Posted on 05/13/2005 6:29:41 AM PDT by SLB
Spearfish is beautiful, but a bit more expensive than some other areas in the Hills. Hill City, Custer, anywhere south of Rapid City should also be on their list of prospects. No state income tax, solid conservative people (read renegades and reprobates) around here. As an Air Force Brat, I've lived all over this wonderful country (and a few places outside of it). I would live nowhere else.
Stupid, very stupid move.
Like you say, that whole area is beautiful. I, myself, particularly like the Custer area.
It would be cost effective to build submarines and ships in no more than two shipyards. The BRAC committee is probably well-aware of the need for Newport News Naval Shipyard. I have a cousin who works at the NN shipyard, and he part of the team of shipbuilders that built the USS Ronald Reagan.
In the mid-90s they closed Mather AFB (navigator training base), Sacramento Army Depot (electronic gadget maintenance) and McClellan AFB (major maintenance of F-111 and A-10 aircraft and satellite programs). The closest remaining bases include Beale AFB (used to be for SR-71 spy planes & I have no idea what they do now that those were mothballed, but I don't believe Beale was on the Closure List...unemployment is large around Beale & closure would probably set the area back to Third World status.); and Travis AFB (major laucnching base to Asia). Any further west & you're in Oakland (which long ago proclaimed itself a "Nuclear-Free Zone" & Navy carriers & subs quietly retreated...to Seattle, I believe).
No, Sacramento County is doing just fine without any military presence, as near as I can tell. It's pretty well recovered from the shocks of Clinton's closures in the mid-90s. KFBK is usually pretty reliable, so...I dunno.
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Maine
I know how you feel. I lost my defense contractor job back in '94. Had to move to Utah to find work. Doing very well now but it was a tough seven months looking for work.
It's a lot tougher to take a base off the list than in the past. Under the old rules, only five of nine commissioners had to vote to remove a base. Now, it takes seven of nine to remove a base once it's on the list.
As you know, the president or congress cannot remove a base from the list. They must either take the list in whole or reject the whole list. I doubt that will happen.
Still, the commission does add and subtract. It's the only way they can prove they are not a 'rubber stamp'.
They also have an HF (High Frequency Radio) Receiving Site. More or less they are a communications installation.
Good to here you were able to relocate and recover. I am actually one of the lucky ones if this closure does happen, I have a very specialized job Coputer Security Certification) and my company has a lot of other contracts that I can be moved to. My biggest worry is for numerous friends and co-workers who will have no choice but to begin searching for new jobs and relocate.
Well, I guess you have to suffer through one in order to understand what it does to every one involved.
Groton? I thought the sub base was in New London, up the Thames. Portsmouth Me.? They're shutting down the Navy Brig? Must be Hillary's idea.
If your specialty is computer security, you might seriously consider relocation to Huntsville. Redstone Arsenal uses a lot of those kind of guys and we'll be adding a few thousand jobs. I know some networking kind of guys. Let me know if I can help.
Huntsville is a good place to work. I've only moved there three times. I did move to Utah in '95 but was able to swing a transfer back in '96. I love the place.
This is key. Like I said up thread, just because a base is in the crosshairs for closure now, does not make it a done deal. The BRAC committee still has to take the time tour each facility, and in the end, the military decisions get shifted into the political realm and Lord knows what will happen because Congresscritters will lobby like hell to keep a base open in their voting districts.
If Prescott Bush was still alive, and heard that his grandkid had designs on closing Groton, he'd beat the living hell out of him.
Who are the california [filth] pushing to have the Submariner's School & all the Naval Underwater Systems divisions moved to the west coast?
You did not check the facts.
1962, Defense spending was 50.111 billion out of 106.821 total spending, which is 46.91 % of total spending devoted to Defense.
Golly, that looks like the territory the chart shows.
In 2004, Defense spending is 437.116 billion out of total spending of 2,292.215 billion (2.292 trillion). That is just 19.07% of total spending devoted to Defense.
Golly, that looks like the territory the chart shows.
The new budget was released a short time ago. I have seen this chart for about a year, so it used the 2005 budget probably, not the 2006 recently released budget, explaining the very slight difference.
The chart was accurate. I know, because about one year ago, somebody was crabbing about this same chart on a thread so I went to the actual OMB budget tables, crunched the numbers, and proved this person was truthful and accurate--the chart says it comes from OMB data and I verified that.
The FACT is, JFK spent about 47% of all Fed spending on Defense. The FACT is Bush is spending less than 20% on Defense. The point is that B4Ranch was making that Defense is getting to be a smaller and smaller percent of all Fed spending, and this chart accurately portrays that.
It is no secret that social welfare cost is exploding out of control--that is where the money is going.
You said the most ludicrous thing: "The second manipulation is looking at defense expenditures as a percentage of total outlays. This is a completely meaningless figure.
You lack math skills.
Spendng has gone from the millions to the billion to the trillions, much related to inflation, in addition to an explosive growth of government, and thus spending. However, the TOTAL SPENDING HAS ALWAYS EQUALED 100%!!!
You can't change that math rule--the total WILL ALWAYS EQUAL 100%!!! The percentage spent in each category is the BEST and should be the only way to look at spending trends when comparing one era to another era. RAW DOLLARS MEANS NOTHING!
Why do you fail to see such a basic math concept? Just how poor are your math skills? Do we need to make a call for all math professors that are FR members to explain to you that the percentage of total normalizes numbers from period to period? That raw dollars spent is affected by inflation? That percentages is the ONLY way to look at spending? It is very hard to discuss an issue when the most basic concepts are not digestible by some members.
There are many other writers out there who have noted the same thing--Defense spending is shrinking in REAL dollar terms over the last four decades. It is clear form the chart. It is clear from crunching nuymbers. It is clear from any who follow government budgeting and spending patterns and historical data.
You may have an opinion, but MATH DOES NOT. Math is fact. Math is the truth. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I do not deny the numbers on the graph. Any fool can read the graph. I just said the information was presented in a manipulative way.
Can you give me any reason why the proportion of federal spending that goes to defense is a more relevant figure than a direct reporting of the amount spent on defense, in inflation corrected dollars?
I have. Two, in fact. The hospital where my first son was born stands in a field of weeds at a closed (or, more properly "re-aligned") base now. Still, our national security is more important than jobs in a few congressional districts.
You contradict yourself.
Your last four words--"in inflation corrected dollars"-- is exactly what using percentage of total spending does. That method incorporates a built-in inflation adjustment.
Example--when JFK was spending about 47 cents of every dollar on Defense, and if Nixon had spent about 47 cents of every dollar on Defense, and if Bush was now spending about 47 cents of every dollar on Defense, it would mean that Defense spending neither shrunk nor grew (IN REAL DOLLARS) in all those years since the percent--47%--stayed the same.
Your achilles heel is that you can't seem to understand that using percentage of total spending is the BEST and should be the ONLY way of comparing era to era since the "total pie" is always 100%.
Using raw dollars is meaningless, since today's budget is in the trillions and during JFK's time it was in the billions.
It is not just in the U.S. budget that percentages are used. In most areas of science, it is the ONLY measurement used for trend states.
Take the stock market as another example. It is meaningless to compare changes in the Dow, the SP 500 or any index to the actual index number years ago. The Dow is over 10,000 now. At one time, the Dow was less than 100. Comparing the actual number means nothing, but comparing the PERCENTAGE CHANGE from one period to another is as meaningful and useful today as it is comparing percentage changes of 50 years ago, because using percents normalizes the numbers.
Again, the is Basic Math Concepts 101. You are 100% wrong in your criticism since you are trying to change math proofs--MATH has no opinion. Math tells it straight and true. Your opinion can never change math realities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.