Politics

[skydiver386]

Agree with most of what @skydiver386 said except the US did a pretty good job of building a military in 1941- 45. I don’t remember what rank we were in 41 but nowhere near Germany and Japan.

If you look at the population of the Axis vs. the Allies by population, GDP, or any other metric, we had far greater strength than the Axis. In 1939, Germany (86 million), Japan (72 million) and Italy (57 million) had combined populations of 215 million. Also in 1939, British Empire (545 million), China (470 million), Soviet Union (168 million), United States (148 million), French Empire (111 million), Dutch Empire (78 million), Poland (34 million), etc. had combined populations of 1,565,000.

List of countries by population in 1939 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Other than coal in Germany, and the captured oil fields in Romania, the Axis powers had few raw material and energy sources. The situation grew worse for the Axis as the war went on. In Europe and most of Asia, factories and cities were bombed flat, and military training consisted of being handed a uniform, a rifle, and marching to the front.

The reason the United States was able to build it's military at that time was that we were not under constant attack, our factories could churn out 24/7 production like the world had never seen, and our troops could be trained in almost complete comfort and safety. We were given an unbelievable amount of time to prepare. Simply put, the Axis had bitten off more than they could chew.

Even so, it took us (officially) from Dec 1941, till June 1944 before we could mass enough combat power in Europe to make the D-Day landings, and more than a year after that till VE Day. Not counting the Doolittle raid, serious attacks against Japan didn't take place for almost a year after Pearl Harbor!

After 1945 the Democrats in Congress and Harry Truman in the White House let the U.S. Military lapse. In 1950 North Korea backed by China and Russia attacked South Korea. Yet AGAIN, we had to build from the ground up while a small Communist country ate our lunch.

Democrats never learn.

 

[Pheroze]

The below clip is from the area fronting the 110th Mechanized Infantry Brigade in the vicinity of Avdiivka.

Do you know whether any of this footage is making a difference in Russia? The scale of the human tragedy is so offensive.

Thank you for your tireless efforts to infuse morality into the political decision making. I understand the geopolitical reasons. But it is the desire to reject every Christian, and western democratic principle that is so perplexing about a decision not to support Ukraine. A client's son was on his second tour as a foreign fighter when he was killed in an artillery barrage. That brought the war home. I was proud and saddened. A strange feeling.

 

[Red Leg]

Do you know whether any of this footage is making a difference in Russia? The scale of the human tragedy is so offensive.

They are seeing virtually none of it. You'll note our few Russian members have vanished from here.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

You’ve got to love the US defense industry. They keep us two steps ahead of the rest of the world. I for one do not begrudge the profit they make in keeping our nation at the forefront.

 

[Hunt anything]

If you look at the population of the Axis vs. the Allies by population, GDP, or any other metric, we had far greater strength than the Axis. In 1939, Germany (86 million), Japan (72 million) and Italy (57 million) had combined populations of 215 million. Also in 1939, British Empire (545 million), China (470 million), Soviet Union (168 million), United States (148 million), French Empire (111 million), Dutch Empire (78 million), Poland (34 million), etc. had combined populations of 1,565,000.

List of countries by population in 1939 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Other than coal in Germany, and the captured oil fields in Romania, the Axis powers had few raw material and energy sources. The situation grew worse for the Axis as the war went on. In Europe and most of Asia, factories and cities were bombed flat, and military training consisted of being handed a uniform, a rifle, and marching to the front.

The reason the United States was able to build it's military at that time was that we were not under constant attack, our factories could churn out 24/7 production like the world had never seen, and our troops could be trained in almost complete comfort and safety. We were given an unbelievable amount of time to prepare. Simply put, the Axis had bitten off more than they could chew.

Even so, it took us (officially) from Dec 1941, till June 1944 before we could mass enough combat power in Europe to make the D-Day landings, and more than a year after that till VE Day. Not counting the Doolittle raid, serious attacks against Japan didn't take place for almost a year after Pearl Harbor!

After 1945 the Democrats in Congress and Harry Truman in the White House let the U.S. Military lapse. In 1950 North Korea backed by China and Russia attacked South Korea. Yet AGAIN, we had to build from the ground up while a small Communist country ate our lunch.

Democrats never learn.

The populations of countries and their GDP was not in your post and non dispute, I was committing on building a military while at war, while we were not able to invade fortress Europe until ‘44 we were able to invade North Africa and Guadalcanal, Cape Glauster and some forgotten islands fairly early in the war. We did this after ”lend leasing“ a lot of our antiquated ships and so forth to Great Britain. I believe the US military strength was ranked in the mid 20’s in strength in ‘39-‘40 but by ‘45 it was ranked #1,

 

[Altitude sickness]

IMHO, the Ukraine funding bill being discussed before approval is how our system is supposed to work.

All too often we send billions on pallets in the middle of the night.

Most often it’s a duffel bag full of 100s handed to a local thug to get what we want.

Biden on day one reversed the (Remain in Mexico) policy. Which had people submit their request for asylum or citizenship. then wait in mexico while it’s being adjudicated.

the Biden regime asked for funding for Israel, Ukraine and the border. Thinking how could the Republican Congress go against border funding.

The problem is the funding was just to hire more judges and administrators, filing paperwork then turning people loose within our borders.

Every Democrat run city in the nation is crying Uncle, receiving 100 people per day.

small cities on the border are receiving at least 1000 per day with 1/100th of the budget. Their schools and hospitals are being overwhelmed. We cannot afford to take everyone in the world that wants to live here. It just will not work.

Fentanyl has harmed hundreds of thousands of people in this country in the last two years.

that is a clear and present danger.
not to mention the brewing terrorist threat that will soon show itself. Yet Biden refuses to reinstate the remain in mexico policy. He could get his war funding immediately if he would tell mexico to stop people at the Mexico southern border.

Only one party benefits from undocumented people being turned loose by the millions, because that same party is against voter ID
and is for handing them IDs and drivers licenses

Biden is not reading the room. The country is war weary and most people are struggling financially.
and they see him sending hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to another country when our border is wide open with a clear and present danger

Fentynal and people on the terrorist watch list.

 

[Hunt anything]

I still believe funding Ukraine is a worthwhile pursuit as long we can keep track of where the money goes. Instead of cash I would prefer weapons and material. I think in an interview yesterday the Ukrainian President included we need to pay for their pensions. That has to be a non starter.
Our border must be strictly enforced, our cities and infrastructure can’t handle much more. Keep the border open for tourists and legitimate visa holders but put a clamp down on the illegal crossings and no more catch and release.
We must stand by and support Israel until they have wiped hamas off the face of the earth and fund them when they need it. We just need to think what we would do if a hostile force did a similar act on our population.
All 3 of these things are intertwined but in my opinion they should be debated and funded separately.
I do also think if we don’t keep supporting Ukraine and Putin wins we are just sentencing a lot of Ukrainian people to death and the surrounding countries even though in NATO will be at great risk.

 

[ActionBob]

Before my time, but Im sure my taxes are still paying for it.

Well you are paying them in US dollars. Not Deutsche Marks

 

[ActionBob]

Nothing really new is it? In Suez in 1957, the 6-Day War in 1967, and the Yom Kippur War in 1973 the US forced Israel to the negotiating table to end the conflict. That would have been under two republican and one democrat administration.

A great movie about that period is Golda. Worth watching, especially with the current situation in Israel.

 

[ActionBob]

Most people also have no idea those huge enterprises operate at only around 12% profit margin.

Joe do they have any debt or is all capital raised through investment?

Is that return based on total investment, in other words return on assets? Or figured on the margin over cost of goods? Or?

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

It is not a question of Ukraine funding or the border security funding, but both surely? Both are time sensitive: Ukraine cannot keep up their brave energy indefinitely, and the USA cannot absorb unplanned for numbers for ever. Time is running out.

 

[Red Leg]

Joe do they have any debt or is all capital raised through investment?

Is that return based on total investment, in other words return on assets? Or figured on the margin over cost of goods? Or?

So the answer is yes. Depending on the audience, it can be presented a number of different ways and is in the financials. 90% of my corporation's business was government contracts. Each of those contracts achieved a profit margin against cost of contract performance.

Northrop is publicly traded, so its financials are available. The WSJ publishes for most major corporations.

NOC | Northrop Grumman Corp. Financial Statements - WSJ

Northrop Grumman Corp. balance sheet, income statement, cash flow, earnings & estimates, ratio and margins. View NOC financial statements in full.

www.wsj.com

Highlights:

Gross margin +20.42

Operating margin +9.84

Pretax margin +15.94

Net margin +13.38

Return on assets 11.34

 

[Hogpatrol]

View attachment 574421

I want the one that interprets Kamala Harris' word salads.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Most small US companies would love to get an 11% ROI. Many are around 5%

 

[mdwest]

It is not a question of Ukraine funding or the border security funding, but both surely? Both are time sensitive: Ukraine cannot keep up their brave energy indefinitely, and the USA cannot absorb unplanned for numbers for ever. Time is running out.

Agreed Kevin.

Ukraine, Israel, Border, etc... are all wholly separate issues... it really shouldnt be this or that.. it should be all of the above...

the issue, and where the conflict comes in.. is what exactly is the money going toward? just because money is ear marked "border" doesnt mean its being used to actually secure the border.. some of it is going toward "administration" of the border (basically helping process and relocate immigrants rather than sealing the border from illegal immigration).. some of the money for Ukraine is going toward weapons systems.. while some dollars are going toward "humanitarian aid" projects, that include things like bolstering the Ukrainian economy (while the US economy remains in haphazard condition)..

What SHOULD happen IMO is separate the funding initiatives.. then debate and argue on the merits (or lack thereof) of the priorities identified in spending.. but dont hold one initiative hostage because we cant all agree on another initiative... unfortunately however, this is the American way of doing business in Washington.. bundling and packaging of unrelated things for the purpose of leveraging position is far more common than not..

If its a matter of "we dont have the money" (I agree.. we need to significantly reduce the wasteful spending in DC).. there are plenty of other things to cut from... the problem is those cuts would not be politically expedient or super popular across both aisles..

For example.. there are 73 federal law enforcement agencies... Are you freaking kidding me?

Does the Defense Logistics Agency really need its own police agency and investigative capability? Does the US Department of Education really need its own Protective Services Division? Does the National Institute of Health really need its own police agency?????

While the 150K+ number of "cops" and investigators the US federal government has on the payroll might be necessary to meet the various mission requirements.. all of the administrative costs.. buildings, leadership teams, etc.. etc.. are out of control..

Consolidate those 73 agencies into I dunno.. maybe 10 (or less).. and you would have hundreds of millions on annual costs savings just by getting rid of the executive leadership and facilities costs associated with managing agencies and departments that literally only have a couple of hundred people (some as few as 20)...

And what about completely obsolescent federal agencies that havent had a valid mission in decades? why are those organizations still around?

Do we really need a Natural Resource Conservation Service at the Federal level? Formed in 1935 to help farmers better understand and combat soil erosion... NRCS employs 12,000 people and costs the US taxpayer $800M a year today... The GAO (Government Accountability Office) has conducted several studies of NRCS over the years... the finding of our own US Government is... that there is ZERO difference in soil erosion in areas that participate in NRCS programs and areas that do not..

and what about The Public Health Service Commission Corps? PHSCC was created in the late 1800s to provide health care to merchant seamen. Its members still have military ranks, are paid according to Pentagon pay scales, and are eligible for retirement pensions after 20 years -- yet they haven't been part of the military since 1952! They do practically nothing in their official capacity (their leadership lobbied Congress to avoid service in the Gulf War!), yet they cost taxpayers $452 million in 1994. Decommissioning the corps would save taxpayers $625 million over five years.

The list of useless, valueless, govt agencies that should either be dissolved or at a minimum be reorganized and/or melded into other agencies to reduce administrative and overhead costs is incredibly long... and incredibly expensive...

We could pay for all of Ukraines, Israel's, and the border security initiatives needed.. just by killing about 100K of useless, valueless, federal government programs and agencies..

 

[Altitude sickness]

Midwest, now you’re thinking like a small businessman, instead of somebody playing with monopoly money as the bureaucrats do

 

[mdwest]

Most small US companies would love to get an 11% ROI. Many are around 5%

Thats going to be industry and region dependent... and also depends on your definition of "small"..

I belong to a CEO networking organization in the DFW area.. 13 CEOs are in my specific group.. there are about 60 CEO's total in DFW that participate..

All of the businesses do between $1M - $50M a year in annual revenue (small businesses in most industries)..

The vast majority of those businesses report net margins well north of 15%.. many are well into the 25%+ range..

I just received a slide deck from one of the members this morning (he has a presentation on his business to do next week).. they are a software as a service provider that caters to the insurance industry.. They did $8.9M in revenue last year (tiny business in the SaaS industry) with about 120 employees... They pulled a 21% net margin... and grew their business 4% from prior years numbers in 2023..

 

[Altitude sickness]

Yeah, it’s far more complicated than I stated that’s for sure. Some companies are trying to be acquired by the next larger equity group, and they need to show ever improving margins for a short burst until they’re acquired

 

[Red Leg]

Most small US companies would love to get an 11% ROI. Many are around 5%

I am sure many are doing badly, but national small business averages run between 15 and 30% ROI.

 

[Altitude sickness]

EBITDA remains strong but I would be shocked if in early 2024 the margin numbers posted are not adjusted down for 2023.