| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Why Lockheed Martin gets billions in taxpayer money each year |
| 2019-12-10 |
| [CNBC] Lockheed Martin is the top-grossing defense firm in the world and the U.S. government supports that business to the tune of more than $37.7 billion. In 2018 alone, that business from government contracts represented 70% of Lockheed Martin’s $53.7 billion revenue for the year, as it beat out its contemporaries Boeing and Raytheon. These funds are granted by Congress to provide equipment that enables the U.S. military to protect the country at home and abroad. To ensure that, politicians work with defense contractors to provide equipment to the military. This partnership creates a unique opportunity for private corporations to execute the will of the government and requires a delicate balance. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #18 As with any large organizations, you hope the engineers write the |
| Posted by: Frank G 2019-12-10 19:49 |
| #17 I actually worked for Lockheed for awhile, at NASA. I thought it was a pretty nice company. I didn't want to relocate to Houston and there was a job with SAIC at Aberdeen (Maryland, not Scotland). SAIC gets lots of DoD business, too. Lockeed gets more because they do good work. SAIC, at least the job I worked on, was rife with cronyism, buzzwords, and bullshittery. One database "expert" I had to work with didn't know what a view is. |
| Posted by: Fred 2019-12-10 19:45 |
| #16 Dont' stop there Herb - Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2019-12-10 19:33 |
| #15 The problem is that more profit for LM means that the unelected US government has an incentive to start more wars. The billions it makes enable it to lobby very effectively and create a system of graft, a revolving door of corruption. Government officials that represent LM's interests know that they'll be rewarded with lucrative jobs later. It's what Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address. "Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." -- Farewell Address, January 17, 1961 |
| Posted by: Herb McCoy 2019-12-10 15:56 |
| #14 😂 |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2019-12-10 13:40 |
| #13 шучу Fair enough |
| Posted by: Lex 2019-12-10 13:25 |
| #12 "Make an egg"? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2019-12-10 12:45 |
| #11 Faire un oeuf. |
| Posted by: Lex 2019-12-10 12:32 |
| #10 ^Well, that depends on the quality of their products. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2019-12-10 11:59 |
| #9 What 49 Pan said. Also, the net profit margin is certainly in lower: free cash flow available to equity is certainly much smaller. So, no, LM is not ripping anyone off. |
| Posted by: Lex 2019-12-10 11:56 |
| #8 Ooooohhh — preach it, 49 Pan! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2019-12-10 11:49 |
| #7 Don't try confuse us with facts, 49 Pan. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2019-12-10 11:48 |
| #6 So lets all hate LM. That's the ticket. LM get $50 billion dollars, OK lets see where that goes. First they make products for the military, probably accounting for 30% of their intake is materials. Materials bought in the US of A. Then there is the labor and G&A costs at about another 40-45%. This leaves 25 -30% for profit. Lots and lots of cash. This company is not privately owned, so the cash goes out as dividends to the share holders. Bad Wall Street taking all that cash. But looking deeper we see that EVERY 401K in America, except for those non military niche funds, have LM in their portfolio. So most everyone here on the Burg has a 401K and is benefiting from this tax dollar returning to America fund. So I have one last question, who do you want to make these military products? Mexico? Pumping $50 billion back into our economy for military products beat ONE USAID dollar going to Somalia, or any other dumb congressional pork product.. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2019-12-10 11:46 |
| #5 My point is that it's not 3 times the GDP |
| Posted by: Frank G 2019-12-10 11:26 |
| #4 And the US is spending a bit over 3% now. Close enough for government work. |
| Posted by: Snusotle the Lesser4227 2019-12-10 11:05 |
| #3 Ummm...according to this chart we were spending 8.62% ($45.38B) of GDP on the military? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2019-12-10 11:00 |
| #2 In 1960, the USA was also spending 3 times the GDP on the military. More pie for more players. |
| Posted by: Snusotle the Lesser4227 2019-12-10 10:34 |
| #1 Check the number of defense contractors in 1960 and today. Congress, DoD, et al insured that demise of competition by their behaviors. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2019-12-10 09:28 |