PDA

View Full Version : Socialism not just for poor - Lockheed Martin largest recipient of tax dollars



Molon Labe
01-05-2011, 05:49 PM
Lockheed Martin is the single largest recipient of U.S. tax dollars. (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/too-big-to-fail-lockheed-martin%27s-%22got-their-fingers-everywhere%22-says-author-535769.html)


Each taxpaying household contributes $260 to Lockheed’s coffers each year


With $40 billion in annual revenue, Lockheed Martin is the single largest recipient of U.S. tax dollars. The company receives about $36 billion in government contracts per year. In 2008, $29 billion of that was for U.S. military contracts – a dollar figure 25% higher than its competitors Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman.

Articulate_Ape
01-05-2011, 05:55 PM
Lockheed Martin is the single largest recipient of U.S. tax dollars. (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/too-big-to-fail-lockheed-martin%27s-%22got-their-fingers-everywhere%22-says-author-535769.html)




With $40 billion in annual revenue, Lockheed Martin is the single largest recipient of U.S. tax dollars. The company receives about $36 billion in government contracts per year. In 2008, $29 billion of that was for U.S. military contracts a dollar figure 25% higher than its competitors Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman.



Yeah, but have you ever tried to fight a war with nothing but a 737 and a fleet of canoes?

Molon Labe
01-05-2011, 05:58 PM
Yeah, but have you ever tried to fight a war with nothing but a 737 and a fleet of canoes?

some of this stuff isn't used by the U.S. military. It's sold for profit on the taxpayer backs to Foreign countries. I know you know that though.

Satanicus
01-05-2011, 06:00 PM
some of this stuff isn't used by the U.S. military. It's sold for profit on the taxpayer backs to Foreign countries. I know you know that though.


Lets get it out of the way right now ....

(stamping feet in childish fit)

PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT!

Articulate_Ape
01-05-2011, 06:01 PM
some of this stuff isn't used by the U.S. military. It's sold for profit on the taxpayer backs to Foreign countries. I know you know that though.

Yeah. I will say that if all the nutty waste within our military budget ever gets tallied, it will make that number look like chump change.

Articulate_Ape
01-05-2011, 06:02 PM
Lets get it out of the way right now ....

(stamping feet in childish fit)

PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT!

http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/dd359/JamesSavant/SHUT_THE.jpg

Zathras
01-05-2011, 06:10 PM
Sorry Stupidicus, you're the only one here who fails to back up statements you claim "as fact" with links to prove it and throws a temper tantrum every time you're called on it.

BadCat
01-05-2011, 08:06 PM
As someone who owns a LOT of Lockheed Martin stock...thanks suckers.

fettpett
01-05-2011, 08:24 PM
It's not Socialism, it's called National Defense and Research and Development.

Idiot

malloc
01-05-2011, 09:12 PM
It's not Socialism, it's called National Defense and Research and Development.

Idiot

It's both. Though I wouldn't use the word socialism, but welfare does come to mind.

It's like this: The U.S. Military wants a new advanced avionics system. The U.S. taxpayers pony up the capital required to develop it. The military gets their advanced avionics system, but then Lockheed Martin can use pieces of this technology in it's commercial applications. It did not risk any investment in this new avionics system. So if the avionics system is a flop on the market, big deal, Lockheed Martin loses nothing. If it's a boom on the market, they get the profit without risk or investment on their part.

Contrast the above to Ford Motor Company. Say Ford spends millions on R&D and comes up with a new air bag deployment system. If this deployment system is a boom in the market and customers respond to the increased safety enough to justify any increased costs, then Ford is paid for it's risk with recovery of it's capital plus profit. However, if consumers decide the new deployment system raises the cost of the car too much, or are just plain not interested in it as a feature, then Ford loses the millions it had invested in the project if they have to drop the advanced deployment system in order to lower the price point of the cars it sells.


Lockheed takes no risk in the research and development when taxpayer funds are up front, Ford takes a big risk because it's own capital is on the line.

If Lockheed had to use it's own funds to R&D an avionics system, and several companies did the same, and the military picked which one they would like to use, there might be a whole lot more companies like Boeing and Lockheed in that particular market, the pace of innovation would be faster, and the burden to the taxpayer would be minimized because the taxpayer would be buying the completed product developed by private capital instead of buying the product and the research, and then giving the research back for commercial use.

That's one real gripe Americans should have with the amount of money the "military-industrial complex" receives from our tax dollars. I'm not saying that companies like Lockheed and Boeing are "evil", I'm just saying they are given an artificial leg up in what should be a very competitive market, and that is always inefficient and more costly to the consumer, who is the U.S. taxpayer.

Articulate_Ape
01-06-2011, 12:04 AM
As someone who owns a LOT of Lockheed Martin stock...thanks suckers.

You've taken something of a bath the last couple of years, huh? You were smart to hold. A temporary setback. Kudos, BadCat.

Molon Labe
01-06-2011, 09:19 AM
It's both. Though I wouldn't use the word socialism, but welfare does come to mind.

Exactly. Welfare for people who don't need it.
I guess I was wondering how we can justify lower taxation, when the deck is stacked in favor of a company like this on the taxpayers backs.

If the essence of being onservative means being for less welfare and less taxation, then shouldn't this make conservatives feel dirty? I too had owned some stock in some of the auto industries that got the bailouts, but that doesn't mean I was happy when the tax payers got hosed to prop them up?

Zafod
01-06-2011, 11:52 AM
Lets get it out of the way right now ....

(stamping feet in childish fit)

PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT!

man I dig the new av

Wei Wu Wei
01-06-2011, 02:19 PM
Socialism doesn't mean anything funded with tax dollars.

It's only socialism if it's working for the interests of working Americans.

malloc
01-06-2011, 07:53 PM
It's only socialism if it's working for the interests of working Americans.

Only if an early death is of interest to working Americans. Why are you so eager to add the American flag to this list? Communist Body Count (http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/communistbodycount.php)

Holodomor! It's for your benefit! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor) :rolleyes:


If you are going to advocate socialism, you are going to have to deal with the reality that the body count brought about by starvation alone under socialist societies is very, very high. Free market societies don't even come close. There is no counter to historical fact.

Wei Wu Wei
01-06-2011, 08:49 PM
Only if an early death is of interest to working Americans. Why are you so eager to add the American flag to this list? Communist Body Count (http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/communistbodycount.php)

Holodomor! It's for your benefit! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor) :rolleyes:


If you are going to advocate socialism, you are going to have to deal with the reality that the body count brought about by starvation alone under socialist societies is very, very high. Free market societies don't even come close. There is no counter to historical fact.

Socialism doesn't equal Stalinism. I've made dozens of posts about what Socialism means.

Yes we all know that the Soviet Union did a thing, we all know about Stalin. Socialism doesn't mean a strong authoritarian state structure like Stalinism does. Stalinism was an attempt at socialism that failed miserably. It's a mistake that we can learn from.

20th century attempts at socialism mainly took the form of soviet red fascism, but that doesn't mean that all socialist attempts will result in the same thing. it doesn't even mean we'll get it "right" the next time, mistakes have been made and they will be made in the future.

Zathras
01-06-2011, 08:51 PM
Socialism doesn't equal Stalinism. I've made dozens of posts about what Socialism means.

Yes we all know that the Soviet Union did a thing, we all know about Stalin. Socialism doesn't mean a strong authoritarian state structure like Stalinism does. Stalinism was an attempt at socialism that failed miserably. It's a mistake that we can learn from.

20th century attempts at socialism mainly took the form of soviet red fascism, but that doesn't mean that all socialist attempts will result in the same thing. it doesn't even mean we'll get it "right" the next time, mistakes have been made and they will be made in the future.

regarding this post, I think Dr. Evil says it best.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo

And even Stewie Griffin has an opinion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzYRvaD-xkQ

Rockntractor
01-06-2011, 08:51 PM
Socialism doesn't equal Stalinism. I've made dozens of posts about what Socialism means.

Yes we all know that the Soviet Union did a thing, we all know about Stalin. Socialism doesn't mean a strong authoritarian state structure like Stalinism does. Stalinism was an attempt at socialism that failed miserably. It's a mistake that we can learn from.

20th century attempts at socialism mainly took the form of soviet red fascism, but that doesn't mean that all socialist attempts will result in the same thing. it doesn't even mean we'll get it "right" the next time, mistakes have been made and they will be made in the future.

We don't believe you.

Wei Wu Wei
01-06-2011, 08:56 PM
regarding this post, I think Dr. Evil says it best.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo

And even Stewie Griffin has an opinion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzYRvaD-xkQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEPpwQlRu5M

Zathras
01-06-2011, 08:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEPpwQlRu5M

Wow Dr. Evil agrees with the majority of CU regarding your idiotic stance on socialism.

malloc
01-06-2011, 09:32 PM
Socialism doesn't equal Stalinism. I've made dozens of posts about what Socialism means.

We know your definition of socialism; unicorns and rainbows. Here's the real definition.



Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

That means that all forms of collective or public ownership qualify under socialism. Therefore Stalinism, Maoism, etc. is all socialism.



Yes we all know that the Soviet Union did a thing, we all know about Stalin.


How dismissive you are of the body count his experiment left behind.



Socialism doesn't mean a strong authoritarian state structure like Stalinism does. Stalinism was an attempt at socialism that failed miserably.

You are out of your mind. Imagine the supply chain that goes into making and distributing number 2 pencils. That's less than say, 0.001% of American production which would need to be controlled by a state power structure. Now multiply that power structure against 100% of state production. To enforce the elimination of private property and personal wealth, and to run production within the mechanics of the state, a strong authoritarian power structure is a necessity. Freedom cannot be separated from private ownership of property. To lose one means to lose the other. Anything else is a pipe dream.



It's a mistake that we can learn from.


The lesson has been learned by anyone who can read. That is lesson is clear as day, "socialism kills".



20th century attempts at socialism mainly took the form of soviet red fascism, but that doesn't mean that all socialist attempts will result in the same thing. it doesn't even mean we'll get it "right" the next time, mistakes have been made and they will be made in the future.

What, exactly, is an acceptable death toll you would allow while you ran the experiment and refinement process to get it "right". Is a hundred million deaths acceptable? A billion?

Zathras
01-06-2011, 09:43 PM
That means that all forms of collective or public ownership qualify under socialism. Therefore Stalinism, Maoism, etc. is all socialism.

Hey now, don't, forget a certain German from the 1930's and 40's. You know, that guy named Hitler that brought us National Socialism

Wei Wu Wei
01-06-2011, 10:29 PM
We don't believe you.

no one's saying you have to

just tellin it like it is

Wei Wu Wei
01-06-2011, 10:52 PM
We know your definition of socialism; unicorns and rainbows.

Governments or policies that acknowledge workers and at least give them as much attention as they do to major corporations, banks and other bailout recipients. No one is talking about 20th century Soviet style socialism, the best they have to offer is a roadmap of mistakes and failures, all of which should be carefully studied.

Looking at Stalinist Russia alone, or other stalinist states, and claiming they are socialism is disingenuous. Yes they claim to be socialistic, and many of their policies were. There is much debate and I don't know enough to even pretend to any hard and fast definition of socialism.

Scandinavian nations also consider themselves socialist, and they are the furthest thing you can imagine from a Stalinist nightmare regime. They are Democratic Socialists, or Social Democrats. There are many examples of Socialism but it doesn't have to mean taking all the land or stealing everyone's money or making everyone equal. It means none of those things, except in the extreme cases.

What socialist policies have in common, especially moderate ones like in most other industrial nations, is that they focus on the working and middle class. Frankly, I think policies that put the working and middle class (the majority of the nation) might be a little overdue, after decades of lax tax policies and eventual bailouts.


This sort of Democratic Socialism simply means upholding worker-oriented goals while never abandoning liberal ideals of freedom of speech, equality of opportunity, equal protection under the law, individual rights.

Anyone who screams that modern socialists (or even liberals) are trying to turn the US into the Soviet Union is seriously misinformed or deliberately trying to deceive you.



That means that all forms of collective or public ownership qualify under socialism. Therefore Stalinism, Maoism, etc. is all socialism.

okay sure they all call themselves socialist and who am I to tell them they aren't. I can say that they failed and anyone who calls themselves a socialist better learn from their mistakes.

there are stains on America as well, dirty blood drenched stains that we aren't to ignore, but to accept and learn from.




How dismissive you are of the body count his experiment left behind.

Not at all, it was very serious and deserves attention but it is irrelevant in talking about today's American situation




You are out of your mind. Imagine the supply chain that goes into making and distributing number 2 pencils. That's less than say, 0.001% of American production which would need to be controlled by a state power structure. Now multiply that power structure against 100% of state production. To enforce the elimination of private property and personal wealth, and to run production within the mechanics of the state, a strong authoritarian power structure is a necessity. Freedom cannot be separated from private ownership of property. To lose one means to lose the other. Anything else is a pipe dream.

Right but no one is talking about doing that. Any talk about it is purely in an academic or even fantasy context and even there only works on a large long timescale that's impossible to predict.

I'm talking about what do we do today about today's problems? The answer is not a mass government takeover of all private industry. It's not going to happen, it wouldn't ever happen in the foreseeable future, and no one is proposing that in the slightest. Might it help to get the workers in that factory some more affordable health care? That's what I'm talking about in terms of realistic today solutions.

Here is an example of what no doubt would be considered a crazy socialist idea, but does it really sound so crazy?: what with companies this past year reporting record profits and through the roof bonus payments for executives, while job creation is still stalled as well as middle class income, what if companies that made so many hundred million in profits were made to give their employees a modest raise. Yes that's a crazy socialist idea I know, and I can't even imagine how Fox News would spin such an idea, but putting ideological emotions aside, might something like that, even if only temporary during this slow recovery, be a good thing?




The lesson has been learned by anyone who can read. That is lesson is clear as day, "socialism kills".

Being able to read a Luby's menu doesn't qualify one as literate in my book.




What, exactly, is an acceptable death toll you would allow while you ran the experiment and refinement process to get it "right". Is a hundred million deaths acceptable? A billion?

EVERYONE

Rockntractor
01-06-2011, 10:57 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/gif_mao.gif

Wei Wu Wei
01-06-2011, 11:00 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/gif_mao.gif

Long Live The Victory Of People's War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe5fIY52CU4

IT IS COMING!

Rockntractor
01-06-2011, 11:01 PM
Long Live The Victory Of People's War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe5fIY52CU4

IT IS COMING!

You could shrink that down for an avatar!:D

Wei Wu Wei
01-06-2011, 11:06 PM
lol not a bad idea