If it's necessary to prop our economy up with public money, why isn't spending money on weapons we hope we'll never need just as good as bailing out mismanaged auto makers? Many of the criticisms made against defense programs could be made against a lot of non-essential,non-defense programs. It's one thing to say that the money intended for F-22's could be better spent on some other defense item(whether it be another weapon system, better training, more manpower, or whatever), but if our economy is dependent upon government spending (and it seems to be) does it matter whether that spending is upon unnecessary guns or unnecessary butter? Defense contractors employ people who spend their earnings on consumer goods just like auto workers. Is it just a matter of defense workers having less political clout? Will cancelling the F-22 result in less overall government spending, or will that spending be merely shifted to some more politically "sweet" program?

Maybe they'll use the loot to pay for the temporary additional 22,000 troops Gates says he's authorizing the Army to help fill an immediate shortfall. Air power didn't do shit for me when I was pinned-down with a wounded Marine. A scout sniper team saved our asses.

Illinichief

The flaw in your argument is that Lockheed Martin isn't going out of buisness. Far from it they are the primary contractor for the F-35 JSF and it's a HUGE contract. I think one of the reasons that the funding cut passed was that Lockheed Martin didn't really push too hard because of the JSF.

Sounds like a reasonable answer Yminale. I talked with a Boeing engineer who brings his small engine repair business to me, and he said a lot of technology already paid for in developing the F-22 will also transfer to the F-35. I've also read sales for export of the F-35 are booked in advance for Lockheed Martin. Besides, Lockheed and the Air Horse got the original number of F-22's they asked for. Lockheed will probably shift around some of their trained workforce on the upcoming F-35 program eventually, with those that aren't dead weight.

We paid 60 billion dollars for the F-22. Suppose for a second that every one of the 20,000 people working on it would have been hobo's otherwise. That means that we paid 3 million dollars for each person employed.

Compared to that, I'd say pissing away a few billions to keep autoworkers employed is a bargin, no? Plus, those autoworkers are making something that might possibly do some good.

@ Illinichief:

"...if our economy is dependent upon government spending (and it seems to be) does it matter whether that spending is upon unnecessary guns or unnecessary butter?"

How about spending on necessary health insurance for those who can't afford it? Fewer weapons makers, more doctors? Sounds good to me.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that rebuilding such a huge part of our manufacturing sector is a project that has at least a fighting chance of repaying its investment with exports. Also, our auto industry is far behind the power curve compared to most overseas companies, while we already have by far the most powerful military whether or not we're happy with a mere 187 F-22s.

I would suggest that Lockheed Martin get busy on designing next gen wind turbines and solar cells if they're getting tight for money. We're going to need those a hell of a lot more than extra fighter jets before too long.

:-)

At least auto-makers make something that people actually use, and if GM had a captive market like the big defense contractors do (i.e. Congress), they would never go out of business either. If the US government spent far less on weapons and more on health care for its citizens, the country would surely have a happier, healthier, more productive workforce.

Lockheed Martin practically is the government. Weapons are only a part of the contracts they have.

quillsinister:

...I would suggest that Lockheed Martin get busy on designing next gen wind turbines and solar cells if they're getting tight for money. We're going to need those a hell of a lot more than extra fighter jets before too long.

:-)

From your mouth to our Government's ear. If only we were capable of thinking that far ahead.

Perhaps the solution is to design a system of government whereby the citizens choose responsible people to represent them in some kind of assembly where decisions are made for the common good. Sounds utopian, I know, but just think of the possibilities...

Perhaps the solution is to design a system of government whereby the citizens choose responsible people to represent them in some kind of assembly where decisions are made for the common good. Sounds utopian, I know, but just think of the possibilities...

No, that's crazy talk.

;-)

Paraphrasing Clinton’s campaign theme . . . It is about politics stupid.

Defense spending does not buy as many votes for the Democrats as money spent on ACORN, social programs, and money to Democratic politicians in cities and states that won’t balance their budgets, as in the fraudulent stimulus bill. All our money was wasted on that pork and now there is no money for a legitimate function of the federal government.