Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Defense contractors complain they can't make a profit without taxpayer money. If only there was some sort of market that tied a corporation's profit with its performance   (thehill.com) divider line 208
    More: Fail, killer, Pratt & Whitney, EADS, carbon sequestration, House Armed Services Committee, defense contractors  
•       •       •

3933 clicks; posted to Business » on 19 Jul 2012 at 1:54 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



208 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-19 06:00:31 AM  
F*ck them. Seriously DIAF.
The defense budget is the most ridiculously bloated thing in history, and it's so much overkill, it's laughable.

Everybody wants to see spending cuts, just as long is it's not them that's affected.

By all means, cut health, education, and food, because we NEED a few more $10billion dollar aircraft carriers, and a trillion dollars worth of planes that don't work.

After all, TERROR!
 
2012-07-19 06:08:37 AM  
Well, as I understand it, any company that can't survive without government handouts should die.
 
2012-07-19 06:17:42 AM  
Hey, learn how to manufacture something else then.
 
2012-07-19 06:27:13 AM  
Where is your Tea Party now?

Free Markets: The Way Jesus Wants It.

I'm guessing their execs all vote Republican; they should have to live by the free market.
 
2012-07-19 07:30:15 AM  
If they were true patriots, they would adjust top level salaries so less people would lose their jobs.
 
2012-07-19 08:02:42 AM  

ourbigdumbmouth: If they were true patriots, they would adjust top level salaries so less people would lose their jobs.


Well, that *may* work for Lockheed Martin and GD and other massive contractors like them. I work for a small contracting company (approx 150 employees). If the contract I'm working on gets cancelled, there's nowhere they can just shuffle me around to in order to keep me employed. That's okay. I knew that coming in to this job, and I don't hold that the company has some sort of moral obligation to keep me employed if I suddenly become unnecessary deadweight. It would suck, but that's how government contractors work.
 
2012-07-19 08:13:43 AM  
Yeah, let's fire all the engineers in the country, right! Because when money is spent on defense it is just burned and not at all used as paychecks for an educated workforce of engineers and scientists. Nope. Certainly not.
 
2012-07-19 08:18:09 AM  

Thoguh: Yeah, let's fire all the engineers in the country, right! Because when money is spent on defense it is just burned and not at all used as paychecks for an educated workforce of engineers and scientists. Nope. Certainly not.


HAHAHAHA you think defense spending only goes to employ people. Just how much of a contract do you think is spent on employee salary?
 
2012-07-19 08:34:54 AM  

GAT_00: HAHAHAHA you think defense spending only goes to employ people. Just how much of a contract do you think is spent on employee salary?


Less than half of my hourly rate billed to the government makes it to my paycheck. The rest goes to my company, where it pays the people who do the payrolls and put together bids for new contracts, pays for office space, health insurance, retirement plans, etc, and a small portion probably ends up in the owner's bank accounts. So, I'd say most of the contract goes towards employing people, while a significantly smaller portion is spent on employee salary, and an even smaller portion is profit. Those ratios may be different for the mega-contractors, like General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin, etc.
 
2012-07-19 08:38:01 AM  

incendi: So, I'd say most of the contract goes towards employing people, while a significantly smaller portion is spent on employee salary, and an even smaller portion is profit. Those ratios may be different for the mega-contractors, like General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin, etc.


I should clarify - a large portion goes towards employing people, and a smaller portion of that portion goes to salary. For companies that provide a physical product (we provide a service), there's a portion that goes to material acquisition, which in turn employs people elsewhere. And then a smaller portion off to the side is profit.
 
2012-07-19 09:00:19 AM  
I thought government doesn't create jobs?
 
2012-07-19 09:59:39 AM  

incendi: I should clarify - a large portion goes towards employing people, and a smaller portion of that portion goes to salary. For companies that provide a physical product (we provide a service), there's a portion that goes to material acquisition, which in turn employs people elsewhere.


Why can't the defense industry transform to build things that benefit the civilian population? While I understand aircraft carriers are important to help defend the country, there is a heck of a lot of old infrastructure in this country that needs to be updated. It may be less lucrative than building a fighter jet, but developing technology to upgrade our freight rail system, for example, is useful too.
 
2012-07-19 10:00:26 AM  

incendi: incendi: So, I'd say most of the contract goes towards employing people, while a significantly smaller portion is spent on employee salary, and an even smaller portion is profit. Those ratios may be different for the mega-contractors, like General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin, etc.

I should clarify - a large portion goes towards employing people, and a smaller portion of that portion goes to salary. For companies that provide a physical product (we provide a service), there's a portion that goes to material acquisition, which in turn employs people elsewhere. And then a smaller portion off to the side is profit.


Well, as I see it, I'm working for another month for a powerful government body that has a measurable presence in real research and they're getting cut back bad, and they spend a fraction of what defense does. All defense spending does is employ a few people on building $180M airplanes that can't fly without crashing constantly. You can take a few cuts.
 
2012-07-19 10:02:51 AM  

GAT_00: You can take a few cuts.


By all means. Just don't cry when there's a bump in unemployment.
 
2012-07-19 10:03:22 AM  

oh lord. several months of "pity the poor povertystricken defense contractors" ahead of us

- Atrios (@Atrios) July 19, 2012
 
2012-07-19 10:10:00 AM  

Thoguh: Yeah, let's fire all the engineers in the country, right! Because when money is spent on defense it is just burned and not at all used as paychecks for an educated workforce of engineers and scientists. Nope. Certainly not.


You're arguing for more government jobs. The only difference is who prints the paycheck.
 
2012-07-19 10:14:03 AM  

TommyymmoT: Hey, learn how to manufacture something else then.


Farmer: No more wasting time each spring, I've been able to till my fields in mere seconds since I converted to Nuclear Ballistic Plowshares!
 
2012-07-19 10:14:34 AM  

ourbigdumbmouth: If they were true patriots, they would adjust top level salaries so less people would lose their jobs.


What, give the job creators less money with which to create jobs?
 
2012-07-19 10:15:07 AM  

Thoguh: Yeah, let's fire all the engineers in the country, right! Because when money is spent on defense it is just burned and not at all used as paychecks for an educated workforce of engineers and scientists. Nope. Certainly not.


I'm pretty sure those engineers could get other jobs that don't involve making weapons we have no one to shoot at.

The Cold War is over. I know, it sucks but it is.
 
2012-07-19 10:18:07 AM  

Mugato: Thoguh: Yeah, let's fire all the engineers in the country, right! Because when money is spent on defense it is just burned and not at all used as paychecks for an educated workforce of engineers and scientists. Nope. Certainly not.

I'm pretty sure those engineers could get other jobs that don't involve making weapons we have no one to shoot at.

The Cold War is over. I know, it sucks but it is.


Well, engineers from India came over here on H1B visas and took all the private sector jerbs, so you'd have to be comfortable with sending them back, you racist.
 
2012-07-19 10:18:50 AM  

Thoguh: Yeah, let's fire all the engineers in the country, right! Because when money is spent on defense it is just burned and not at all used as paychecks for an educated workforce of engineers and scientists. Nope. Certainly not.


But it's ok to fire all the teachers and policemen and firemen and such, right? You can't have it both ways. The defense industry is conservative socialism in action.
 
2012-07-19 10:21:43 AM  

GAT_00: Well, as I see it, I'm working for another month for a powerful government body that has a measurable presence in real research and they're getting cut back bad, and they spend a fraction of what defense does. All defense spending does is employ a few people on building $180M airplanes that can't fly without crashing constantly. You can take a few cuts.


A bit more at length, since my previous response may come off as a little curt. I fully support cutting the part of the defense budget that involves building more aircraft carriers and expanding the part that supports things like R&D on the polywell fusion reactor. But when you cut or shift the budget, somebody's gonna get fired. The defense industry became so big by providing the government with services and products that the government was willing to pay for. If you eliminate the demand, yes, the companies that supply it are going to suffer, and a lot of people will lose their jobs. This really applies not only to defense, but the whole spectrum of government spending. It's merely intensified for defense spending because there's very little crossover to the civilian sector for nuclear weapons, submarines, supersonic aircraft, etc, but right now, they're keeping a lot of people employed. If you want to cut the defense budget (which I think we need), it's going to cost a lot of jobs. And that sucks, and it's not politically expedient, but that's just the way it is.
 
2012-07-19 10:29:22 AM  
Yes, money spent on the defense industry gets dumped back into the economy. However, there are other ways we could still dump that same money into the economy.

We spend a ridiculous amount of money on war/military when compared with the entire rest of the world. I think at this point, with our embarrassingly crumbling social and physical infrastructure, we should shift 20 to 25% of military spending to nation building in the US for about 10 years. Our social and physical infrastructure is in desperate need of it. That would be pumping the same money back into the economy and as paychecks, but just more for teachers, construction workers, engineers, and the like.
 
2012-07-19 10:30:27 AM  
Military spending is less effective at creating jobs than virtually any other form of government activity.
 
2012-07-19 10:31:16 AM  
And as far as the funding of R&D, shift some of the money I suggested above toward NASA and as research grants for universities. We are nothing in the 21st Century without R&D.
 
2012-07-19 10:31:43 AM  
There's a major defense contractor in my town, but instead of merely sucking off the government teat, they produce civilian versions of many of their products to sell on the market, as well as sell their products to the militaries of allied nations. Diversification FTW. They had to cut some jobs now that the wars are winding down, but civilian and other military orders have helped stave that off to a degree.

The problem with the defense contractors taking a whole bunch of public money is that so many of them simply do not produce anything that can be sold on the open market, and thus add value to the economy. If we're to keep the current spending levels because of worries about unemployment and loss of wages and all that, it'd be a more efficient use of those resources to cut the spending, cut out the middle man, and pick up the tab for those employees wages and benefits.

Like the contractor in my town. I can't buy a Black Hawk. It adds nothing to the economy in those terms. But I CAN buy a different helicopter and use it for a business.
 
2012-07-19 10:33:22 AM  

incendi: GAT_00: Well, as I see it, I'm working for another month for a powerful government body that has a measurable presence in real research and they're getting cut back bad, and they spend a fraction of what defense does. All defense spending does is employ a few people on building $180M airplanes that can't fly without crashing constantly. You can take a few cuts.

A bit more at length, since my previous response may come off as a little curt. I fully support cutting the part of the defense budget that involves building more aircraft carriers and expanding the part that supports things like R&D on the polywell fusion reactor. But when you cut or shift the budget, somebody's gonna get fired. The defense industry became so big by providing the government with services and products that the government was willing to pay for. If you eliminate the demand, yes, the companies that supply it are going to suffer, and a lot of people will lose their jobs. This really applies not only to defense, but the whole spectrum of government spending. It's merely intensified for defense spending because there's very little crossover to the civilian sector for nuclear weapons, submarines, supersonic aircraft, etc, but right now, they're keeping a lot of people employed. If you want to cut the defense budget (which I think we need), it's going to cost a lot of jobs. And that sucks, and it's not politically expedient, but that's just the way it is.


But that's the exact same argument Tea Baggers make when they want to cut entitlements. "It's too bloated! It's just a bunch of parasites sucking from the government teat!"

The defense industry is important and I hate to have people lose their jobs, but again, the Tea Party can't have it both ways. You can't say that government funding doesn't create jobs when it's spent on infrastructure but does when it's spent on defense.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-19 10:34:58 AM  

GAT_00: Well, as I understand it, any company that can't survive without government handouts should die.


That doesn't apply to the military. Socialized single payer military isn't socialisims because heroes.
 
2012-07-19 10:35:08 AM  

incendi: GAT_00: Well, as I see it, I'm working for another month for a powerful government body that has a measurable presence in real research and they're getting cut back bad, and they spend a fraction of what defense does. All defense spending does is employ a few people on building $180M airplanes that can't fly without crashing constantly. You can take a few cuts.

A bit more at length, since my previous response may come off as a little curt. I fully support cutting the part of the defense budget that involves building more aircraft carriers and expanding the part that supports things like R&D on the polywell fusion reactor. But when you cut or shift the budget, somebody's gonna get fired. The defense industry became so big by providing the government with services and products that the government was willing to pay for. If you eliminate the demand, yes, the companies that supply it are going to suffer, and a lot of people will lose their jobs. This really applies not only to defense, but the whole spectrum of government spending. It's merely intensified for defense spending because there's very little crossover to the civilian sector for nuclear weapons, submarines, supersonic aircraft, etc, but right now, they're keeping a lot of people employed. If you want to cut the defense budget (which I think we need), it's going to cost a lot of jobs. And that sucks, and it's not politically expedient, but that's just the way it is.


I'm not an idiot, I know jobs will be lost. But we spend half of the world's military budget for little return on investment and countless boondoggles on pointless designs that were never going to go anywhere. Military spending requires more dollars per job of any sector of government spending. It's the first place we should cut when the budget needs trimmed, because it is the least efficient.
 
2012-07-19 10:42:52 AM  

GAT_00: I'm not an idiot, I know jobs will be lost. But we spend half of the world's military budget for little return on investment and countless boondoggles on pointless designs that were never going to go anywhere. Military spending requires more dollars per job of any sector of government spending. It's the first place we should cut when the budget needs trimmed, because it is the least efficient.


I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm agreeing at length, despite the fact that if it happens it would likely cost me my own job. There are people though that somehow think that the defense contractors are lying when they say that government defense cuts will cost jobs, when that's precisely what will happen. I think we ought to be spending (not quite as much, but still spending) on better things, and that would definitely cost jobs in the present, but ultimately be a lot better in the future.
 
2012-07-19 10:45:41 AM  
Why is it the taxpayers' problem the contractors put all their eggs in one basket?
 
2012-07-19 10:50:03 AM  

Gulper Eel: Why is it the taxpayers' problem the contractors put all their eggs in one basket?


Because everybody's herpaderping "JERBS, JERBS!"
 
2012-07-19 11:08:32 AM  

Thoguh: Because when money is spent on defense it is just burned and not at all used as paychecks for an educated workforce of engineers and scientists.


I'd rather see the engineering companies getting paid hundreds of billions to develop and build better infrastructure.
 
2012-07-19 11:28:50 AM  

vpb: GAT_00: Well, as I understand it, any company that can't survive without government handouts should die.

That doesn't apply to the military. Socialized single payer military isn't socialisims because heroes.


The best term I've seen to describe the phenomenon: "Defense Keyensians"
 
2012-07-19 11:32:01 AM  
I wonder why there isn't anyone in here telling us it's NOT socialism?
 
2012-07-19 11:40:29 AM  
Republicans on tax money being used to keep people alive and fed: OMG WORST THING EVAR

Republicans on tax money being used to keep schoolteachers employed: OMG OVERPAID WE NEED FEWER NOT MOAR

Republicans on tax money being used to keep government employees in general employed: OMG WASTEFUL SPENDING CUT CUT CUT

Republicans on tax money being used to keep massively profitable defense corporations afloat: OMG ESSENTIAL SPENDING CAN'T CUT A PENNY

Hypocritical hypocrites are hypocritical.
 
2012-07-19 11:40:59 AM  
Well, I see that I have arrived to find the well poisoned. No point in lingering.
 
2012-07-19 12:59:18 PM  
Hey, if the car industry and commercial airline businesses can get 'bailed out', then so can the defense industry.
 
2012-07-19 01:11:00 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Military spending is less effective at creating jobs than virtually any other form of government activity.


It's funny because you're typing this on the Arpanet Internet.

"Military spending" covers a lot of things. R&D in particular historically pays massive returns to the general public.

Paying people to sit on a destroyer just in case the Cuban Navy sneak-attacks? Less useful.
 
2012-07-19 01:17:22 PM  

Gig103: Hey, if the car industry and commercial airline businesses can get 'bailed out', then so can the defense industry.


I'm sorry...Is Lockheed at grave risk of going bankrupt and taking down the American economy and causing a wave a trouble globally?

Bail out != Hand out
 
2012-07-19 01:18:24 PM  

incendi: GAT_00: I'm not an idiot, I know jobs will be lost. But we spend half of the world's military budget for little return on investment and countless boondoggles on pointless designs that were never going to go anywhere. Military spending requires more dollars per job of any sector of government spending. It's the first place we should cut when the budget needs trimmed, because it is the least efficient.

I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm agreeing at length, despite the fact that if it happens it would likely cost me my own job. There are people though that somehow think that the defense contractors are lying when they say that government defense cuts will cost jobs, when that's precisely what will happen. I think we ought to be spending (not quite as much, but still spending) on better things, and that would definitely cost jobs in the present, but ultimately be a lot better in the future.


Going all of the way back up this thread to Thoguh's reply:

If we shift some of that defense money into infrastructure development, many of those materials and building engineers would find work in rebuilding and making our country run better into the 21st century. He says that like all engineers in the U.S. can't do anything other than build missiles.
 
2012-07-19 01:51:47 PM  
No deal, no negotiations. The teatards demanded these conditions, and it's time EVERYONE sees the benefits of it.
 
2012-07-19 01:56:29 PM  

GAT_00: Well, as I understand it, any company that can't survive without government handouts should die.


Yes, you're right
 
2012-07-19 01:56:50 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: No deal, no negotiations. The teatards demanded these conditions, and it's time EVERYONE sees the benefits of it.


Come on, now. Unwavering demands without consideration for consequences is how we got here to begin with.
 
2012-07-19 01:57:20 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: No deal, no negotiations. The teatards demanded these conditions, and it's time EVERYONE sees the benefits of it.


If you told me the Republicans were going to renege on the agreed consequences of their prior deeds while blaming Obama for it, I would have labeled you a crazy man.
 
2012-07-19 01:57:43 PM  
Am I the only person that is sick and farking tired of the way the media and politicians throw 10 year numbers around like they are for one year?
 
2012-07-19 01:58:40 PM  

SphericalTime: He says that like all engineers in the U.S. can't do anything other than build missiles.


They can do other stuff, but the engineers that build missiles, etc. probably aren't the best ones to have planning roads and bridges.
 
2012-07-19 02:01:53 PM  
Why doesn't Boeing just have a bake sale?

Last night I saw a story about a bake sale that was being held so that some little kid could have corrective spinal surgery done.

It's pretty farked up that the richest country in the world can waste trillions on junk that will never even be used, but we can't shell out a few bucks to treat sick children.
 
2012-07-19 02:03:09 PM  
www.visitingdc.com\
"Did I not warn you people about this? How the fark is this coming as a surprise? Morons."
 
2012-07-19 02:03:17 PM  
Romney considering retroactively saving the defense contractor industry.
 
2012-07-19 02:03:23 PM  

TommyymmoT: Hey, learn how to manufacture something else then.


That is why most have branched out into homeland security...
 
2012-07-19 02:04:45 PM  

DirkValentine: Am I the only person that is sick and farking tired of the way the media and politicians throw 10 year numbers around like they are for one year?


I find it sick that they throw around numbers in the billions like they're trying to decide what to do with that extra few bucks you got back from your tax return.
 
2012-07-19 02:05:18 PM  

SphericalTime: incendi: GAT_00: I'm not an idiot, I know jobs will be lost. But we spend half of the world's military budget for little return on investment and countless boondoggles on pointless designs that were never going to go anywhere. Military spending requires more dollars per job of any sector of government spending. It's the first place we should cut when the budget needs trimmed, because it is the least efficient.

I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm agreeing at length, despite the fact that if it happens it would likely cost me my own job. There are people though that somehow think that the defense contractors are lying when they say that government defense cuts will cost jobs, when that's precisely what will happen. I think we ought to be spending (not quite as much, but still spending) on better things, and that would definitely cost jobs in the present, but ultimately be a lot better in the future.

Going all of the way back up this thread to Thoguh's reply:

If we shift some of that defense money into infrastructure development, many of those materials and building engineers would find work in rebuilding and making our country run better into the 21st century. He says that like all engineers in the U.S. can't do anything other than build missiles.


True, but any company that tried to get an infrastructure contract with as many cushy overexpenses and automatic cost increases as DoD contractors do would be laughed out of the State Capitol. Most REAL government contracts come with penalties for noncompletion or lateness. DoD contracts come with extra profit.
 
2012-07-19 02:06:44 PM  
secretaryclinton.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-19 02:08:19 PM  
I suspect that a large military budget is a very Keynesian policy because it creates economic activity without distorting consumer markets. Dump a billion into this program with no civilian use and you employ 30,000 people for the next year, which trims the market for those skill sets and reduces the oversupply of college graduates in engineering.

If you actually cut military spending to something like a quarter of a trillion dollars you would spike the unemployment. And if we default on our debts, or just print money like mad to pay them off, we sure as hell will need all these decades of military debt spending for all the wonderful toys it produced.

The sad thing is that it's just the defense contractors that know how to spend that money properly to generate economic activity. If you dumped $100 billion a year into education at the federal level things would get so gummed up we'd see a drop in teacher salaries.
 
2012-07-19 02:08:22 PM  
Look, there are two possibilities here:

a) PURE FREE MARKET LAISSEZ-FAIRE HAYEK HERITAGE.ORG TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY - Defense contractors can eat the same shiat as everyone else. If we need aggressive cuts then the largest and most useless part of the budget - the military - can get the biggest bite taken out.

b) Government has a place in the economy - We can talk about what that place is but you have to be able to make cogent arguments instead of waving ideological bullshiat around.

My personal opinion is that defense should be drastically slashed at every level and some of the money should be diverted to jobs programs for displaced workers and ramping up civilian research and engineering. It could be done, and done in a way that would lower unemployment AND take a big chunk out of the national debt, but that would take political will.
 
2012-07-19 02:09:26 PM  

GAT_00: Well, as I see it, I'm working for another month for a powerful government body that has a measurable presence in real research and they're getting cut back bad, and they spend a fraction of what defense does. All defense spending does is employ a few people on building $180M airplanes that can't fly without crashing constantly. You can take a few cuts.



So someone working in science and research on government money is saying that money should be contingent on successful achievement of desired results which are real and quantifiable? I'm fairly certain you would not like having the standard you advocate for defense spending applied to the field you work in.
 
2012-07-19 02:10:12 PM  

JK47: So someone working in science and research on government money is saying that money should be contingent on successful achievement of desired results which are real and quantifiable? I'm fairly certain you would not like having the standard you advocate for defense spending applied to the field you work in.


That standard is applied everywhere!
 
2012-07-19 02:12:32 PM  

Thoguh: Yeah, let's fire all the engineers in the country, right! Because when money is spent on defense it is just burned and not at all used as paychecks for an educated workforce of engineers and scientists. Nope. Certainly not.


so defense spending as welfare for engineers then? I'm more likely to support you argument if we agree to call it what it is.
 
2012-07-19 02:14:33 PM  
If only there were some high-level philosophy we could all agree to & bring some sanity to our defense spending. A strategic narrative, if you will.
 
2012-07-19 02:14:51 PM  

DirkValentine: Am I the only person that is sick and farking tired of the way the media and politicians throw 10 year numbers around like they are for one year?


Yeah, that would sound like me spending $100,000 on hookers and blow this year.
 
2012-07-19 02:16:38 PM  
fark the defense contractors and the millions they employ.


/amidoingitrite
//all government spending is stimulus....
 
2012-07-19 02:17:11 PM  
Best submission caption I've read in weeks! Well done stubby!
 
2012-07-19 02:17:56 PM  
Because F-22's won't fix themselves, amirite?
 
2012-07-19 02:18:13 PM  
I'd be happy if we just started with scrutinizing existing contracts and enforcing the terms. We'd save a ton just doing that.

I know this, ironically, because I used to consult to DoD Finance (DFAS). No oversight whatsoever. Budget and time overruns, overbilling....it's insanity.
 
2012-07-19 02:20:58 PM  
What really sucks is that we can't significantly cut our defense spending without pretty disastrous consequences. It's not called the "military-industrial complex" for nothing.

Many jobs would be lost of we chopped defense spending by even 10%. And realistically, we need to cut it by about 50%, at least. That would throw us into the worst depression the WORLD has ever seen.

It's a mess that has taken 60 years to create, and it will take nearly that long to fix, if you want to to it without causing another World War. Seriously.
 
2012-07-19 02:23:25 PM  
This is what happens when Republicans get 98% of what they wanted.

If you change the sequestration in any way, they ruined the country's credit rating FOR NOTHING!
 
2012-07-19 02:26:00 PM  

realmolo: What really sucks is that we can't significantly cut our defense spending without pretty disastrous consequences. It's not called the "military-industrial complex" for nothing.


But cutting a few billion in defense spending means the government can contract out work to fix infrastructure.

Spending FAR less, they can actually put Americans to work fixing, you know, America. So maybe some of these engineers at Lockheed can't get their exact same jobs back with the exact same pay... Cry me a river.

India and China need engineers. If they really want their money, they can move.
 
2012-07-19 02:26:15 PM  

AkaDad: DirkValentine: Am I the only person that is sick and farking tired of the way the media and politicians throw 10 year numbers around like they are for one year?

Yeah, that would sound like me spending $100,000 on hookers and blow this year.


We should totally hang out sometime.
 
2012-07-19 02:29:52 PM  
Hell, looks like they'll already have the contacts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/business/global/arms-contractor-ple a ds-guilty-on-china-exports.html

A Canadian subsidiary of the Connecticut-based military contractor the United Technologies Corporation pleaded guilty on Thursday to federal charges that it had illegally helped the Chinese government develop an attack helicopter now in service there....

The Canadian subsidiary, the Pratt & Whitney Canada Corporation, violated the Arms Export Control Act by providing the Chinese with 10 engines to power Z-10 helicopters in 2001 and 2002, according to an announcement by the United States attorney's office for the District of Connecticut. Technology for the engines, the authorities said, had originally been created for United States military helicopters.
 
2012-07-19 02:31:26 PM  
oh well
 
2012-07-19 02:33:21 PM  
But I was assured that government spending doesn't create jobs.
 
2012-07-19 02:36:22 PM  

damageddude:

Why can't the defense industry transform to build things that benefit the civilian population?....
there is a heck of a lot of old infrastructure in this country that needs to be updated.....
but developing technology to upgrade our freight rail system, for example, is useful too.


Because infrastructure is often paid for through taxes and taxes used to purchase goods and services for society is socialism.
 
2012-07-19 02:36:55 PM  
nathantimmel.com

"Won't someone please think of the Military Industrial Complex?!"
 
2012-07-19 02:37:46 PM  
Sorry, but the last time the Democrats and the repubs went eyeball-to-eyeball over this issue, the Democrats blinked. This time it's the repub shibboleths on the line (the Democrat ones too, but everyone agrees the interests of the poor, the elderly and the infirm can be safely ignored when taxpayer money is at issue). Personally, I would like to see both social welfare and defense programs saved, but if the Democrats are to do anything except accede to every repub demand in the face of fiscal blackmail, the line must be drawn somewhere. You'll note that no one is demanding that the budget be balanced exclusively through defense cuts. The shoe is now on the other foot and the questions is whether repubs are willing to follow their principles into the abyss or accept tax increases to save both the programs they support and those they do not.
 
2012-07-19 02:41:07 PM  

GAT_00: Well, as I understand it, any company that can't survive without government handouts should die.


I wouldn't call it handouts.. These companies are selling a product to the government, the government is saying they won't be buying their product anymore. Company is saying, well we will probably go out of business if no one is buying our product.
 
2012-07-19 02:41:09 PM  

DirkValentine: Am I the only person that is sick and farking tired of the way the media and politicians throw 10 year numbers around like they are for one year?


I'm not sure when that started, but it's very annoying. Especially so when they say something-or-other will "save X dollars," and it turns out that 99% of any savings happens in year 10 when presumably the stuff that there was no political will to do in the intervening 9 years suddenly becomes feasible.

i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-19 02:41:47 PM  

Diogenes: I'd be happy if we just started with scrutinizing existing contracts and enforcing the terms.


First, we'd need to make the DCAA/DCMA worth half a shiat, which would cost money that nobody wants to spend.
 
2012-07-19 02:41:54 PM  
Poor war machine is poor and needs some socialism bailout action plz. kthxbye

Boy, you'd think they could be bootstrappy and adjust their business model. They've known these cuts would be coming for quite some time. If they stand to lose they have only themselves to blame.

At least that's what conservatives have been spouting for 3 years now about everything else.
 
2012-07-19 02:43:13 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: But I was assured that government spending doesn't create jobs.


You think using tax dollars to building billion dollar aircraft is a net positive to the economy?
 
2012-07-19 02:44:48 PM  

TommyymmoT: It's pretty farked up that the richest country in the world can waste trillions on junk that will never even be used, but we can't shell out a few bucks to treat sick children.


Those sick children don't deserve medical care unless they earn it.

/At least, that's what a Republican/libertarian/Randroid/psychopath would say.
 
2012-07-19 02:45:03 PM  

Giltric: fark the defense contractors and the millions they employ.


/amidoingitrite
//all government spending is stimulus....


I have a great idea, why don't we have the us government fund a program that makes Really Big Boats and Things That Explode. We'll pay the highest wages out of any competitor to attract America's best and brightest to the industry. No one would dare mess with a country with so many Really Big Boats and Things That Explode. Of course the Really Big Boats will need massive crews for maintenance and repair, and the Things That Explode contain highly dangerous chemicals that will need to be properly disposed of and monitored for decades once they get old and become Things That May Or May Not Explode. Everyone will have a job! Fixing boats and producing/monitoring dangerous substances. It's the perfect system.
 
2012-07-19 02:45:31 PM  

MugzyBrown: Satanic_Hamster: But I was assured that government spending doesn't create jobs.

You think using tax dollars to building billion dollar aircraft that can't fly in the rain and that suffocates the pilot is a net positive to the economy?


FTFY
 
2012-07-19 02:48:10 PM  

MugzyBrown: Satanic_Hamster: But I was assured that government spending doesn't create jobs.

You think using tax dollars to building billion dollar aircraft is a net positive to the economy?


No, I'm just saying that for years Top Republicans have been assuring me that government spending doesn't cause anyone to be employed everywhere. So how can cuts to defense spending cause layoffs? It just doesn't make sense.
 
2012-07-19 02:48:13 PM  

jjorsett: DirkValentine: Am I the only person that is sick and farking tired of the way the media and politicians throw 10 year numbers around like they are for one year?

I'm not sure when that started, but it's very annoying. Especially so when they say something-or-other will "save X dollars," and it turns out that 99% of any savings happens in year 10 when presumably the stuff that there was no political will to do in the intervening 9 years suddenly becomes feasible.

[i50.tinypic.com image 300x364]


Bingo.
 
2012-07-19 02:49:18 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: No, I'm just saying that for years Top Republicans have been assuring me that government spending doesn't cause anyone to be employed everywhere. So how can cuts to defense spending cause layoffs? It just doesn't make sense.


Because you're not considering what's unseen when the gov't hires people.
 
2012-07-19 02:50:15 PM  
What's killed more Americans in the last 20 years, a broken healthcare system or foreign enemies?
 
2012-07-19 02:54:29 PM  
Bwhahahahahahahaha!

To the Republicans and Defense contracting companies this is what austerity looks like. Suck it up biatches! You would not allow us to raise taxes, so now you reap what you sowed.

To the people who lose their jobs, I'm sorry. That sucks I hope you land on your feet, but your heroic sacrifice today will insure a better future for America (fark YA!) tomorrow.
 
2012-07-19 02:54:41 PM  

zarberg: What's killed more Americans in the last 20 years, a broken healthcare system or foreign enemies?


zarberg: What's killed more Americans in the last 20 years, a broken healthcare system or foreign enemies?


zarberg: What's killed more Americans in the last 20 years, a broken healthcare system or foreign enemies?


zarberg: What's killed more Americans in the last 20 years, a broken healthcare system or foreign enemies?


zarberg: What's killed more Americans in the last 20 years, a broken healthcare system or foreign enemies?


zarberg: What's killed more Americans in the last 20 years, a broken healthcare system or foreign enemies?


zarberg: What's killed more Americans in the last 20 years, a broken healthcare system or foreign enemies?

 
2012-07-19 02:55:53 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: To the Republicans and Defense contracting companies this is what austerity looks like. Suck it up biatches! You would not allow us to raise taxes, so now you reap what you sowed.

To the people who lose their jobs, I'm sorry. That sucks I hope you land on your feet, but your heroic sacrifice today will insure a better future for America (fark YA!) tomorrow.


The saddest thing is that the people who most need to be cut won't be because they're in flagship programs. They'll cut a whole pile of smaller, necessary programs, but won't cut nonsense like KC-X.
 
2012-07-19 02:56:02 PM  

monoski: TommyymmoT: Hey, learn how to manufacture something else then.

That is why most have branched out into homeland security...



AKA military grade weapons and gear for mall grade local PDs.
 
2012-07-19 03:03:26 PM  

MindStalker: GAT_00: Well, as I understand it, any company that can't survive without government handouts should die.

I wouldn't call it handouts.. These companies are selling a product to the government, the government is saying they won't be buying their product anymore. Company is saying, well we will probably go out of business if no one is buying our product.


I can think of two possible partial solutions:

Diversify: You don't see Boeing up there with their hat in their hand, because they have a large and healthy commercial division. Their entire business plan doesn't consist of the single bullet point, "government contracts".

ITAR/State Dept. Easing: If the US GOV doesn't want to fund its defense contractors anymore, it needs to let up a bit on export restrictions to our allies. Let Lockheed sell some of their products to India or Australia without having to devote millions to regulatory compliance. If the government is no longer interested in buying their products, they should have a reduced say in quashing innovation.
 
2012-07-19 03:04:34 PM  

zarberg: What's killed more Americans in the last 20 years, a broken healthcare system or foreign enemies?


Exactly my point! Proves that the defense contractors are worth every penny, hooah!

Just like the rock I use to keep away tigers
 
2012-07-19 03:05:23 PM  
Well, I guess we could let them sell the really good stuff on the open market. I'm sure that wouldn't lead to any problems.

Let's face it. They will be losing jobs it's inevitable.
 
2012-07-19 03:06:37 PM  

sabreWulf07: ITAR/State Dept. Easing: If the US GOV doesn't want to fund its defense contractors anymore, it needs to let up a bit on export restrictions to our allies. Let Lockheed sell some of their products to India or Australia without having to devote millions to regulatory compliance. If the government is no longer interested in buying their products, they should have a reduced say in quashing innovation.


I can only speak to my company but we're one of the Big Four (or Five) and about 26% of our contracts are with foreign governments. I am not the CEO, but I'm guessing at least part of the reason we're trying to gobble those up is specifically to mitigate the risk of domestic defense spending cuts.
 
2012-07-19 03:07:02 PM  

sabreWulf07: Diversify: You don't see Boeing up there with their hat in their hand, because they have a large and healthy commercial division. Their entire business plan doesn't consist of the single bullet point, "government contracts".


A big part of that is the amount of logistics required to really produce large body aircraft. There's a reason a lot of the large bodies have traditionally also been used as commercial airlines (the 707 airframe is a great example).

sabreWulf07: MindStalker: GAT_00: Well, as I understand it, any company that can't survive without government handouts should die.

I wouldn't call it handouts.. These companies are selling a product to the government, the government is saying they won't be buying their product anymore. Company is saying, well we will probably go out of business if no one is buying our product.

I can think of two possible partial solutions:

Diversify: You don't see Boeing up there with their hat in their hand, because they have a large and healthy commercial division. Their entire business plan doesn't consist of the single bullet point, "government contracts".

ITAR/State Dept. Easing: If the US GOV doesn't want to fund its defense contractors anymore, it needs to let up a bit on export restrictions to our allies. Let Lockheed sell some of their products to India or Australia without having to devote millions to regulatory compliance. If the government is no longer interested in buying their products, they should have a reduced say in quashing innovation.


This is kind of a circular problem - most countries don't want to spend the money on defense because we already provide it. For example, Europe has problems meeting NATO air refueling requirements because the US sells tanker hours to them significantly below cost. Without that going away, they will have no desire whatsoever to get their own tankers. This has to be part of a much broader shift in American geopolitical methods away from being the primary military force in international actions.
 
2012-07-19 03:09:05 PM  
From another thread:

We spend more on the illusion of defense, than the next 26 countries combined, and 25 of them, are our allies.

i487.photobucket.com

I say illusion, because all it takes, is a few guys with nail cutters, to make us panic like a bunch of shrieking little girls who just saw a spider.
 
2012-07-19 03:09:48 PM  
Wasn't it just the other day the libbys were gloating about how Goverment millitary spending brought them the internet?


Silly libbys. Once again proving thier political beliefs are based on weak economic theroy and confusion about markets.
 
2012-07-19 03:10:32 PM  

sprawl15: This is kind of a circular problem - most countries don't want to spend the money on defense because we already provide it. For example, Europe has problems meeting NATO air refueling requirements because the US sells tanker hours to them significantly below cost. Without that going away, they will have no desire whatsoever to get their own tankers. This has to be part of a much broader shift in American geopolitical methods away from being the primary mil ...


Well, shift a little southeast from Europe - would we need such a large military presence there if we had put trillions into alternative fuel sources back in the 1990's?

They hate us because we come in and take their oil and leave them with crap.
We come in and take their oil and leave them with crap because we need oil to power our military.
We need oil to power our military because they hate us.
 
2012-07-19 03:14:20 PM  

zarberg: Well, shift a little southeast from Europe


Why? We don't sell tanker hours to the middle east.

zarberg: would we need such a large military presence there if we had put trillions into alternative fuel sources back in the 1990's?


That's why I said it has to be part of a larger geopolitical shift. Simply easing ITAR won't be anywhere near enough to change the system of dependence.
 
2012-07-19 03:14:28 PM  
This will send bootstrappy Arizona into the economic sh*tter. Arizona relies so much on military spending, that it isn't funny. Without the Federal Government, we'd be screwed. And sadly, so many here don't know, don't care or don't believe it.
 
2012-07-19 03:16:09 PM  
scrapetv.com

Job creation!
 
2012-07-19 03:25:04 PM  
fark defense contractors, let them die and rot.
 
2012-07-19 03:25:33 PM  

Nadie_AZ: This will send bootstrappy Arizona into the economic sh*tter. Arizona relies so much on military spending, that it isn't funny. Without the Federal Government, we'd be screwed. And sadly, so many here don't know, don't care or don't believe it.


Arizona will do even better, with all of the F-35 fighters flying from the assembly plant straight to the Davis-Monthan boneyard.
 
2012-07-19 03:30:42 PM  

GAT_00: Well, as I understand it, any company that can't survive without government handouts should die.


To be fair, they should also be allowed to exist without government restrictions either. I'm sure Lockheed wouldn't care about US government defense cuts if they were allowed to sell the F-22 to other customers.
 
2012-07-19 03:30:47 PM  
Subby is right. These defense contractors need to start selling to the highest bidder. no matter who it is.
 
2012-07-19 03:30:48 PM  

sabreWulf07: MindStalker: ITAR/State Dept. Easing: If the US GOV doesn't want to fund its defense contractors anymore, it needs to let up a bit on export restrictions to our allies. Let Lockheed sell some of their products to India or Australia without having to devote millions to regulatory compliance. If the government is no longer interested in buying their products, they should have a reduced say in quashing innovation.


Actually, I don't see the need to life this for those companies. For the few who innovated their products on their own dime, completely independent of Gov. R&D, then I concur. Of course, often enough those companies do not sign onto those types of restrictions to begin with. Perhaps most of the contractors should have *gasp* reinvested profits and innovated new technology independent of federal aid to sell on a world wide market.

No pity here, I can't get a TS job, get paid for years, then when fired demand to use that knowledge to get a Foreign Service job with China. The contractors shouldn't get a break on that either.
 
2012-07-19 03:38:26 PM  

Click Click D'oh: GAT_00: Well, as I understand it, any company that can't survive without government handouts should die.

To be fair, they should also be allowed to exist without government restrictions either. I'm sure Lockheed wouldn't care about US government defense cuts if they were allowed to sell the F-22 to other customers.


I'm not sure why the grand strategists in the Pentagon wouldn't want to sell the F-22 to other countries, it's the surest way to bankrupt them and be the financial winner.
 
2012-07-19 03:38:40 PM  

Gig103: Hey, if the car industry and commercial airline businesses can get 'bailed out', then so can the defense industry.


The difference is that the defense industry is already 100% dependent on the government buying their stuff (Defense companies selling civilian stuff doesn't count as it isn't defense products that they are selling).

How the hell can you say that we need to cut government spending in ratio to revenue without raising taxes or cutting defense spending? Oh yeah, with this nuanced argument already made upthread:

Republicans on tax money being used to keep people alive and fed: OMG WORST THING EVAR

Republicans on tax money being used to keep schoolteachers employed: OMG OVERPAID WE NEED FEWER NOT MOAR

Republicans on tax money being used to keep government employees in general employed: OMG WASTEFUL SPENDING CUT CUT CUT

Republicans on tax money being used to keep massively profitable defense corporations afloat: OMG ESSENTIAL SPENDING CAN'T CUT A PENNY

Hypocritical hypocrites are hypocritical.
 
2012-07-19 03:40:47 PM  

zarberg: sprawl15: This is kind of a circular problem - most countries don't want to spend the money on defense because we already provide it. For example, Europe has problems meeting NATO air refueling requirements because the US sells tanker hours to them significantly below cost. Without that going away, they will have no desire whatsoever to get their own tankers. This has to be part of a much broader shift in American geopolitical methods away from being the primary mil ...

Well, shift a little southeast from Europe - would we need such a large military presence there if we had put trillions into alternative fuel sources back in the 1990's?

They hate us because we come in and take their oil and leave them with crap.
We come in and take their oil and leave them with crap because we need oil to power our military.
We need oil to power our military because they hate us.


We need oil to power our military because we watched what happened to Japan and Germany's war machines when they lost their supply routes.
 
2012-07-19 03:41:35 PM  

MindStalker: GAT_00: Well, as I understand it, any company that can't survive without government handouts should die.

I wouldn't call it handouts.. These companies are selling a product to the government, the government is saying they won't be buying their product anymore. Company is saying, well we will probably go out of business if no one is buying our product.


Well how about this then. Instead of the government "buying military products" the government can now buy "health care products" for the benefits of the citizenry..... Nah, that socialism.....but guns well that just A-FARKING-MERICAN! WOOO!
 
2012-07-19 03:43:11 PM  

Pro Zack: Subby is right. These defense contractors need to start selling to the highest bidder. no matter who it is.


They've done that already, and are threatening to do more.

It's extortion, no different than that which is perpetrated by gangsters, and should be treated as such.

I thought we didn't bargain with enemies, terrorists, or those that supply aid to them.
 
2012-07-19 03:45:01 PM  

roddack: [scrapetv.com image 400x300]

Job creation!


Military industrial complex, the GOP economy.

//To be fair; shovel-ready BS sidewalks to nowhere were the Dems answer.
///maybe someone someday will come up with a way to spend the tax dollars that may provide opportunity for growth not just short-term stimulus???
 
2012-07-19 03:48:01 PM  

kbotc: We need oil to power our military because we watched what happened to Japan and Germany's war machines when they lost their supply routes.


So you're saying the US is a violent aggressor bent on world domination but will eventually end up an economic powerhouse after the rest of the world defeats us?
 
2012-07-19 03:50:34 PM  
"That's how Dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far."

-Tony Stark: Welfare Queen
 
2012-07-19 03:54:59 PM  

realmolo: What really sucks is that we can't significantly cut our defense spending without pretty disastrous consequences. It's not called the "military-industrial complex" for nothing.

Many jobs would be lost of we chopped defense spending by even 10%. And realistically, we need to cut it by about 50%, at least. That would throw us into the worst depression the WORLD has ever seen.

It's a mess that has taken 60 years to create, and it will take nearly that long to fix, if you want to to it without causing another World War. Seriously.


66,797 out of 605,034 bridges in the U.S. were deemed structurally deficient in 2011. Source

I know a place where we could shift some of the budget and lose a smaller portion of the defense jobs, create new ones, and make our country a better place to live as opposed to making somewhere else worse. But then again, socialism.
 
2012-07-19 03:55:13 PM  

Click Click D'oh: GAT_00: Well, as I understand it, any company that can't survive without government handouts should die.

To be fair, they should also be allowed to exist without government restrictions either. I'm sure Lockheed wouldn't care about US government defense cuts if they were allowed to sell the F-22 to other customers.


lol, nice try

no other nation would spend on a fighter what we spend on f22s, and why would they?

The Russians can buy 3 of their T-50 craft for the price of an F-22.

Their program cost was 17% of ours.

They are comparable and while I'll not get into which is superior (because it's a debate no one can win. on paper the F-22 has more combat abilities, but hangar queens don't do anyone any good) I'll point out only one of these two models has been grounded for months on end.

With no tech solutions in sight and money continuing to funnel down the drain, it's gotten so bad our own F-22 pilots are at risk of becoming decertified because the F-22s have been OOS for so long.

Who the hell would buy one of these things? Oh, that's right, us dumbass Americans that are so scared at night we throw more money at pretending we are safe from harm than the rest of the globe combined.

Want to know what really keeps you safe at night? 2 oceans and no one insane enough to invade a country where a rifle hides behind every blade of grass.

Let these bastards get their budget cut, we ought to be cutting it even more and rest assured, many of the disenchanted in this nation are going to continue to demand we start spending money on our nation instead of spending it on war and pretending it's "DEFENSE"

We had one opportunity to show just what kind of defense this nation has 11 years ago this September. Notta. Zilch. Zero. Doesn't exist.

We have no defense, we have offense and a money pit where taxpayer dollars go to fat cats you'll never see or know of. It's not a bad strategy, as Patton said "no one ever successfully defended anything. There is attack and attack and attack some more."... but it's time we shed the untruths about how 500billion is going to make us unsafe and the job market will crash.

We want to keep this up? Fine. Just end the charade and make everyone try to get comfortable with the truth: we aren't a Christian nation, we are a warmongering nation and these aggressive ideologies that the right wing embrace are the very antithesis of the model for this nation our founding fathers intended. If we can't stop the insane war orgy our nation is built on, I at least want us to try and be honest with ourselves about it.
 
2012-07-19 03:58:37 PM  
And suddenly fark was overrun by free market proponents.
 
2012-07-19 04:02:30 PM  
The more I hear about this "fiscal cliff" and what it does, the more I say let it happen. We need to make some hard decisions as a country and get the budget in check. Congress has proven they are incapable of doing their jobs, just partisan grandstanding. If it is allowed to happen it will be a balanced approach with spending cuts and revenue increases. It will force congress to address the consequeces of the cuts and will actually give them some fiscal wiggling room to do something about them.
 
2012-07-19 04:06:51 PM  
Yup. This is that whole "if you go massively into debt and spend the money on things that don't have an ROI > 1, you're farking yourself over" thing that some people just don't understand. Same goes for health care/welfare/etc. These things are luxuries that need to be paid for out of the production of the US, not through debt. We cannot have our cake and eat it too.

And just to add something scary:

research.stlouisfed.org

See that downtick in 2008? Well, we got a lot further to go.
 
2012-07-19 04:12:17 PM  

Scipio: For the few who innovated their products on their own dime, completely independent of Gov. R&D, then I concur.


I'm with you, except that's not how it works today. The State Dept. doesn't care who funded your technology development. They don't give a damn if you made that insanely useful "gyro-on-a-chip" using your own in-house R&D funding, you still can't sell it to the Chinese for use in their growing aerospace industry because they might just use it for missile guidance.
It's really not tied to funding in any way. The stuff the DoD pays for is theirs. Re-use of technology or IP developed under contract is stipulated in the contract, but the State Dept. gets final say on export regardless.
 
2012-07-19 04:14:56 PM  

realmolo: What really sucks is that we can't significantly cut our defense spending without pretty disastrous consequences. It's not called the "military-industrial complex" for nothing.

Many jobs would be lost of we chopped defense spending by even 10%. And realistically, we need to cut it by about 50%, at least. That would throw us into the worst depression the WORLD has ever seen.


You don't have to just cut the spending overnight. You could take some of those dollars and turn them into domestic spending. You build military bases? Now you build city halls, homeless shelters, public universities, libraries, schools, etc. You build tanks? Now you build everything-proof equipment for construction, disaster relief, etc.

You're enlisted? Bring back the Civilian Conservation Corps. You're still serving your country, but you're doing it by building infrastructure and learning a trade that will translate to civilian employment down the road. Someone should be modernizing the information technology backbone, the power grid, flood control, bridges and highways, etc.

You'd overpay in the short run, but it wouldn't send shock waves through the labor sector, and you'd get something useful instead of ghost towns in Afghanistan. Heck, even if you sent 10,000 men and women from the Army with equipment to dig wells in Africa, you'd at least build goodwill. One skill the military excels at is moving tons of food, water, and supplies to remote corners of nowhere in a jiffy. Use it to build.
 
2012-07-19 04:18:02 PM  
Folks...

I don't know how to tell you this delicately... but defense spending is about the only manufacturing economy we have. Cars? Made in Mexico or Canada. Consumer goods? China. Electronics? China. Ships? Korea.

The shipbuilding industry in the US at this point ONLY exists to service the US Navy. And if we were to manufacture any fewer ships than we do now, we would cease to be able to make ships at all. It takes years to train a ship fitter.

The only anchor keeping Boeing in the United States is the fact that most of their business is with the US Government. If we stopped ordering airplanes, all of those jobs would go overseas.

And at this point, the only well paying jobs left in our economy are in those defense firms.

All I hear is "cut cut cut" and "we'll just make bridges instead." I don't hear any plans for how to deal with the utterly profound detonation that an abrupt change in defense spending would have.
 
2012-07-19 04:22:52 PM  
Maybe the Pentagon should practice Free Market principles, and shop around better. $1200 for a toilet seat? Home Depot has one for $11.
 
2012-07-19 04:24:34 PM  

Click Click D'oh: To be fair, they should also be allowed to exist without government restrictions either. I'm sure Lockheed wouldn't care about US government defense cuts if they were allowed to sell the F-22 to other customers.


What do you think the going rate would be for an ICBM complete with fission-fusion-fission warhead?
 
2012-07-19 04:28:33 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: I don't know how to tell you this delicately... but defense spending is about the only manufacturing economy we have. Cars? Made in Mexico or Canada.


Serious question: Who makes ground vehicles (such as trucks and whatever they use instead of jeeps these days) for our land-based forces? Was this a factor in bailing out Chrysler and GM?
 
2012-07-19 04:31:17 PM  
I've got a more succinct headline: "Welfare Queens Lobby Congress"
 
2012-07-19 04:35:20 PM  
pciszek: Evil Twin Skippy: I don't know how to tell you this delicately... but defense spending is about the only manufacturing economy we have. Cars? Made in Mexico or Canada.

Serious question: Who makes ground vehicles (such as trucks and whatever they use instead of jeeps these days) for our land-based forces? Was this a factor in bailing out Chrysler and GM?


The Stryker is made by General Dynamics Land Systems. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the parts have the same source as GM/Ford/Chrysler. Though the vehicle itself is actually made in Ontario, Canada.
 
2012-07-19 04:36:12 PM  

kbotc:
We need oil to power our military because we watched what happened to Japan and Germany's war machines when they lost their supply routes.


Additionally, we've seen what happened with any country or armed force that lost any of their key critical infrastructure (transportation being one of the key pillars).

There's a reason the US decided to un-mothball a ton of ships at the start of WWII. It was better to have older ships in service than to have next to none at all (and at the same time, they were building new ones as quickly as possible).
 
2012-07-19 04:41:34 PM  

MurphyMurphy: lol, nice try

no other nation would spend on a fighter what we spend on f22s, and why would they?


Except for you know, the nations that tried to buy the F-22 and were blocked by Congress...

Japan, Australia and Israel come to mind without having to look it up.


MurphyMurphy: The Russians can buy 3 of their T-50 craft for the price of an F-22.



Yeah, let us know when the PAK-FA actually enters service.


MurphyMurphy: What do you think the going rate would be for an ICBM complete with fission-fusion-fission warhead?


I've got $5, how does that sound?
 
2012-07-19 04:42:32 PM  

pciszek: Maybe the Pentagon should practice Free Market principles, and shop around better. $1200 for a toilet seat? Home Depot has one for $11.


That's an artifact of government contract accounting methods.
 
2012-07-19 04:42:44 PM  

Click Click D'oh: MurphyMurphy: The Russians can buy 3 of their T-50 craft for the price of an F-22.


Yeah, let us know when the PAK-FA actually enters service.


When it does it will probably be able to fly in the rain and won't asphyxiate the pilot.
 
2012-07-19 04:44:52 PM  

sabreWulf07: Scipio: For the few who innovated their products on their own dime, completely independent of Gov. R&D, then I concur.

I'm with you, except that's not how it works today. The State Dept. doesn't care who funded your technology development. They don't give a damn if you made that insanely useful "gyro-on-a-chip" using your own in-house R&D funding, you still can't sell it to the Chinese for use in their growing aerospace industry because they might just use it for missile guidance.
It's really not tied to funding in any way. The stuff the DoD pays for is theirs. Re-use of technology or IP developed under contract is stipulated in the contract, but the State Dept. gets final say on export regardless.


The big contractors could easily develop and sell overseas, and skip the US defense market totally... if they wanted. When you are selling to competing sovereign government the rules do change. I doubt DOS, DOD or the rest could do much if a company developed tech in Somalia, skipped the U.S. defense market, and sold on to whomever. I doubt they would do much if a subsidiary of a US contractor did that (long as US tech wasn't used in the R&D).

Although this is moot, as almost no major weapons used by the US military that would be popular on the global market would be purchased without the IP rights by the DOD, just part of doing business with the biggest kid on the block. So I'm not sure how you claim that rights purchased/or tech. developed by the U.S. is the exception in weapon systems that are banned from being sold overseas. Even in the private sector that is fast becoming business as usual. Yes there are some banned as exports anyways, but I argue that those are the exceptions and not business as usual. Sell code to Microsoft? Be ready to sell IP rights, sell weapons to the U.S. you sell also IP rights as part of doing business. No different, and the contracts that do not have a clause related to this, especially for weapon systems, is the exception. I have never seen one.
 
2012-07-19 04:47:54 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: The only anchor keeping Boeing in the United States is the fact that most of their business is with the US Government. If we stopped ordering airplanes, all of those jobs would go overseas.

And at this point, the only well paying jobs left in our economy are in those defense firms.

All I hear is "cut cut cut" and "we'll just make bridges instead." I don't hear any plans for how to deal with the utterly profound detonation that an abrupt change in defense spending would have.


So what you're saying is, we shouldn't stop spending so much money because it will cost us way too much money?

I'm not saying there wouldn't be a transitional period with an associated hit to the market and employment stats, but you haven't acknowledged the most important part of the discussion: Long term, a nation focused on infrastructure and future opportunity will fare much better vs staying the course of dedicating a large portion of our resources to wars that we usually start and taking care of people our society never

Babyboomers might say we need to stay the course, as many will trumpet on Fox news non-stop. But this is the generation that put us in the fiscal situation we are with decade after decade of short term thinking, being more interested in raising stock prices by next quarter than if their children are being educated enough or their cities being maintained enough to provide our country with any future at all. They group that pulled all regulation stability in our markets out returning us to pre-depression binge and purge gambling market vs a market of long term growth... obliterating unknown numbers of pensions and placing us in what is seemingly an eternal recession (except for the gamblers).

And how do we deal with the profound detonation when civil spending hits 0 and all our nation resources are dedicated to paying interest on debt, fueling the war machine and taking care of the massive numbers of citizenry our society either didn't teach to take care of themselves or never bothered to plan how to take care of in light of obvious demographics changes?

You want to win the battle and we are already looking at an insanely unstable situation that 500B might tip into ugliness. I want to win the war and we have a long way to go to put our country back into the black, not to mention providing future generations the luxury of living in a first world country.

Not only are the cuts a good idea, they are the tip of the iceberg of what we should be doing when it comes to honestly evaluating our nations financial priorities. Even if we have to take a punch to the face now to do it? Especially then. Because the hit we will have to take later will be even worse. Prolonging the inevitable is not the right solution.
 
2012-07-19 04:56:14 PM  

damageddude: incendi: I should clarify - a large portion goes towards employing people, and a smaller portion of that portion goes to salary. For companies that provide a physical product (we provide a service), there's a portion that goes to material acquisition, which in turn employs people elsewhere.

Why can't the defense industry transform to build things that benefit the civilian population? While I understand aircraft carriers are important to help defend the country, there is a heck of a lot of old infrastructure in this country that needs to be updated. It may be less lucrative than building a fighter jet, but developing technology to upgrade our freight rail system, for example, is useful too.


That was kind of my thought. There are a myriad of projects the government could take on, such as road/rail projects, that are vital to national security. While Material Command can airlift a lot of equipment, and the Navy can move a lot of equipment, a lot of it has to be moved by truck and rail. That's a justifiable expense that not only helps the military, but the nation as a whole.
 
2012-07-19 04:56:20 PM  
zarberg


What's killed more Americans in the last 20 years, a broken healthcare system or foreign enemies?


Easy, foreign enemies.


What's killed more people the last 20 years, hippos or the bible?
 
2012-07-19 04:58:29 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: I've got a more succinct headline: "Welfare Queens Lobby Blackmail Congress"


FTFY.

I'm trying to imagine any other scenario in the private sector where a business could try to openly blackmail their biggest (and sometimes only) client and not expect to be booted from the job within the hour.
 
2012-07-19 04:59:45 PM  

Scipio: So I'm not sure how you claim that rights purchased/or tech. developed by the U.S. is the exception in weapon systems that are banned from being sold overseas.


ITAR applies when you look for an export license. Who owns/developed the tech is completely irrelevant - if it's leaving US shores, the State Department has to approve it. It has nothing to do with IP rights.
 
2012-07-19 04:59:48 PM  
Socialism for the military!

Starvation for the peasants!


If the U.S. is all for capitalism, then it should be run as a publicly traded company. (I suppose it sort-of is, what with elections and all but there are far too many shady deals the government gets into.)
 
2012-07-19 05:00:53 PM  

Buffalo77: zarberg


What's killed more Americans in the last 20 years, a broken healthcare system or foreign enemies?

Easy, foreign enemies.


What's killed more people the last 20 years, hippos or the bible?


Wow, so foreign enemies have killed more than 45,000 people each year for the last 20 years?

I'd love to see your data on that.
 
2012-07-19 05:04:55 PM  

Click Click D'oh: MurphyMurphy: lol, nice try

no other nation would spend on a fighter what we spend on f22s, and why would they?


Except for you know, the nations that tried to buy the F-22 and were blocked by Congress...

Japan, Australia and Israel come to mind without having to look it up.


MurphyMurphy: The Russians can buy 3 of their T-50 craft for the price of an F-22.


Yeah, let us know when the PAK-FA actually enters service.


MurphyMurphy: What do you think the going rate would be for an ICBM complete with fission-fusion-fission warhead?

I've got $5, how does that sound?


-they just want a 5th gen fighter w/o paying for the program. All 3 of those allies moved on and purchased the f35 instead, if i remember correctly. So our contractors do get to sell to other nations, just not in the F22s case. All of this is pointless anyways as the idea that their inability to sell to other nations is responsible for the high cost is laughable. The real reason the plane cost so much is because Congress wanted to pass out the pork, so they spread out production to 40 some states making it a logistical nightmare to manage the project as a whole.

-what, you want me to email you or something?

smarmy rhetoric aside, I'd rather an incomplete jet that will eventually fly than a complete jet that can never fly. Especially when the former is going to cost you 1/6th the cost.

-I didn't write that last quote you attributed to me.
 
2012-07-19 05:11:27 PM  
Good.

I work in a defense contractor town in Alabama where half these engineers have the audacity to be "small government" conservatives who rant all goddamn day on facebook about the evils of the federal government and smugly chortle about how anyone who's lost their job should have gotten a more in demand skillset.

I already got to see a bunch of those dickwads go full-tilt cry-baby when NASA cuts made their jobs go bye-bye. But, that was bittersweet, because I actually like and believe in NASA.

The bloated farking defense industry, however, is nothing but a farking make-work program for a bunch of snotty, hypocritical, self-entitled, "comic book guy"-like Randroids... and a make-rich program for dickbag political cronies. Seeing some of those farkers get theirs will be pure blissful schadenfreude.

fark them all. Let them be hoisted on their own petard.
 
2012-07-19 05:14:00 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: [www.visitingdc.com image 505x500]\
"Did I not warn you people about this? How the fark is this coming as a surprise? Morons."


He said a military industrial complex was NECESSARY.
 
2012-07-19 05:21:46 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Philip Francis Queeg: [www.visitingdc.com image 505x500]\
"Did I not warn you people about this? How the fark is this coming as a surprise? Morons."

He said a military industrial complex was NECESSARY.


And that it's influence had to closely watched and minimized.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
 
2012-07-19 05:26:33 PM  
Anyone else get a chuckle out of Eureka's thinly-veiled "Global Dynamics" Reference?
 
2012-07-19 05:36:44 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: Philip Francis Queeg: [www.visitingdc.com image 505x500]\
"Did I not warn you people about this? How the fark is this coming as a surprise? Morons."

He said a military industrial complex was NECESSARY.

And that it's influence had to closely watched and minimized.


Yes. But what makes people think their influence is a driving factor? If you're a foreign affairs Realist, like Mearsheimer, special interests have zero influence on a country's decision-making when it comes to going to war.

Having worked inside the MIC for a decade, I saw nothing any different from anywhere else. Liberals, conservatives, warmongers, pacifists, and everything in between.
 
2012-07-19 05:39:06 PM  

Somaticasual: Anyone else get a chuckle out of Eureka's thinly-veiled "Global Dynamics" Reference?


Not to be confused with Fringe's "Massive Dynamic" reference, which is not in any way thinly-veiled since their core competency was clearly evil. In both universes.
 
2012-07-19 05:39:48 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: Philip Francis Queeg: [www.visitingdc.com image 505x500]\
"Did I not warn you people about this? How the fark is this coming as a surprise? Morons."

He said a military industrial complex was NECESSARY.

And that it's influence had to closely watched and minimized.

Yes. But what makes people think their influence is a driving factor? If you're a foreign affairs Realist, like Mearsheimer, special interests have zero influence on a country's decision-making when it comes to going to war.

Having worked inside the MIC for a decade, I saw nothing any different from anywhere else. Liberals, conservatives, warmongers, pacifists, and everything in between.


TFA is about the Military industrial complex attempting to use their influence to prevent military cuts.

Defense-industry executives warned a House panel on Wednesday the nation will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs if Congress does not stop $500 billion in automatic cuts to the Pentagon.
 
2012-07-19 05:45:45 PM  

zarberg: Wow, so foreign enemies have killed more than 45,000 people each year for the last 20 years?


The UK NHS has that beat cold in a smaller country.
 
2012-07-19 05:47:16 PM  
We are Rome.
Get over it.
 
2012-07-19 05:49:41 PM  

Mentat: The defense industry is conservative socialism in action.


Fascism?
 
2012-07-19 05:50:44 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: Philip Francis Queeg: [www.visitingdc.com image 505x500]\
"Did I not warn you people about this? How the fark is this coming as a surprise? Morons."

He said a military industrial complex was NECESSARY.

And that it's influence had to closely watched and minimized.

Yes. But what makes people think their influence is a driving factor? If you're a foreign affairs Realist, like Mearsheimer, special interests have zero influence on a country's decision-making when it comes to going to war.

Having worked inside the MIC for a decade, I saw nothing any different from anywhere else. Liberals, conservatives, warmongers, pacifists, and everything in between.

TFA is about the Military industrial complex attempting to use their influence to prevent military cuts.

Defense-industry executives warned a House panel on Wednesday the nation will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs if Congress does not stop $500 billion in automatic cuts to the Pentagon.


And teachers unions attempt to use their influence to prevent education cuts.

Someone should have warned us about the Education-Industrial Complex.

And let's not forget the Medical-Industrial Complex. You think bullets make money? Try prosthetics industry. I bet the medical industry has made tons more money from Iraq than Lockheed-Martin et. al.
 
2012-07-19 05:55:51 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: Philip Francis Queeg: [www.visitingdc.com image 505x500]\
"Did I not warn you people about this? How the fark is this coming as a surprise? Morons."

He said a military industrial complex was NECESSARY.

And that it's influence had to closely watched and minimized.

Yes. But what makes people think their influence is a driving factor? If you're a foreign affairs Realist, like Mearsheimer, special interests have zero influence on a country's decision-making when it comes to going to war.

Having worked inside the MIC for a decade, I saw nothing any different from anywhere else. Liberals, conservatives, warmongers, pacifists, and everything in between.

TFA is about the Military industrial complex attempting to use their influence to prevent military cuts.

Defense-industry executives warned a House panel on Wednesday the nation will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs if Congress does not stop $500 billion in automatic cuts to the Pentagon.

And teachers unions attempt to use their influence to prevent education cuts.

Someone should have warned us about the Education-Industrial Complex.

And let's not forget the Medical-Industrial Complex. You think bullets make money? Try prosthetics industry. I bet the medical industry has made tons more money from Iraq than Lockheed-Martin et. al.


Call me when the prosthetic industry executives testify before Congress that if enough soldiers aren't sent into mine fields jobs will be lost.

By the way, are you suffering severr brain damage from injuries received in Iraq? That's about the only thing that would account for the frightful stupidity of your last claim.
 
2012-07-19 05:55:56 PM  
By 2014, we'll have a health insurance industrial complex that will be constantly whining that they can't make a profit without more and more taxpayer money and higher prices for those who don't qualify for the subsidies.

It's not socialism, it's state sponsored capitalism.
 
2012-07-19 06:02:48 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Call me when the prosthetic industry executives testify before Congress that if enough soldiers aren't sent into mine fields jobs will be lost.

By the way, are you suffering severr brain damage from injuries received in Iraq? That's about the only thing that would account for the frightful stupidity of your last claim.


Call me when a defense industry executive testifies before Congress that if enough soldiers aren't sent into war jobs will be lost.

And if you think the medical industry isn't making money hand-over-fist given the vast number of wounded, you're nuts. According to antiwar.com, over 100,000 American soldiers wounded in Iraq. That's two years of admissions at a large hospital. Now consider how many of those veterans will require LIFETIME treatment of highly specialized medical care, and pretty soon we're talking about real money.
 
2012-07-19 06:11:29 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Philip Francis Queeg: Call me when the prosthetic industry executives testify before Congress that if enough soldiers aren't sent into mine fields jobs will be lost.

By the way, are you suffering severr brain damage from injuries received in Iraq? That's about the only thing that would account for the frightful stupidity of your last claim.

Call me when a defense industry executive testifies before Congress that if enough soldiers aren't sent into war jobs will be lost.

And if you think the medical industry isn't making money hand-over-fist given the vast number of wounded, you're nuts. According to antiwar.com, over 100,000 American soldiers wounded in Iraq. That's two years of admissions at a large hospital. Now consider how many of those veterans will require LIFETIME treatment of highly specialized medical care, and pretty soon we're talking about real money.


Every wounded soldier spends two years in the hospital?

We could spend 667,000 on each of those wounded soldiers for the cost of the F-22 program alone.
 
2012-07-19 06:11:52 PM  
When a family can't pay their bills they don't keep spending, they fire the 5 million man private security force and make do with the local police department.
 
2012-07-19 06:25:05 PM  

zarberg: Buffalo77: zarberg


What's killed more Americans in the last 20 years, a broken healthcare system or foreign enemies?

Easy, foreign enemies.


What's killed more people the last 20 years, hippos or the bible?

Wow, so foreign enemies have killed more than 45,000 people each year for the last 20 years?

I'd love to see your data on that.


45k people die because they don't get treatment....not because they dont have healthcare.

Isnt that the reason healthcare is so expensive....the 700$ aspirin is to cover the costs of those who cant pay?

Maybe you should look at your notes from the obamacare debates...im pretty sure the 700$ aspirin was a dem talking point.
 
2012-07-19 06:26:03 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Every wounded soldier spends two years in the hospital?


A large hospital, like INOVA Fairfax, admits a little under 50,000 patients a year. Some stay a day. Others, the rest of their lives.

Just like soldiers.

We could spend 667,000 on each of those wounded soldiers for the cost of the F-22 program alone.

I wasn't comparing the DoD budget. I was pointing out how much Iraq is costing. Our bullet expenses for Iraq are over. Our veterans' medical expenses will continue to accrue for another 60+ years.
 
2012-07-19 06:28:20 PM  

Ricardo Klement: We could spend 667,000 on each of those wounded soldiers for the cost of the F-22 program alone.

I wasn't comparing the DoD budget. I was pointing out how much Iraq is costing. Our bullet expenses for Iraq are over. Our veterans' medical expenses will continue to accrue for another 60+ years.


Expenses largely covered by the not for profit VA system.
 
2012-07-19 06:32:10 PM  
Cut defense and use the money to build bridges...

Proof that once cut the money will go to new programs so we have a zero sum game.

Why did the states take money from their transportation funds to pay for new programs when they knew the bridge was gonna eventually need repairs?

What about the states that sold the road or bridge to a foreign firm like corzine tried doing with the turnpike?
 
2012-07-19 06:38:13 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: We could spend 667,000 on each of those wounded soldiers for the cost of the F-22 program alone.

I wasn't comparing the DoD budget. I was pointing out how much Iraq is costing. Our bullet expenses for Iraq are over. Our veterans' medical expenses will continue to accrue for another 60+ years.

Expenses largely covered by the not for profit VA system.


The VA system doesn't manufacture blood plasma, prosthetics, drugs, surgical tools, MRI machines...
 
2012-07-19 06:45:50 PM  
Are these the cuts we're getting because the Republican party refused to compromise? Well maybe this will teach them to compromise!

(what's the etiquette on marking your own posts 'Funny'?)
 
2012-07-19 06:46:05 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Folks...

I don't know how to tell you this delicately... but defense spending is about the only manufacturing economy we have. Cars? Made in Mexico or Canada. Consumer goods? China. Electronics? China. Ships? Korea.

The shipbuilding industry in the US at this point ONLY exists to service the US Navy. And if we were to manufacture any fewer ships than we do now, we would cease to be able to make ships at all. It takes years to train a ship fitter.

The only anchor keeping Boeing in the United States is the fact that most of their business is with the US Government. If we stopped ordering airplanes, all of those jobs would go overseas.

And at this point, the only well paying jobs left in our economy are in those defense firms.

All I hear is "cut cut cut" and "we'll just make bridges instead." I don't hear any plans for how to deal with the utterly profound detonation that an abrupt change in defense spending would have.


Apparently finance (NYC), oil/gas (Texas/North Dakota) and tech (Silicon Valley) are overseas now. How many cans of spraypaint did you whiff this morning?
 
2012-07-19 07:03:09 PM  

damageddude: Why can't the defense industry transform to build things that benefit the civilian population?


Ctrl+F: GPS = phrase not found
 
2012-07-19 07:07:31 PM  

TommyymmoT: F*ck them. Seriously DIAF.
The defense budget is the most ridiculously bloated thing in history, and it's so much overkill, it's laughable.

Everybody wants to see spending cuts, just as long is it's not them that's affected.

By all means, cut health, education, and food, because we NEED a few more $10billion dollar aircraft carriers, and a trillion dollars worth of planes that don't work.

After all, TERROR!


Terror?
 
2012-07-19 07:14:42 PM  

TommyymmoT: Why doesn't Boeing just have a bake sale?

Last night I saw a story about a bake sale that was being held so that some little kid could have corrective spinal surgery done.

It's pretty farked up that the richest country in the world can waste trillions on junk that will never even be used, but we can't shell out a few bucks to treat sick children.


zOMG SOOOOOOOOCIALISM!
 
2012-07-19 07:16:41 PM  
ATTENTION, WINGNUTS!

Are you concerned about government spending?

Are you outraged, even?

GOOD!

NOW WHY WEREN'T YOU OUTRAGED WHEN THAT IDIOT BUSH WAS BEATING THE WAR DRUMS?
 
2012-07-19 07:26:35 PM  
But I thought government spending is fundamentally incapable of creating jobs?
 
2012-07-19 07:31:05 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: We could spend 667,000 on each of those wounded soldiers for the cost of the F-22 program alone.

I wasn't comparing the DoD budget. I was pointing out how much Iraq is costing. Our bullet expenses for Iraq are over. Our veterans' medical expenses will continue to accrue for another 60+ years.

Expenses largely covered by the not for profit VA system.


Until the VA system gets voucherized along with Medicare.
 
2012-07-19 08:10:34 PM  
Having worked for defense contractors most of my career, I can safely say that most of the people in this thread have no idea what the fark they're talking about.

Sure there are billion, dollar planes and multi-billion dollar carriers we may not need... but there's also the stuff I worked on - software to train our military.
The military has been using paper manuals forever to train their people and to provide guidance for everything from jet engine repair to how to set up a Jewish Chaplains' service. In the last 10-15 years they have been breaking away from that and providing interactive manuals and instruction that can be used with laptops, Androids and iPads or other devices.

The companies I worked for produced that kind of stuff, and they're "defense contractors" too, only they don't generate the OUTRAGE the F-22 does. So next time you start in on "evil defense contractors", consider that some of us are doing things like teaching Marines how to fix their helicopters out in the field, instructing sailors on how to safely operate a flight deck or nuclear reactor, showing airmen how to interpret radar, and guiding soldiers on how to stop their comrades from bleeding to death.

All good things, paid for by your tax dollars.
 
2012-07-19 08:14:56 PM  

rewind2846: Having worked for defense contractors most of my career, I can safely say that most of the people in this thread have no idea what the fark they're talking about.

Sure there are billion, dollar planes and multi-billion dollar carriers we may not need... but there's also the stuff I worked on - software to train our military.
The military has been using paper manuals forever to train their people and to provide guidance for everything from jet engine repair to how to set up a Jewish Chaplains' service. In the last 10-15 years they have been breaking away from that and providing interactive manuals and instruction that can be used with laptops, Androids and iPads or other devices.

The companies I worked for produced that kind of stuff, and they're "defense contractors" too, only they don't generate the OUTRAGE the F-22 does. So next time you start in on "evil defense contractors", consider that some of us are doing things like teaching Marines how to fix their helicopters out in the field, instructing sailors on how to safely operate a flight deck or nuclear reactor, showing airmen how to interpret radar, and guiding soldiers on how to stop their comrades from bleeding to death.

All good things, paid for by your tax dollars.


NO. We're ALL just about killing brown people and selling things that go boom!
 
2012-07-19 08:27:23 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: ATTENTION, WINGNUTS!

Are you concerned about government spending?

Are you outraged, even?

GOOD!

NOW WHY WEREN'T YOU OUTRAGED WHEN THAT IDIOT BUSH WAS BEATING THE WAR DRUMS?


they were in a net of fear and insanity. So much for home of the brave.

Republicans are like that. Look at all their leaders, chickenhawks who love war but never showed up themselves when it was time.

And they know it. Look at Bush vs Kerry.
Kerry went to war and did his part, then he came home and did some more.
Bush? Went awol for 6 months to blow coke and never showed up for the war.
Now.. who got branded as what? It's actually pretty sickening to look back on.

And now they want to elect another Chickenhawk in Chief.

These men are cowards Donny.

Dangerous, irresponsible, war mongering (and in many cases, war profiteering) cowards. And apparently if we don't give them all our money the barbarians at the gate will get us and we'll fall into a depression... or something
 
2012-07-19 08:28:25 PM  

rewind2846: Having worked for defense contractors most of my career, I can safely say that most of the people in this thread have no idea what the fark they're talking about.

Sure there are billion, dollar planes and multi-billion dollar carriers we may not need... but there's also the stuff I worked on - software to train our military.
The military has been using paper manuals forever to train their people and to provide guidance for everything from jet engine repair to how to set up a Jewish Chaplains' service. In the last 10-15 years they have been breaking away from that and providing interactive manuals and instruction that can be used with laptops, Androids and iPads or other devices.

The companies I worked for produced that kind of stuff, and they're "defense contractors" too, only they don't generate the OUTRAGE the F-22 does. So next time you start in on "evil defense contractors", consider that some of us are doing things like teaching Marines how to fix their helicopters out in the field, instructing sailors on how to safely operate a flight deck or nuclear reactor, showing airmen how to interpret radar, and guiding soldiers on how to stop their comrades from bleeding to death.

All good things, paid for by your tax dollars.


This. I helped the military better manage their land holdings, specifically land holdings on remote Pacific atolls. This evil defense contractor got a recycling program started so metal wouldn't pile up next to a pristine reef, obtained funding for a proper incinerator so the open burn pit would go away, and developed a plan so those really expensive planes wouldn't hit birds and crash, while making sure the birds didn't have to be shot to achieve goal #1 (not crashing planes).

Fun Fact: DOD land holdings contain the highest density of federally protected species on federally managed lands
One cite if you're too lazy to Google it

Not all defense contractors are evil. As a matter of fact, cuts like this are more likely to hurt the ones that don't work on blowing shiat up than those that do.
 
2012-07-19 08:31:54 PM  

rewind2846: Having worked for defense contractors most of my career, I can safely say that most of the people in this thread have no idea what the fark they're talking about.

Sure there are billion, dollar planes and multi-billion dollar carriers we may not need... but there's also the stuff I worked on - software to train our military.
The military has been using paper manuals forever to train their people and to provide guidance for everything from jet engine repair to how to set up a Jewish Chaplains' service. In the last 10-15 years they have been breaking away from that and providing interactive manuals and instruction that can be used with laptops, Androids and iPads or other devices.

The companies I worked for produced that kind of stuff, and they're "defense contractors" too, only they don't generate the OUTRAGE the F-22 does. So next time you start in on "evil defense contractors", consider that some of us are doing things like teaching Marines how to fix their helicopters out in the field, instructing sailors on how to safely operate a flight deck or nuclear reactor, showing airmen how to interpret radar, and guiding soldiers on how to stop their comrades from bleeding to death.

All good things, paid for by your tax dollars.


Hurry it up with my damn Stargate already.
 
2012-07-19 08:44:09 PM  
I love how this is being spun.
 
2012-07-19 09:04:09 PM  

MBrady: damageddude: incendi: I should clarify - a large portion goes towards employing people, and a smaller portion of that portion goes to salary. For companies that provide a physical product (we provide a service), there's a portion that goes to material acquisition, which in turn employs people elsewhere.

Why can't the defense industry transform to build things that benefit the civilian population? While I understand aircraft carriers are important to help defend the country, there is a heck of a lot of old infrastructure in this country that needs to be updated. It may be less lucrative than building a fighter jet, but developing technology to upgrade our freight rail system, for example, is useful too


Yea, and? Suppose a company did just that. Will you guarantee every freight rail company will beat a path to their doors? Will they buy it? Or should they just give that technology away like the liberals want?


Lots of companies develop, and build things, and hope they'll be able to sell it.
Sometimes they make money, and sometimes they don't.

I don't see Microsoft giving any technology away, and they're doing just fine.

The defense industry is the only industry I can think of that expects not only guaranteed profit, but guaranteed growth, even if what they make doesn't work, or just doesn't sell.

The liberals are not the ones with their hands out.
 
2012-07-19 09:10:55 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: We could spend 667,000 on each of those wounded soldiers for the cost of the F-22 program alone.

I wasn't comparing the DoD budget. I was pointing out how much Iraq is costing. Our bullet expenses for Iraq are over. Our veterans' medical expenses will continue to accrue for another 60+ years.

Expenses largely covered by the not for profit VA system.

The VA system doesn't manufacture blood plasma, prosthetics, drugs, surgical tools, MRI machines...


Oh, so you want to include the cost of all the raw materials and all of the profitst for the secondary suppliers when analyzing the cost of the wars and defense contracts?
 
2012-07-19 09:19:26 PM  
Maybe we should do a "to the elbow" audit of all Defense programs first.

I bet we can save millions when kickbacks aren't going to the cronies of Congressmen.
 
2012-07-19 09:22:30 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Oh, so you want to include the cost of all the raw materials and all of the profitst for the secondary suppliers when analyzing the cost of the wars and defense contracts?


You'd be double-counting for raw materials. You can include service contracts, though.

Ultimately, the point is that the MIC doesn't have disproportionate power.

After all, which would you rather be, a defense contractor or an oil company?
 
2012-07-19 09:24:32 PM  

nmemkha: Maybe we should do a "to the elbow" audit of all Defense programs first.

I bet we can save millions when kickbacks aren't going to the cronies of Congressmen.


Less than you think. I had to delve into the acquisition process and it was a nightmare. It's worse than anyone imagines all due to the goal of avoiding waste and fraud. And there's no way to fix it. It's not that we don't need oversight, or that the oversight we have is too much or not enough. It's that the very nature of the problem is a horror story.
 
2012-07-19 09:44:13 PM  

Ricardo Klement: nmemkha: Maybe we should do a "to the elbow" audit of all Defense programs first.

I bet we can save millions when kickbacks aren't going to the cronies of Congressmen.

Less than you think. I had to delve into the acquisition process and it was a nightmare. It's worse than anyone imagines all due to the goal of avoiding waste and fraud. And there's no way to fix it. It's not that we don't need oversight, or that the oversight we have is too much or not enough. It's that the very nature of the problem is a horror story.


I worked at JHUAPL as my first job out of college supporting SubTech and Joint Warfare Analysis, and I can tell you for sure the problem is on the upper end: I.E. the lobbyists, congress, and the top execs in the MIC.


Stupid personal anecdote time:

Knew of a dude who started shaving an hour off either end of his work days and taking longer and longer lunches. One day -seemingly out of the blue- three MPs showed up at his office and told him to move away from his PC and go with them. Never saw him again.

/CSB
 
2012-07-19 09:55:50 PM  

zarberg: Ricardo Klement: nmemkha: Maybe we should do a "to the elbow" audit of all Defense programs first.

I bet we can save millions when kickbacks aren't going to the cronies of Congressmen.

Less than you think. I had to delve into the acquisition process and it was a nightmare. It's worse than anyone imagines all due to the goal of avoiding waste and fraud. And there's no way to fix it. It's not that we don't need oversight, or that the oversight we have is too much or not enough. It's that the very nature of the problem is a horror story.

I worked at JHUAPL as my first job out of college supporting SubTech and Joint Warfare Analysis, and I can tell you for sure the problem is on the upper end: I.E. the lobbyists, congress, and the top execs in the MIC.


Stupid personal anecdote time:

Knew of a dude who started shaving an hour off either end of his work days and taking longer and longer lunches. One day -seemingly out of the blue- three MPs showed up at his office and told him to move away from his PC and go with them. Never saw him again.

/CSB


Always good to see a douche get his comeuppance.
 
2012-07-19 10:21:16 PM  

rewind2846: Having worked for defense contractors most of my career, I can safely say that most of the people in this thread have no idea what the fark they're talking about.

Sure there are billion, dollar planes and multi-billion dollar carriers we may not need... but there's also the stuff I worked on - software to train our military.
The military has been using paper manuals forever to train their people and to provide guidance for everything from jet engine repair to how to set up a Jewish Chaplains' service. In the last 10-15 years they have been breaking away from that and providing interactive manuals and instruction that can be used with laptops, Androids and iPads or other devices.

The companies I worked for produced that kind of stuff, and they're "defense contractors" too, only they don't generate the OUTRAGE the F-22 does. So next time you start in on "evil defense contractors", consider that some of us are doing things like teaching Marines how to fix their helicopters out in the field, instructing sailors on how to safely operate a flight deck or nuclear reactor, showing airmen how to interpret radar, and guiding soldiers on how to stop their comrades from bleeding to death.

All good things, paid for by your tax dollars.


You had me up until the part about teaching Marines how to fix their helicopters. Everyone knows they eject at the first sign of trouble.

5/10
 
2012-07-19 11:17:04 PM  

sprawl15: This has to be part of a much broader shift in American geopolitical methods away from being the primary military force in international actions.


Stuff like this is why I have your comments in green. Well, actually you're favorited as a Clutch fan, but this justifies my preexisting conceptions of such folk.
 
2012-07-19 11:17:28 PM  
Hahaha.... You military industrial complex farkers are always going on about how you are a PRIVATE industry. Its too bad you get all your money from the government. So technically your a government employee you farking idiots.
 
2012-07-19 11:29:22 PM  
Government provides for defense and security. That is one of the major things it does.
 
2012-07-19 11:44:10 PM  

Rebuffering: Hahaha.... You military industrial complex farkers are always going on about how you are a PRIVATE industry. Its too bad you get all your money from the government. So technically your a government employee you farking idiots.


Contractors know that. They also know that the jobs they do -used- to be done by actual military personnel until the last set of military cuts. The military can't really cut people that do war fighting tasks, so when congress says they have to draw down the number of troops, they draw down the ones that do non-fighting jobs.

However, the Air Force still needs workers out on the ramp to load and unload aircraft, fuel them up, test the fuel to make sure it meets spec, on and on...those jobs are now done by contractors, usually at higher cost to the government. The only thing they are saving is VA benefits because a contractor doing the same job a A1C used to do doesn't get VA.

The best part? The government requires the private contractors to provide similar benefits to their employees (which is usually at greater cost than military health insurance), which is billed back to the feds.

Great work, Congress!
 
2012-07-19 11:49:00 PM  
FYI folks, it was actually the Tea partiers in the house who introduced the bill that would cut funding for the military advertising on Nascar and MMA. It is the bloated, out of touch, career Neocon RINOs like Lugar and Hatch who fought endlessly for unsustainable military budgets.

Build a road if you have to. Hire a teacher if there's students who need to be taught. Build a bridge if there's 2 towns that need to be connected and build a bomb if you have to blow something up.

None of these are jobs programs. In order to pay a missile engineer $80,000/yr you have to take that money out of the economy via taxation. Thats money that cant be spent by a populace that spends 1.3% more than what it takes in. Think of all the jobs that would be created if we werent paying Lockheed engineers absurd amounts of money to devise more lethal ways of blowing up sand
 
2012-07-20 12:11:55 AM  
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron" -- Some lefty pinko socialist
 
2012-07-20 12:43:36 AM  

Giltric:

You had me up until the part about teaching Marines how to fix their helicopters. Everyone knows they eject at the first sign of trouble.

5/10


The Marines I've known that fix their own helicopters are usually smarter than folks like you.
0/10
 
2012-07-20 02:09:36 AM  

serial_crusher: ourbigdumbmouth: If they were true patriots, they would adjust top level salaries so less people would lose their jobs.

What, give the job creators less money with which to create jobs?


They've had 20+ years of tax cuts to create jobs. WHERE ARE THE farkING JOBS????

/Asshole.
 
2012-07-20 02:14:19 AM  

Mentat: incendi: GAT_00: Well, as I see it, I'm working for another month for a powerful government body that has a measurable presence in real research and they're getting cut back bad, and they spend a fraction of what defense does. All defense spending does is employ a few people on building $180M airplanes that can't fly without crashing constantly. You can take a few cuts.

A bit more at length, since my previous response may come off as a little curt. I fully support cutting the part of the defense budget that involves building more aircraft carriers and expanding the part that supports things like R&D on the polywell fusion reactor. But when you cut or shift the budget, somebody's gonna get fired. The defense industry became so big by providing the government with services and products that the government was willing to pay for. If you eliminate the demand, yes, the companies that supply it are going to suffer, and a lot of people will lose their jobs. This really applies not only to defense, but the whole spectrum of government spending. It's merely intensified for defense spending because there's very little crossover to the civilian sector for nuclear weapons, submarines, supersonic aircraft, etc, but right now, they're keeping a lot of people employed. If you want to cut the defense budget (which I think we need), it's going to cost a lot of jobs. And that sucks, and it's not politically expedient, but that's just the way it is.

But that's the exact same argument Tea Baggers make when they want to cut entitlements. "It's too bloated! It's just a bunch of parasites sucking from the government teat!"

The defense industry is important and I hate to have people lose their jobs, but again, the Tea Party can't have it both ways. You can't say that government funding doesn't create jobs when it's spent on infrastructure but does when it's spent on defense.


Fine I won;t say it. Jobs will be lost and other jobs will be gained in the witch. But right now? We need to rebuild our infrastructure far more than we need to have a defense budget larger than the 10 next largest defense budgets in the world combined. Period. End of Motherfarking discussion. Give the money to DOT, to Forests, to NASA, to university research, and get this farking country cooking again.

/Dammit
 
2012-07-20 02:14:31 AM  
I wouldn't flat out agree with GAT_00 that no company should exist that needs the government dime to be a going concern, but businesses in that situation need as much public scrutiny brought to bear on them as possible, and the question continually asked, "is this worth it?" Governments shouldn't privatize things that only the government sector is paying for - they should pursue their own efficiencies - and governments shouldn't throw good money after bad.

/The relatively newly elected conservative government in my state is getting rid of its publishing and office supply agencies. It's one of the first good decisions I think they've made.
 
2012-07-20 02:15:31 AM  

my lip balm addiction: They've had 20+ years of tax cuts to create jobs. WHERE ARE THE farkING JOBS????

/Asshole.


A tax cut does nothing for a business owner's labor force if there's no demand to justify the hiring of another employee. You can make someone's tax rate zero for all I care, if there's nobody buying his product, he wont hire people to make it. Supply side economics is a component of this argument but it isn't a be-all end all.

A strong middle class would be a good start. If you've been grocery shopping or bought gas recently, you'll see where most of people's paychecks are going.
 
2012-07-20 05:52:56 AM  

my lip balm addiction: We need to rebuild our infrastructure


Im sorry but what exactly is wrong with our infrastructure?
 
2012-07-20 07:55:05 AM  

Mentat: Thoguh: Yeah, let's fire all the engineers in the country, right! Because when money is spent on defense it is just burned and not at all used as paychecks for an educated workforce of engineers and scientists. Nope. Certainly not.

But it's ok to fire all the teachers and policemen and firemen and such, right? You can't have it both ways. The defense industry is conservative socialism in action.


Defense budget is federal, while teachers et al are state and local.
 
2012-07-20 08:07:05 AM  
Funny, through all this no one suggested giving all that money back to the people who originally gave it to the gov: The tax payers. So, fine, gut defense, but every last penny should be returned to the tax payers.
 
2012-07-20 08:44:01 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Philip Francis Queeg: Oh, so you want to include the cost of all the raw materials and all of the profitst for the secondary suppliers when analyzing the cost of the wars and defense contracts?

You'd be double-counting for raw materials. You can include service contracts, though.

Ultimately, the point is that the MIC doesn't have disproportionate power.

After all, which would you rather be, a defense contractor or an oil company?


Does our government spend more on oil procurement than the rest of the world combined?
 
2012-07-20 10:01:38 AM  

a stainless steel rat: Funny, through all this no one suggested giving all that money back to the people who originally gave it to the gov: The tax payers. So, fine, gut defense, but every last penny should be returned to the tax payers.


Cuz the cuts weren't actually necessary to balance the budget or anything.
 
2012-07-20 12:35:42 PM  

Diogenes: Gig103: Hey, if the car industry and commercial airline businesses can get 'bailed out', then so can the defense industry.

I'm sorry...Is Lockheed at grave risk of going bankrupt and taking down the American economy and causing a wave a trouble globally?


More than you know...

And it still ain't my farking problem and I still don't want my government using the money I give them to make sure Lockheed can continue it's ruinous business practices.

The whole "defense supply chain" took a wallop in '09 and has struggled to ramp up. Imagine Ethel, for a moment, working at a place that makes ball bearings that go into rotors and things, eventually put into a pratt and whitney engine. She has been diligently inspecting little stainless steel balls for nigh on 25 years. She knows a good ball by feel. She can seemingly *sense* issues before they arise and address them. She has the largets payroll expenses of any employee in the Quality Department. So when 2009 rolls around, a beancounter at Mr. Balls Steel Bearing Co., Inc. sees that they can reduce overhead in an area that hasn't seen an issue in over a decade by at least 15-20% with a single stroke of his pen. And thus Ethel's position is eliminated and she's replaced by a temp.

That temp, fresh out of college, is just as dedicated, just as motivated, and just as smart as Ethel. But he's looked at a grand total of 50 ball bearings in his life, none of which were examined especially closely.

Suddenly, throughput in QC drops to 80% of its previous level, and the yield drops by 25%.

Now Mr. Ball's customers are getting inferior product, with longer leadtimes, made at higher cost. One of two things happens. 1. The customer lives with this. 2. The customer finds a new supplier.

In situation 1, the customer then passes on all inherent issues to all steps in the rest of the supply chain.

Quality of Pratt and Whitney engines takes a hit either way though. In the first case, they now have to inspect the rotors they are purchasing and develop a test method to detect any out-of-tolerance issues introduced by increased variance in the supply chain. In the second, they have to eat the dead-band introduced by the exploration that We Do Rotors, LLC has to perform in order to identify a quality supplier.

As the engine quality drops and lead time increases, Lockheed now has to adjust *their* inspection methods, lot-control methods, specifications, required inspection lists... they have to increase the robustness of their ERP system to accommodate the increased lot-to-lot variance of not just their engines, but their ailerons, wheels, hydraulics, materials, gaskets, wires, cables, control boards and other sundry electronics.

Everything gets more expensive when you decide that you'd prefer to burn your toast and scrape it, rather than figure out why your toast is getting burnt in the first place.

SO much of our economy is tied up in the MIC, it's hard to even understand, let alone explain. But the downturn damn near crippled it. They are all still hobbled, and some are doing ... better... at learning to walk again. Some... are hiring more people to scrape their toast.
 
2012-07-20 01:16:01 PM  

rewind2846: Giltric:

You had me up until the part about teaching Marines how to fix their helicopters. Everyone knows they eject at the first sign of trouble.

5/10

The Marines I've known that fix their own helicopters are usually smarter than folks like you.
0/10


If they were smart they wouldn't have to join the service. They probably were just answering a calling to kill brown people.
 
2012-07-20 09:11:47 PM  

IronTom: Government provides for defense and security. That is one of the major things it does.


Once again, what's a bigger threat to the USA, foreign combatants or a lack of a good health care system/lack of a good infrastructure?
 
2012-07-20 09:51:18 PM  

vpb: GAT_00: Well, as I understand it, any company that can't survive without government handouts should die.

That doesn't apply to the military. Socialized single payer military isn't socialisims because heroes.


Yeah, am I the only one thinking about that thread yesterday pointing out what exactly the military is turning into?

/Making our 'heroes' rape machines is not a good plan here.
 
2012-07-20 11:02:19 PM  

SomethingToDo: I wouldn't flat out agree with GAT_00 that no company should exist that needs the government dime to be a going concern, but businesses in that situation need as much public scrutiny brought to bear on them as possible, and the question continually asked, "is this worth it?" Governments shouldn't privatize things that only the government sector is paying for - they should pursue their own efficiencies - and governments shouldn't throw good money after bad.

/The relatively newly elected conservative government in my state is getting rid of its publishing and office supply agencies. It's one of the first good decisions I think they've made.


Many of the companies that provide military equipment have been split off from their original companies and are still surviving just fine. Without doing any R & D. Take a look at MTU. This company was originated by GM in 1939, and became Detroit Diesel in 1965. Then it was sold off in 2006, yet they are still making brand new engines and rebuilding the rest for oil field and generators successfully.

"Those of us who worked for Detroit Diesel® in the 2-Cycle's heyday recognized that there was still a lot of life left in this product line," states Polson. "When the off-highway division of Detroit Diesel® became part of the global MTU organization, we saw an opportunity and urged MTU to also purchase the legacy 2-Cycle division. MTU was quick to realize the importance of our 2-Cycle heritage and made a commitment to give it the same comprehensive, long-term product support that it provides with all MTU products."

And they support legacy on-highway engines. And build new ones for the USA. Of course they are a part of the Tognum Group (or Tognum AG) which appears to be German.

So, we've lost control of a key component of our ability to maintain and construct new military equipment to a key NATO ally. Just because the steel manufacturers weren't bailed out back in the late '70s
 
2012-07-21 01:12:52 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: Philip Francis Queeg: Oh, so you want to include the cost of all the raw materials and all of the profitst for the secondary suppliers when analyzing the cost of the wars and defense contracts?

You'd be double-counting for raw materials. You can include service contracts, though.

Ultimately, the point is that the MIC doesn't have disproportionate power.

After all, which would you rather be, a defense contractor or an oil company?

Does our government spend more on oil procurement than the rest of the world combined?


Spending isn't the right metric anyway. If I buy body armor for my soldiers, but you don't buy any for yours, am I evil because I out-spent you?
 
2012-07-22 04:56:55 PM  
I'll never get it. People come in and complain about defense spending. Meanwhile, social programs and debt payments make up a far higher part of our debt (with these programs already taking up 60% of the budget to defense's 20%). Meanwhile, the debt grows at a phenomenal rate and people are still in poverty or apparently having problems getting health care. The answer here is truly obvious, but there are clearly a lot of stupid people who think that medicare, medicaid, social security, and other collectivist pipe dreams are doing exactly what they said they would. Even if we could eliminate the entire portion of the defense from our federal budget (which we can't, refer to the Constitution), we would still see significant federal deficits each year. On top of all this, these social programs are increasing as a percentage of the budget at a phenomenal rate, while defense has been relatively steady when looked at on the whole since WWII.

So, before we start to touch defense, perhaps we should see if there is any way we can knock down these entitlement programs that are dragging us down so fast. I'm all for helping people charitably, but when it is clear they have become little more than dead weight, that is the portion of the budget we need to be paying the most attention to.
 
2012-07-22 11:09:19 PM  

06Wahoo: I'll never get it. People come in and complain about defense spending. Meanwhile, social programs and debt payments make up a far higher part of our debt (with these programs already taking up 60% of the budget to defense's 20%). Meanwhile, the debt grows at a phenomenal rate and people are still in poverty or apparently having problems getting health care. The answer here is truly obvious, but there are clearly a lot of stupid people who think that medicare, medicaid, social security, and other collectivist pipe dreams are doing exactly what they said they would. Even if we could eliminate the entire portion of the defense from our federal budget (which we can't, refer to the Constitution), we would still see significant federal deficits each year. On top of all this, these social programs are increasing as a percentage of the budget at a phenomenal rate, while defense has been relatively steady when looked at on the whole since WWII.

So, before we start to touch defense, perhaps we should see if there is any way we can knock down these entitlement programs that are dragging us down so fast. I'm all for helping people charitably, but when it is clear they have become little more than dead weight, that is the portion of the budget we need to be paying the most attention to.


Everything you said is completely wrong.
 
Displayed 208 of 208 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report