Guest Post: Why Should U.S. Taxpayers Subsidize the Sale of the F-35?

[CHIMO]

Much has been said in the U.S. about the cost, schedule and performance woes of the F-35—but one thing that has largely slipped under the radar is the direct subsidy to foreign purchasers paid by U.S. taxpayers.

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/04/guest-post-why-should-us-taxpayers-subsidize-the-sale-of-the-f-35.html

[Historic NY]

1. We shouldn't ..you want more frills then pay for it.

[The Second Stone]

2. We shouldn't subsidize this at all

we should at least make a profit for all the research we as taxpayers paid for on the f-35. Talk about taxpayers paying for a war for socialism.

[CHIMO]

3. Well

It would help put people back to work for the lowest bidders.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. It is one of the few things we manufacture, all by Americans.

I'd be please as punch if we subsidized companies that hire almost exclusivly American workers that didn't involve war. But that is what we have.

[CHIMO]

5. Sorry

To break your bubble. But suppliers are in 30 different countries.

Fort Worth, Texas – Leaders of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program are partnering with U.S. and international aerospace leaders, including Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC) and BAE Systems (OTC:BAESY). These three primary partners are supported by up to 600 suppliers. In all, the parties involved in the production of the F-35 reside in more than 30 countries, spanning 17 time zones. Coordinating their efforts, fostering collaboration across the extended enterprise of companies with dissimilar development environments, and managing all of the several formats of design data involved in this project are critical challenges for the Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, Texas, prime contractor for the F-35.
http://fightercountry.org/news/f-35-news/hundreds-of-f-35-aircraft-suppliers-coordinate-with-teamcenter/71347

[Dokkie]

6. when it comes to the MIC

we are all socialist now. Even fucking tea baggers