"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
...
On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike wrote:
Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
social welfare programs....

Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms

Defense Daily

If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential
nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the
defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi
Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst.

While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican
presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner-
of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could
mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and
the companies involved in them, Wood predicted.

She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last
week.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the
Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense,
Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services
Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican.

"Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense]
spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for
overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty."

However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries
investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry."

For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract
for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to
unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement
official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial
refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing
to get a $250,000 a year job there.

Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the
CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put
Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then
the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European
Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes.

Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as
Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based
on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future
Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House
South Lawn.

Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed
brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense
company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4
percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index.

Remember Jimmy Carter?

What about Jimmy Carter?

And, btw, if aerospace and defense stocks have performed brilliantly in the
past year, does that mean that war is good for business?

- nilita

On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

...



On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike wrote:
Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
social welfare programs....

Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms

Defense Daily

If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential
nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the
defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi
Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst.

While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican
presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner-
of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could
mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and
the companies involved in them, Wood predicted.

She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last
week.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the
Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense,
Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services
Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican.

"Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense]
spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for
overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty."

However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries
investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry."

For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract
for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to
unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement
official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial
refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing
to get a $250,000 a year job there.

Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the
CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put
Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then
the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European
Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes.

Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as
Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based
on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future
Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House
South Lawn.

Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed
brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense
company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4
percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index.

Remember Jimmy Carter?

What about Jimmy Carter?

And, btw, if aerospace and defense stocks have performed brilliantly in the
past year, does that mean that war is good for business?

- nilita

War is very good for business. Did you see or hear Hillary's bit on
Olbermann last night? If Iran nukes Israel or acts like it wants to be
a nuke power we nuke them, just for drill.

Clinton warns Iran of U.S. nuclear response
Senator: ‘Massive retaliation’ for attack on Israel would likely
include NATO

Video
Iran ‘risking massive retaliation’
April 21: Hillary Clinton talks with Countdown’s Keith Olbermann on
the eve of the crucial Pennsylvania primary.

Countdown

Video

Clinton rallies in Pennsylvania
April 21: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a rally in Pittsburgh.


MSNBC
updated 9:07 p.m. ET, Mon., April. 21, 2008

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she
would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to
launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With
Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a
Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate,
Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive
retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant.

In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s
leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would
provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”

She said U.S. allies in the Middle East were being “intimidated and
bullied into submission by Iran,” raising the prospect of an
“incredibly destabilizing” arms race in the region.

“I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons
themselves” if Iran were to develop a nuclear arsenal, she said.

Clinton said it was vital that the United States create a new
“security umbrella” to reassure Israel and its other allies in the
region that they would not be threatened by Iran. She said she would
tell them that “if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear
attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies,
would respond to that.”

Clinton seeks tougher profile than Obama
Clinton’s hinting at a nuclear option last week set off a wave of
commentary in political circles that she was seeking to position
herself as a hawk as the primary campaign winds toward an end. Her
opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois,
has said that he would not rule out any options if Iran were to become
a nuclear power, but he has not explicitly said he would be willing
use nuclear weapons.

Clinton’s remarks reflected the theme of her latest advertising in
Pennsylvania, where Democratic voters go to the polls Tuesday with
analysts in both camps saying she must win the state’s primary if she
is to remain a credible candidate.



Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
unjustified.

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
...
On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

...



On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike wrote:
Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
social welfare programs....

Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms

Defense Daily

If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential
nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the
defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi
Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst.

While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican
presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner-
of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could
mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and
the companies involved in them, Wood predicted.

She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last
week.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the
Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense,
Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services
Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican.

"Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense]
spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for
overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty."

However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries
investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry."

For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract
for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to
unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement
official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial
refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing
to get a $250,000 a year job there.

Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the
CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put
Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then
the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European
Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes.

Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as
Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based
on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future
Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House
South Lawn.

Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed
brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense
company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4
percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index.

Remember Jimmy Carter?

What about Jimmy Carter?

And, btw, if aerospace and defense stocks have performed brilliantly in
the
past year, does that mean that war is good for business?

- nilita

War is very good for business. Did you see or hear Hillary's bit on
Olbermann last night? If Iran nukes Israel or acts like it wants to be
a nuke power we nuke them, just for drill.

Clinton warns Iran of U.S. nuclear response
Senator: ‘Massive retaliation’ for attack on Israel would likely
include NATO

Video
Iran ‘risking massive retaliation’
April 21: Hillary Clinton talks with Countdown’s Keith Olbermann on
the eve of the crucial Pennsylvania primary.

Countdown

Video

Clinton rallies in Pennsylvania
April 21: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a rally in Pittsburgh.


MSNBC
updated 9:07 p.m. ET, Mon., April. 21, 2008

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she
would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to
launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With
Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a
Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate,
Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive
retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant.

In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s
leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would
provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”

She said U.S. allies in the Middle East were being “intimidated and
bullied into submission by Iran,” raising the prospect of an
“incredibly destabilizing” arms race in the region.

“I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons
themselves” if Iran were to develop a nuclear arsenal, she said.

Clinton said it was vital that the United States create a new
“security umbrella” to reassure Israel and its other allies in the
region that they would not be threatened by Iran. She said she would
tell them that “if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear
attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies,
would respond to that.”

Clinton seeks tougher profile than Obama
Clinton’s hinting at a nuclear option last week set off a wave of
commentary in political circles that she was seeking to position
herself as a hawk as the primary campaign winds toward an end. Her
opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois,
has said that he would not rule out any options if Iran were to become
a nuclear power, but he has not explicitly said he would be willing
use nuclear weapons.

Clinton’s remarks reflected the theme of her latest advertising in
Pennsylvania, where Democratic voters go to the polls Tuesday with
analysts in both camps saying she must win the state’s primary if she
is to remain a credible candidate.



Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
unjustified.

********************************

Okay, thanks for that.

- nilita

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
wrote:


Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
unjustified.

Are we overlooking George H.W. Bush, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower,
Harry S Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, Ulysses S. Grant, Andrew Jackson,
Abraham Lincoln, Henry Harrison, George Washington, to name just a
few...?

Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
inflation and an 18% prime interest rate, presided over the collapse
of our greatest ally in the middle East, allowed our embassy to be
seized and then micro-managed the bungled rescue attempt, etc. etc.

And, now he believes Hamas is willing to co-exist with Israel...

One can only say the Jimmy Carter meant well.

....but executed poorly.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...


Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
inflation and an 18% prime interest rate,

How did a president 'give' us those rates?

Glenn D.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:23 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .


Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
inflation and an 18% prime interest rate,

How did a president 'give' us those rates?

Glenn D.

Generally the state of the economy is attributed to the economic
policies of the incumbent president. (Recall Clinton's claim of
leaving a balanced budget and reducing the national debt? Notice the
attribution of the current market decline, AKA recession, to Bush tax
cuts? Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)

If you take office with 4% inflation and 6% interest rates and in four
years without a major cultural shock like a 9/11 or significant war
the inflation rate has skyrocketed and interest rates make home owners
instantly "wealthy" but home buyers turn into apartment seekers, you
take the blame.

If your successor cuts taxes and within three years the indicators are
significantly reversed, we can assume a cause/effect relationship.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:23 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy"
wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
inflation and an 18% prime interest rate,
How did a president 'give' us those rates?

Glenn D.

Generally the state of the economy is attributed to the economic
policies of the incumbent president. (Recall Clinton's claim of
leaving a balanced budget and reducing the national debt? Notice the
attribution of the current market decline, AKA recession, to Bush tax
cuts? Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)

If you take office with 4% inflation and 6% interest rates and in four
years without a major cultural shock like a 9/11 or significant war
the inflation rate has skyrocketed and interest rates make home owners
instantly "wealthy" but home buyers turn into apartment seekers, you
take the blame.

If your successor cuts taxes and within three years the indicators are
significantly reversed, we can assume a cause/effect relationship.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Yeah, no oil embargoes or OPEC cartels raising prices at all... No
major revolutions in the oil patch...

D'oh!

Dan

Dan ha scritto:
Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)

Someone can explain to me the contradictory justapoxition of "tax cuts"
and "increases in federal revenue" ?

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:43:37 -0700, Dan wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:42:23 -0600, "Glenn Dowdy"
wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
inflation and an 18% prime interest rate,
How did a president 'give' us those rates?

Glenn D.

Generally the state of the economy is attributed to the economic
policies of the incumbent president. (Recall Clinton's claim of
leaving a balanced budget and reducing the national debt? Notice the
attribution of the current market decline, AKA recession, to Bush tax
cuts? Recall the Reagan tax cuts followed by increases in federal
revenue followed by a spending orgy by the Congress?)

If you take office with 4% inflation and 6% interest rates and in four
years without a major cultural shock like a 9/11 or significant war
the inflation rate has skyrocketed and interest rates make home owners
instantly "wealthy" but home buyers turn into apartment seekers, you
take the blame.

If your successor cuts taxes and within three years the indicators are
significantly reversed, we can assume a cause/effect relationship.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Yeah, no oil embargoes or OPEC cartels raising prices at all... No
major revolutions in the oil patch...

D'oh!

Dan

You might recall that the oil shortages of 1976 were caused by the
Carter administration assertion that we would be out of oil by 2000.
And don't forget his 55 MPH national speed limit to save us oil.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

In article ,
"Glenn Dowdy" wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...


Carter cut programs in the military aggressively, froze promotions and
military pay/allowances for three of his four years, gave us 22%
inflation and an 18% prime interest rate,

How did a president 'give' us those rates?

Glenn D.

A fair objection. The rates were set by Paul Volker in a system designed
to shield the setting of interest rates from immediate political
control. Yet Volker was nominated my Carter, so there is some
connection. The concurrent high inflation and high unemployment rates of
the '70s does not fit well with standard economic theories, even after
all these years I have not seen a good academic explanation. I think
this is part of the reason that people don't take economics seriously
anymore.

The real problem with Carter was that he was a white Southerner who
supported segregation during the Civil Rights movement and tried to make
up for it later on by (deleted) any non-white person who came along.