it s, meh. are investors simply ignoring the president. ever since the tweets started getting more steam, the initial effect had a big effect on the markets and stocks, but with each subsequent tweet, the market seemed to discount them a little more. not that they weren t important, but the market reaction shouldn t be quite as dramatic. i will say this, though. because of all the of the north korea tenses where you ve been seeing more action on wall street has in defense-related stocks. the people who make planes, bombs, missiles, that sort of thing, a lot of them are hitting record highs in trading. we ll see if that tempers a bit. some of these companies closely tied towards munitions and weapons spending are the ones getting the reaction. fire and fury would sure lead to you believe that defense spending is going to happen. the other big story of the
in 70 years technology has advanced to the point, the pentagon simply doesn t need, they say the number of people that they had 70 years ago during world war ii. look for hagel to make cuts across the board, to proposed cuts in weapons spending, in personnel, cutting things like the a-10 aircraft which has been around since the time the u.s. was planning to fight the vote union, possibly cutting the famed u2 spy plane. now all of these kinds of things taken over by precision weapon, remotely piloted vehicles, advanced technology. the question is one of politics and national security risk. will congress go for these kinds of cuts because, of course, in every district in every state it means jobs and military spending, things like pay, health care for veterans could be impacted, that will be very controversial. what about the risk to national security. the obama administration s view
people s defense. glenn: right. that s the part that really bothers me, because that s what we re supposed to bedefending. i want to pay for my defense. they can pay for their defense. we ll go with withdrawaling the troops in a second. but cut weapons spending. show me what you are talking about here. give me the gist. we spend $$100 billions a year buying weapons and it s wastal. the weapon manufacturers, ho lockheed martins of the world low-ball it for us. the cost end up soaring and end up being two or three times more than the originally promised. the pentagon kind of goes along with this. partly because the different services in the pentagon are competitive. each of the services want to get their weapons in the weapons pipeline. once the weapons are started and funded, the weapons manufacturers skillfully spread out the funding to dozens of different states and congressional districts, so once you get projects started, even if there does,
people s defense. glenn: right. that s the part that really bothers me, because that s what we re supposed to bedefending. i want to pay for my defense. they can pay for their defense. we ll go with withdrawaling the troops in a second. but cut weapons spending. show me what you are talking about here. give me the gist. we spend $$100 billions a year buying weapons and it s wastal. the weapon manufacturers, ho lockheed martins of the world low-ball it for us. the cost end up soaring and end up being two or three times more than the originally promised. the pentagon kind of goes along with this. partly because the different services in the pentagon are competitive. each of the services want to get their weapons in the weapons pipeline. once the weapons are started and funded, the weapons manufacturers skillfully spread out the funding to dozens of different states and congressional districts, so once you get projects started, even if there does,