Discussion in 'Current Events' started by lpast, Oct 19, 2019.
If it's not too late, dibs on band name...
this isn't World War Two. It is a myth that modern "wars" like we have now generate any significant profits for American companies.
US government expenditures say otherwise, that money goes somewhere.
duh - uh
Someone has to replace all those "smart bombs"
and other munitions.
And if not spent, less replacements needed.
@Dayton3 can YOU connect the dots or must I draw you a picture?
Remember those Inc.'s obituaries for their financier, Senator John McCain.
So KBR didn't make a buck or two from Iraq? What about the Private Military Companies? What about Tutor Perini?
As of 2013 contractors have made $138 Billion.
The real money in military spending is procurement. That is the production of new weapons systems.
"operations" which involves fuel, ammunition, and spare parts is largely a low margin business. And modern military operations cause most of the spending to go to "operations" not "procurement".
Raw money made does not mean it was overly profitable. Look at the average profit margins and you'll understand.
Once again, do none of you understand what "profit margins" are? 500 billion dollars in contracts doesn't mean that much if the margin is 1% or so. And most military contracts are cost plus. Meaning a very hard fixed profit margin.
So KBR provided close to 40 Billion of services at near cost because they are patriotic?
About time a fellow Democrat finally had the courage to lay into this corrupt old drunk.
“Put Up or Shut Up on These Accusations, Hillary,”
Jim Geraghty makes a great observation on Twitter about her seeing Russians under all the beds:
“Oh, by the way, if Tulsi has all these Russian Bots behind her and promoting her… and she’s still only at 2% in most polls… that doesn’t paint a picture of a particularly powerful or influential Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign.”
If YOU don't believe "warism"
and spending munitions serves . . .
How much does each cruise missile and smart bomb cost to replace? Someone profits, greatly.
I have a bridge to sell you.
First year tolls will pay off sale price.
Clinton got bitch slapped. About time.
Of course not. Cost plus contracts are appealing because their profit margins are fixed and guaranteed. Even if the defense department suddenly decides they need to radically change the product they have contracted with you to build. As the USAF did on Northrop in the mid 1980s regarding the B-2 stealth bomber.
"someone profits" does not mean "someone profits excessively" or that "the profits drive foreign policy in any way".
Hillary Clinton has gone off the cliff with her obsession about and inability to emotionally accept the fact that she lost the election and it was because of HER. Her aim right now is to get to a broker convention and come to the rescue as the consensus nominee. She dreams about it everyday! Sir Hillary to the resecue.
Sometimes it's the ONLY way to let a contract as in providing logistics and support for a war. How do you know how much it is going to cost? How do you know in advance what level of service you will ultimately be supplying? How do you know how long it will last? The uneducated hear "NO-BID CONTRACT" and get all upset thinking it is a rip off and a payoff or corruption when it's simply it's the only way to handle such a contract.
In WW2 why do you think we out produced everyone else with the best of everything? Why do you think we have the most advanced and most powerful military in the world? Someone profited. Were it not for all the Studebaker trucks Studebaker developed and produced at a profit the Nazi's would have defeated the Soviet Union.
I have been saying for some time that Gabbard is the only Dem who can compete with Trump and that the Dems are fools for ignoring her appeal. Why would they do that to her? Some people like the libertarians say the war caucus or neocons have a strong hold on both parties, and that is why the media give Tulsi the treatment they do. I agree with Tulsi Gabbard, it's despicable.
The Democrats have made a HUGE mistake pushing her to the exit door.
How about loss of profits via lack of use!
Get It Or Not!
How about anything above "zero".
And how do you factor in blood, bone, lives
and costs of today's . . . . .
Maybe you should look at the corruption in the current administration before celebrating Hillary's defeat.
Most of the U.S. military has to be funded whether its being used in combat or not. Soldiers have to be paid. Equipment (not just weapons mind you) have to be maintained. Training has to be conducted (using up fuel and munitions) and so on.
You cannot effectively reduce the size of the U.S. military because it would be several orders of magnitude more costly to reconstitute if it is needed at that level in the future. And the U.S. since World War Two has exactly ZERO success in predicting future threats.
Separate names with a comma.