If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
social welfare programs.... Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms Defense Daily If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst. While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner- of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and the companies involved in them, Wood predicted. She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last week. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense, Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican. "Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense] spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty." However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry." For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing to get a $250,000 a year job there. Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes. Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House South Lawn. Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4 percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike wrote:
Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal social welfare programs.... Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms Defense Daily If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst. While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner- of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and the companies involved in them, Wood predicted. She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last week. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense, Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican. "Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense] spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty." However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry." For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing to get a $250,000 a year job there. Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes. Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House South Lawn. Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4 percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index. Remember Jimmy Carter? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike wrote: Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal social welfare programs.... Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms Defense Daily If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst. While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner- of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and the companies involved in them, Wood predicted. She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last week. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense, Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican. "Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense] spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty." However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry." For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing to get a $250,000 a year job there. Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes. Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House South Lawn. Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4 percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index. Remember Jimmy Carter? What about Jimmy Carter? And, btw, if aerospace and defense stocks have performed brilliantly in the past year, does that mean that war is good for business? - nilita |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike wrote: Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal social welfare programs.... Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms Defense Daily If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst. While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner- of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and the companies involved in them, Wood predicted. She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last week. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense, Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican. "Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense] spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty." However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry." For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing to get a $250,000 a year job there. Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes. Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House South Lawn. Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4 percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index. Remember Jimmy Carter? What about Jimmy Carter? And, btw, if aerospace and defense stocks have performed brilliantly in the past year, does that mean that war is good for business? - nilita War is very good for business. Did you see or hear Hillary's bit on Olbermann last night? If Iran nukes Israel or acts like it wants to be a nuke power we nuke them, just for drill. Clinton warns Iran of U.S. nuclear response Senator: ‘Massive retaliation’ for attack on Israel would likely include NATO Video Iran ‘risking massive retaliation’ April 21: Hillary Clinton talks with Countdown’s Keith Olbermann on the eve of the crucial Pennsylvania primary. Countdown Video Clinton rallies in Pennsylvania April 21: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a rally in Pittsburgh. MSNBC updated 9:07 p.m. ET, Mon., April. 21, 2008 Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel. Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate, Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant. In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.” She said U.S. allies in the Middle East were being “intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran,” raising the prospect of an “incredibly destabilizing” arms race in the region. “I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves” if Iran were to develop a nuclear arsenal, she said. Clinton said it was vital that the United States create a new “security umbrella” to reassure Israel and its other allies in the region that they would not be threatened by Iran. She said she would tell them that “if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies, would respond to that.” Clinton seeks tougher profile than Obama Clinton’s hinting at a nuclear option last week set off a wave of commentary in political circles that she was seeking to position herself as a hawk as the primary campaign winds toward an end. Her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, has said that he would not rule out any options if Iran were to become a nuclear power, but he has not explicitly said he would be willing use nuclear weapons. Clinton’s remarks reflected the theme of her latest advertising in Pennsylvania, where Democratic voters go to the polls Tuesday with analysts in both camps saying she must win the state’s primary if she is to remain a credible candidate. Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
Please...EITHER of the candidates on that side is a nightmare.
But the lib media loves them and lemmings will follow anything... expect to see a lot more of this... http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives...OffColor-X.gif |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote: "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike wrote: Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal social welfare programs.... Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms Defense Daily If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst. While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner- of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and the companies involved in them, Wood predicted. She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last week. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense, Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican. "Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense] spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty." However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry." For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing to get a $250,000 a year job there. Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes. Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House South Lawn. Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4 percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index. Remember Jimmy Carter? What about Jimmy Carter? And, btw, if aerospace and defense stocks have performed brilliantly in the past year, does that mean that war is good for business? - nilita War is very good for business. Did you see or hear Hillary's bit on Olbermann last night? If Iran nukes Israel or acts like it wants to be a nuke power we nuke them, just for drill. Clinton warns Iran of U.S. nuclear response Senator: ‘Massive retaliation’ for attack on Israel would likely include NATO Video Iran ‘risking massive retaliation’ April 21: Hillary Clinton talks with Countdown’s Keith Olbermann on the eve of the crucial Pennsylvania primary. Countdown Video Clinton rallies in Pennsylvania April 21: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a rally in Pittsburgh. MSNBC updated 9:07 p.m. ET, Mon., April. 21, 2008 Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel. Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate, Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant. In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.” She said U.S. allies in the Middle East were being “intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran,” raising the prospect of an “incredibly destabilizing” arms race in the region. “I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves” if Iran were to develop a nuclear arsenal, she said. Clinton said it was vital that the United States create a new “security umbrella” to reassure Israel and its other allies in the region that they would not be threatened by Iran. She said she would tell them that “if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies, would respond to that.” Clinton seeks tougher profile than Obama Clinton’s hinting at a nuclear option last week set off a wave of commentary in political circles that she was seeking to position herself as a hawk as the primary campaign winds toward an end. Her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, has said that he would not rule out any options if Iran were to become a nuclear power, but he has not explicitly said he would be willing use nuclear weapons. Clinton’s remarks reflected the theme of her latest advertising in Pennsylvania, where Democratic voters go to the polls Tuesday with analysts in both camps saying she must win the state’s primary if she is to remain a credible candidate. Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. ******************************** Okay, thanks for that. - nilita |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
wrote: Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if unjustified. Are we overlooking George H.W. Bush, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry S Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, Ulysses S. Grant, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Henry Harrison, George Washington, to name just a few...? Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22% inflation and an 18% prime interest rate, presided over the collapse of our greatest ally in the middle East, allowed our embassy to be seized and then micro-managed the bungled rescue attempt, etc. etc. And, now he believes Hamas is willing to co-exist with Israel... One can only say the Jimmy Carter meant well. ....but executed poorly. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike wrote: Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal social welfare programs.... Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms Defense Daily If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst. other industries would benefit and we need to spend money on the U.S. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
Translation: "The gravy boat may be sailing."
Dan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
"Mike" wrote in message ... Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal social welfare programs.... As with your toilet habits, your political ideas are of absolutely no interest to me. Take it to a political group. Vaughn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 168 | February 5th 08 05:32 PM |
Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land" | Robert M. Gary | Instrument Flight Rules | 137 | February 5th 08 05:32 PM |
Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale | >pk | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 06 07:48 AM |
2007 Defense Budget: Changes in Aircraft Programs. | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 6th 06 06:33 PM |