
USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), Bremerton, Wash.
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), Norfolk, Va.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), Everett, Wash.
USS George Washington (CVN 73), Norfolk, Va.
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), San Diego, Calif.
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), Norfolk, Va.
Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) (under construction)
George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) (under construction)
Enterprise, JFK, Kitty Hawk, and Constellation are of a different class. Right?
It doesn't "run" on any OS. (Score:5, Informative)
-ET2
Re:Bah. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Star Wars (Score:2, Informative)
Re:great... (Score:3, Informative)
Hi Res Pics from PCU (Score:3, Informative)
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 2 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 3 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 4 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 5 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 6 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 7 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 8 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 9 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 10 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 11 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 12 [navy.mil]
USS Reagan Carrier Pic 13 [navy.mil]
Re:Simply wrong (Score:2, Informative)
You've oversimplified the question... (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, mothballing old ships is standard Navy practice, just in case a big war causes them to need more ships. For example, in Gulf War I, many of the transportion ships used to move supplies to the Gulf were pulled out of mothballs.
Re:One question. (Score:2, Informative)
Rose Lawfirm was bad, but no one was indicted.
Number of Clinton officials indicted or convicted in Whitewater, Travel Office, FBI files, Monica Lewinsky, Bruce Babbit, Michael Espy investigations: 0 (none, zero, zip, nada)
(Asst. Attorney-General Webster Hubbell was convicted of embezzlement, a crime he committed before joining Clinton Administration.)
Number of Reagan appointees convicted (not just indicted, but actually convicted) during his time in office: 29!
Caspar Weinberger was indicted 5 times, but pardoned by his old boss.
Presence, cost, and Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cue... (Score:5, Informative)
U.S.S. Grace Hopper (Score:4, Informative)
Just a small ship in a big navy, but they are important to.
Re:more than meets the eye (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How appropriate... (Score:2, Informative)
Outlays:
Soc. security, Medicare, retirement, social programs, physical, human, community development: 64%
National Defense, Veterans, and foreign affairs: 18%
Interest on the debt: 10%
Law enforcement & general government: 2%
So... There you have it. 64% of the budget is spent on social programs and, no, that doesn't include interest on the debt or veteran's benefits.
And again, if 64% of the budget is social programs then saying that the past debt was incurred by military spending is less than honest. In reality, you can't say what caused the debt other than "total spending." And of that total spending social programs makes up 64%, so social programs have caused more debt than military spending.
Glad I could help.
Reagan didn't create deficit spending Congress did (Score:5, Informative)
On the issue of Reagan convincing Congress to increase spending you are demonstrably mistaken.
From Fiscal Year 1981 through Fiscal Year 1981, only once did the Reagan administration propose more spending than Congress approved; for the other eight years, Congress spent more money than Reagan proposed. Here are the actual figures Reagan proposed, and the actual amount Congress authorized (in billions of dollars):
FY1981 Reagan: $655.2 Congress: $678.2
FY1982 Reagan: $695.3 Congress: $745.8
FY1983 Reagan: $773.3 Congress: $808.4
FY1984 Reagan: $862.5 Congress: $851.8
FY1985 Reagan: $940.3 Congress: $946.4
FY1986 Reagan: $873.7 Congress: $990.3
FY1987 Reagan: $994.0 Congress: $1003.9
FY1988 Reagan: $1024.3 Congress: $1064.1
FY1989 Reagan: $1094.2 Congress: $1144.2
Note that the Democratic party controlled the House all eight years of Reagan's presidency, and the Senate the last two. Had it not been for excessive spending by Congress (which also increased the amount of "locked in" spending for each successive budget), the budget deficit would have disappeared by the end of Reagan's term.
Source: Edwin S. Rubenstein, The Right Data, P. 235.
Re:Stop with the flamebait political posts, michae (Score:3, Informative)
The whole goddamn story is actually a call for us to lust after spiffy new military hardware. Though the choice in naming is just one of an inordinate number of projects being named after our fortieth president. Some have called it "the Reaganization of America."
If you don't like Michael's stories, Slashdot has made it very easy to block stories on a per-editor basis. This was a great story, and the worst that can be said is that the "from the * department" comment was unnecessarily distracting. It wasn't even in poor taste.
Re: USS Jimmy Carter (Score:2, Informative)
BTW, the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN23) is the last of the Seawolf class submarine. I believe it is to be commissioned later this year.
Re:I second that (Score:1, Informative)
Of course, the British never had the werewithal to build them as big as we do.
The next generation carriers are supposed to get EM catapults, which are supposed to reduce the strain on launching aircraft (and their crews, although I don't suppose the bean counters care too much about them). The whole idea is that you get a much more constant and controlled acceleration compared to a steam system. Rummy is trying to push up their deployment to CVX-1 (it was originally scheduled for CVX-2).
I like Rummy, and I'd have thought most
Re:Way too many articles (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Informative)
The hostages were indeed taken under Carter, but the illegal unconstitutional deal that traded arms for hostages and used the revenue to fund the Contras (which Congress had repeatedly voted against) was 100% a Reagan/Bush Sr. affair.
And yes, they both knew.
Re:Reagan didn't create deficit spending Congress (Score:4, Informative)
2. The Carter figures are misleading because they are not inflation-adjusted dollars. After 1982, inflation was a very minor factor in increasing budgets and revenues, but during the hyperinflation of the Carter years they were a major factor. Subtract the rate of inflation from the Carter revenue increases and you're left with very little. (I would calculate the exact figure, but my Almanac doesn't go back that far, and I don't have a copy of Statistical Abstract of the United States handy.)
Re:Yes, but he *did* allow 90% of it (Score:3, Informative)
1, Your figures are demonstrable incorrect. By deficit I assume you mean "the National Debt," otherwise your figures are an order of magnitude too large. The National Debt in 1981 was $997.9 billion; in 1989 it was $2857.4 billion, not $4000 billion. (Source: The World Almanac and Book of Facts: 1999, p. 110.)
2. Go upthread and read my comments on the cumulative effect of baseline budgeting procedures. Almost every increase made by Congress gets passed down (and actually slightly increased for inflation and population growth) in each year of budget outlays. The cumulative effect is much larger than merely adding up the differences year to year.
3. I never said the difference was enough to erase the National Debt (though holding the line from Reagan's initial FY82 budget with only increases for inflation certainly would have by now), only the federal Budget Deficit by the end of Reagan's term.
3rd Wire! (Score:2, Informative)
G
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Informative)
Furthermore, the White House's own projections show that the debt, as a percentage of GDP, will be 67.6% by 2007, which is the highest rate since 1955. The 1955 debt was the tail end of the WWII debt, which was high from 1943 to 1955.
Gee, thank you Mr. Bush -- I love having the highest debt since the last World War...
None of these figures are secret -- they're all public data available in the President's budget (look at the 'historical tables').
Re:Bah. (Score:3, Informative)
The Reagan administration supported Mujahideen, the Afghani group that before its militarization was notable for throwing acid in the faces of women who did not wear veils. The Reagan administration supported Saddam, even as he was using chemical weapons. And (in Iran-Contra) was supporting Saddam's opponent, just to try to keep things bloodier for longer. That's just a short list of things that are particularly notable in light of recent events.
Okay, you can give Reagan the benefit of the doubt -- he was a fool and a figurehead for a bunch of immoral people. Or he was a immoral person himself.