Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $

[SBXVII]

Uh, what part of the flyover cost $450,000? I'm just pulling excrement out of my butt, .... but I'd like to think every time the Navy fly's a plane it does not cost $450,000. Plus the pilots have to get a certain number of day and night hours in flying a month. So why would it cost that much.

Oh wait I forgot, the Navy is apart of the government and the government likes to spend and or bill for 3 to 4 times what the actual price should be. The most the NFL should have to pay for is the gas for each plane.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Uh, what part of the flyover cost $450,000? I'm just pulling excrement out of my butt, .... but I'd like to think every time the Navy fly's a plane it does not cost $450,000. Plus the pilots have to get a certain number of day and night hours in flying a month. So why would it cost that much.

Oh wait I forgot, the Navy is a part of the government and the government likes to spend and or bill for 3 to 4 times what the actual price should be. The most the NFL should have to pay for is the gas for each plane.

It should make the new....Health Care Plan quite entertaining?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

SS33, I, for one, think that the other areas you always mention make perfect sense in reducing the size and scope of government, but we need to also look at all the big guys; medicare, ss, and defense. But this topic was specifically about a (in my opinion) gross misuse of federal funds and something that the defense dept should re-evaluate. Pointing out non-defense issues just reinforces the perceptions that military spending should be off-limits - and it shouldn't

Medicare, SS and Interest on the Debt are key. Defense is already being cut, I do a bunch of work with DoD and live in Hampton Roads...trust me the Obama Admin is doing a fine job of cutting defense.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

A little something to reinforce my point.....

Obama Sends $3.7 Trillion Budget to Congress - FoxNews.com

From the link:
"While Obama's budget avoided painful choices in entitlement programs, it did call for $78 billion in reductions to Pentagon spending over the next decade by trimming what it views as unnecessary weapons programs such as the C-17 aircraft, the alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the Marine expeditionary vehicle."

[CRedskinsRule]

Obviously, Pres Obama won't set a call for the necessary cuts in Medicare/Medicaid/SS because his constituency would yell "cut Defense not us ", likewise the Republicans will attempt to cut medicare/medicaid/obamacare and hold off cutting defense because their constituency will yell "cut services not security". The key will be if both sides accept the cuts the other side puts forth, without bitter rhetoric: ie, a dem saying a republican wants to kill your kid, or a republican saying that a dem wants to leave the country open to terrorism).

It can't be an either/or when the final budget is signed, it needs to be across the board for there to be significant cuts.

[hooskins]

I have a problem with this, and every single military flyover. It has always been a huge waste of money.

If you are having the topic expenditure reduction, you can't make too many relative comparisons. That type of logic ultimately leads to no cuts.

450k or 100k, is money no matter how you look at it.

[firstdown]

I don't have a problem with the fly over I have a problem of why the NFL would not have to pay for the fly over.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by hooskins

I have a problem with this, and every single military flyover. It has always been a huge waste of money.

If you are having the topic expenditure reduction, you can't make too many relative comparisons. That type of logic ultimately leads to no cuts.

450k or 100k, is money no matter how you look at it.

EXACTLY....,that money could be better served purchasing to or three military extension ladders, or perhaps 4 hammers........at current
Federal bargain pricing???

[hooskins]

Well obviously, first. That doesn't need to be stated.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Hog1

EXACTLY....,that money could be better served purchasing to or three military extension ladders, or perhaps 4 hammers........at current
Federal bargain pricing???

Not saying there aren't instances of fraud, but in general those days are over. I can't speak to all areas of Fed contracting, but at least in IT procurement the Fed has gotten a lot smarter (go figure). For the most part the Fed is getting aggressive pricing on what they buy. The problem that increases costs are the many regulations that require compliance.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Obviously, Pres Obama won't set a call for the necessary cuts in Medicare/Medicaid/SS because his constituency would yell "cut Defense not us ", likewise the Republicans will attempt to cut medicare/medicaid/obamacare and hold off cutting defense because their constituency will yell "cut services not security". The key will be if both sides accept the cuts the other side puts forth, without bitter rhetoric: ie, a dem saying a republican wants to kill your kid, or a republican saying that a dem wants to leave the country open to terrorism).

It can't be an either/or when the final budget is signed, it needs to be across the board for there to be significant cuts.

I agree with you in theory, however of the "elephants in the room" you mention (let's throw in interest on the debt) defense spending is comparatively about 25% of the total $$$ that need to be looked at. Obama and the Dems have mostly ignored the recommendations of his own bi-partisan defecit reduction panel. Having control in the House is great, but we all know not much will get done without the Senate and WH committed to cost cutting. So we add another $ 3T to the National Debt (21%) for at least the next two years?

Also, just checked the National Debt Clock, our National Debt is almost at the level of GDP. Can you imagine having as much unsecured debt hanging over your head as your yearly income......and then adding 21% to that amount with no major increase in income on the horizon. It's f-ing insane.

[Tiggwin]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

As was said in the article(s), the pilots and the planes are going to get their air time one way or another. I don't see it as a big deal.

This is true. I was in the Marine Corps as an Ordnancemen working on F/A-18's. I agree that they could have probably been doing something more productive with their flight... such as training.... but still the pilots do require a certain amount of flight time for certifications etc... Why not do it on something thats as much of a tradition in the NFL as singing the National Anthem... I'd have to ask is the money spent on that performance was worth it as well... with that said I believe that if at all possible (which I dont know if it even is) they should have opened the dome for long enough to do the flyover and then closed it again...

[CRedskinsRule]

I don't think you can throw interest on the debt into the mix of what should be cut, because we can't cut that. That has to be paid.

So, Defense($890 billion), SS($730 billion), and Medicare/Medicaid($490 billion) are where we could really make a HUGE dent in the deficit/debt. And, I know you and I disagree, but Defense is the one area where we could literally stop all but the basics, ie freeze r & d, stop all but bare necessity recruiting (since the 450,000 flyover is the impetus for this conversation), and reduce oversea tours for Europe, and let the EU take up it's own defense. Without harming one US citizen, or putting the country in immediate risk, we could easily make a major dent in the deficit/debt. Put in provisions that re-fund R&D once we hit certain set points, and maybe put in automatic across the board cuts in Medicare/Medicaid/SS if deficit targets aren't reached. Of course, if you cut SS, medicare, medicaid, that is hurting fellow citizens, I agree it needs to be done, but I go back to the fact that we outspend all the other nations combined in defense spending.

What if we simply agreed to set our Defense spending to whatever the top 2 potential adversaries are spending +10%.

[CRedskinsRule]

Chinese defense budget is listed at $60billion, and the Russian defense budget is listed at $75 billion, so maybe we set our defense spending at 2 times the sum of China and Russia. or $270 billion. That would be a savings of $620 Billion,or nearly half the deficit.

[saden1]

Only idiots quote themselves, and yes I am a confirmed idiot.

This is the exact scenario I was talking about. Anyone can look at a flyover of a closed stadium (regardless of cost) and say that's an idiotic move (heck if it's a recruiting tool put an awesome video together and play it at that same instant on the big screens). But then you put it against a 150,000,000 naval recruiting budget, and you say "gee, that's not too bad". In fact, the question/comment should be what else are we paying for redundant or meaningless actions in that 150,000,000 budget, and could we maybe cut some of them, and still have an effective recruiting campaign.

I stand corrected, the Air Force spends 150 million, the Navy spends 260 million (army 545 million and the marines spend 1 billion). Not sure exactly how much they spend on recruiting vs advertising but I do know that they have a ton of commercials on TV. Honestly though, these guys aren't in the business of spending money wisely and why should they? No one holds them accountable and the more you spend the more you get.

I had never looked at recruiting budgets before, but you are telling me we need 150 million just to recruit for the navy? I mean, you already have a loyal base, name recognition, pride of service and we still need to put that much into it? I am a little shocked.

You overestimate the desire of the current generation to serve.