Your Tax Dollars To Deadbeats Report

[Amskeptic]

Yes, this isn't really about those lazy welfare cheats that Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan express so much heartfelt concern for. It is about another class of deadbeats we taxpayers support, to their moral detriment, I speak of Lockheed Martin, the primary defense contractor responsible for the F-35 Fighter Jet.

Each jet is mediocre in combat.
http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/ty ... al-combat/
Each jet suffers from byzantine complexity.
No jet will be ready before 2019 (ten years late)
Investment so far, 327 BILLION dollars.
36 BILLION dollars of taxpayer's money annually flows into Lockheed's coffers.
1,000 lobbyists employed by Lockheed have distributed 21 million dollars to Congresspersons.
$750,000 alone has been given to Bud McCleon, head of the Armed Services Committee.
Program has never been audited.
Lockheed's profits in 2010/11 . . . . . 5.5 BILLION dollars.

. . . and I do not hear Eric Cantor or Paul Ryan raise any sort of protest against this filth while they happily cut 8 billion dollars from SNAP and stand by Joh Boehner while he refuses to allow a vote on increasing the minimum wage.

Is this the current moral foundation of our Representative Democracy?
Are you damn sick and tired of my tedious bashing of the capitalist orgy?
Colin

[hippiewannabe]

Each jet is mediocre in combat.
http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/ty ... al-combat/

"Eurofighter test pilot says". Hardly an unbiased source. Maneuverability is one thing, but stealth matters. They won't get a chance to outmaneuver the F-35, because they'll be dead before they know it's there.

Investment so far, 327 BILLION dollars.
36 BILLION dollars of taxpayer's money annually flows into Lockheed's coffers.
1,000 lobbyists employed by Lockheed have distributed 21 million dollars to Congresspersons.
$750,000 alone has been given to Bud McCleon, head of the Armed Services Committee.
Program has never been audited.
Lockheed's profits in 2010/11 . . . . . 5.5 BILLION dollars.

Military capability is expensive. But if we don't intend to stand in the way of Assad murdering his citizens, China claiming the entire ocean up to the shores of their neighbors 1,000 miles away, and Russia annexing it's neighbors, why bother. Just withdraw to our borders and hope for the best, like we did before the last couple of world wars. What could go wrong?

Are you damn sick and tired of my tedious bashing of the capitalist orgy?

Ha. Perhaps, but military expenditures are far from real capitalism. The contracts are so thick with legal BS to prevent the corruption that happened in the past that only a few legally expert firms can bid. They are shrouded in necessary secrecy so that true open capitalist competition is impossible. Add the politics of politicians trying to land jobs in their home districts, and it's a miracle that it works at all. The only worse system is every other one. And thank God for that, in maintaining our freedom so far. It's not a certainty that it will continue, and it will certainly not be the fault of capitalists and military contractors if it's lost.

[Amskeptic]

A) "Eurofighter test pilot says". Hardly an unbiased source. Maneuverability is one thing, but stealth matters. They won't get a chance to outmaneuver the F-35, because they'll be dead before they know it's there.

B) Military capability is expensive. But if we don't intend to stand in the way of Assad murdering his citizens, China claiming the entire ocean up to the shores of their neighbors 1,000 miles away, and Russia annexing it's neighbors, why bother. Just withdraw to our borders and hope for the best, like we did before the last couple of world wars. What could go wrong?

C) The only worse system is every other one. And thank God for that, in maintaining our freedom so far. It's not a certainty that it will continue, and it will certainly not be the fault of capitalists and military contractors if it's lost.

A) You have to go outside our jingoistic borders, geeze louise, hippiewannabee, have you forgotten the American Car? You think *our* reviewers saved us from ourselves? Good Lord no. Open your mind to people from other lands. Like the land that designed and built your Volkswagen to outlast the competitors.

B) Do you *think* I am an isolationist, or are you debating me as one of those ghost opponents on the Rush Limbaugh / Sean Hannity / Bill O'Reilly / Fox morning shows? You know, where they talk over their guests and refuse to listen to n-u-a-n-c-e. For example, I never did, and never will recommend withdrawing to our borders because I am still smitten by what is best about this country, our Marshall Plan, our Peace Corps, or Ameri-Corps, our exchange programs, our environmental outreach, our sharing of our technological skills and expertise, our recent-but-blown-to-shit-by-Bush economic might to do good in the world instead of letting these military hardware assholes sell weaponry to both sides.
No, I am not isolationist, but I am damn sick of testosterone-laced military knuckleheads who *cannot perceive* strength in light agile responsive military abilities coupled with diplomacy and humanitarian assistance to other countries. It would cost less too, Mr. Alleged Financial Steward RepublicanMan. We are so horribly bloated and stupid in our military, it's just not funny any more. We could have given every single Iraqi citizen some $53,125.00 and rebuilt their infrastructure (and rebuilt their cultural treasures that we helped to destroy and loot), and we would have been ahead without that obscene and tragic loss of life on both sides.

C) It **is going to be the fault of the military and the capitalists** if it gets lost. We lose it when we become so uneducated, so retardedly jingoistic, so utterly self-centered with our 'exceptionalism', and so damn broke!! like every other empire EVER that has and DID fail because of hubris and militarism, mark my words.
Colin

[Bleyseng]

Well said Colin as our military budget is a joke and the real welfare problem not some poor single mother.

[glasseye]

Are you damn sick and tired of my tedious bashing of the capitalist orgy?
Colin

No.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Search.aspx ... e=Articles

[Amskeptic]

Are you damn sick and tired of my tedious bashing of the capitalist orgy?
Colin

No.

Good . . .

The New York Times
Wealth Over Work
Paul Krugman

March 23, 2014

It seems safe to say that “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” the magnum opus of the French economist Thomas Piketty, will be the most important economics book of the year — and maybe of the decade. Mr. Piketty, arguably the world’s leading expert on income and wealth inequality, does more than document the growing concentration of income in the hands of a small economic elite. He also makes a powerful case that we’re on the way back to “patrimonial capitalism,” in which the commanding heights of the economy are dominated not just by wealth, but also by inherited wealth, in which birth matters more than effort and talent.

To be sure, Mr. Piketty concedes that we aren’t there yet. So far, the rise of America’s 1 percent has mainly been driven by executive salaries and bonuses rather than income from investments, let alone inherited wealth. But six of the 10 wealthiest Americans are already heirs rather than self-made entrepreneurs, and the children of today’s economic elite start from a position of immense privilege. As Mr. Piketty notes, “the risk of a drift toward oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism.”

Indeed. And if you want to feel even less optimistic, consider what many U.S. politicians are up to. America’s nascent oligarchy may not yet be fully formed — but one of our two main political parties already seems committed to defending the oligarchy’s interests.

Despite the frantic efforts of some Republicans to pretend otherwise, most people realize that today’s G.O.P. favors the interests of the rich over those of ordinary families. I suspect, however, that fewer people realize the extent to which the party favors returns on wealth over wages and salaries. And the dominance of income from capital, which can be inherited, over wages — the dominance of wealth over work — is what patrimonial capitalism is all about.

To see what I’m talking about, start with actual policies and policy proposals. It’s generally understood that George W. Bush did all he could to cut taxes on the very affluent, that the middle-class cuts he included were essentially political loss leaders. It’s less well understood that the biggest breaks went not to people paid high salaries but to coupon-clippers and heirs to large estates. True, the top tax bracket on earned income fell from 39.6 to 35 percent. But the top rate on dividends fell from 39.6 percent (because they were taxed as ordinary income) to 15 percent — and the estate tax was completely eliminated. [emphasis mine - ed]

Some of these cuts were reversed under President Obama, but the point is that the great tax-cut push of the Bush years was mainly about reducing taxes on unearned income. And when Republicans retook one house of Congress, they promptly came up with a plan — Representative Paul Ryan’s “road map” — calling for the elimination of taxes on interest, dividends, capital gains and estates. Under this plan, someone living solely off inherited wealth would have owed no federal taxes at all.

This tilt of policy toward the interests of wealth has been mirrored by a tilt in rhetoric; Republicans often seem so intent on exalting “job creators” that they forget to mention American workers. In 2012 Representative Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, famously commemorated Labor Day with a Twitter post honoring business owners. More recently, Mr. Cantor reportedly reminded colleagues at a G.O.P. retreat that most Americans work for other people, which is at least one reason attempts to make a big issue out of Mr. Obama’s supposed denigration of businesspeople fell flat. (Another reason was that Mr. Obama did no such thing.)

In fact, not only don’t most Americans own businesses, but business income, and income from capital in general, is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. In 1979 the top 1 percent of households accounted for 17 percent of business income; by 2007 the same group was getting 43 percent of business income, and 75 percent of capital gains. Yet this small elite gets all of the G.O.P.’s love, and most of its policy attention.

Why is this happening? Well, bear in mind that both Koch brothers are numbered among the 10 wealthiest Americans, and so are four Walmart heirs. Great wealth buys great political influence — and not just through campaign contributions. Many conservatives live inside an intellectual bubble of think tanks and captive media that is ultimately financed by a handful of megadonors. Not surprisingly, those inside the bubble tend to assume, instinctively, that what is good for oligarchs is good for America.

As I’ve already suggested, the results can sometimes seem comical. The important point to remember, however, is that the people inside the bubble have a lot of power, which they wield on behalf of their patrons. And the drift toward oligarchy continues.

[Jivermo]

I'm reminded of two things from my US Army tour, 1968-69. The superiority of the enemy's AK-47 over the ill designed US Army M-16 with its constant jamming in Vietnam conditions, and the flawed, rollover plagued Jeep. Both of these American industry designs resulted in American soldiers being killed. Instead of fixing the problems, service personnel were taught how to work around the design flaw. As it turned out, the entire Vietnam deal was a flawed design.

"Unlike some other military transports, such as the Humvee or Jeep, the M151 was never widely released into the civilian market. This was partly because the military claimed that it did not meet Federal highway safety standards for civilian vehicles, and also because of a series of early rollover accidents. While these were often blamed on the independent suspension (which played no small part), they were also due to driver errors, with operators unprepared for the increased performance compared to the Jeeps which it replaced. At high road speed, the rear suspension in a lightly loaded M151 had a tendency to tuck under the vehicle during turns, causing it to roll. The vehicle's tendency to roll over was reduced when there was weight in the rear, so drivers would often place an ammunition box filled with sand under the rear seat when no other load was being carried. The box could simply be emptied or abandoned when the extra weight was not needed.
The handling issues were eventually resolved by a redesign of the rear suspension, introduced in the M151A2 model. However, due to liability concerns, the U.S. Department of Defense deemed all M151 series vehicles "unsafe for public highway use", limiting their public use. Continuing problems with vehicle roll-overs into the 1980s led the US military to retrofit many M151 series vehicles with the "Roll over protection structure" (ROPS), a roll cage intended to protect both front and rear seat passengers."

[Amskeptic]

At high road speed, the rear suspension in a lightly loaded M151 had a tendency to tuck under the vehicle during turns, causing it to roll.

"Ralph Nader?" they scoffed, "we don't need to read no Ralph Nader's, 'Unsafe At Any Speed'," the same Ralph who finally forced General Motors to redesign the Chevrolet Corvair's swing axle rear suspension in 1965 because it had a tendency to jack under in corners.

Now, how does this relate to the corporate oligarchy? Did Ford low-ball some other superior design? Did Donald Rumsfeld put the kabosh on a decent vehicle, "you don't get the army you want, you get the army you get"?
Colin

[JLT]

At high road speed, the rear suspension in a lightly loaded M151 had a tendency to tuck under the vehicle during turns, causing it to roll.

"Ralph Nader?" they scoffed, "we don't need to read no Ralph Nader's, 'Unsafe At Any Speed',"

Ralph Nader also had unkind things (in fact, the same unkind things) to say about the VW bug, didn't he? It's been a while since I last read Small on Safety, of course, and I might be misremembering things.

[Amskeptic]

At high road speed, the rear suspension in a lightly loaded M151 had a tendency to tuck under the vehicle during turns, causing it to roll.

"Ralph Nader?" they scoffed, "we don't need to read no Ralph Nader's, 'Unsafe At Any Speed',"

Ralph Nader also had unkind things (in fact, the same unkind things) to say about the VW bug, didn't he? It's been a while since I last read Small on Safety, of course, and I might be misremembering things.

Absolutely. He was an equal opportunity scoffer, and he was right.
Colin

[Sylvester]

The superiority of the enemy's AK-47 over the ill designed US Army M-16 with its constant jamming in Vietnam conditions

Way off the deadbeats topic, but firsthand. When I went through training at Ft. Dix in 2012 before going to Afghanistan, I was issued an old M-16 since my unit has those and not M-4's like everyone else. Despite cleaning it to surgical, that damn rifle was only good for beating someone's head in or carrying 30 rounds. In the end I took a civilian's M-4 in a training scenario just to hold off an aggressor because my M-16 jammed shut.

But the M-4's have issues too in the Afghan environment also.