Future MDA, NASA, and military job loss (Huntsville, Opp: 2009, unemployment)

[mm42]

Originally Posted by Toymeister

Time to ease up on the kool-aid. MDA is funded by 2 year R&D money, period. Don't take my word for it ask your budget person

I understand the color of money issue, but I doubt major cuts will be made on that basis. MDA may be cut substantially, I agree, but I think the decisions will be based on national priorities and not color of money.

Cut enough for Huntsville to actually lose jobs instead of gain them? That seems far-fetched.

[Charles]

According to this, there won't be enough people to fill the jobs:

- BRAC searches for workers

http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20..._hard_to_tally

http://www.waaytv.com/Global/story.a...v=menu635_1_15

[Elizabeth_G]

Charles, Thanks for sharing those articles. VERY informative.

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by financelife

Ummmm, maybe I forgot what GDP is because how does that relate to jobs? Gov can always spend on other areas (entitlements), so couldn't GDP stay the same if money was moved from DoD to other programs? hmm?

Sure, but I think you're reaching. In times of recession the government spending increases (rightly so), so sure they could just move money around, but more likely they keep what they have and ADD.

That's why I said in the short term (couple years) - there's no worries about government-spending related jobs. There won't be cuts. Watch.

Right now the over all health of the economy is the primary concern. In a few years when the obnoxious size of the deficit becomes the primary concern, then you can worry about gov-spending related jobs. Eventually someone has to pay the tab.

Besides, that bastion of liberalism (sarcasm), Forbes Magazine just declared Huntsville as one of the best places to weather the recession.

Originally Posted by financelife

Oh, and we'll stay in Iraq whether dems or repubs are in office. Why would we leave and create a power-grab situation in that area? No siree, we will stay there. Watch. I mean, it wasn't long ago that dems took over congress promising troop removal. soooo, where's the removal? how much time has passed since then? Face reality, let's enjoy our new promising president and look the other way when it comes to the middle east. Iraq is ours, and control will be split between our allies in that region. I read somewhere that Biden even had some sort of plan to split Iraq amongst Saudis and Iranians. And Obama appointing Rahm Emanuel (zionist) as chief of staff, brilliant! I am so glad I voted for Obama because already he shows he is not messing around by choosing Emanuel as the 2nd most powerful person in this nation (it's not the vp spot for all of u who naively thought the VP nominees should have made any difference to your vote).

Agree to disagree. Leaving Iraq as soon as possible without putting undue risk on our troops was central to Obama's platform. I believe he will make every effort to remove our troops as quickly as he has advocated.

Rahm Emanuel - "We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them." Invading Iraq was a unilateralist policy. While Emanuel would liked to have deposed Saddam on the view of his being a threat alone, he has repeatedly stated that any action would be dependent on a multinational effort and a plan for Iraq post Saddam.

How about this take on Emanuel: He's a tough, no non-sense guy who will keep control first and foremost... its clear Obama intends to run a tight ship. Emanuel's selection may also be a symbol to the Israelis; that while we are pulling out of Iraq, we do not diminish our commitment to them as allies. Ever give that any thought? Lastly, I think any President who surrounds himself only with those who agree with him 100% is a fool. Obama is no fool and you're about to see him put together a very diverse staff.

As for Joe Biden splitting Iraq - he never said split it with Saudi Arabia and Iran. He said split it among the ethnic tribes there. Namely, the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. The Iraqi state would become multiple states, not absorbed into some existing state.

[mm42]

Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8

Rahm Emanuel - "We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them."

That ought to translate into an endorsement for missile defense, considering the international cooperation and support, for example the 27-0 NATO vote in favor of establishing European missile defense component.

Whether it will translate as such is still questionable to me.

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by mm42

That ought to translate into an endorsement for missile defense, considering the international cooperation and support, for example the 27-0 NATO vote in favor of establishing European missile defense component.

Whether it will translate as such is still questionable to me.

Doubtful unless the "multi-" of that multi-lateral wants to start footing some of the bill. Everyone is for a missile shield unless 1) it shields your enemies and 2) you have to pay for it.

[financelife]

Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8

Agree to disagree. Leaving Iraq as soon as possible without putting undue risk on our troops was central to Obama's platform. I believe he will make every effort to remove our troops as quickly as he has advocated.

Rahm Emanuel - "We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them." Invading Iraq was a unilateralist policy. While Emanuel would liked to have deposed Saddam on the view of his being a threat alone, he has repeatedly stated that any action would be dependent on a multinational effort and a plan for Iraq post Saddam.

How about this take on Emanuel: He's a tough, no non-sense guy who will keep control first and foremost... its clear Obama intends to run a tight ship. Emanuel's selection may also be a symbol to the Israelis; that while we are pulling out of Iraq, we do not diminish our commitment to them as allies. Ever give that any thought? Lastly, I think any President who surrounds himself only with those who agree with him 100% is a fool. Obama is no fool and you're about to see him put together a very diverse staff.

As for Joe Biden splitting Iraq - he never said split it with Saudi Arabia and Iran. He said split it among the ethnic tribes there. Namely, the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. The Iraqi state would become multiple states, not absorbed into some existing state.

You can disagree as much as you want. According to an agreement made this month, Americans will stay there for 3 more years, and that's if everything looks like it's going as planned. Obama won't change that schedule when he takes over as president.

I am happy that Obama is in office, and that he has made the appointments that he has made. Huntsville has never been really affected by recessions in the recent past, but who knows if this time around will be different.

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by financelife

You can disagree as much as you want. According to an agreement made this month, Americans will stay there for 3 more years, and that's if everything looks like it's going as planned. Obama won't change that schedule when he takes over as president.

I am happy that Obama is in office, and that he has made the appointments that he has made. Huntsville has never been really affected by recessions in the recent past, but who knows if this time around will be different.

I will disagree as much as I want. You don't have the nature of the pact right. The pact is an "allowance of US presence in Iraq for up to 3 years". It is no mandate that we will remain for 3 years.

"It is specified in the pact that US units will withdraw from Iraq's cities by June 2009, with the last units and personnel to follow in a countrywide pullout by the end of 2011."

Obama wants out in 16 months. The pact is not an agreement to stay 3 years, it is a mandate to leave within 3 years. There is still no set in stone schedule on withdrawal.

[Charles]

Does Obama Want to Ground NASA's Next Moon Mission? - TIME

[financelife]

Originally Posted by Charles

Does Obama Want to Ground NASA's Next Moon Mission? - TIME

Have we ever really been to the moon? I mean, how long has it been now. Technology is so much better, and yet I am to believe that we went in the 60s with those cheap looking space suits. That's why Obama may ground moon mission. We probably still can't get humans past Earth's atmosphere. Just high enough to look like you're in space and take a cool pic of our blue planet.