American Jobs Lost , Thanks , McCain !!!

1) High taxes
2) Impossible environmental regulation
3) Dept. of Natural Resource restrictions
4) Union demands
5) Wage demands
6) 'Benefits' package expectations
7) Constant threat of litigation
8) Taxes
9) Union demands
10) Taxes
11) Union demands
12) Taxes

If I were a CEO and I was going to start a new business or a new diversification, and I was responsible of being as profitable as possible for all the people invested in my company - sorry, America - You are too costly!

Plus the current culture in the US is so anti-corporation. Those EVIL corporations! Profits over people - profits over people. Wah, wah, wah!

reply to post by RaDios


That is a whole bunch of baloney, if American was so expensive how come we have been bought by private foreign companies.

It seems that the only ones wailing about US been expensive is the same companies that wants to outsource for better slave labor and cheap wages.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by marg6043]

reply to post by marg6043


That's my point! Very few 'evil' corporations are owned by 'evil' billionaires looking to exploit slave labor. These corporations are owned by anyone with stock interests, money markets, 401k's, etc.

As someone who is heavily invested in American companies (I do hope to retire SOME day) I support any move the CEO's feel is necessary to protect MY investment and to return the greatest profit so I can retire and not have to depend on the "peanuts" the govt' hands out in Social un-Security.

I have some friends who are high ups in some of the 'evil' corporations and they hate to have to export jobs - but they also hate to tell their share-holders that they aren't being profitable - to to mention the impact on the global economy when a major corporation has to report that earnings were lower than expected. Economics is not a zero-sum-gain philosophy. When corporations are doing badly - it effects everyone.

I think people need to think a little deeper when it comes to economics and stop having the emotional, knee-jerk reactions when we see the world through the lens of the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'.

reply to post by marg6043


Sorry - didn't mean to ignore the first part: Our companies are being purchased by foreign companies because of the weal dollar. You can buy more US company with foreign currency. When I say American companies are expensive - I mean they are expensive to operate. But again, a foreign currency can buy more than the US dollar. That's my guess - plus you have to have US investors willing to sell to foreign companies. They are willing to sell because the long-term liability it out weighed by the short-term gain.

The tanker deal was won fairly by Northrop Grumman. It was only Boeing's sore loser attitude and crying like a spoiled baby to the GAO that caused a needless investigation and a waste of time and taxpayers money. But now the deal has to be re-bid, wasting more time and money. Gee Thanks Boeing. Boeing would create 40,000 American jobs if awarded the contract, but Northrop Grumman would create 48,000 American jobs. Boeing does not even have a prototype to show to the Air Force, whereas Northrop Grumman has an air craft tested and ready for production. Now who should be awarded the contract.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by A TRUE AMERICAN]

My dad works for Boeing company (he used to work for Northrup too). My step-mom is one of the people who negotiates contracts with the DOD.

I haven't talked to him as of late regarding this but I do remember we talked about it at the beginning of the year.

He and I like to talk politics and one day he struck up a convo with me. He brought up this contract and said that some of the lobbyists actually quit their jobs at their respective companies in order to be able to be on his campaign. Pretty shady if you ask me. Not that Obama and his pocket lobbyist wouldn't do the same thing.

Maybe I'll give him a call today and see what I can gather about what's going on behind the scene's in his neck of the woods.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by nunya13]

reply to post by RaDios


Yes you are right, the weak dollar makes American markets to be sweet to foreign investors.

Still many foreign investors also bring their share of foreign workers with the availability of corporate sponsored visas.

reply to post by A TRUE AMERICAN


Yes let's hope that the jobs stay in the US and not given to US sponsored subsides in Europe.

Boeing May Drop Tanker Proposal, Which Would Be A Travesty

Boeing said it may pull out of the competition to win a $40 billion contract to build new, aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force unless the Pentagon agrees to give it more time to submit a new bid.…

Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said the company needs six months to put together a new bid because it thinks the Air Force has changed the requirements and is now asking for a plane that can carry more fuel. Beck said the four additional months are needed to do further price analysis and engineering work to propose a different plane.

www.chicagotribune.com...

Airbush may still get the contract after all.

marg, you apparently miss the point of defense contract bidding. The idea is to provide the most capability to our country's war fighters at the best value to the taxpayer. Economic impact is not, and should not be, considered by the department of defense and various military organizations when awarding contracts. This isn't tanker welfare.

That being said, the allegation that the Northrop Grumman team (an American company which is the primary contractor in the Airbus airframe based offering) is shipping jobs overseas is patently absurd. Both offerings would create many jobs in both the USA and in foreign companies. Both teams rely on a complex, global supply chain composed of foreign and domestic companies. Any estimates you see as to jobs that will be created are just that, estimates. These numbers are not formally analyzed as part of the contract competition. However, it is of note that EADS has agreed to assemble its airframe in a new plant to be built in Alabama contingent upon this award. That airframe would then be militarized in a Northrop Grumman facility in a nearby location. Many workers in Alabama, and other places in America, would benefit from a Northrop Grumman award.

Most supporters of capatlism agree that competition is good for the economy. Boeing clearly doesn't like competition. Boeing has its congressman putting on a great show; I hope they're getting their money's worth. They are obviously willing to defraud the American taxpayer and jeopardize American military operations to prevent fair competition. I hope that those raising this protectionist furor realize that American companies sell defense articles to our allies and we can ill afford to refuse to participate in the global marketplace.

Lost jobs, is it?

Fine, let's put americans back to work by construction of offshore oil platforms now.

And while we're at it, lets see many, many more nuclear power plants crop up.

All very good paying jobs, and with the added benefit of much lower energy costs.

Which candidate will make this so?

reply to post by memphisjason


That is exaclty what I've been trying to articulate all day about this deal. Boeing has spent a ton trying to demonize this deal as a "they're taking our jobs" sort of thing, and it's nothing of the sort.

Maybe this might have a little to do with it too.

The competitive threat to Boeing of Airbus building commercial A330 jets as well as tankers in Alabama has for now been pushed out.

from the Seattle-times

[edit on 22-8-2008 by jefwane]

reply to post by memphisjason


Yes at one time in our history competition was a good deal, but in todays economical woes American citizens are the losers no matter what side you put it.

14,000 Jobs At Stake in Air Force-Airbus Deal

The original bidding process was deemed to have contained “significant errors“ by the Government Accountability Office after European-based Northrop Grumman/Airbus was awarded the contract instead of the Chicago-based Boeing Co.

Airbus has inflated the amount of jobs they claim they will create in American.

Economic Policy Institute economist Robert Scott has said that Boeing would create nearly twice as many U.S. jobs as Airbus. In total that would account for roughly 14,000 U.S. jobs. He has also found that NG/Airbus’ estimates for employment impact in America are inflated by at least 45 percent and possibly as much as 179 percent.

.

At the end the jobs could be send oversea.

www.economyincrisis.org...

Air Force To Favor Under-Qualified Airbus Planes

How much is worth the security of our nation and the safety of our men and woman in uniform?

Should the Air Force again side with Airbus, they are making a grave mistake. Airbus’ plane does not meet military specifications, places America’s servicemen/women in danger and compromises national security. Boeing has successfully produced the tanker for the past 50 years, demonstrating it deserves this future contract. America's role in producing planes for its own military may end if Boeing loses this contract.

The Airbus is promising jobs and a plant in Alabama but that is something that could change as soon as they get the contract.

At the rate US is losing jobs do to outsourcing we could pretty much see where all this is heading.

Marg, I love your economic posts and all, and we agree on the dire situation that the economy is in. However, you sound like a paid lobbyist for Boeing in your posts on here. Never once have I heard you include the word Northrop in the posts, and you seem to imply that Northrop is totally irrelevant in the mix.

I think you've said you live in Georgia. In another thread I talked about how Kia (a part of Hyundai, a Korean Company that competes against Ford, GM, and Chrysler) was bringing an automotive plant to West Point Georgia (6,500 jobs coming to the area with suppliers and all). The State of Georgia laid down some serious cash to land that plant (I've heard almost a Billion dollars). From your posts on here I have to ask are you against that plant because it will mean a foreign owned company is competing against Ford, GM, and Chrysler and may cost some American jobs due to competition?

reply to post by jefwane


No I am not a Boeing lobbyist. i am simple wife that have the choice to stay at home after working for the school system in my neck of the woods for a while as a Spanish teacher.

My husband is a retired Marine,

Anyway I am not fan of Boeing or their practices, my problem is with the way our presidential candidates give themselves up for the highest bidding when it comes to lobbyist money.

The Boeing/Airbus is an issue that I kind of got interested in due to the need for jobs in America when it comes to good pay jobs.

I have taken upon myself to expose the political corruption in our nation, even when perhaps goes unnoticed and many people don't even care.

reply to post by marg6043


I know that it's admirable. Sorry about the semi-low blow. I just don't think this is anywhere near as simple as Boeing Good for America and Northrop/EADS bad for America. Even if lobbying was used to open up the contract for competition, I still think a competitive situation is better than a non-competitive situation.

reply to post by jefwane


I understand, my husband works for one of the top ten big bad corporations in American.

He always tells me that I am going to cost his job.

I see all big US corporations as evil.

Still the Air force deal will be decided by the office of the Secretary of defense and we all know that McCain and Gates already have this deal done, at the end it will be Airbus again to win the contract.

I guess is not bad to at least hope that they live up to their promises.

Congress job is to protect the interest of all American taxpayers not to provide job security. But I guess people don't care if the government is paying 600 dollars for a toilet seat as long as it secures American jobs.

Here is a statement McCain gave over this issue on the Senate floor on Nov. 19, 2004.

Nearly three years ago, behind closed doors, appropriators slipped a $30 billion rider in the FY2002 Defense Appropriations Bill. This rider authorized the Air Force to lease from Boeing up to 100 767s for use as aerial refueling tankers. Before the rider appeared in the bill, Air Force leadership never came to the authorizing committees about it. In fact, tankers have never come up in either the President’s budget or the Defense Department’s unfunded priority list. The Air Force’s Tanker Lease Program was borne of a virgin birth.

sou rce


Why slip in the rider if the Air Force really needed them?

About two months ago, Ms. Druyun was sentenced to nine months in prison on public corruption charges. Her crime: negotiating the $30 billion deal with Boeing while negotiating with Boeing for a job. Ms. Druyun’s sentencing occurred months after Boeing’s board of directors fired her and former Chief Financial Officer Michael Sears for misconduct arising from the tanker negotiations. Boeing’s Chief Executive Officer Phil Condit soon left the company under a cloud of suspicion.

Same source as above


Seems something wasn't right if somebody went to jail.

Military outsources a lot of their things overseas because it is getting harder and harder to manufacture things in the US as we convert to a service industry. Our manufacturing sector is a dying breed.

reply to post by RaDios

1) High taxes
2) Impossible environmental regulation
3) Dept. of Natural Resource restrictions
4) Union demands
5) Wage demands
6) 'Benefits' package expectations
7) Constant threat of litigation
8) Taxes
9) Union demands
10) Taxes
11) Union demands
12) Taxes

Yes but we claim to be a moral society. How many times have I heard a conservative use the word "morals." I'm well aware of the free market system but do you honestly think we will build a better planet by not providing security to people who work for a company years.. even their whole life? Do you think it's right for a common worker to get a pink slip while corporate execs get a golden parachute?

My point is I don't think all democrats are necessarily socialists but if we are going to talk "morals" shouldn't we temper capitalism with some socialism?

Reminds me of McCain's ad on the olympics, "Washington is broke, and John McCain knows it."

Wow, just exactly how I see it. Boeing screwed up on their bid. How many U.S. jobs are lost or gained by Northrupt getting the bid is up for grabs. It's all smoke and mirrors. Sounds like McCain took an attitiude towards Boeing's crooked aappoach to the deal. Just the kind of guy I am looking for. No wonder big media hates McCain, McCain plans on re-introducing justice back into the system.

reply to post by Scramjet76


I dig your icon, Scramjet! You make a good point. I don't want to get this thread off on a tangent - but in the world of politics and economics - morality is relative.

(ALERT - the following is a purely hypothetical straw man, to illustrate my point) Is it more moral to put 40,000 americans out of a job so that 1 million americans and foreign investors can profit through their investments?

Back on subject: someone said earlier that it is the job of govt' to go with the vendor who can get them what they need when they need it for the peanuts congress gives them. (not an exact quote) So, I can see why there would be sour grapes in this.