• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney’s Big Navy Guru Made Millions From Building Ships

What? Someone might profit from our war industry building war machines we don't need? I can't believe it. That would never happen in America.
 
zimmer said:
Yes... it costs money to be a super power. Our allies should contribute to their defense.

A further note about the Commi-Libs Condom Theory of Military Management... that condom... all it takes is a couple pricks and you're farked.
Click to expand...

It costs so much money that we'll stop being a superpower if we keep spending on useless military equipment to make people like Romney rich.
 
Again, let's keep it simple.

More ships = stronger navy.


areafiftyone said:
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has vowed to boost the size of the Navy by roughly 15 percent as part of a broader defense buildup. “Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917,” he complained in Monday night’s debate. “That’s unacceptable to me.”

But for one of Romney’s most important advisers on Navy issues, a man who oversaw a massive naval expansion for Pres. Ronald Reagan, there’s more at stake than U.S. national security. John Lehman, an investment banker and former secretary of the Navy, has strong and complex personal financial ties to the naval shipbuilding industry. He has profited hugely from the Navy’s slow growth in recent years — raising the prospect that he could make even more if Romney takes his advice on expanding the fleet.

That doesn’t mean that a bigger or better Navy is necessarily a bad idea. But it does complicate Romney’s claim that a larger Navy would merely be “matched to the interests we need to protect.” A bigger maritime force has the possibility of personally enriching one of the candidate’s top advisers. In fact, it already has.

Lehman is the founder and chairman of J.F. Lehman & Company, a private equity firm. He also sits on several corporate boards.

Lehman invested in a government-backed “Superferry” in Hawaii — a business that ultimately failed, but not before boosting the standing of Austal USA, an Alabama shipbuilder that constructed the ferry service’s ships. Austal USA’s rising fortunes in turn benefited international defense giant BAE Systems, which then bought up shipyards owned by Lehman in order to work more closely with Austal USA.

When all was said and done, the roundtrip deal helped net Lehman’s firm a reported $180 million. And besides that, Lehman continues to own shipyards that do lucrative maintenance work for the Navy. Even leaving aside the intricate ferry-and-shipyard series of deals, Lehman still stands to profit from the naval buildup he is helping to plan.

“Lehman’s involvement with the Superferry shows that he is no stranger to using personal connections to influence costly decisions,” says Ryan Sibley, an editor at the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog Sunlight Foundation who has closely tracked Lehman’s shipbuilding investments.

The Romney campaign did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment for this story.

Continue Reading Here: Romney's Big Navy Guru Made Millions From Building Ships | Danger Room | Wired.com
Click to expand...
 
head of joaquin said:
It costs so much money that we'll stop being a superpower if we keep spending on useless military equipment to make people like Romney rich.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if we put it in terms the democrats understand, "Ships are built by union guys and union guys favor the democrats so you'll support ship building if you are a true democrat."
 
If Romney knows people in the ship building industry, does that make Obama a terrorist communist?
 
Guess the OP doesn't quite realize how US Navy vessel acquisition works. Its a bidding process from various shipyards throughout the US. This goes for maintenance too. Unfortunately, the number of shipyards with the capabilities (logistics and labor skill level) has dwindled over the years as the US large commercial vessel construction is virtually non-existent.

Generally, from what I've seen, its spread throughout the nation.
 
Fisher said:
Perhaps if we put it in terms the democrats understand, "Ships are built by union guys and union guys favor the democrats so you'll support ship building if you are a true democrat."
Click to expand...

No,no. Romney would outsource their construction to China like he did with Bain.
 
areafiftyone said:
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has vowed to boost the size of the Navy by roughly 15 percent as part of a broader defense buildup. “Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917,” he complained in Monday night’s debate. “That’s unacceptable to me.”

But for one of Romney’s most important advisers on Navy issues, a man who oversaw a massive naval expansion for Pres. Ronald Reagan, there’s more at stake than U.S. national security. John Lehman, an investment banker and former secretary of the Navy, has strong and complex personal financial ties to the naval shipbuilding industry. He has profited hugely from the Navy’s slow growth in recent years — raising the prospect that he could make even more if Romney takes his advice on expanding the fleet.

That doesn’t mean that a bigger or better Navy is necessarily a bad idea. But it does complicate Romney’s claim that a larger Navy would merely be “matched to the interests we need to protect.” A bigger maritime force has the possibility of personally enriching one of the candidate’s top advisers. In fact, it already has.

Lehman is the founder and chairman of J.F. Lehman & Company, a private equity firm. He also sits on several corporate boards.

Lehman invested in a government-backed “Superferry” in Hawaii — a business that ultimately failed, but not before boosting the standing of Austal USA, an Alabama shipbuilder that constructed the ferry service’s ships. Austal USA’s rising fortunes in turn benefited international defense giant BAE Systems, which then bought up shipyards owned by Lehman in order to work more closely with Austal USA.

When all was said and done, the roundtrip deal helped net Lehman’s firm a reported $180 million. And besides that, Lehman continues to own shipyards that do lucrative maintenance work for the Navy. Even leaving aside the intricate ferry-and-shipyard series of deals, Lehman still stands to profit from the naval buildup he is helping to plan.

“Lehman’s involvement with the Superferry shows that he is no stranger to using personal connections to influence costly decisions,” says Ryan Sibley, an editor at the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog Sunlight Foundation who has closely tracked Lehman’s shipbuilding investments.

The Romney campaign did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment for this story.

Continue Reading Here: Romney's Big Navy Guru Made Millions From Building Ships | Danger Room | Wired.com
Click to expand...

What? No...politicians actually only looking out for their buddies at the expense of us? Surely no Republocrat would ever behave in such a manner.
 
zimmer said:
The Condom Theory of Military Management, that's what Obama and the Commi-Libs military policy should be called.

The Commi-Libs seek to stretch our military so thin that it breaks.

Their abysmal management (Carter, Clinton and now Obama) has resulted in our military being poorly armed.
Result?
Republicans have to go in and clean up the mess.

The Commi-Libs scream about the cost. Then we get rhetoric like the OP. Nobody is for shady contracts... BUT where have the Commi-Libs been on Solyndra, and like-kind deals? (Solyndra will cost us more than 800 MILLION.

During the Reagan years we had double the ships (600) in the Navy that we have today (300).

Right now we are spread too thin... the condom is busted. We shouldn't have to hope no real serious dung hits the fan... we should always be prepared to the hilt. THAT... funding our defense... is permitted in our Constitution... socialist redistribution and socialist programs... not... not at the federal level.
Click to expand...

The one problem with your rant is the fact that we had a smaller fleet under Bush.
 
areafiftyone said:
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has vowed to boost the size of the Navy by roughly 15 percent as part of a broader defense buildup. “Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917,” he complained in Monday night’s debate. “That’s unacceptable to me.”

But for one of Romney’s most important advisers on Navy issues, a man who oversaw a massive naval expansion for Pres. Ronald Reagan, there’s more at stake than U.S. national security. John Lehman, an investment banker and former secretary of the Navy, has strong and complex personal financial ties to the naval shipbuilding industry. He has profited hugely from the Navy’s slow growth in recent years — raising the prospect that he could make even more if Romney takes his advice on expanding the fleet.

That doesn’t mean that a bigger or better Navy is necessarily a bad idea. But it does complicate Romney’s claim that a larger Navy would merely be “matched to the interests we need to protect.” A bigger maritime force has the possibility of personally enriching one of the candidate’s top advisers. In fact, it already has.

Lehman is the founder and chairman of J.F. Lehman & Company, a private equity firm. He also sits on several corporate boards.

Lehman invested in a government-backed “Superferry” in Hawaii — a business that ultimately failed, but not before boosting the standing of Austal USA, an Alabama shipbuilder that constructed the ferry service’s ships. Austal USA’s rising fortunes in turn benefited international defense giant BAE Systems, which then bought up shipyards owned by Lehman in order to work more closely with Austal USA.

When all was said and done, the roundtrip deal helped net Lehman’s firm a reported $180 million. And besides that, Lehman continues to own shipyards that do lucrative maintenance work for the Navy. Even leaving aside the intricate ferry-and-shipyard series of deals, Lehman still stands to profit from the naval buildup he is helping to plan.

“Lehman’s involvement with the Superferry shows that he is no stranger to using personal connections to influence costly decisions,” says Ryan Sibley, an editor at the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog Sunlight Foundation who has closely tracked Lehman’s shipbuilding investments.

The Romney campaign did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment for this story.

Continue Reading Here: Romney's Big Navy Guru Made Millions From Building Ships | Danger Room | Wired.com
Click to expand...

Fascinating.............. no wonder Mitt wants to increase the size of the navy by 15%.

Spending-by-country.jpg
 
Why does it matter how much more we spend on defense than other countries? We should spend what we need to spend in order to be able to protect our interest near and far. If we need to project power the best way to do that is to put a Carrier Battle Group off the coast of some wanna be super-power. Of course, if they do not believe that you have the intestinal fortitude to actually use that "force" they will push back more and more.

I realize that some people believe that this country spends too much on the military and not enough on the people. From time to time we have in power Presidents who follow this same line of thinking and it usually results in disaster for us. We have had such champions of the "Progressive" agenda like Woodrow Wilson and FDR and "Slick Willy" Clinton and as a result of their defense cutting we had Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Now we have had another "great" Progressive and we have a dead US Ambassador and 3 other patriots.

Defense spending is not just Tanks, Warships and Aircraft. It's intelligence. It's research and improvement in weapons systems. It's pay raises for the Active and Reserve members. It's much, much more than just beans and bullets.

It is time that we as a nation discontinue the use of the military budget as a piggy bank for "Progressive" social programs. It's time that we first make sure that we can ALWAYS defend not only our borders and our friends, but our way of life and our way of thinking. Sometimes it is necessary to go to war. Sometimes it is required to actually send young men and women into harms way. Our country must always be ready to do this. We must have the worlds strongest military, no matter the cost. Once you start to allow the defense of this nation to decline, it is difficult to turn it around quickly.
 
sharon said:
Fascinating.............. no wonder Mitt wants to increase the size of the navy by 15%.

Spending-by-country.jpg
Click to expand...

Its cause he wants to be best at everything and only having a 48% share is not good enough.. the US must have a majority of spending!
 
BACotner said:
Why does it matter how much more we spend on defense than other countries? We should spend what we need to spend in order to be able to protect our interest near and far. If we need to project power the best way to do that is to put a Carrier Battle Group off the coast of some wanna be super-power. Of course, if they do not believe that you have the intestinal fortitude to actually use that "force" they will push back more and more.

I realize that some people believe that this country spends too much on the military and not enough on the people. From time to time we have in power Presidents who follow this same line of thinking and it usually results in disaster for us. We have had such champions of the "Progressive" agenda like Woodrow Wilson and FDR and "Slick Willy" Clinton and as a result of their defense cutting we had Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Now we have had another "great" Progressive and we have a dead US Ambassador and 3 other patriots.

Defense spending is not just Tanks, Warships and Aircraft. It's intelligence. It's research and improvement in weapons systems. It's pay raises for the Active and Reserve members. It's much, much more than just beans and bullets.

It is time that we as a nation discontinue the use of the military budget as a piggy bank for "Progressive" social programs. It's time that we first make sure that we can ALWAYS defend not only our borders and our friends, but our way of life and our way of thinking. Sometimes it is necessary to go to war. Sometimes it is required to actually send young men and women into harms way. Our country must always be ready to do this. We must have the worlds strongest military, no matter the cost. Once you start to allow the defense of this nation to decline, it is difficult to turn it around quickly.
Click to expand...

I think you minimize the intelligence part......
 
PeteEU said:
Its cause he wants to be best at everything and only having a 48% share is not good enough.. the US must have a majority of spending!
Click to expand...
Yes, it's costs lots of money to have B-2 bombers and an eleven carrier Navy.
 
American said:
Yes, it's costs lots of money to have B-2 bombers and an eleven carrier Navy.
Click to expand...

And with the corruption in US military procurement.. it costs even more!
 
BayToBay said:
The one problem with your rant is the fact that we had a smaller fleet under Bush.
Click to expand...

So... you are saying Obama policies have been responsible for the increase in ships, or is it due to policies under Bush? And if it was the former... you don't think Obama would have thumped his chest?
 
head of joaquin said:
It costs so much money that we'll stop being a superpower if we keep spending on useless military equipment to make people like Romney rich.
Click to expand...

Progressive you are...LOL.

It's social welfare that is bankrupting us. We have 16TRILLION of debt and together 60 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.

You also realize the Constitution does make way for defense investments? I don't see a lot there for a socialist welfare state.

You see, the founders created a system where the Federal government was weak in the intrusion into our lives and wealth, and strong in defense matters. The states... if they chose to tax mightily could do so. You could always leave for more fertile pastures.

Now we have a Nanny State or Ninny State. Catering to the lowest common denominator instead of providing opportunity to lift them out of dependence. The Lib idea of government is like that of a drug dealer. Get 'em hooked... keep 'em dependent, and hopefully ignorant.

Hey... where's my Obama money? My Obama phone? What a sad existence... at some point the government won't be there... and we'll have riots like in Greece.

Lib policies are poisonous, dangerous and pathetic.
 
iguanaman said:
And we are going to pay for them with a 20% tax cut. You gotta love those Republicans, they never stop trying to "starve the beast".
No thanks, I'de rather keep social Security and Medicare than have a 300 ship Navy.
Click to expand...

Do you ever listen? Romney's tax plan will cut the tax rates for EVERYONE, but will also eliminate tax dodges used by the rich. The net result will be more income to the govt and less taxes paid by the middle class. Isn't that consistent with your "hate the rich" ideology?
 
Couple of points on military spending

1. it creates good paying blue collar jobs for americans
2. defence contractors average 7-8% profit, big pharma averages 30%, software companies average 20%, apple/google/microsot 25%
3. defending the country is the number one job of the president and congress according to the constitution
4. peace through strength is real, our current weakness contributes to the mess in the mid east
5. defence contractors employ american workers---I know, I already said that, but I want to make sure you get it. AMERICAN BLUE COLLAR WORKERS, MANY UNION MEMBERS.
 
PeteEU said:
And with the corruption in US military procurement.. it costs even more!
Click to expand...

got any examples pete? Waste surely, after all its a govt beaurocracy, but corruption---lets hear some specifics.
 
The more President Romney spends on the Navy, the sooner we get a USS BARACK OBAMA, so the dems should be supporting Romney if they really like Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom