Sentences with phrase «cut defense spending»

If the government plans to cut defense spending, it means that a lot of revenue could be lost for companies that do business in this space.

Cut defense spending first.

We need to cut defense spending.

Mittman also advocates cutting defense spending, saying: «we can't afford to be the policeman of the world anymore.»

I'd say start with cutting defense spending.

Not exact matches

Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such forward - looking statements and that should be considered in evaluating our outlook include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) our ability to continue to grow our business and execute our growth strategy, including the timing, execution, and profitability of new and maturing programs; 2) our ability to perform our obligations under our new and maturing commercial, business aircraft, and military development programs, and the related recurring production; 3) our ability to accurately estimate and manage performance, cost, and revenue under our contracts, including our ability to achieve certain cost reductions with respect to the B787 program; 4) margin pressures and the potential for additional forward losses on new and maturing programs; 5) our ability to accommodate, and the cost of accommodating, announced increases in the build rates of certain aircraft; 6) the effect on aircraft demand and build rates of changing customer preferences for business aircraft, including the effect of global economic conditions on the business aircraft market and expanding conflicts or political unrest in the Middle East or Asia; 7) customer cancellations or deferrals as a result of global economic uncertainty or otherwise; 8) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which we operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; 9) the success and timely execution of key milestones such as the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, including our ability to obtain in a timely fashion any required regulatory or other third party approvals for the consummation of our announced acquisition of Asco, and customer adherence to their announced schedules; 10) our ability to successfully negotiate, or re-negotiate, future pricing under our supply agreements with Boeing and our other customers; 11) our ability to enter into profitable supply arrangements with additional customers; 12) the ability of all parties to satisfy their performance requirements under existing supply contracts with our two major customers, Boeing and Airbus, and other customers, and the risk of nonpayment by such customers; 13) any adverse impact on Boeing's and Airbus» production of aircraft resulting from cancellations, deferrals, or reduced orders by their customers or from labor disputes, domestic or international hostilities, or acts of terrorism; 14) any adverse impact on the demand for air travel or our operations from the outbreak of diseases or epidemic or pandemic outbreaks; 15) our ability to avoid or recover from cyber-based or other security attacks, information technology failures, or other disruptions; 16) returns on pension plan assets and the impact of future discount rate changes on pension obligations; 17) our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance debt, including our ability to obtain the debt to finance the purchase price for our announced acquisition of Asco on favorable terms or at all; 18) competition from commercial aerospace original equipment manufacturers and other aerostructures suppliers; 19) the effect of governmental laws, such as U.S. export control laws and U.S. and foreign anti-bribery laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and environmental laws and agency regulations, both in the U.S. and abroad; 20) the effect of changes in tax law, such as the effect of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the «TCJA») that was enacted on December 22, 2017, and changes to the interpretations of or guidance related thereto, and the Company's ability to accurately calculate and estimate the effect of such changes; 21) any reduction in our credit ratings; 22) our dependence on our suppliers, as well as the cost and availability of raw materials and purchased components; 23) our ability to recruit and retain a critical mass of highly - skilled employees and our relationships with the unions representing many of our employees; 24) spending by the U.S. and other governments on defense; 25) the possibility that our cash flows and our credit facility may not be adequate for our additional capital needs or for payment of interest on, and principal of, our indebtedness; 26) our exposure under our revolving credit facility to higher interest payments should interest rates increase substantially; 27) the effectiveness of any interest rate hedging programs; 28) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; 29) the outcome or impact of ongoing or future litigation, claims, and regulatory actions; 30) exposure to potential product liability and warranty claims; 31) our ability to effectively assess, manage and integrate acquisitions that we pursue, including our ability to successfully integrate the Asco business and generate synergies and other cost savings; 32) our ability to consummate our announced acquisition of Asco in a timely matter while avoiding any unexpected costs, charges, expenses, adverse changes to business relationships and other business disruptions for ourselves and Asco as a result of the acquisition; 33) our ability to continue selling certain receivables through our supplier financing program; 34) the risks of doing business internationally, including fluctuations in foreign current exchange rates, impositions of tariffs or embargoes, compliance with foreign laws, and domestic and foreign government policies; and 35) our ability to complete the proposed accelerated stock repurchase plan, among other things.

While the budget proposes large spending cuts to many government agencies — the Environmental Protection Agency and State Department budgets would be cut 31 % and 28 %, respectively — defense and military spending would increase substantially.

Such risks, uncertainties and other factors include, without limitation: (1) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including financial market conditions, fluctuations in commodity prices, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates, levels of end market demand in construction and in both the commercial and defense segments of the aerospace industry, levels of air travel, financial condition of commercial airlines, the impact of weather conditions and natural disasters and the financial condition of our customers and suppliers; (2) challenges in the development, production, delivery, support, performance and realization of the anticipated benefits of advanced technologies and new products and services; (3) the scope, nature, impact or timing of acquisition and divestiture or restructuring activity, including the pending acquisition of Rockwell Collins, including among other things integration of acquired businesses into United Technologies» existing businesses and realization of synergies and opportunities for growth and innovation; (4) future timing and levels of indebtedness, including indebtedness expected to be incurred by United Technologies in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition, and capital spending and research and development spending, including in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition; (5) future availability of credit and factors that may affect such availability, including credit market conditions and our capital structure; (6) the timing and scope of future repurchases of United Technologies» common stock, which may be suspended at any time due to various factors, including market conditions and the level of other investing activities and uses of cash, including in connection with the proposed acquisition of Rockwell; (7) delays and disruption in delivery of materials and services from suppliers; (8) company and customer - directed cost reduction efforts and restructuring costs and savings and other consequences thereof; (9) new business and investment opportunities; (10) our ability to realize the intended benefits of organizational changes; (11) the anticipated benefits of diversification and balance of operations across product lines, regions and industries; (12) the outcome of legal proceedings, investigations and other contingencies; (13) pension plan assumptions and future contributions; (14) the impact of the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements and labor disputes; (15) the effect of changes in political conditions in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate, including the effect of changes in U.S. trade policies or the U.K.'s pending withdrawal from the EU, on general market conditions, global trade policies and currency exchange rates in the near term and beyond; (16) the effect of changes in tax (including U.S. tax reform enacted on December 22, 2017, which is commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), environmental, regulatory (including among other things import / export) and other laws and regulations in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate; (17) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins to receive the required regulatory approvals (and the risk that such approvals may result in the imposition of conditions that could adversely affect the combined company or the expected benefits of the merger) and to satisfy the other conditions to the closing of the pending acquisition on a timely basis or at all; (18) the occurrence of events that may give rise to a right of one or both of United Technologies or Rockwell Collins to terminate the merger agreement, including in circumstances that might require Rockwell Collins to pay a termination fee of $ 695 million to United Technologies or $ 50 million of expense reimbursement; (19) negative effects of the announcement or the completion of the merger on the market price of United Technologies» and / or Rockwell Collins» common stock and / or on their respective financial performance; (20) risks related to Rockwell Collins and United Technologies being restricted in their operation of their businesses while the merger agreement is in effect; (21) risks relating to the value of the United Technologies» shares to be issued in connection with the pending Rockwell acquisition, significant merger costs and / or unknown liabilities; (22) risks associated with third party contracts containing consent and / or other provisions that may be triggered by the Rockwell merger agreement; (23) risks associated with merger - related litigation or appraisal proceedings; and (24) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins, or the combined company, to retain and hire key personnel.

Following Bill Clinton's defense - spending cuts, Spectrum's revenues fell from $ 17 million to $ 7.5 million in two years.

«We had already adjusted defense spending as a share of GDP upwards to historic levels,» says lead author Sarah Carlson, a Moody's SVP, who adds that Moody's hasn't yet run the numbers on the non-defense cuts.

Protecting major transfers to persons, spending on health and education and other spending such as that for Aboriginal programs, research and development, and assuming you won't revisit defense and international assistance, then to find an additional $ 8 to $ 11 billion by 2015 - 16 would require major cuts in labor market programs, spending on the homeless, infrastructure programs, and last, but certainly not least, government personnel costs.

Keeping benefits at their current levels required under law will mean less federal spending on education, infrastructure and defense unless Congress cuts benefits, raises taxes or both.

Further, eliminating waste, fraud and abuse is much better than cutting military and defense spending.

But the more libertarian, limited - government wing of the party generally prioritizes cutting domestic spending over boosting defense spending, and has pushed back against the February deal as allowing profligacy on all fronts.

Given expectations for cuts in spending of one of TXT's largest customers, the US Defense Department, it is fair to say that growth prospects for TXT are not bright.

They are urging cuts in defense spending instead.

If Romney gets elected and he does not touch defense spending and cuts radically in other areas, not good.

Republican Representative Paul Ryan's latest budget cuts Medicare spending 50 % and Medicaid spending 75 % to pay for a 12.5 % tax break for millionaires; Republican intransigence on raising revenue to lower the deficit will trigger irresponsible cuts to our defense budget; and Republicans want to strip women of the ability to make health care choices for themselves.»

For example, a common Democrat position is that spending cuts in defense should be used to pay for more social programs.

«I definitely agree that we have to cut taxes and cut spending except for defense.

There is some truth in this argument, although it remains a mystery why it is better to cut social benefits rather than military spending at a time when the United States spend more money on defense than the next 10 military powers — such as China, Russia, France, England, Germany and Japan — combined.

«Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Republicans across the country have embraced Rep. Paul Ryan's radical budget that would end Medicare as we know it while shifting already agreed upon spending cuts to the Defense Department to slashing critical programs like Medicaid, food stamps, Head Start and Pell Grants for college.

President Obama's former defense secretary, Leon Panetta — a defense - cutting budget hawk when he served in Congress — has called sequestration's defense - spending caps «catastrophic,» «a disaster,» and a «a goofy meat - ax approach» that will «hollow out» the military.

President Trump will instruct federal agencies today to assemble a budget for the coming fiscal year that includes sharp increases in Defense Department spending and drastic enough cuts to domestic agencies that he can keep his promise to leave Social Security and Medicare alone.

The president will lay out a budget plan with big increases in defense spending offset by large cuts in domestic programs — exactly, his budget director told reporters, what Trump promised to do on the campaign trail.

(CNN)- Sen. Patty Murray, co-crafter of the bipartisan budget agreement and member of the veterans affair committee, said Wednesday cuts to pension benefits for some military veterans under the spending plan was a part of a compromise to avoid billions in cuts to the defense industry.

Washington (CNN)- A top Senate Democrat bluntly warned Monday that her party is prepared to let all the Bush - era tax cuts expire and automatic spending cuts to defense and domestic programs take place at the beginning of next year unless Republicans agree to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

For instance, the New York Democrat calls Ryan's proposed spending cuts «totally unrealistic,» including the idea that discretionary spending, including defense, could be reduced to under 4 percent of gross domestic product in 2050.

The spending plan includes a big boost in defense spending, and to pay for that, the budget deeply cuts mandatory spending programs such as Medicaid and food stamps.

ELIZABETHTOWN — President Trump's budget blueprint calls for deep cuts in domestic programming in favor of steep increases in defense spending.

At that point I said if she more concerned with spending more on defense and cutting the food stamp program I'll call in and ask her the following: «Mrs. Long, are you for a social safety net?»

Republicans and Democrats alike express great concern about threatened cuts in spending on defense, Medicare, Medicaid and social programs, all of which seem to get most of the attention in the news media.

The Trump plan, also known as the skinny budget, calls for $ 54 billion in cuts to non-defense programs with a simultaneous $ 54 billion increase in defense spending.

To cut a long - term spending deal, Democrats are pushing for an equivalent increase in both defense and nondefense funding above the spending caps set under a 2011 budget agreement - one similar to agreements reached in 2013 and 2015 to raise the caps for the following two years.

Tax cuts were not balanced by commiserate spending cuts, and in many areas spending was increased, and not always to good effect (remember the scandals over all the defense spending that was wasted?)

The sequester cuts, or series of across - the - board federal budget reductions, are split evenly between domestic spending and defense, and at least one New York Congressman is voicing concerns about the latter.

The proposed cuts signal President Trump's pledge to slash domestic spending and boost the defense budget.

1) Running up the Deficity 2) Defense Spending which is related to # 1 3) Cutting spending on Social Welfare Spending which is related to # 1 3) Cutting spending on Social Welfare spending on Social Welfare Programs

The House budget plan would slash spending by $ 5.4 trillion over 10 years, including more than $ 4 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending like Medicaid and Medicare, while ramping up defense spending.

As explained last month, violating the caps would trigger a sequestration: across - the - board cuts to force defense spending back down within the caps.

While the Trump Administration has proposed deep cuts to nondefense discretionary spending to allow a defense increase, that approach has been widely rejected, if for no other reason than it would require the politically impossible hurdle of 60 votes in the Senate.

«Further, the president's budget, which cuts nondefense discretionary spending while significantly increasing defense spending eliminates the parity between defense and nondefense spending that has been a hallmark of America's recent fiscal policy.»

Over ten years, the Republican budget cuts non — defense spending by $ 900 billion, or 17 % below the Democratic budget.

Under the RSC plan, the nondefense budget would have been cut by $ 1.4 trillion or 25.0 percent over ten years (see Figure 2), while defense spending would have seen a $ 406 billion or 6.8 percent increase over that time.

Although inflation will likely reduce its value by 10 % by 2015, most researchers have welcomed this outcome bearing in mind what has happened to other parts of government spending, including defense (cut by 8 %), policing (cut 4 %), and the Foreign Office (down 24 %).

It calls for boosting discretionary defense spending in 2018 by $ 54 billion, and paying for that increase by cutting discretionary spending at civilian agencies such as EPA.

The platform airs complaints with how the Obama Administration has handled efforts to maintain the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons and its moves to cut spending on missile defense — and promises Republicans would do better.

The assorted cuts described above and below are facilitated by changes to the current discretionary spending caps, which dictate the size of annual appropriations each year, and which contain nearly all defense and nondefense science and technology investments.

The Trump administration had proposed cutting NIH's budget by about $ 1 billion this year, as part of a proposal to pay for defense spending increases by cutting domestic programs.

The other bill passed today would cut $ 243 billion from food stamps and other mandatory spending programs over the next five years instead of making cuts to the defense budget as required by the BCA.