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 210
    More: Fail, killer, Pratt & Whitney, EADS, carbon sequestration, House Armed Services Committee, defense contractors  
•       •       •

3932 clicks; posted to Business » on 19 Jul 2012 at 1:54 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report