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

3937 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-19 02:03:09 PM  
10 votes:
www.visitingdc.com\
"Did I not warn you people about this? How the fark is this coming as a surprise? Morons."
2012-07-19 06:00:31 AM  
7 votes:
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 07:30:15 AM  
5 votes:
If they were true patriots, they would adjust top level salaries so less people would lose their jobs.
2012-07-19 06:08:37 AM  
5 votes:
Well, as I understand it, any company that can't survive without government handouts should die.
2012-07-19 10:18:50 AM  
4 votes:

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 09:59:39 AM  
4 votes:

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 04:47:54 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:18:13 PM  
3 votes:
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 11:40:29 AM  
3 votes:
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 06:17:42 AM  
3 votes:
Hey, learn how to manufacture something else then.
2012-07-19 04:14:56 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:55:13 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:54:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:50:15 PM  
2 votes:
What's killed more Americans in the last 20 years, a broken healthcare system or foreign enemies?
2012-07-19 02:06:44 PM  
2 votes:
secretaryclinton.files.wordpress.com
2012-07-19 01:18:24 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:11:00 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:31:43 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:31:16 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:18:07 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:00:19 AM  
2 votes:
I thought government doesn't create jobs?
2012-07-20 02:14:19 AM  
1 vote:

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
2012-07-19 06:11:52 PM  
1 vote:
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 05:55:51 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:11:27 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:58:29 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:31:17 PM  
1 vote:
I've got a more succinct headline: "Welfare Queens Lobby Congress"
2012-07-19 04:18:02 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:58:37 PM  
1 vote:
And suddenly fark was overrun by free market proponents.
2012-07-19 03:54:59 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:54:29 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:48:10 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:37:46 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:36:55 PM  
1 vote:

nathantimmel.com

"Won't someone please think of the Military Industrial Complex?!"

2012-07-19 02:33:21 PM  
1 vote:
But I was assured that government spending doesn't create jobs.
2012-07-19 02:14:33 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:08:22 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:04:45 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:01:53 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:57:43 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:51:47 PM  
1 vote:
No deal, no negotiations. The teatards demanded these conditions, and it's time EVERYONE sees the benefits of it.
2012-07-19 11:32:01 AM  
1 vote:
I wonder why there isn't anyone in here telling us it's NOT socialism?
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-19 10:34:58 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:33:22 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-07-19 10:30:27 AM  
1 vote:
Military spending is less effective at creating jobs than virtually any other form of government activity.
2012-07-19 10:29:22 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:21:43 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:15:07 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:14:03 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:10:00 AM  
1 vote:

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 08:38:01 AM  
1 vote:

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 08:34:54 AM  
1 vote:

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 08:18:09 AM  
1 vote:

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 08:13:43 AM  
1 vote:
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 08:02:42 AM  
1 vote:

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 06:27:13 AM  
1 vote:
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.
 
Displayed 56 of 56 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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