• 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

areafiftyone

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
36
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
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
 
Is this what conservatives call "crony capitalism"?
 
The Secretary of the navy, appointed by Obama, says the navy needs 300 ships to perform it's mission.
***********************************************************************************************
The U.S. Navy can meet global defense needs, including the increased emphasis in the Pacific, with a 300-ship fleet, down from the 313 previously planned, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said April 16.
A few efforts have made the 300-ship goal more realistic, he said. For example, competitive bidding practices have reduced the cost of littoral combat ships and destroyers
SECNAV: U.S. Navy Can Meet Mission With 300 Ships | Defense News | defensenews.com
 
Is this what conservatives call "crony capitalism"?

Well, you would have to have preferential treatment from within the government for it to be crony capitalism.

Here's one that is a good example:
Fox Business: Ties that Biden | Washington Free Beacon

How was it that HillStone, a newcomer in the business of home building, landed a massive and potentially lucrative contract to build 100,000 homes in war-torn Iraq?

Richter didn’t mince words. It really helps, he said, to have “the brother of the vice president as a partner,” according to a person who was present.

The “brother” Richter was referring to during the meeting is James Biden, the younger brother of Vice President Joe Biden.
 
The Secretary of the navy, appointed by Obama, says the navy needs 300 ships to perform it's mission.
***********************************************************************************************
The U.S. Navy can meet global defense needs, including the increased emphasis in the Pacific, with a 300-ship fleet, down from the 313 previously planned, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said April 16.
A few efforts have made the 300-ship goal more realistic, he said. For example, competitive bidding practices have reduced the cost of littoral combat ships and destroyers
SECNAV: U.S. Navy Can Meet Mission With 300 Ships | Defense News | defensenews.com

Quick change the topic from Romney's venal and self-serving policy proposals!
 
Regardless of who wins, billions, no trillions, will be spent with the MIC. Much money will change hands. That's not really anything new.

May the best lobbyist win.
 
Quick change the topic from Romney's venal and self-serving policy proposals!

Change the topic? You're claiming that Romney wants to meet the quota of ships that Obama's appointed Secretary of the Navy has said we need to enrich himself. That's desperation. That's similar to Seamus and the hair cut. A campaign based on nothing but silly, ground less allegations intended to destroy his reputation. It hasn't worked and is the reason Obama's trailing.
 
In the late 1970s John Lehman was advocating for a 600 ship Navy. At the time I thought that was going overboard.

But the claim the Lehman is somehow in a position to personally profit from shipbuilding today is just false. He may have some stock in HII or GD, but so do thousands of people.

and as someone else pointed out, Mabus, obama' secnav has made the case for a shipbuilding increase.

The problem is that our fleet is old and in some cases obsolete. We need new ships with current technology as well as an increase in the number of ships.
 
Why not stick to "bindergate" seeing how effective that's been... lol
 
Right now and for the last I dont know how many years, the US is the only country with world wide power projection. And not just a small expeditionary force, but the US can rain heavy firepower pretty much anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. China is impotent even around most of the Pacific rim. I don't want our military to be weak, but we have a run away military industrial complex we continue to feed. It is bordering on economic suicide. Take half the the annual military budget and put into healthcare and idustry and see how much nicer our would becomes, oh and the US would still spend more on its military then any other county in the world.
 
The Secretary of the navy, appointed by Obama, says the navy needs 300 ships to perform it's mission.
***********************************************************************************************
The U.S. Navy can meet global defense needs, including the increased emphasis in the Pacific, with a 300-ship fleet, down from the 313 previously planned, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said April 16.
A few efforts have made the 300-ship goal more realistic, he said. For example, competitive bidding practices have reduced the cost of littoral combat ships and destroyers
SECNAV: U.S. Navy Can Meet Mission With 300 Ships | Defense News | defensenews.com

Are you reading this as somehow supporting Romney, who quoted the old 313 number?

Mabus is confident that the future fleet will be effective, and that the 1917 comparison is pointless because today’s ships are much more technologically advanced.

Sounds like someone is listening to the Secretary of the Navy and someone else is listening to a shipbuilder.
 
Are you reading this as somehow supporting Romney, who quoted the old 313 number?

Mabus is confident that the future fleet will be effective, and that the 1917 comparison is pointless because today’s ships are much more technologically advanced.

Sounds like someone is listening to the Secretary of the Navy and someon else is listening to a shipbuilder.

Which one is suggesting we go with the Secretary of the Navy's number? And why isn't Obama listening to his own appointee?
 
Conservatives have a lot of trouble with reading comprehension.

Fact check: How big is the U.S. Navy? - latimes.com

Critics jumped on Mitt Romney’s statement in the debate that “our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917.”

Lawrence Korb, a former assistant Defense secretary in the Reagan administration, said on Twitter that it showed a “staggering lack of knowledge.”

According to Romney, the Navy needs 313 ships to carry out its mission. But that figure was based on a 2005 review of force structure that Navy officials have since revised.

In April, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said that the Navy could carry out its mission with 300 ships, a reduction in fleet size that he expected to reach by 2019, based on a new defense strategy that focuses more on the Middle East and the Pacific.

“I think that a lot of this criticism [of the number of ships] is based on either incomplete or inaccurate or outdated information, or a failure to see beyond the short term, or a willingness to protect the status quo in spite of the changing world,” Mabus said.

Obama said that Romney’s focus on the size of the Navy was misplaced.

“Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed,” Obama said, to laughter.
 
If you are in any branch of the government and you are not asking for more employees and stuff you aint doing it right. That is just what we do. IF you ask for a 1000 of something you might get 500. We dont need new/more ships. We cant even afford healthcare.
Which one is suggesting we go with the Secretary of the Navy's number? And why isn't Obama listening to his own appointee?
 
Which one is suggesting we go with the Secretary of the Navy's number? And why isn't Obama listening to his own appointee?

He is. Step outside the echo chamber and listen.
 
Conservatives have a lot of trouble with reading comprehension.

Fact check: How big is the U.S. Navy? - latimes.com

Critics jumped on Mitt Romney’s statement in the debate that “our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917.”

Lawrence Korb, a former assistant Defense secretary in the Reagan administration, said on Twitter that it showed a “staggering lack of knowledge.”

According to Romney, the Navy needs 313 ships to carry out its mission. But that figure was based on a 2005 review of force structure that Navy officials have since revised.

In April, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said that the Navy could carry out its mission with 300 ships, a reduction in fleet size that he expected to reach by 2019, based on a new defense strategy that focuses more on the Middle East and the Pacific.

“I think that a lot of this criticism [of the number of ships] is based on either incomplete or inaccurate or outdated information, or a failure to see beyond the short term, or a willingness to protect the status quo in spite of the changing world,” Mabus said.

Obama said that Romney’s focus on the size of the Navy was misplaced.

“Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed,” Obama said, to laughter.

I am not sure why this article uses the word "reduction," as they are currently scheduled to add two new subs a year through 2016. Point is, Romney is not listening to the Navy, Obama is.

Fact Checking the Final Presidential Debate Between: Iraq, Afghanistan, Bayonets and More - ABC News
 
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.
 
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
 
Is this what conservatives call "crony capitalism"?

Nope, it is what I would call having advisers who know their ass from a hole in the ground, so I can see why the left would have strong philosophical differences with that.....
 
Why not stick to "bindergate" seeing how effective that's been... lol

I bet Romney has a binder full of ships he wants to buy from his cronies with taxpayer dollars.
 
In the late 1970s John Lehman was advocating for a 600 ship Navy. At the time I thought that was going overboard.

But the claim the Lehman is somehow in a position to personally profit from shipbuilding today is just false. He may have some stock in HII or GD, but so do thousands of people.

and as someone else pointed out, Mabus, obama' secnav has made the case for a shipbuilding increase.

The problem is that our fleet is old and in some cases obsolete. We need new ships with current technology as well as an increase in the number of ships.

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.
 
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 ang Medicare than have a 300 ship Navy.

But China may attack us with their one and only used aircraft carrier! And what about Venezuela?
 
Back
Top Bottom