NASTY JACK BUZZ HAS MOVED TO WORDPRESS: NastyJackBuzz.com

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

God forbid I might agree with Trump


I am all for creating jobs, something Progressives make a major priority in their ideology. Donald Trump spewed how he would help the working man during his 2016 campaign then picked Andrew Puzder as his Labor Secretary. Puzder is against sick leave, expanding overtime pay, wants to repeal Obamacare and most of all, is reluctant over raising the minimum wage. But that's not what this post is all about. If Lockheed is screwing the U.S. government in the building of the F-35, and it would appear they agree to a change, I am for correcting this, even if it means the loss of some jobs.

146,000 jobs, both within Lockheed and its suppliers, is what the company estimates are the number that depend on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The incoming U.S. president says, "...due to the "tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35 I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable" fighter jet to possibly replace the F-35." Here's how Marilyn Hewson, CEO of Lockheed responded...
She had a "..."very good conversation" with Trump Friday, the day after he tweeted that he was considering replacing the costly F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with a modified version of a cheaper jet. I've heard his message loud and clear about reducing the cost of the F-35. I gave him my personal commitment to drive the cost down aggressively. We're ready to deliver."
So, what does that mean in terms of the new aircraft she had in mind in relation to the F-35? Did Lockheed overprice the F-35 to begin with? Were the overruns just for the purpose of jacking up the price? Was the F-35 allowed to continue overpriced and with overruns just to bring revenue to states like Texas and California? Or, is this all just a continuation of the cooperative efforts between big business and Congress to bring pork to the states to get representatives and Senators re-elected and fill the greedy coffers of corporations? You be the judge. Check out this YouTube video...



But what will a cheaper version of the F-35 mean to the men flying it? Will it be as effective, have the same armor plate protection, run on the latest technology, and there are even more questions? And yet another question arises, why didn't they build the less expensive version in the first place? Did Lockheed propose the over-priced model and Congress approved it because of the political donations from Lockheed? Bingo! $2.6 million dollars to be sure. The majority spread around Republicans can have an amazing effect on people's decisions.

So, back to having to agree with a psychopathic lunatic. Yes, if a cheaper F-15 is just as effective, just as well armored with the latest technology, I am in favor of building that and getting rid of the other version. Sorry for the jobs but this is probably a major reason for the size of the U.S. budget.

However, why do I keep feeling there is something here that will end up in Donald Trump's pocket?

No comments:

Post a Comment

NASTY JACK IS NOW OPEN FOR COMMENTS