Which presidential candidate would shake up defense stocks most?
Investors in U.S. makers of big weapon systems sometimes say they’re nervous a left-leaning Democratic presidency could severely cut military spending. A more realistic threat to the future of some lucrative defense contracts, however, may come in the form of a conservative Republican.
[…”McCain] has conservative, big-defense credentials and the political experience to take surprising actions” in the face of pressure from powerful military contractors and related interest groups. […] According to a research report this summer from UBS, McCain has been an aggressive proponent of reform in the military spending.”
[…]
McCain, like Obama, has promised to reduce overall military costs through smarter spending, smaller supplemental budgets, and pulling combat troops out of Iraq. Both men also want increased troop strength, which would likely mean less money for large-weapon systems.
[…]
Nor does it matter that the Democratic-controlled Congress appears likely to remain intact under either administration. Democrats often are branded as being soft on defense, but its party’s lawmakers have endorsed heavy spending on a lot of weapons systems.
I always laugh when I read or hear the following phrase or concept: “in the face of pressure from powerful military contractors and related interest groups.”
There can be no such “power” without a corrupt government. And yet you hear such terms used casually as if they existed on their own.
Silly Hoomans.
No, how can McBush have his “100 years of WAR in the Middle East” without the Military/Industrial Complex LOOTING THE US TREASURY ??? Just like Bush, McBush will PISS AWAY 10 TO 12 BILLION A MONTH – OR MORE ON MAKING WAR AGAINST A NATION THAT DID NOT ATTACK US !!! The Militarists and Industrialists sleep soundly knowing that McBush is on their side !!!
P.S. The Cartoon should have shown Prick Cheney as the OVER-CHARGING WAR PROFITEER – THAT NEVER SERVED !!!
Only if the Defense Contractors make White Surrender Flags.
Let’s cut to the chase. It’s all about two major things:
(1) Pentagon wants their jobs and buy more toys.
(2) War industry provides jobs and wants profits.
OK, how do keep that juicy $500,000,000,000 flow of annual tax dollars flowing and be productive?
Answer:
Get the military to diversify (not expand) into things that actually are useful. Like US infrastructure, broadband, etc. Why? Because those god damn things are national security issues too, you god damn morons!
“Can anyone really reform military spending?” – hardly… But, I believe that pigheaded insider has more chance of success doing it (in unlikely case that he does try). If Obama attempts it we will likely have another Govt. split up equivalent of Bush-CIA, which is catastrophy…
This is why we still have a space station. It survived by one vote, then they moved the jobs around.
“Will Obama Be Better For Defense Contractors Than McCain?”
Kind of a stupid question. The only gov’t body that can originate spending is the House. Period.
So, “Will a dem controlled House be better for defense contractors than a repub “House”?
Remember, dems have been funding Bush’s war for two years now…
#10: True, but the Prez has veto power.
#11 “#10: True, but the Prez has veto power.”
True. However, a Pres can’t veto something that doesn’t hit his desk. So, if a war spending bill is simply not passed by the Dems there is nothing to “veto”. So, how does a veto factor into something that doesn’t happen? Hmmm…
Dave, the pancake and waffle girls are NOT an effective deterrent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoKZhaigLQA
You’ll have to come up better, sure-fire make-us-safer weapon system.
There are plenty of military projects out there that are neither needed nor wanted by DoD, but proceed (or are extended) anyway because the projects are in some powerful Congresscritter’s state or district.
That Congresscritter keeps getting re-elected by his constituents because the project brings jobs to that state or district, keeping voters employed.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone who reads this blog.
I worked as a CNC programmer/machinist mostly for small job shops on Long Island. Most of the parts we manufactured were for the DoD and at the time I was ignorant about what we were really doing. Making WMD’s during the Reagan years was very fruitful.
I still remember when the first Gulf war broke out and hearing the shop owner cheer for glee as the bombs dropped, knowing we would get more work. I asked my fellow workers what they thought about the war and weapons we were making and all of them were happy to be working and that now we can make more and get more overtime. I know every machine shop worker and owner will vote for the warmonger every time.
If there were things to manufacture other than weapons such as consumer goods maybe then
the war machine in Washington could be reigned in.
Will one figurehead candidate be a better tool of big business defense contractors, over the other figurehead candidate? Hmmm, let me think about that. Nooooo. Congress and the Pentagon will dance the dance with their corporate partners. And it will be business as usual no matter who gets in office. They’ll just thru one a bone or two, to make a big public deal about “reforming” them. And roll over for billions of other pork.
I remember Nixon campaigned on getting us out of Vietnam. And he was too busy bugging the DNC offices, to schedule some time for that. He was escorted out of office, as to not embarrass the institution with an impeachment trial. So it was finally up to Ford to do it. And he probably only did it, because the military leaders let him.
This is wag the dog politics, where the tail (the military) actually tells the dog (the prez) what it would like to do next. And the dog then does it. But the dog pretends it was its idea all along. Too bad us fleas aren’t in charge. We pay all the damn bills.
#17 “So it was finally up to Ford to do it. And he probably only did it, because the military leaders let him.”
You really have no clue how the Vietnam war was run, do you?
#16 “If there were things to manufacture other than weapons such as consumer goods maybe then
the war machine in Washington could be reigned in.”
How about this. Instead of the gov’t taking $ out of your paycheck to pay for war, the money was left in your paycheck so you could spend it on consumer goods?
Think EITHER party will sign on?