Danziger Toon: Off We Go! (Military tanker contract)

[n2doc]

[doc03]

1. Aren't we supposed to be broke? n/t

[liberal N proud]

2. You have to admit this i a huge stimulus to the economy

It is estimated this will create 50,000 jobs in the US alone.

http://www.kansas.com/2011/02/25/1734764/boeing-wins-air-force-tanker-contract.html

[notesdev]

3. Sorry but no it's not

Military spending is always a drain on the economy since the productive value of destroying things is zero.

A real stimulus would see the money being spent in order to increase productivity and capacity.

This is good for some people at the expense of others, that's all.

Oh, and by the way - we can't afford to pay for it. We borrow from China and stick future generations with the bill, that's the financing mechanism.

[MadHound]

4. Well, since this is a tanker plane,

It is highly unlikely that they will be destroyed, unless in an accident. Look at the last tanker planes made, they've lasted thirty plus years. So no loss of value there.

I agree with cutting back military spending dramatically, fifty percent is the figure I would like to ideally see. But the fact is, even if we cut our military in half, we would still need these new tankers, since the ones we have are over thirty years old and on their last legs:shrug:

[rustydog]

5. Built in washington state, Boeing employees salaries spent

In Snohomish and King County. Rail employees who transport the fuselage to the plant spending paychecks.
It should help businesses here.

[liberal N proud]

6. All around, it should help the economy

Even the coffee shop.

[MattSh]

10. Oh yeah, I'm real confident in Boeing...

The 787 still has 865 orders (although it had 120 more prior to cancellations). And it costs anywhere from $161 million to $205 million a copy -- yielding a backlog of at least $139 billion. Using interviews from anonymous Boeing employees, the Seattle Times uncovered big problems. Here are the most significant:

Cost overruns. The 787 was originally expected to cost $5 billion to develop, but now analysts think it will cost $12 billion or perhaps $18 billion to complete.

Inability to fly long distances. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is threatening to withhold certifying the 787 to fly the intercontinental routes that airlines expect it to serve.

Rain in the plane. This is the humorous term for heavy condensation dripping inside the jet's composite plastic fuselage. Boeing claims to be working on a solution, but who knows whether it will work.

Management problems. I have heard about big communications problems where management will fire people who give bad news. Employees working on the 787 complain about poor supplier oversight and a management system that a senior engineer told the Seattle Times is "totally broken. This program is not like anything we've seen. It's a screwed-up mess."

Supplier problems. Boeing has had well-documented problems with the Rolls-Royce engines shredding their mini-blades, horizontal tails being poorly built by Italy's Alenia and electrical system problems that caused a fire in a test flight in Laredo, Texas.

Unfinished aircraft in inventory. To deliver the 20 787s built since the six flight-test planes, mechanics will have to complete "more than 100,500 tasks," according to the Seattle Times.

Oh, and this...

But with the 787, that approach seems to be out the door. Boeing decided to outsource 60% of the design and manufacturing of the 787 so it could shift the risk onto its suppliers and speed up development. Boeing was too trusting of these suppliers, which continue to disappoint.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/e2w2Zz

[notesdev]

7. You're missing the point

Regardless of what the money is spent on specifically, expenses for military are money that goes into blowing things up. Blowing things up does nothing to increase the standard of living, and does not feed back into the economy in a positive way. Money spent on it is money that isn't going to build businesses and factories or anything else that will provide continuous benefits to the economy.

Economically, military is the single worst way to spend money; it's worse actually that simply being stolen from, since military use guarantees that money is a productivity dead end.

[cleanhippie]

9. I would rather see that money and those jobs go toward alternative energy instead.

[somone]

8. Such camaraderie

so touching.