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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
On Apr 22, 10:42*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote: 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.- Hide quoted text - Well, an active duty submariner is not the same thing as an active duty officer. Which is where GPS, Internet, Microcomputers, Fiber Optics, Cell Phones, Cruise Mssiles, laser-guided bombs, PV Cells, and AUVs, AAVs, Drones, and Robots, came for Carter in his idiot energy budget. - Show quoted text - |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:43:37 -0700, Dan wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:23 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... 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, How did a president 'give' us those rates? Glenn D. Generally the state of the economy is attributed to the economic policies of the incumbent president. (Recall Clinton's claim of leaving a balanced budget and reducing the national debt? Notice the attribution of the current market decline, AKA recession, to Bush tax cuts? Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?) If you take office with 4% inflation and 6% interest rates and in four years without a major cultural shock like a 9/11 or significant war the inflation rate has skyrocketed and interest rates make home owners instantly "wealthy" but home buyers turn into apartment seekers, you take the blame. If your successor cuts taxes and within three years the indicators are significantly reversed, we can assume a cause/effect relationship. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com Yeah, no oil embargoes or OPEC cartels raising prices at all... No major revolutions in the oil patch... D'oh! Dan You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000. And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:45:57 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
wrote: Dan ha scritto: Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?) Someone can explain to me the contradictory justapoxition of "tax cuts" and "increases in federal revenue" ? Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. A cut in marginal tax rate can result in increased productivity, new job creation, a booming economy and consequently higher tax revenue. When people keep their own money for investment and purchasing power, they generally employ it in ways which grow the economy. For details on the concept refer to the work of Arthur Laffer, and the Laffer Curve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:05:25 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote: You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000. Can't say that I do. Do you have a cite for that assertion? Incidentally, since the Carter administration started January 20, 1977, how did an assertion by that administration cause shortages in 1976? And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil. The 55 mph speed limit started in 1974, during Nixon's administration. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:05:25 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote: You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000. And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil. I'm pretty darn sure the Carter administration did not take office until January, 1977. The oil crisis that caused the enaction of the 55mph speed limit happened in 1973. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
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. "Ever" is a long time. Do you mean in your lifetime, or just since you started reading USENET? Eisenhower did not see combat prior to his Command, unless you count rousting Bonus Marchers, but then neither did Carter prior to his Presidency. Truman served in WW1 combat as an artillery officer. And I'm leaving out a bunch of others, including Kennedy and another fellow you may have heard of named GEORGE WASHINGTON. Jack |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
On Apr 24, 9:41 am, J a c k wrote:
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. "Ever" is a long time. Do you mean in your lifetime, or just since you started reading USENET? Eisenhower did not see combat prior to his Command, unless you count rousting Bonus Marchers, but then neither did Carter prior to his Presidency. Truman served in WW1 combat as an artillery officer. And I'm leaving out a bunch of others, including Kennedy and another fellow you may have heard of named GEORGE WASHINGTON. Jack Truman was an artillery officer, yes, he was not a micro-manager. G. Washington, was, as I have heard, not a micro-manager, perhaps not even a manager. He had Hamilton for that. Hamilton Jordan said it best about the Carter presidency before it had even started, "If Cyrus Vance is the Secretary of State, we have lost." Cyrus Vance was the SecState. Carter wanted everything to be on his desk and signed off on before it was implemented. There was a reason for that: "A few reform-minded Democrats and intellectuals were starting to rethink the premises of big government liberalism, to wonder if there might be less expensive and bureaucratic--and more effective--means to traditional liberal ends. Carter was inclined to agree with them. But such thinking was anathema to the party's liberal leaders and most powerful interest groups, and they were positioned to stop it. When Carter took over as president, the nation's most pressing--and consuming--problems were economic. Growth and worker productivity were low, unemployment and federal deficits were high and rising, and, by midway through the president's term, inflation and interest rates were compounding at more than 10 percent annually. Carter's plan was to balance the budget, slashing spending enough to also provide for a $15 billion tax cut which would act as an economic spur. Congress rejected the package, insisting instead on an economic stimulus package (which Carter reluctantly signed) consisting of $15 billion for public works projects, urban aid, and education, the kind of program that reeked of 1933. This pattern was repeated throughout Carter's term, as unions fought the president's calls for voluntary wage controls to combat inflation, and Congress resisted Carter's repeated attempts to balance the federal budget. The president proposed a budget for 1980 designed to restore fiscal austerity and cut spending to keep the deficit for that year under $30 billion. Congress insisted on restoring the cuts, and by the end of the process, the budget was more than $60 billion in the red. The second great challenge the Democrats faced was an OPEC-induced surge in energy prices. Carter came in with some good and some bad ideas about how to alleviate the energy crisis. Democrats in Congress rebuffed the president's best plan--Carter's attempt to lift the price controls Richard Nixon had imposed on domestic energy. But congressional Democrats eagerly adopted his bad ideas, including the creation of the Department of Energy, which would become perhaps the most dysfunctional agency in Washington. House Speaker Tip O'Neill set up a task force to speed along passage of the authorizing bill, getting the agency running in a matter of months. Congress happily signed on in 1980 when Carter asked it to set up the Synthetic Fuels Corporation. The program ultimately spent $88 billion subsidizing American oil and gas companies to try to extract petroleum out of oil shale, an enterprise only slightly more cost-effective than trying to wring water from a stone. The SynFuels concept dispensed a lot of taxpayer money to a lot of Democratic interest groups but did nothing to solve the energy crisis." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...ace-wells.html |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:05:25 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:43:37 -0700, Dan wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:23 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... 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, How did a president 'give' us those rates? Glenn D. Generally the state of the economy is attributed to the economic policies of the incumbent president. (Recall Clinton's claim of leaving a balanced budget and reducing the national debt? Notice the attribution of the current market decline, AKA recession, to Bush tax cuts? Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?) If you take office with 4% inflation and 6% interest rates and in four years without a major cultural shock like a 9/11 or significant war the inflation rate has skyrocketed and interest rates make home owners instantly "wealthy" but home buyers turn into apartment seekers, you take the blame. If your successor cuts taxes and within three years the indicators are significantly reversed, we can assume a cause/effect relationship. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com Yeah, no oil embargoes or OPEC cartels raising prices at all... No major revolutions in the oil patch... D'oh! Dan You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000. And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil. OFCS Ed, put a sock in it. The 55 limit came in '74, Nixon was still president. The out by 2000 was during the Ford admin. It's time for you to recognise your irrational hatred of the man and start looking things up. Peter Skelton |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
Peter Skelton wrote:
...recognise your irrational hatred of [Carter] and start looking things up. Sure, there are plenty of rational reasons to dislike Carter, in addition to his being a Democrat. Apparently knows from peanuts, probably make a mediocre carpenter, must have been adequate on nuclear power plants in subs, but wasn't effective with Iran, can't keep his fingers out of the ME pie, and generally looks, at best, like a well-intentioned micro-manager with a Messiah complex. Jack |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"
On Apr 24, 10:40 am, J a c k wrote:
Peter Skelton wrote: ...recognise your irrational hatred of [Carter] and start looking things up. Sure, there are plenty of rational reasons to dislike Carter, in addition to his being a Democrat. Apparently knows from peanuts, probably make a mediocre carpenter, must have been adequate on nuclear power plants in subs, but wasn't effective with Iran, can't keep his fingers out of the ME pie, and generally looks, at best, like a well-intentioned micro-manager with a Messiah complex. Jack Is that with or without a contrary Congress? Couple of ME politicians were very happy for his fingers in the pie, both countries still are. |
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 |