re: Political cartoon about eliminating funding for the National Endowment for the Arts

quote:

---

Id like you to explain this statement.

---

It's extremely wasteful spending. US Navy Captain Henry Hendrix estimated that China could build 1,227 DF-21D missiles for every carrier the United States builds going forward.

quote:

---

While the United States does not know the cost of this weapons system, some analysts have estimated its procurement costs at $5 million to $11 million.22 Assuming the conservative, high-end estimate of $11 million per missile gives an exchange ratio of $11 million to $13.5 billion, which means that China could build 1,227 DF-21Ds for every carrier the United States builds going forward. U.S. defenses would have to destroy every missile &red, a tough problem given the magazines of U.S. cruisers and destroyers, while China would need only one of its weapons to survive to e!ect a mission kill. Although U.S. Navy and Air Force leaders have coordinated their efforts to develop the means to operate in an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environment by disrupting opposing operations,23 the risk of a carrier suffering a mission kill that takes it of the battle line without actually sinking it remains high.

---

LINK

Furthermore, the USS Gerald Ford is not even ready for combat and is at least two years behind schedule even though the aircraft carrier was expected to be completed by this past September. LINK

The USS Gerald Ford is also $2.5 billion over budget and the next aircraft carrier that is being built called USS John F. Kennedy is running five years late. Oh and it's also vulnerable to attack. The carriers could easily be taken out of commission with a warhead.

quote:

---

Roger Thompson, a defense analyst and professor at Kyung Hee University in South Korea, says the array of powerful anti-ship weapons developed in recent years by potential U.S. enemies, including China, Russia and Iran, increase carriers' vulnerability.

The new weapons include land-based ballistic missiles, such as China's Dong Feng-21 anti-ship missile, which has a claimed range of 1,100 miles (1,770 kilometers) and moves at 10 times the speed of sound. Certain Russian and Chinese submarines can fire salvoes of precision-guided cruise missiles from afar, potentially overwhelming carrier-fleet anti-missile defense.

Russia, China, Iran and other countries also have so-called super-cavitating torpedoes. These form an air bubble in front of them, enabling them to travel at hundreds of miles per hour. The torpedoes cannot be guided, but if aimed straight at a ship they are difficult to avoid.

Critics, including former senior Defense Department personnel, say Washington has put too much of the country's defense budget into a handful of expensive, vulnerable carriers.

At a naval symposium in 2010, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called into question making such big investments in a few increasingly sinkable ships. Gates said "a Ford-class carrier plus its full complement of the latest aircraft would represent potentially $15 billion to $20 billion worth of hardware at risk."

The ship's builder, Huntington Ingalls Industries, launched the Ford more than three years ago, but the Navy has yet to commission it and put it into service because of severe flaws. Many of its new high-tech systems failed to work, including such basic ones as the "arresting gear" that catches and stops landing jets.

The Navy says the ship will be commissioned sometime this year. But the criticism has continued.

In a written statement in July, John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, noted the cost overruns and cited a list of crucial malfunctioning systems that remained unfixed. "The Ford-class program is a case study in why our acquisition system must be reformed," McCain wrote.

Ray Mabus, who in January stepped down as secretary of the Navy, said in an interview that the Gerald R. Ford "is a poster child for how not to build a ship." He added: "Everything that could have been done wrong was done wrong."

---

LINK

quote:

---

You damn skippy my friend....If I don't do it there are thousands lined up around the corner to take my place.

---

So you support greed and waste, because if you don't do it somebody else will? Wow.

quote:

---

Why is it hypocritical though? I never pretended to be above the fray....hell I am neck deep in it and loving it....just like Haliburton and Raytheon and Blackwater and a host of others....I am not taking the moral high ground...just the opposite....I am in a fairly unique position to know from which I speak....

---

Then why are you against military spending? I mean, if you are not taking the moral high ground and all. You want to wallow in your greed and you are one of the reasons funding of the arts is going away, according to you. Don't complain about Trump stopping funding when you are the reason the funding is stopping.

Love English humor.

quote:

---

So let's get this straight...you want the military to support themselves, but you want the arts to be supported by taxes.

---

Nooooo....I want Germany to be self sufficient...along with the rest of the world....

quote:

---

It seems a bit hypocritical, though, don't you think? Shouldn't you be setting the example for the rest of us? You know, refusing the money that is being wasted? Or do you only give lip service to your ideals?

---

Another one missing the actual meaning of the word hypocrisy....there is no moral superiority in recognizing reality my friend....would you accuse a welfare recipient of being a hypocrite if they suggested we spend less on welfare? I would think that person would be a saint on these boards.....

I don't think that he will be able to do that.

quote:

---

No, the majority of your money provides the citizens of the world with "free" health care and unlimited sick leave from work and 6 weeks paid vacation a year and 24 months of paid maternity leave etc etc etc....

---

And i thought you said we were funding the arts.

I've said it once and I will say it again...most conservatives would have no problem with us stopping foreign aid to a large degree. Trump seems to be headed in this direction, too, however, I will give him more than 2 1/2 months before I praise or condemn him for the progress.

However, his budget, (The one that cuts funding to the NEA) also calls for cuts to foreign aid, so that surely makes you feel better, right?

LINK

quote:

---

Hypocrites rarely recognize their own hypocrisy. You are no exception.

---

So that is a solid affirtmation that you do not fully possess the meaning of the word.


Would you call WalMart a hypcrite for saying their jeans cost too much and advocating for a lower price?

quote:

---

Not in South Korea where our increase in military spending will free up even more money for the SK's to spend on the arts....

---

Again...Trump's budget calls for spending cuts in foreign aid. I gave you the link. I even gave you a link from a radical news organization. Al Jazeera and the UN is alarmed that Trump wants to cut their budgets.

quote:

---

Would you call WalMart a hypcrite for saying their jeans cost too much and advocating for a lower price?

---

If WalMart continues to take money at that higher price, then yes, I would call WalMart a hypocrite.

Okay dropping in again. Just wanted to point out that proving hypocrisy in your opponent doesn't actually make an argument for why a thing should exist. If we couldn't make any decisions because someone who holds one of the opinions is a hypocrite then we'd never make any decisions