Hey, Defense industry workers...

[FrodeMk3]

    For those of you who work in Defense related projects, or in the U.S. DoD...take a look at this:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080412/pl_nm/usa_politics_military_dc_1

and more specifically, this part;

VALPARAISO, Indiana (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton offered a package of measures on Saturday designed to keep U.S. defense manufacturing jobs in the United States.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
Clinton, a New York senator, said the drain of U.S. manufacturing jobs to foreign countries under President George W. Bush was hurting companies that serve the U.S. military.

"We're not just outsourcing jobs, we're outsourcing our security. This has got to stop," she said in Valparaiso, which lost 225 jobs when the Magnaquench company moved them to China five years ago.

The company made "neo" magnets, critical components in the guidance systems of military smart bombs. Two former Magnaquench workers appeared with Clinton at a rally where she proposed steps to try to save similar companies.

The reason I brought this up, is that I thought that in contracts' that the DoD let's out, they had a clause which stated that in order to do business in National Defense, that you had to manufacture those items' here, so that there would not be a compromise in time of war. Anyone know?

[SD67]

Does an Airbus tanker ring any bells?

[FrodeMk3]

Does an Airbus tanker ring any bells?

Yeah, but I was under the impression they were gonna be built under license here in the U.S.-Much the same way the Harrier was, and other products.

[AquaShrimp]

Mrs. Clinton seems to be able to make rational decisions that benefit the U.S.  She has my vote.

[DREDIOCK]

We shouldnt be outsourcing defence related contracts to companies from other countries reguardless if they are made here or not.
PERIOD

[eagl]

Yeah, but I was under the impression they were gonna be built under license here in the U.S.-Much the same way the Harrier was, and other products.

They'll be "assembled" here, not "built".  Any high school dropout can assemble a kit, most of the engineers will be elsewhere.

[Lumpy]

They'll be "assembled" here, not "built".  Any high school dropout can assemble a kit, most of the engineers will be elsewhere.

That's true for Boeing aircraft as well. They are just assembled in Everett. They are built all around the world. 500+ subcontractors in Europe alone.

[Ripsnort]

That's true for Boeing aircraft as well. They are just assembled in Everett. They are built all around the world. 500+ subcontractors in Europe alone.

This is dependent on the model of aircraft.

[wrongwayric]

Let's see you support the wife of the former president who signed NAFTA and then blame the current president because after it was signed the U.S. companies started to move there manufacturing to places like mexico because it would be cheaper, less strict EPA regulations, no unemployment insurance to pay, no health plans for workers and less safe worksites? I'm not sure how you justify that thought process.

[Airhead]

Let's see you support the wife of the former president who signed NAFTA and then blame the current president because after it was signed the U.S. companies started to move there manufacturing to places like mexico because it would be cheaper, less strict EPA regulations, no unemployment insurance to pay, no health plans for workers and less safe worksites? I'm not sure how you justify that thought process.

NAFTA was signed by George Bush Sr., in 1992. Republicans largely supported it, Democrats largely opposed it.

Next you're going to be claiming it was Clinton who invaded Iraq. 

At any rate NAFTA has nothing to do with China...the NA in NAFTA stands for "North American", and last time I looked at a map of North America it was owned primarily by Mexico.

[eagl]

That's true for Boeing aircraft as well. They are just assembled in Everett. They are built all around the world. 500+ subcontractors in Europe alone.

But the engineering work was done here for the most part.  Some engineering was outsourced but only to a small handful of established and respected companies.  And that's the point Hillary seems to be trying to make, that the critical aerospace industry infrastructure is not being used in the US so it'll disappear.  She is failing to make the point because she either doesn't know what she's talking about, or she doesn't think the country is smart enough to understand that cheap doesn't equal good when it means nobody here can design stuff anymore.  But she seems to think we're all idiots and can't grasp the concept of an industrial base or the fact that just because 90% of the country earn less money than the average aerospace engineer, it doesn't mean that the average American thinks we simply shouldn't have any engineers at all.

But she's a democrat and they get votes by pandering to the lowest and highest levels of American society, the ones who either have their hands out yelling "gimme!" or those who have money they didn't earn and who feel so guilty about having money that they feel they must force everyone else to fork over money to those shouting that they want more free stuff.  Both groups are ignorant and gullible, and her speeches are tailored to their attitudes so she won't talk about eroding an industrial base, she'll talk in generalities, spouting nonsense about the evils of corporate greed and offshoring causing a loss of jobs.  It's more complicated than that, but she won't ever admit it in public.

[REP0MAN]

NAFTA was signed by George Bush Sr., in 1992. Republicans largely supported it, Democrats largely opposed it.

Funny how the Dem's first lady "largely opposed" NAFTA.....

The Buffalo News reports that in 1998 she "praised corporations for mounting 'a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.' " And last year, her lead Wall Street fundraiser told reporters that Clinton remains "committed" to NAFTA's "free" trade structure.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004198705_sirota25.html

Give Billary some money, she'll say whatever you want.

[Lumpy]

This is dependent on the model of aircraft.

I'm sure it does, but does Boeing produce an aircraft that is all made in the US?

[Ripsnort]

NAFTA was signed by George Bush Sr., in 1992. Republicans largely supported it, Democrats largely opposed it.

Next you're going to be claiming it was Clinton who invaded Iraq. 

At any rate NAFTA has nothing to do with China...the NA in NAFTA stands for "North American", and last time I looked at a map of North America it was owned primarily by Mexico.

I love how liberals conveniently forget history. 


NAFTA was initially pursued by politicians in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993

[Ripsnort]

I'm sure it does, but does Boeing produce an aircraft that is all made in the US?

It hasn't since the 727. The 757, 767, 777 have all had parts made outside the US. This is how Boeing falls in favorable eyes of other countries and country airlines, by giving them a piece of the pie.