[katsung47]

Boeing Announces Big Layoffs in Defense Division
Published: Wednesday, 7 Nov 2012

Boeing announced a major restructuring of its defense division on Wednesday that will cut 30 percent of management jobs from 2010 levels, close facilities in California and consolidate several business units to cut costs.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49729998

Watch the date of the announcement. They don't want bad news to hurt Obama's campaign?

[Space Pope]

Originally Posted by katsung47

Watch the date of the announcement. They don't want bad news to hurt Obama's campaign?

lol no. They know they are about to get a bunch of budget cuts, just like Lockheed Martin. Both companies would have very much preferred a Romney presidency. That never stops people like you from making **** up though...

[Umami (Banned)]

Originally Posted by katsung47

Watch the date of the announcement. They don't want bad news to hurt Obama's campaign?

Kind of puts a wrench in the "Republicans are good for business" slogan, doesn't it?

[Space Pope]

Originally Posted by Umami

Kind of puts a wrench in the "Republicans are good for business" slogan, doesn't it?

What?

[Umami (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Space Pope

What?

Well, if Boeing wanted to hurt Obama's chances of re-election, they would have done this beforehand.

[Space Pope]

Originally Posted by Umami

Well, if Boeing wanted to hurt Obama's chances of re-election, they would have done this beforehand.

The lay off are in part a response to his election. It is expected that a number of DOD contracts are going to get cut, either through sequestrations or through the new budget. The higher-ups I know at Lockheed were hoping for a Romney win under the expectation that the defence budget would expand and their contracts maintained. Boeing likely had similar hopes.

[Umami (Banned)]

Oh duh.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Space Pope

The higher-ups I know at Lockheed were hoping for a Romney win under the expectation that the defence budget would expand and their contracts maintained. Boeing likely had similar hopes.

Did any of them have any reservations about any other aspect of a potential Romney presidency?

[Space Pope]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Did any of them have any reservations about any other aspect of a potential Romney presidency?

I don't know their politics, so I can't really say. They were discussing the potential for cuts given the results of the election. None of them are very outspoken about that sort of stuff, but were genuinely concerned for the future of some of their programs given a second term for Obama.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Space Pope

I don't know their politics, so I can't really say. They were discussing the potential for cuts given the results of the election. None of them are very outspoken about that sort of stuff, but were genuinely concerned for the future of some of their programs given a second term for Obama.

How did you reconcile that with the austerity plans Romney/Ryan had? You didn't honestly buy the line that we were somehow going to slash spending while leaving defense untouched ... did you?

Then again there's always the possibility that they would have sociopathically slashed everything but defense, which would have been a disaster for the country ... did that bother you at all?

[Umami (Banned)]

I don't think he's making judgements on anything, just acknowledging the reality that under Obama's defense cuts Boeing and Lockheed are going to have fewer defense contracts, which inevitably leads to layoffs.

Not that I'm particularly concerned about parts of it, scientists and engineers don't typically have much trouble finding work. It's definitely worse for any production cuts they make.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Umami

I don't think he's making judgements on anything, just acknowledging the reality that under Obama's defense cuts Boeing and Lockheed are going to have fewer defense contracts, which inevitably leads to layoffs.

Well the idea that Obama would cut while Romney would not have is itself kind of an unfounded judgment, or a bad one. Romney and Republicans run on cutting but if they cut everything but defense that would be bad news, so either similar to Obama or far worse for the country, despite preserving one's own job in the short term. That's not a great judgment.

[Tafari Makonnen]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Well the idea that Obama would cut while Romney would not have is itself kind of an unfounded judgment, or a bad one. Romney and Republicans run on cutting but if they cut everything but defense that would be bad news, so either similar to Obama or far worse for the country, despite preserving one's own job in the short term. That's not a great judgment.

So the people planning the financial strategy of this massive company are just totally misguided? They quite reasonably believe that a Romney administration is more likely to reduce defense spending than Obamas, and quite frankly I value their opinion more than yours.

[licence2kill]

just a public service announcement: sequestration was a GOP insistence to raise the debt ceiling. if they had just raised it like always then we wouldnt even be going through this.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Tafari Makonnen

They quite reasonably believe that a Romney administration is more likely to reduce defense spending than Obamas, and quite frankly I value their opinion more than yours.

Either you're confused or mistyped. This contradicts what you said earlier and is actually along the lines of my point.

That said, I don't trust corporate financial planners further than you can throw them. We just almost crashed the ****ing world economy thanks to them. Personally lost my career to them, and have seen a HUGE amount of damage they have done up close. I'd go so far as to say that corporate financial planners have no ****ing clue what's good for the economy at large or the country, nor do they seem to care. I say, slash their programs and let them learn.

Originally Posted by licence2kill

just a public service announcement: sequestration was a GOP insistence to raise the debt ceiling. if they had just raised it like always then we wouldnt even be going through this.

Yes, let's not forget.

[blueshifty]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

just a public service announcement: sequestration was a tea party insistence to raise the debt ceiling. if they had just raised it like always then we wouldnt even be going through this.

Fixed.

[Tafari Makonnen]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Either you're confused or mistyped. This contradicts what you said earlier and is actually along the lines of my point.

That said, I don't trust corporate financial planners further than you can throw them. We just almost crashed the ****ing world economy thanks to them. Personally lost my career to them, and have seen a HUGE amount of damage they have done up close. I'd go so far as to say that corporate financial planners have no ****ing clue what's good for the economy at large or the country, nor do they seem to care. I say, slash their programs and let them learn.



Yes, let's not forget.

I miss typed, I meant the opposite. I have a hard time believing that these people don't know what they are doing. Most of them have been with the company for 30+ years.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Tafari Makonnen

I miss typed, I meant the opposite. I have a hard time believing that these people don't know what they are doing. Most of them have been with the company for 30+ years.

30 years, got in when the gettin' was good, to receive the Reagan deficit-financed defense welfare.

To be fair, Romney went out of his way and practically folded himself backwards hiding exactly what his plans were for cutting government to teabag standards. Couple that with Obama never really being in jeopardy of losing the election, and it may just be convenient enough that they don't have to reckon with what they thought of Romney's plans.

They can THINK Romney wouldn't have been an utter disaster, because he would have been an utter disaster, and that kept him out of office. Enough people weren't willfully blinding themselves to at least get that much done. But make no mistake, it was willful blindness, and behooves anyone interested in real truths to account for that in future assessments.

Deficit hawks may have whipped up spending-cut fervor, but far and away the public consensus pick for the deepest and most immediate cuts is defense. This is the world today.

[quakcer]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

They can THINK Romney wouldn't have been an utter disaster, because he would have been an utter disaster, and that kept him out of office.

Actually the mexicans are what kept him out of office.

[Space Pope]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

30 years, got in when the gettin' was good, to receive the Reagan deficit-financed defense welfare.

To be fair, Romney went out of his way and practically folded himself backwards hiding exactly what his plans were for cutting government to teabag standards. Couple that with Obama never really being in jeopardy of losing the election, and it may just be convenient enough that they don't have to reckon with what they thought of Romney's plans.

They can THINK Romney wouldn't have been an utter disaster, because he would have been an utter disaster, and that kept him out of office. Enough people weren't willfully blinding themselves to at least get that much done. But make no mistake, it was willful blindness, and behooves anyone interested in real truths to account for that in future assessments.

Deficit hawks may have whipped up spending-cut fervor, but far and away the public consensus pick for the deepest and most immediate cuts is defense. This is the world today.

You are a perplexing individual.

Originally Posted by quakcer

Actually the mexicans are what kept him out of office.

Stop saying things.

[Treghc]

Originally Posted by quakcer

Actually the mexicans are what kept him out of office.

And by that, you mean their low voter turn out voted for the party they have always voted for since the 60's?