lockheed claims that extensive defense cuts would have a cost of their own

Well, I can't imagine a defense contractor ever coming out an saying cuts would be good for America, but it's nice to see Lockheed followed the Banking and Automotive bailouts, and learned how to argue from a position of emotional blackmail, because otherwise I would question their attentiveness, and therefore their ability to deliver suitable contracts.
 
Threedee said:
Well, I can't imagine a defense contractor ever coming out an saying cuts would be good for America, but it's nice to see Lockheed followed the Banking and Automotive bailouts, and learned how to argue from a position of emotional blackmail, because otherwise I would question their attentiveness, and therefore their ability to deliver suitable contracts.
Click to expand...

i cannot imagine any business coming out and saying that they need to be regulated more or have their product threaten by government cuts or any other reason for that matter
 
The question is, do the righties want to cut spending or not? Of course there will be negative consequences for spending cuts. It goes without saying.
 
So we continue spending for the sake of spending not because we need what we are buying?
 
Jarod said:
So we continue spending for the sake of spending not because we need what we are buying?
Click to expand...

i suppose that we could chalk it up to another form of stimulus, but i would rather spend the money on infrastructure

i do not mind the labor so much as the natural resources consumed

oh well
 
Lets spend it on educating our children, or health care for our vets, if we must spend it at all.
 
Panetta was screaming about DoD cuts, I wasn't listening. A Nation that has to have a War Machine "to create jobs", or use weapons in a perpetual war, is a nation that cannot survive.

China is building up it's navy, and other armed forces. But they aren't running around droning the planet, or "nationbuilding" - they prefer "soft power" ( trade / SCO). but will back it up against US with hard power.

Make the cuts, who is going to attack us? unless one thinks AQ is going to marshall up an invasion. I don't want to gut DoD, but it needs a razor hair cut back to esential DEFENSE.

There is no reason for constant spending on military new toys. Except the US is addicted to war.
 
Pinheads often overlook the consequences of their actions. Take Obamacare for example. They had no idea it would put the freeze on hiring like it did. We've heard them moan and groan about "military cuts" for years, because liberals hate the military... if it were up to them, honest to God, I think they would totally disband the military altogether... to hell with consequence! They don't think or worry about the consequence until they have to face it, then they pretend it was some unforeseen thing, no one could have anticipated, and churn out even more liberal stupidity to deal with the consequence.

Cuts in the defense budget, whether the "right thing to do" or not, will result in people losing their jobs, companies folding, entire communities turning into ghost towns overnight, due to the negative economic impact. There is no part of the liberals "cut defense" plan, which addresses or deals with this consequence, because consequences are ignored by liberals. They will deal with implementation of some other stupid liberal cockamamie idea to deal with the consequences as they develop.
 
Occupant said:
Virtually ALL spending cuts will also cause job losses.

Perhaps if we cut congressional pay?
Click to expand...

I'm all for that! Let's do it!!

Yes, virtually everything you can think of to cut, will have some effect on some job, somewhere. The key is carefully considering consequences and cutting things that have the least impact. We can cut out a LOT of government excess and redundancy, eliminate waste and unneeded or obsolete programs, and although jobs will be lost, the savings realized will be far greater of an asset in the long run. You start closing military bases, and you devastate entire towns... every business in that town suffers. Thousands of people you never intended to effect with the change, are effected, either directly or indirectly. Contrast this with, say, cuts in the amount we give to foreign aid, and the ramifications of that, and it should be a no-brainer as to which is best for us. What jobs do we lose if we don't send Pakistan $50 billion next year? ...As opposed to closing several military bases, it's a much better scenario for us.

Don't take this wrong, I am not saying we shouldn't make ANY cuts in military spending, we just need to be conscious of what the consequences will be. It's important not to stick our head up our ass and pretend we can slash military spending dramatically, and it won't have a HUGE effect on our economy.
 
Dixie said:
I'm all for that! Let's do it!!

Yes, virtually everything you can think of to cut, will have some effect on some job, somewhere. The key is carefully considering consequences and cutting things that have the least impact. We can cut out a LOT of government excess and redundancy, eliminate waste and unneeded or obsolete programs, and although jobs will be lost, the savings realized will be far greater of an asset in the long run. You start closing military bases, and you devastate entire towns... every business in that town suffers. Thousands of people you never intended to effect with the change, are effected, either directly or indirectly. Contrast this with, say, cuts in the amount we give to foreign aid, and the ramifications of that, and it should be a no-brainer as to which is best for us. What jobs do we lose if we don't send Pakistan $50 billion next year? ...As opposed to closing several military bases, it's a much better scenario for us.

Don't take this wrong, I am not saying we shouldn't make ANY cuts in military spending, we just need to be conscious of what the consequences will be. It's important not to stick our head up our ass and pretend we can slash military spending dramatically, and it won't have a HUGE effect on our economy.
Click to expand...

All cuts to gov spending lead to job losses. The question is, which jobs are more important than others.
 
Dixie said:
Pinheads often overlook the consequences of their actions. Take Obamacare for example. They had no idea it would put the freeze on hiring like it did. We've heard them moan and groan about "military cuts" for years, because liberals hate the military... if it were up to them, honest to God, I think they would totally disband the military altogether... to hell with consequence! They don't think or worry about the consequence until they have to face it, then they pretend it was some unforeseen thing, no one could have anticipated, and churn out even more liberal stupidity to deal with the consequence.

Cuts in the defense budget, whether the "right thing to do" or not, will result in people losing their jobs, companies folding, entire communities turning into ghost towns overnight, due to the negative economic impact. There is no part of the liberals "cut defense" plan, which addresses or deals with this consequence, because consequences are ignored by liberals. They will deal with implementation of some other stupid liberal cockamamie idea to deal with the consequences as they develop.
Click to expand...

So, a permanent stimulus program for unnecessary military programs & expenditures.

That's absolutely insane.
 
Tweedle-Dee said:
All cuts to gov spending lead to job losses. The question is, which jobs are more important than others.
Click to expand...

Tweedle-Dumb said:
So, a permanent stimulus program for unnecessary military programs & expenditures.

That's absolutely insane.
Click to expand...

I guess you morons are having comprehension problems again today. It's amazing how I post something, and the two of you read something that is completely OPPOSITE of what I post. I already said, virtually any cut would lead to jobs lost, and that we should consider the importance of the jobs first... that was my whole point.... you agree with that, but you want to try and pretend I said the opposite, and you are rebutting me. That's cute!

Then, I also said... we need to cut unnecessary programs... but again, you apparently read something OPPOSITE of that.

Let me ask you two something... If you are going to insist on disagreeing with me, even when you absolutely agree with what I've said, how the hell are we ever going to come to agreement and resolve anything?
 
Dixie said:
I guess you morons are having comprehension problems again today. It's amazing how I post something, and the two of you read something that is completely OPPOSITE of what I post. I already said, virtually any cut would lead to jobs lost, and that we should consider the importance of the jobs first... that was my whole point.... you agree with that, but you want to try and pretend I said the opposite, and you are rebutting me. That's cute!

Then, I also said... we need to cut unnecessary programs... but again, you apparently read something OPPOSITE of that.

Let me ask you two something... If you are going to insist on disagreeing with me, even when you absolutely agree with what I've said, how the hell are we ever going to come to agreement and resolve anything?
Click to expand...

With you? We are not. If you ever become sane though, we could begin the process.
 
Rune said:
With you? We are not. If you ever become sane though, we could begin the process.
Click to expand...

There is no process to begin, if you are going to disagree with me even when you agree. Right here, is a prime example:

Dixie: Virtually everything you can think of to cut, will have some effect on some job, somewhere. The key is carefully considering consequences and cutting things that have the least impact.

YOU: All cuts to gov spending lead to job losses. The question is, which jobs are more important than others.

Seems we have the exact SAME viewpoint, yet you want to twist what I said, or deliberately misunderstand it, and 'disagree' with me. How can we get to a "process" if this is how your mind works? It doesn't matter if we agree, you just want to find disagreement for the sake of being disagreeable. Not much can ever be accomplished like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top