Trump gets commitment from Lockheed to lower costs

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Zombie Acorn, Dec 24, 2016.

  1. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #1
  2. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #2
    The win won't happen until something beyond talk happens.

    What else can Lockheed can say? I'm astounded at the numbers. If I calculated correctly, a $100m aircraft, a 100 of them cost $10B ($10,000,000,000). Can you imagine if that money was plowed back into our general economy? The swords vs plow shares argument.
     
  3. Zombie Acorn thread starter macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #3
    It's really simple, Trump knows they will play ball and that they have gravy around the project, if they lose the f35 their stock goes into the dumpster. It's called leverage.
     
  4. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #4
    Where do you think these companies get the money to pay millions to the Clinton Foundation, bribes to Clinton in the form of speeches, huge lobbying expenses and donations to all the house and senate campaigns?

    Drain the swamp.

    The only way to get this under control is to elect people who are willing to break the cycle and do what's right rather than what makes them rich.
     
  5. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #5
    That's part of the main reason why so many in the beltway and up top feared him becoming POTUS. He's already rich and can do even better for himself by not needing to worry about the money and instead leveraging just getting stuff done right. He's not under their control and has pretty much given the middle finger to anyone who was used to controlling the administration.
     
  6. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #6
    Eisenhower cut defense spending to 9.3% of the budget, by his last budget in 1960. The 2015 defense spending was 16.2 percent of the budget.

    If we spent 10% of our budget on defense, we'd still be outspending every other nation. We'd be spending about $336 Billion on defense @10% of our budget, and saving $201.6 billion. We'd still be spending twice what the second highest other nation spends( China ).

    The MIC is out of control.
     
  7. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #7
    Bravo, keep the narrative going. :rolleyes::oops: If this kind of fiction spewed as sudo-truth, is what motivates a substantial portion of our citizens, we are screwed.
     
  8. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #8
    What is your narrative? Why are defense contractors even going down the road of reducing costs when for decades they could happily sell $8000 toilets to our government paid for by unwitting taxpayers?

    I do like the idea of a president not being beholden to lobbyists. Even if he is a loose cannon.
     
  9. Huntn, Dec 24, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2016

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #9
    The reply you quoted has something to do with the continuing smokescreen of Hillary as the cause of all our problems even after she is out of the running for POTUS. Gee, after she passes away (eventually), what new bogey man will the right manufacture?

    Btw, $8k toilets (if that is the correct number, let's say extremely overpriced) I thought was well known with a long historical legacy, not that I have ever approved of such practises and speak out against them whenever the subject comes up. You might ask how the decision is made to entertain a $100M a copy fighter in the first place.
    Let's see what Trump says tomorrow! I'm looking forward to it. :rolleyes:
     
  10. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #10
     
  11. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #11
    Eisenhower, a good Republican back in the era of good Republicans, recognized and warned of the danger. Today try to get a $100m social program passed to feed Hungary people. Naw, not enough return on the dollar. :oops:
     
  12. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #12
    This has nothing to do with Hillary!

    Every administration since Eisenhower with the support of Congress has been responsible for the overbuilding of the US military to the point where it has become ridiculous. The Pentagon regularly can't find billions of dollars and overspends on every military contract. Politicians of both parties are paid off to look other way by lobbyists or worse encouraging our adventurous military policy.

    What Trump has done is turn the tables on the military industrial complex. About time!
     
  13. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #13
    Do you read posts? You quoted me replying to someone continuing to making a case against Hillary. As far as Trump, he spent plenty of time campaigning as a hawk.. It remains to be seen what he actually is.
     
  14. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #14
    You were refuting someone (not me) who was making a case against Hillary. I just asked what was your narrative then. I never mentioned Hillary nor implied her position.
     
  15. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #15
    Bill Clinton cut defense quite a bit, but after 9/11 defense spending has been going through the roof, with the "increased need for a security State".
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    The overreaction to terrorist attacks is a big part of the problem there.
     
  17. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #17
    Any excuse the feed the MIC, in the US Homeland Security's budget is included in the defense budget.
     
  18. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #18
    Goulash isn't that expensive ;)
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    I can't agree. Imagine if Bush had refused to go into Afghanistan. There would have been uproar.
     
  20. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #20
    Why didn't we just to what Israel did in "Munich?" Wasn't that the method that ultimately killed OBL? Would have saved trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. But then the defense contractors wouldn't have made as much money as with a 15 year hot war.
     
  21. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #21
    Well, no...they are beholden to him. They are all on his cabinet. He drained the swamp right into his office.
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    Honestly that would have been better. Still I can't imagine people going for it and leaving the taliban in charge.
     
  23. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #23
    That's not what we've seen so far with the CEOs of Boeing and Lockheed Martin. He is ultimately responsible for what happens, not his cabinet.

    I have nothing against corporations making money but they certainly shouldn't be abusing the US government and taxpayers. Where the line is I don't know but there is a lot of room to improve on the current situation.
     
  24. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #24
    We were the ones who originally put the Taliban in charge in the 80s. I think a quick kill of OBL and his lieutenants would have been enough for most Americans.
     
  25. kobalap macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    #25
    Getting Lockheed to lower prices is not want politicians want. Virtually every state in the union has a stake on the F35. It is in every federal politician's interest for the program to be bloated, over budget and perpetual. If the planes cost less, it means less money for all the suppliers and all contractors that participate in building the plane.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 24, 2016 ---
    You know what they say about hindsight.

    Besides, I am not sure the military industrial complex would have benefitted as much with an in and out operation in Afghanistan. 13 years of war is entirely more profitable.
     

Share This Page