The money goes from the US Treasury to Raytheon (for instance).
Munitions manufacturers like Raytheon have shareholders. The weapons they manufacturer, by contract, can only be sold to the US. That’s because the US paid for their development to begin with. Yes, they do make money. But, having worked government contracts before, it may not be as much as you think. A lot of times the government has difficult requirements that has to be built into the end cost.
Ever work on government RFPs? Ever win one? Ever take it from cradle to grave? Ever watch the development money flow? It’s not easy, and yes, you too get paid. There isn’t giant margin on government c9ntract, but the work is steady.
I’m not “you people”, and I’m far from supporting this.
But I hate misinformation, and this money is used to push American industry, not given away. The end products are, but the money, aside from filling pockets of the defense contractors also supports American jobs.
From the point of American economy that’s preferable than, say, tax cuts for the rich.
The moral side of things is a different matter, but a moral argument cannot be supported with lies about economics. If anything that makes the moral position weaker.
The end products are, but the money, aside from filling pockets of the defense contractors also supports American jobs.
That’s the thing. This is money coming from American taxpayers to support defense contracts and jobs that don’t benefit the American people.
All of the money being spent to make weapons we give away could be better spent helping the American people. This way, their tax dollars are used for services that actually benefit them.
Tanks don’t benefit us unless we sell them or use them.
But now we’re in critic of the industrial military industry per se, not where those weapons are delivered to. And we’re far away from the claim whether America is sending money, because it isn’t.
My point, from the beginning, is that US arms can be sold. They are not worthless, and giving them away means taxpayers funded jobs that give no benefit to the American people and line the pockets of for-profit business owners.
weapons produced by Americans paid for by Americans.
only now it’s not American soldiers who do the shooting.
You’re trying to argue that it’s a win for the US because Americans aren’t using it. If the US sold its equipment instead of giving it away, you would have a point that it is good for the American economy.
My counterpoint, from the beginning, was that giving away equipment “just means a defense contractor got richer at the expense of American taxpayers.”
The taxpayer money that was spent on equipment we gave away could’ve been better spent on something that actually benefits the American people. It would still create jobs, but those jobs would be benefiting us instead of defense contractors and whoever we give our equipment too.
Umm… do they transfer money now? Usually they transfer weapons produced by Americans paid for by Americans.
That’s the same thing that has been going on for decades, only now it’s not American soldiers who do the shooting.
Yeah, I think there are too many people that don’t understand this. Its not like there is money changing hands.
The money is changing hands, it just doesn’t touch the beneficiary.
Nothing happens in us without at least two rich dude turning a profit…
If they can’t get profit, nothing happens
The money goes from the US Treasury to Raytheon (for instance).
Munitions manufacturers like Raytheon have shareholders. The weapons they manufacturer, by contract, can only be sold to the US. That’s because the US paid for their development to begin with. Yes, they do make money. But, having worked government contracts before, it may not be as much as you think. A lot of times the government has difficult requirements that has to be built into the end cost.
US procurement is a corrupt clown show.
Military contractors overcharge the Pentagon on almost everything the Department of Defense buys each year.
This has been a known fact for decades into he circle and it is so bad that main stream media is covering it.
Not really sure what you are smoking but that shit must be real good or the money is right for this brain dead take lol
Ever work on government RFPs? Ever win one? Ever take it from cradle to grave? Ever watch the development money flow? It’s not easy, and yes, you too get paid. There isn’t giant margin on government c9ntract, but the work is steady.
I’ve done all that and you’re dead wrong.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-budget-price-gouging-military-contractors-60-minutes-2023-05-21/
Can you people please stop saying this as though the equipment we send to them is worthless?
Even if it’s already built, it’s still valuable and giving it away just means a defense contractor got richer at the expense of American taxpayers.
I’m happy for my tax dollars to fund the bullets that shoot Russian soldiers, and the companies that make them.
I’m not “you people”, and I’m far from supporting this.
But I hate misinformation, and this money is used to push American industry, not given away. The end products are, but the money, aside from filling pockets of the defense contractors also supports American jobs.
From the point of American economy that’s preferable than, say, tax cuts for the rich.
The moral side of things is a different matter, but a moral argument cannot be supported with lies about economics. If anything that makes the moral position weaker.
That’s the thing. This is money coming from American taxpayers to support defense contracts and jobs that don’t benefit the American people.
All of the money being spent to make weapons we give away could be better spent helping the American people. This way, their tax dollars are used for services that actually benefit them.
Tanks don’t benefit us unless we sell them or use them.
But now we’re in critic of the industrial military industry per se, not where those weapons are delivered to. And we’re far away from the claim whether America is sending money, because it isn’t.
My point, from the beginning, is that US arms can be sold. They are not worthless, and giving them away means taxpayers funded jobs that give no benefit to the American people and line the pockets of for-profit business owners.
You’re trying to argue that it’s a win for the US because Americans aren’t using it. If the US sold its equipment instead of giving it away, you would have a point that it is good for the American economy.
My counterpoint, from the beginning, was that giving away equipment “just means a defense contractor got richer at the expense of American taxpayers.”
The taxpayer money that was spent on equipment we gave away could’ve been better spent on something that actually benefits the American people. It would still create jobs, but those jobs would be benefiting us instead of defense contractors and whoever we give our equipment too.