Wisconsin company to layoff workers due to defense cuts

[dario73]

Wisconsin company announces layoffs ahead of Biden arrival
October 25, 2012 | 6:43 pm
334Comments
 
Alan Blinder
Staff Reporter, D.C. City Hall
The Washington Examiner
 
OSHKOSH, Wis. - Bad news will greet Vice President Joe Biden when he arrives in Wisconsin Thursday night. Hours earlier, Oshkosh's largest employer announced that it will lay off 450 employees in January.

Oshkosh Corp., a truck manufacturer with Pentagon contracts, blamed the "difficult decisions" on looming cuts to the nation's defense budget.

"As Oshkosh and others in the defense industry have discussed on numerous occasions, domestic military vehicle production volumes will decline significantly in 2013 due to the reduction in U.S. defense budgets and the fact that military spending is returning to peacetime levels," the company said in a statement. "Unfortunately, these economic factors require Oshkosh to rebalance its defense production workforce starting in January 2013."

The company said the layoffs were not tied to the looming budget cuts set to take effect in January. And it will still have about 3,500 employees in its Oshkosh-based defense division after the job cuts.

The news came hours ahead of Biden's campaign appearance in the city on Friday morning. President Obama carried Winnebago County in 2008, but area Republicans said they believe Mitt Romney will be competitive here on Election Day.

Statewide tracking polls show that while Obama's lead has slipped, he maintains a slight advantage over Romney in Wisconsin.

[chadstallion]

well, there ya go. finally, cutting some big government stuff.
downsizing.
its what we all want.
bout time.

[Princess L]

The article doesn't tell the whole story.  Oshkosh hired a lot (700 ish?) of people specifically due to a HUGE military contract last year, plus another 300 ish a couple of years prior.  They've recently rec'd a $67 million dollar contract from the marines.  The layoffs will probably be around half of what was hired.  Regardless,  it's a tough economy up there, so any loss of jobs will be felt hard.

[240 is Back]

well, there ya go. finally, cutting some big government stuff.
downsizing.
its what we all want.
bout time.

333386 feels we should reduce the military by 50% over the next 5 years.  I wouldn't want to go THAT drastic, but I dont feel a nation teetering on bankruptcy, with enough nukes to destory the world 50 times, needs to GROW the military.

mitt does.

[Kazan]

333386 feels we should reduce the military by 50% over the next 5 years.  I wouldn't want to go THAT drastic, but I dont feel a nation teetering on bankruptcy, with enough nukes to destory the world 50 times, needs to GROW the military.

mitt does.

Guess what? Defence of that nation is a constitutional duty of the federal government.

[LATS]

  I think what many see coming is a war in the middle east.. Not just what we are seeing now but Iran and a few others coming to life.. I hope not.. But if it does happen it could be a long and protracted war.. That may.. May.. Be what many are banking on for a increase in military funding.. It is correct that we have the nukes.. But we need the troops and armoured vehicles more and more as this tension in the middle east increases.. I hope I'm wrong..

[tu_holmes]

Guess what? Defence of that nation is a constitutional duty of the federal government.

Yeah, but it doesn't take the amount of money that we put into it... We spend way too much on defense. Defense doesn't do shit when you're bankrupt.

Ask the USSR how that whole try to outspend your enemy worked out for them.

[Kazan]

Yeah, but it doesn't take the amount of money that we put into it... We spend way too much on defense. Defense doesn't do shit when you're bankrupt.

Ask the USSR how that whole try to outspend your enemy worked out for them.

Not the point if all the things the federal government wasn't constitutionally mandated to do went away, we would be bankrupt

[tu_holmes]

Not the point if all the things the federal government wasn't constitutionally mandated to do went away, we would be bankrupt

Are you saying we "wouldn't" be bankrupt?

While I do understand and agree to some extent with what you are saying, that's just not reality... If you took away ALL of that stuff, we would have no roads or transportation.

[avxo]

Not the point if all the things the federal government wasn't constitutionally mandated to do went away, we would be bankrupt

We would be? I think you meant we wouldn't. Of course, that's a gigantic conjecture, based on a number of assumptions that aren't necessarily based on any facts. For example, you have no idea what the income of the Federal Government would be (collected as taxes) since you have no idea what the tax rates would be, among other things. So don't throw around this nonsensical "if [... X ...] then [... Y ...]" and pretend it's a fact.

With that said, it's unclear that cutting the budget of the military will necessarily reduce the ability of the Federal Government to fulfill one of its constitutionally-mandated obligations. Frankly, even if we were to cut the size of our Armed Forces across the board by 50% we'd still have more than enough people to deploy, plus still retain  numerous devastating weapons in our arsenal; we would not be able to mobilize an army that is the size of our current army, but I don't think I've heard any cogent arguments as to why that would be a problem in the current geopolitical context, especially considering that in the past we took a different route that always served us well: a smaller army, supplemented by drafting, if and when it became necessary.

The fact is that it's unlikely that we will face a bona-fide invasion by an enemy army in the foreseable future, as any such enemy army would know that their homeland would be annihilated off the face of the earth even if all we had left was a single submarine, loaded with a few dozen nuclear warheads.

[240 is Back]

i agree 50% is too much.   But maybe not growing it by 1-2 trillion is the way to go. 

I think some ppl are sitll stuck in that dick-measuring contest.  We outspend the rest of the world combined in mil spending, by a very very wide margin.   Our debt is tumbling.  We WILL be safe if we keep the military levels constant - I mean, it's not like Cuba is saying "excelllllent, the minute they don't raise spending by $2 trillion, we have our chance to take over!  hahahahaha"

We can still fck up everyone on earth 100x over, without raising how much we spend.  Everyone stuck on that dick-measuring contest can't bitch about the debt at the same time.

[tu_holmes]

i agree 50% is too much.   But maybe not growing it by 1-2 trillion is the way to go. 

I think some ppl are sitll stuck in that dick-measuring contest.  We outspend the rest of the world combined in mil spending, by a very very wide margin.   Our debt is tumbling.  We WILL be safe if we keep the military levels constant - I mean, it's not like Cuba is saying "excelllllent, the minute they don't raise spending by $2 trillion, we have our chance to take over!  hahahahaha"

We can still fck up everyone on earth 100x over, without raising how much we spend.  Everyone stuck on that dick-measuring contest can't bitch about the debt at the same time.

We could cut it by 20% and nothing would change either.

[Shockwave]

We could cut it by 20% and nothing would change either.

Honestly we probably should. Our defense budget is fucking enormous, and there is so much waste that goes on.... So much money and politics in military contracts.

[Straw Man]

Honestly we probably should. Our defense budget is fucking enormous, and there is so much waste that goes on.... So much money and politics in military contracts.

it's the right wings (and no doubt part of the left wing) favorite jobs program

they will tell you that government doesn't create jobs but then also insists we spend money building shit that the military hasn't asked for and doesn't even want

 

[240 is Back]

If you're going to spend the $, then invest it in roads or other US infrastructure.

instead of building bridges in afghanistan, build them here.  same # of jobs. 

Or, instead of having 50,000 troops sitting on the border with N Korea, let a few predators handle that job and put those 50k troops on the mexican border.  The men/women would LOVE to be back on US soil serving, and the illegal alien issue would be fixed - immediately!

For some reason, we seem to think protecting the korean border is more important than our own borders? 

[blacken700]

let me use the repub talking point                   WHAT PART OF BROKE DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND 

[Straw Man]

let me use the repub talking point                   WHAT PART OF BROKE DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND 

you can also use this one

The government doesn't create jobs

[Kazan]

you can also use this one

The government doesn't create jobs

It doesn't, the policies either help or hinder the private sector. Now it you are talking about government jobs, where does their paycheck come from?