(09-17-2021 09:51 AM)Danforth Wrote:  We all know that amnesty came from a compromise with the democrats. In fact, compromising with the democrats alone would disqualify him from the republican nomination. Thank you for making my point for me.

What say you about the fact that the democrats reneged on their side of the deal? Perhaps that has more to do with republican reluctance to compromise today than you are acknowledging.

And when the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%, that is not increasing taxes. The small changes in the other years were basically getting rid of exclusions and deductions (some would say loopholes) in order to keep tax revenues fairly constant. As such, they actually hit the "rich" harder than others. As someone who advocates lowering and flattening tax rates even more (15% would be my target) and eliminating all non-business exclusions and deductions, I don't have a problem with what was done--except calling it raising taxes.

Reagan said the compromised amnesty deal was the worst mistake he made according to his former chief of staff

https://twitter.com/Almansha/status/1438954136922361863

AMBASSADOR OF GOODWILL

Frogs ain't happy they are getting cut out of their sweetheart submarine deal.

France is that ally that loves you when they need you, but resents you the other 99% of the time.

They also sell arms to any old dictator with some extra cash laying around and a need to murder some of his citizens or neighbors.

It's like watching the two teams you hate most playing each other. You want both the Frogs and the Commiecrats to lose at the same time.

(09-17-2021 03:04 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Frogs ain't happy they are getting cut out of their sweetheart submarine deal.

France is that ally that loves you when they need you, but resents you the other 99% of the time.

They also sell arms to any old dictator with some extra cash laying around and a need to murder some of his citizens or neighbors.

It's like watching the two teams you hate most playing each other. You want both the Frogs and the Commiecrats to lose at the same time.

You've just described another well known nation I have heard of. The US shouldn't screw its allies if it wants to have any. Its position in the world is more precarious than it seems to believe.

I have kind of an idea that could be a win-win for everybody. France and Naval Group are angry to have lost a lucrative contract for 10 submarines. Australia needs 10 submarines because their Collins class are getting long in the tooth. The US Navy is going to be very short of submarines for most of the next two decades because there are only two shipyards, both on the east coast—GD/EB and HII—that can build nuke subs, and the Navy is decommissioning Los Angeles class subs quicker than they can build new ones. The Virginia class SSNs are now running a bit over $3B each, and CBO estimates the cost of the Virginia replacements as over $5B each, which pretty much prices us out of building the number of subs we need. Also, we are getting rid of the 4 Ohio class SSGNs—probably our best conventional attack platform—with no replacements until we complete the production runs for the new Columbia class SSBNs, which look like they will cost $9B each. The sub that the French company Naval Group had proposed for Australia was a conventional version of its Barracuda nuclear sub. Australia likes this concept because they have a significant bias against nuclear energy, but they need their subs to be able to make the long transit from Perth/Fremantle to the China Sea, and that requires longer legs than most conventional boats have. The Barracudas cost about $2B each, but the conventional version for Australia (Shortfin Barracudas) is turning out to be more expensive because it is proving more difficult than expected to convert the nuclear plant to an air independent propulsion (AIP) conventional plant.

So here’s kind of my outline for a solution for everyone:

1. USN stops decommissioning Los Angeles class subs before the end or their service lives, to slow the drawdown of USN sub numbers. This eases them over the short run problem.
2. The USN also enters into contracts with GD/EB and HII to build the 12 Columbia SSBNs ($9B/sub), 20 SSGNs based on the Ohio class (probably $5B/sub) rather than based on the far more expensive Columbia class, and 30 Virginia SSN’s with the VPM cruise missile package ($3B/sub). That contract should cover 30 years if the current rate of 2 subs/year (1 per yard) is maintained or could provide those subs in 20 years if the rate can be accelerated to 3/year.
3. USN and Naval Group enter into a contract for USN to buy 30 Barracudas, to be built at a shipyard that Naval Group will buy or build on the west coast. This is similar to the deal that Naval Group has made with Brazil for construction of the Raichuelo class subs. A 30-sub production run more than offsets the lost Australia sales and is enough to justify the expenditure for the facility. This gives the USN 12 SSBNs, 20 SSGNs, and 60 SSNs.
4. I also think the Navy could use another 30 AIP patrol submarines (SSKs) for use in littoral areas and choke points, to free the nuke boats for blue water missions. This submarine could also be the model for Australia, and with the longer USN production run tacked on, their costs couldbe very low. Candidates would include ThyssenKrupp (Germany) Type 212/214/216/218, Naval Group Scorpene, Kawasaki (Japan) Soryu, and Kockums (Sweden) A-26. I really like the A-26, but it may be too small for USN or Australian needs, the French MESMA system has not been well-received and is part of the problem with the boats that just got cancelled, and the Japanese are moving away from AIP to larger batteries. Also, Australia does not have a happy relationship with Naval Group after this deal or Kockums after the Collins boats had major issues, and they were not happy with the Japanese proposal for the last round. That leaves ThyssenKrupp, and the Type 216 is a larger sub designed to have longer range. So, I think we do a deal with ThyssenKrupp similar to the one with Naval Group, to buy or build a west coast shipyard to build 30 Type 216s for the USN, and Australia tags along, with their boats to be built in Adelaide.

If we do this, then the USN ends up with 12 SSBNs (nuclear strike platform), 20 SSGNs (primary conventional strike platform), 30 Virginia VPMs (ASW, ASuW, secondary conventional strike platform), 30 Barracudas (ASW, ASuW), and 30 AIP Type 216s (littoral and choke point control), plus two shipyards on the west coast that are badly needed to ease the future burden of maintenance backlogs that are currently being experienced. Australia ends up with 10+ Type 216s at a much cheaper price than 10 Shortfin Barracudas would have cost. Naval Group ends up with a much bigger order to replace the lost Aussie order. And we can all be allies again.

The one potential drawback I see is that this approach has the USN building longer-range subs on the east coast, when the long legs are really needed in the Pacific, where the shorter-range subs would be built. But we do have things like the Panama Canal and Arctic transits to address that issue. It might be a bigger issue when maintenance comes up, but we have a decade or more to plan that one out.