Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sequester Grounds Blue Angels

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the take-that-main-street dept.

The Almighty Buck 341

SchrodingerZ writes "The Blue Angels squadron, known for their intricate and death-defying aerial demonstrations, has canceled all scheduled air shows for the rest of the year. The United States Navy, which controls the Blue Angels, has reported that the grounding comes from the massive rollbacks in spending, due to the 85 billion dollar sequestration given by the federal government. In a statement from the office of the Commander Naval Air Forces in San Diego, the Navy said, 'Recognizing budget realities, current Defense policy states that outreach events can only be supported with local assets at no cost to the governmen.' Currently, the cost of an air show is above $100,000. This story came just a week after the announcement by the Air Force that their Thunderbird shows will also be canceled."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

good. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409315)

This is a GREAT place to stop spending money we don't have. If ticket sales can't cover the costs, fuck 'em.

Re:good. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409347)

Right, the military should just stop all recruiting efforts all together.

Idiot.

Re:good. (5, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409425)

Great idea mate! That would really start to make some budget savings.

I think you've just found the solution!

Re:good. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409465)

Right, because given the military's requirements, so many kids who see the Blue Angels go on to become pilots.

Fucking idiot.

-- green led

Re:good. (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409717)

No, but they are a good PR show, and they can easily boost support for the armed forces. Even if the kid may not be material to become a pilot, the very least he'll take away from the air show is that he was well entertained by our "men at arms" and that the army (navy, whatever) is a good thing.

Else, what's he gonna get? A recruitment goon at his school who may or may not woo him with ... well, more or less empty promises, and evening news telling us how yet another bunch of our kids died and how some others piss on enemy's graves while taking pics of it with their iPhone.

Re:good. (4, Insightful)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409903)

What could be a better PR mouthpiece for the US military than Fox News?

Re:good. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43410133)

What could be a better PR mouthpiece for the US military than Fox News?

All those programs/movies showing how Obama single-handedly shot Bin Laden?

All the "USA, fuck yeah!" military programs on Discovery?

The "Serviceman comes home" Ford Mustang commercials?

etc.

A few "Join the Army" stands in low-income-area shopping malls will fill the ranks more than the Blue Angels ever will.

Re:good. (4, Interesting)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409963)

And why hasn't NASCAR been paying for those military flyovers for every race [which also were just cancelled]? Or is it 'payment in kind' by mentioning the military as part of the starting ceremony?

Re:good. (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410257)

Even if the kid may not be material to become a pilot, the very least he'll take away from the air show is that he was well entertained by our "men at arms" and that the army (navy, whatever) is a good thing.

Or they could just rerun Top Gun on TV - same thing (except more people will see it).

Re:good. (4, Insightful)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410733)

I am seriously shocked that someone thinks that the military should spend millions of dollars of taxpayer funding on public relations. It is bad enough that the services spend a boat load on recruitment using glitzy tv ads during major sporting events at a time when they reject the vast majority of applicants.

If people want these types of airshows they should pay a ticket price which covers the cost. In the same manner, no active duty soldier should be participating nor should any equipment attached to the armed forces be used. There are plenty of ex-pilots who could do this for pay and using retired equipment purchased from the government.

Re:good. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409623)

That's a solution to the financial and moral bankruptcy of the USA [pitchinteractive.com] . Starting wars for no good reason was a bad idea from the start, but I guess it's all fair ball in a country that is willing to elect a chimp [democratic...blicans.us] as head honcho.

Re:good. (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409661)

If we had stayed out of Iraq, we could have saved more than a decade's worth of the sequestration. The F35 cost us another 15 years worth so far. So we're up to 25 years worth without a single person feeling a pinch.

Throw in taxing the 1% as much as the middle class pays and we're flush with cash.

Re:good. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43410529)

If you had stayed out of Iraq, Hussein would have started selling oil for Euros, which would have been the beginning of the end for the petro-dollar. You could not afford not to invade Iraq.

Re:good. (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410551)

The F35 cost us another 15 years worth so far. So we're up to 25 years worth without a single person feeling a pinch.

I generally agree with your sentiments, but this one isn't quite true: The people that would definitely feel the pinch if we killed the F35 are all the people who currently work on designing and building it. And that makes a difference, because a fair number of Congresscritters get their seats by promising to bring home the military pork spending. Even Congresscritters who's stated position is that we need to "cut spending".

Re:good. (0)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410093)

Right, the military should just stop all recruiting efforts all together.

The Blue Angels are recruiters?

Idiot.

Touche.

Re:good. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409353)

Agreed. Next cut Welfare payments in 1/2 and stop paying for anchor babies after the 2nd child.

Re:good. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409485)

Agreed. Next cut Welfare payments in 1/2 and stop paying for anchor babies after the 2nd child.

I'm curious, how much money would that actually save? How many people are there in the US with three anchor babies on welfare?

Re:good. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409559)

As far as healthcare, illegal aliens give birth to about 340,000 children nation wide each year, imposing tremendous medical costs on hospitals. Several hospitals, including ones in Stockton, CA and Dallas, TX, report as many as 70% of their deliveries are to non-residents. Similarly, since the parents of infant citizens still qualify for welfare in order to protect the child, the Center for Immigration studies estimates nearly $2 billion dollars goes to illegal aliens annually, in the form of food stamps and free lunches.

Over 29% of all education dollars get spent on teaching anchor babies, including over $1 billion dollars teaching English as a second language, according to FAIR. Similarly, several affected states offer Spanish translation services in many public arenas, at an additional cost to the taxpayers. All told, FAIR estimates that as much as $100 billion tax dollars get spent on illegal aliens annually -- this is just in education.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michealene-cristini-risley/the-14th_b_1343158.html

Re:good. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409679)

Just to be fair... could you also describe the positive influence of those illegal aliens if there are any ?

I'd imagine they are atleast exceptionally cheap workers who wont mind crappy working conditions. How important for the economy are they really in that regard ?
It would also be interesting to actually discuss how money could be spent to help them in ways that will also pay of for everyone else in the future or atleast reduce future costs.

Re:good. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409833)

I'd imagine they are atleast exceptionally cheap workers who wont mind crappy working conditions

with crappy quality, crappy safety standards, crappy cleanliness, crappy health, and crappy understanding of what managers and customers want. They work cheap, but that's only good for people who don't seem to care for the long term.

Re:good. (4, Insightful)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409919)

They work cheap, but that's only good for people who don't seem to care for the long term.

wrong... that's all anyone cares about in the long term (including consumers)

proof: how much stuff in your house ISN'T made in China?

Re:good. (2)

readin (838620) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410293)

Since I'm not wealthy enough to employ such cheap workers they don't help me that much. They're great to have around if you're rich enough to own a factory and can use them to replace your American workers. They're also great to have around if you're rich enough to use them as gardeners and domestic servants.

But for the rest of us they're a strain on government services and competition for jobs.

This is why the 1% of both political parties support illegal immigration.

Re:good. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43410633)

You don't eat in fast food restaurants? You don't have garbage pickup service? You don't shop in big box stores or shopping malls? You never get your oil changed at a mechanic shop? Pretty much any low-skilled labor task you can imagine... I think you'd be surprised how many cheap services from illegal alien labor you (indirectly) use every day.

Re:good. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410541)

I'd imagine they are atleast exceptionally cheap workers who wont mind crappy working conditions. How important for the economy are they really in that regard ?

Important for the economy? You have no idea how this works, do you? They're important to the economy. See, when there's labor available cheap, it is devalued. This should not be a complex concept, but I notice you couldn't figure out how to log in, either. The reason no one should be permitted to work for less than minimum wage is that a race to the bottom is something no one wins.

Re:good. (3, Interesting)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410605)

A lot of chicano (no, that's not slang, look it up) groups idolize Caesar Chavez. Most don't know though that he hated illegal immigrants, badly. I don't know if this is because he didn't like how they worked, or if it was because they competed with his labor model.

Also, unrelated but interesting, the more activist chicanos idolize Che Guevara, who very vocally hated Mexicans in general.

Navy budget is $180 billion (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409759)

"studies estimates nearly $2 billion dollars goes to illegal aliens annually"

Navy Budget is $180 billion, and that's just the Navy part, not the army, Airforce, NSA CIA etc.

At some point you gotta bite the bullet and trim it, not 'pretend trim it', not 'increase it this time (again) and promise to cut it in future', CUT IT!

Suppose illegal immigrants DO cost $2 billion, and you find a way to save that without shifting it to mortuary costs, and road cleaning services and border patrol costs. YOU NEED TO CUT $900 BILLION A YEAR off the budget! Get a grip, stop making excuses, stop blaming other, CUT SPENDING, RAISE TAXES, get on and fix it already!

Re:Navy budget is $180 billion (2)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409939)

you don't honestly think politicians give a shit about balancing the budget do you?

the only statesman willing and able to see past the next election was Ron Paul, and US voters fucked up their chances to vote him into the presidency multiple times... apparently US voters don't give a shit about balancing the budget either, instead not being able to see past their next welfare check and/or food stamp

regardless of how many battles the mighty US military fights and wins, america's biggest threat is itself, and it has already lost

Re:good. (-1)

Chewbacon (797801) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409369)

Yes and local businesses who depend on these air shows for tourist income will flirt with failure and pit more people out of work, fucktard.

Re:good. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409391)

So... we had a flying team to subsidize random private businesses? No wonder we have problems.

Re:good. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409451)

How many businesses really depend on shows that usually are only there about twice a year or whatever?

Sure its a great bonus, but if your business depends on it, you may have been investing wrongly. Especially since you claim local businesses, not ones that would follow the airshow wherever they go.

Re:good. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409503)

Private profits for socialized losses...

yeah... we need less of that bullshit now.

sucking money out of EVERYONES pocket for a few tourist related companies to make money. fuck you.

Sell the jets, sack the pilots (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409687)

Well if they're not flying the jets, they should sell them and use the money elsewhere. And if they're not flying those planes, the pilots should be sacked so they find work elsewhere too.

If you're right, and local business needs air shows for tourism, a cheaper private solution will come along. They'll need planes and pilots and lucky for them the Navy doesn't need them anymore!

You seem to suggest the Navy does this for free (or at a huge loss), but that means no private sector air displays will ever occur, because the Navy is undercutting them on price. Cut that gravy train, sack the pilots, sell the planes, the private industry will make air show troupes.

Imagine if the Navy did Cirque Du Soleil for free? It would be crap, boring and repetitive, but no other circus troupe would succeed because the Navy one is free. Navy has no place doing air shows, it only did them for self promotion, if it doesn't need that self promotion then it doesn't need the pilots and their jets.

Re:Sell the jets, sack the pilots (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409729)

Stop peddling that argument. Private solutions are never cheaper. Even if they could be done more cheaply, it only increases the profit margin.

They're cheaper because they HAVE to be! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409817)

"Stop peddling that argument. Private solutions are never cheaper."

Navy is not in the entertainment business. If they're running Blue Angels at a loss, then they should stop. Sell the planes, sack the pilots. If it makes a profit, cancelling them would be dumb. So they're running Blue Angels at a loss.

How about Navy boat trips? If they're so much cheaper than private boat trips, I'm sure they'll put the competition out of business!

If Army is so cheap, how come I can hire a clown for my daughter birthday from the private sector? Where's the Army clown here to entertain my daughter for cheaper, yet still more profit? How about a pony ride from the cavalry division?

Navy are not in the entertainment business, they have no business running airshows at a loss anyway. The planes need to go, the pilots need to go, that should be done by the private sector.

USA is not a socialist planned economy where gravy train military gets all the money it wants and runs theatres and shows and pony rides and whatever. Those planes are not fit for military use and withdrawing them, shows the Navy confirms that!

Re:Sell the jets, sack the pilots (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409947)

Private solutions are never cheaper

yeah cos everyone knows the US government is incredibly focused on cost

Re:Sell the jets, sack the pilots (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410149)

Private solutions are never cheaper.

LOL.

Re:good. (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410145)

Yes and local businesses who depend on these air shows for tourist income will flirt with failure and pit more people out of work, fucktard.

Let those "local businesses" pay for it themselves. Why should the government be subsidizing everybody?

Re:good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409409)

no doubt. giant waste of money.

bunch of pollution for no good reason too.

keep them grounded.. the heyday of 'ooo look planes!' is over.

Re:good. (4, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409479)

This is a GREAT place to stop spending money we don't have. If ticket sales can't cover the costs, fuck 'em.

But how will the US government continue with their policy of bread and circuses without circuses?

Re:good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409507)

Its not as if everything collapsed when bread was removed from the whole bread and circuses policy.

Re:good. (4, Funny)

clemdoc (624639) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409659)

Put LSD in the bread.

Re:good. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409739)

If only they did... But people might start to dream, maybe even that American Dream, that could be dangerous. They might, ya know, think they could climb that social ladder, and when they notice they can't... not a good idea, nono.

Re:good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409495)

glad someone said it...

Re:good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409555)

The air shows are a good public relations and recruiting tool.

They can cut the funding in the short term, but in the longer term they'd have to spend a lot more on traditional advertising to get the same exposure.
Considering the exposure they get, $100K a show is very cheap as advertising rates go.

Re:good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409721)

We are in/approaching a draw-down of military forces, so reducing "advertising" expenses when we want to make fewer "sales" is an appropriate way to implement the sequester.

Re:good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409863)

You do realize that the Navy is undermanned by nearly 50,000 thanks to their perform to serve crap right?

Re:good. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409961)

The air shows are a good public relations and recruiting tool.

so is Fox News, and it's still in full swing

Re:good. (1, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410159)

Considering the exposure they get, $100K a show is very cheap as advertising rates go.

Advertising is good when you're trying to expand a business.

Right now the military needs to do the opposite.

They'll be flying drones soon anyway so all the training/recruitment can be done via Xbox.

Re:good. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410517)

The air shows are a good public relations and recruiting tool.

They can cut the funding in the short term, but in the longer term they'd have to spend a lot more on traditional advertising to get the same exposure.
Considering the exposure they get, $100K a show is very cheap as advertising rates go.

why the fuck do they need exposure? they already have enough recruits - more and more isn't the way to go, and if they run out and they have a _real_ need they can always go drafting. seriously, you're justifying that it's a good expense since it's good bang for buck FOR ADVERTISING! ADVERTISING THE FUCKING MILITARY?? is it wwf?? WHAT THE FUCK.

Re:good. (1)

aztec1430 (242755) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409901)

I'm pretty sure if they replace the F18s with Cessnas, no one would know the difference! :) would they?

Re:good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43410645)

This is a GREAT place to stop spending money we don't have. If ticket sales can't cover the costs, fuck 'em.

The planes are already purchased, and the pilots and support crew already draw a salary. The only extra cost is fuel to burn during the performances.

Washington monument gambit, again. (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409345)

There are no cuts in the so-called "sequester cuts". A cut is when you spend less than you did previously.

What the Navy's doing here is known in DC as the "washington monument gambit". Any time a bureaucracy doesn't get as much money as they want, they pick out the most popular thing that they do, and claim that they can't do it anymore due to lack of funds, in hopes that this will garner public support for their whole pork barrel. For the department of the Interior, it's closing the washington monument. For the white house, it's cutting off white house tours.

The truth is, if the navy could afford the Blue Angels last year, they can afford it this year.

-jcr

Re:Washington monument gambit, again. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409413)

Actually, while the federal government as a whole is only slowing the rate of increase, the defense department specifically does have real cuts.

Of course your point is still correct-- the blue angels are being targetted to make it publicly visible.

Re:Washington monument gambit, again. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409459)

The defense department should be cut back, too. It needs to be cut way back.

Re:Washington monument gambit, again. (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410059)

Actually, while the federal government as a whole is only slowing the rate of increase, the defense department specifically does have real cuts.

Of course your point is still correct-- the blue angels are being targetted to make it publicly visible.

But that doesn't mean they haven't made cuts that are aren't quite so visible to the general public or so likely to garner widespread (national) media attention and aren't prepared go further.
 
  PSNS [wikipedia.org] is close enough to my house that I can hear Colors in the morning and Taps at sunset.... and I know more than a few people that work there, and between them and the local media it's quite clear there's more going on than the "Washington Monument gambit". They're taking this seriously. They're already looking at what work can be cut or deferred, at what workers can be let go and what ones can be placed on furlough. Etc... etc... (As in expending real man hours in doing the planning and preparation for these cuts.)

Re:Washington monument gambit, again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409531)

Yup. But what's interesting is it might not work, and that's okay too. Simply put the Navy and Air Force don't need these demonstration teams the way they used to. Pre-web, it was a great way to parade for public goodwill and get children to dream on joining up. It wasn't something you could watch ad-nausea on youtube, and you barely ever saw it on tv either. But these days, well it's like going to the moon again; pretty neat, but nothing like the mind-wallop it was with Apollo.

They'll both still do airshows. They'll get just as many goodwill eyeballs by showing off the latest tech of the industrial-military complex. They don't need these specialty-squadron circus acts, so if there's no real uproar over this two-purpose cancellation, then that's just fine by the brass.

Re:Washington monument gambit, again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409589)

I thought and believe this is simply known as federal budget cuts. The whole "sequester" oxymoron came from the idiot think tanks in washington who apparently need to use there waste of education by coming up with unclever names, as they believe this will appeal to the same voters they sucker or who are dumb enough to vote, and the general public. They do this with a number of bills as well, however those bills are ill willed and get called out by watch groups, however any bill is closely looked at and still called out to make a very small part of the public aware of trickery..

For the most part you have people who do not care until it tags them, the ones who do, and the ones dumb enough to ignore it, in this case, these budget cuts have no effect, they do what they are meant to do cut out wasted money. Of course the press....

Which brings me the the sh**s in the press, who I guess, think it is cool to use oxymoron words that washington uses.And fails to report any bill or suspect activity and then only until a percentage of the public is aware of whats going on, then they act completely shocked or deny they had no idea!! And you are seeing it with the spending cuts, they are using air traffic towers, schools, imprisoned illegal (non treating, non violent) immigrants, the latest one was of them saying the trail of Bin Laden's son will be delayed (yet again, what a surprise in our justice system). All of course to get citizens up in arms over the cuts, all of the mentioned items are things that should have never gotten as big as they did.

Mrs T needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409611)

You are in the same mess as Britain was in the 70's. Spending far more than you can afford, people on the government payroll, playing games to demand more money (Navy in this case), taxes too low to pay for it all. Printing money to keep afloat.

You need Mrs T! (Cue the 'A" theme song.... ta ta da dah du di dahhh).

She'll slash spending, raise taxes, close loss making subsidized industry, turn things around. And once she's done that, you can blame her for every social ill as if she caused any of the collapse she fixed.

I bet she could trim a good $50 billion off that annual $180 billion budget the Navy has no problem.

Re:Mrs T needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409777)

Maybe if, in the three branches of military service, we didn't have the three largest air forces in the world, we wouldn't have to keep coming back to, "let's just jack up the taxes!"

Re:Mrs T needed (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410267)

And she could introduce a Poll Tax, sorry, Community Charge, sorry, Flat Tax, and solve all of the country's problems!

Re:Mrs T needed (1)

Cederic (9623) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410613)

Damnit I LIKED the poll tax. Right now I'm paying more per adult for use of council services than any house containing two or more adults, and most of those have two or more incomes.

Meanwhile because I don't have kids, I'm not old, I'm not physically disabled, I don't need a subsidised bus service, I don't even use most of the council services.

A poll tax would at least put me on an equal financial footing with all of those households that cause the council funding needs to be so high.

Re:Washington monument gambit, again. (0)

TopSpin (753) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409689)

"washington monument gambit"

Shutting down White House tours is the same brand of statist petulance.

BTW, ordinarily around here the Blue Angles and their ilk are just jingoistic manifestations of the US Military Industrial Complex's hegemony over the victims of global capitalism, and stuff. We're supposed to believe you people suddenly give a damn about these airshow cowboys?

LOL

Re:Washington monument gambit, again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409869)

False.

While overall Federal spending is not being cut, the DOD piece of the pie is being cut--severely. 40%, in fact. Today, ACC released guidance that half of it's squadrons have had their flying hours cut, and the other half are standing down completely until September.

This is not a gambit. This is a serious decrease in training, currency, and readiness for all flyers, maintaners, and everyone else involved.

The reason DOD is getting hit so hard is so that congress can continue to pay people not to work, pay for people meds they need because their obese, and whatever other thousands of useless pork-barrel projects they refuse to cut. You know, all the unconstitutional federal programs that never should have been initiated in the first place.

Anyone who thinks this is insignificant has no idea what is going on.

Re:Washington monument gambit, again. (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410165)

The US military is mostly a useless pork-barrel project, too.

Pretty soon it will be all drones and robots. A single regiment with helicopter can probably cover the part that needs men on the ground.

Re:Washington monument gambit, again. (1)

jcr (53032) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410497)

the DOD piece of the pie is being cut--severely. 40%,

Got a citation for that? I looked it up here [usgovernmentspending.com] , and I'm not seeing any change from 2012 to 2013, let alone a 40% cut.

-jcr

Local businesses will feel this (4, Informative)

Chewbacon (797801) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409349)

My town has 2 Blue Angels shows a year and its huge for business, especially the show on our beach. It's one of the busiest weekends on the beach as people will try to get out there but end up sitting in traffic all day and some miss the show doing it. I hope all businesses who benefit from air shows are coming up with other events to support themselves. I'd actually still go just for a civilian air show (don't get me wrong, the Blues are cool) since you see different planes, pilots and stunts every year.

Re:Local businesses will feel this (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409469)

From the rest of us: You're fucking welcome we have been paying for this so your businesses can make a profit for their PRIVATE companys.

Lets stop doing that shit now. because socialisim is bad m'kay.

Re:Local businesses will feel this (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409627)

From the rest of us: You're fucking welcome we have been paying for this so your businesses can make a profit for their PRIVATE companys.

Lets stop doing that shit now. because socialisim is bad m'kay.

So... You want a bunch of little guys to come together and collectively fund an air show for the good of all.... Yet you're against socialism. I think you need a dictionary, son.

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.

Socialism and Capitalism work hand in hand. One without the other "is bad m'kay."

Re:Local businesses will feel this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409693)

No business "invests" in an event without expecting a return on investment. If these businesses were to fund an air show, they'd do it in their very own interest. It would be "for the good of all" in the same sense that Christmas decorations are put up "for the good of all", i.e. not at all. It's advertising, capitalism through and through.

Re:Local businesses will feel this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43410507)

"Socialism and Capitalism work hand in hand. One without the other "is bad m'kay.""

Socialism broadly defined is redistribution of wealth, that is stealing from those that produce to purportedly give to those who do not, never mind that only a small part of what is stolen is redistributed but kept by those doing the stealing (details), in the end this is a tfefh of private property.

Capitalism is private property rights and free markets.

The two are diametrically opposed, the one negates the other by definition.

And you were taught that they are complimentary? Let me guess, you were not taught this idiocy by a free market thinker huh? Anyone want to take that bet?

You people are just fuckin sheep and lazy common criminals.

Now we come to the 2nd amendment, you know it was put there for a reason and that reason is NOT hunting.

Fuck off slashdot socialist.

Re:Local businesses will feel this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43410629)

You are so completely and totally without any trace of a clue that I can only assume your mommy comes down to the basement with milk and cookies and dresses you each morning.

You duckspeak fine, but so do ducks, and with just about as much intelligence, although I imagine ducks probably worry more about what they are saying is true.

You don't understand what Capitalism is, you don't understand what Socialism is, and your world is obviously divided into simplistic boxes.

You see a group of people who'll eat their own babies and another group of people who'll eat other people's babies, and you say "this one is Good and that one is Bad and they're totally opposite".

Re:Local businesses will feel this (1)

rockout (1039072) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410553)

I think you need a sarcasm detector, son.

Re:Local businesses will feel this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43410171)

It's American Capitalism: socialise costs, privatise profits.

If it's huge for business, they should f-ing pay (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409517)

If it's huge for business, they should f-ing pay for it.

Fucking socialist fascist business owners and their lackeys.

ironic captcha: military

Re:If it's huge for business, they should f-ing pa (1, Insightful)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410031)

i think you're confusing socialism and capitalism

socialism is what obama is doing... forcefully taking money of private citizens and distributing it

capitalism is private citizens engaging in business for voluntary payment by consumers

the business owners are behaving like capitalists should... the government voluntarily supports their business... the businesses don't force the government to do things for them

if the government is corrupt to the point where influence can be bought, then the government has too much influence and should be shrunk so that there is nothing to corrupt

capitalist businesses are no different to individuals... they act in their own interest (being that of their owners), which is no different to those that receive income from welfare, food stamps, etc or those that would pick up a greenback off the street and keep it for themselves

they don't do it because they are corrupt and greedy... they do it because they would be stupid not to take a bite when the government dangles a carrot in front of them

Re:Local businesses will feel this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43410127)

My town has 2 Blue Angels shows a year and its huge for business

If it's so lucrative for the town, surely it could cover the costs of the show. Just imagine the pride your town would feel if you weaned yourself from the Federal teat. There must be at least one resident that values their dignity, but if they can't make it happen without taxpayer-subsidies, perhaps you are just overestimating the true value of the show.

NO MORE MONEY FOR BLUE ANGELS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409355)

PLENTY OF MONEY FOR WELFAIR BABIES

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like LIEBERALISM.

Bad last link (2)

luckymutt (996573) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409375)

The last link that purports to be about the Thunderbirds is really an article about the Blue Angels. With the exception of one line at the end saying: btw, the T-Birds are also cancelling shows.
Here is (was) their performance schedule. [airshow.com]

Re:Bad last link (1)

Freedel (2576405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409487)

Human error. I couldn't find a good link just about the Thunderbirds, so I opted for one that refereed to it.

Re:Bad last link (1)

luckymutt (996573) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409671)

I couldn't find a good article either...just passing mentions.
I guess they don't have the same draw as the Blue Angels.
Still, it was kind of a bummer to see the canceled list. I've seen them here at Nellis several times.

Hah ha...ha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409411)

Boy does my wife ever love not getting paid for the next month or so.

In spirit I share your sacrafice! (3, Interesting)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409511)

The Daily Show said congressmen have given themselves immunity to the sequester so their salaries are not affected. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/look-whos-not-taking-a-pay-cut/ [nytimes.com]

Re:In spirit I share your sacrafice! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409753)

Yes and no - one of the reforms enacted in the past is that a sitting congress can only alter pay of future congresses, not their own. Presumably, this is designed to keep a sitting congress from voting themselves $1 billion or something similarly outrageous in salary.

Re:In spirit I share your sacrafice! (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409755)

Well, duh...

Be honest, if you could set your income yourself, and decide where to cut spending, while at the same time neither being in any way accountable for the expenses nor having to be in any way cost efficient, where'd you make the cut? Your salary?

yeah (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409585)

Yeah don't stop the trillion dollar wars.
Don't stop the money printing.
Don't stop the money wasting.
Stop the stupid air shows, close down airport towers..
Austerity for all except the bankers, the war mongers blah..

Idea (1)

Meneth (872868) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409591)

You know, the Wonderbolts would be a lot cheaper to operate...

Dumb. (2)

kurt555gs (309278) | about a year and a half ago | (#43409655)

What they really need to do is end the F-35 and F22 Raptor programs. That will free up "assloads" of money.

Re:Dumb. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409769)

Is that a metric or imperial assload?

Re:Dumb. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409839)

Is that a metric or imperial assload?

This is the JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER! It uses both metric AND imperial.

Re:Dumb. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409865)

What we need to do is nationalize Lockheed.

Re:Dumb. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409925)

Ending the F-22 program won't save a dime. The R&D, manufacture, and procurement are complete. You might as well argue for ending the "military program", and claim it will save money.

Cutting the F-35 will flush billions of unrecoverable dollars, as well. Cutting back the numbers won't save any money, either, as R%D and tooling are already sunk costs. That's why the current fleet of ~170 raptors cost the same as ~500 raptors. The sunk costs mean that when you buy less, unit cost goes up to cover sunk costs, and no money is saved.

What they really need to do is reform welfare, unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Those programs are money pits that soak up 60% (and increasing) of the fed budget, and are completely unauthorized by the Constitution.

Re:Dumb. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410029)

Not so fast Charley. Yes, you've 'lost' quite a bit of sunk expense but there are still enormous real dollars that will have to be spent to keep those useless birds fed, flying and fixed. If you were really worried about that, you could put the planes in a long term development mode (where they belong anyway) and keep iterating the things until we have a need to such an advanced weapon. Drop out 90% of funds and make Lockheed Martin actually work for a living. Despite all the scary talk, China hasn't moved the ball very far and the Russians can barely keep what they've got flying. We can probably counter the North Vietnamese threat with a dozen Cessna 172s and a bunch of model planes. Same with Iran except we could just use the model planes to counter their model planes.

And just because the Constitution doesn't say something, it doesn't mean that we can or can't do it. It's not an operations manual. The founding fathers expected us to think for ourselves from time to time.

Re:Dumb. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43410151)

We can probably counter the North Vietnamese threat

The war is over man

Re:Dumb. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43410523)

No, you are not telling the complete story. The Constitution is specific and meant to be taken as a whole. Do try and keep up.

The federal government cannot do these things constitutionally. Period.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Re:Dumb. (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410255)

Ending the F-22 program won't save a dime.

Apart from the billions in running costs...

Seriously, there's only 300-odd million Americans and not all of them pay taxes (maybe more than half).

A billion here, a billion there, it adds up.

Good! Reduced CO2 production at various locations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43409893)

Saves $$$... and - not flying as much - helps save the Earth (a bit...)

Sequestration did not cut budget (5, Informative)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410161)

The sequestration portrayed in the press as reckless budget slashing is anything but. In actuality, it's a slightly lower rate of increase.

For 2013, the announced 'sequestration' is $84B in a $3600B budget which is an increase of about $140B over last year's. So by the official numbers, the 'cuts' are actually an increase of ~$56B. To go on, half of that $84B decrease actually doesn't take place until later years but is represented in 2013 via accounting sleight-of-hand. So in the end those crazy sequestration cuts - closing air-traffic towers, grounding the Blue Angels, and ending White House tours - are really a $100B increase over last year.

Massive? (1)

jamesl (106902) | about a year and a half ago | (#43410439)

The United States Navy, which controls the Blue Angels, has reported that the grounding comes from the massive rollbacks in spending ...

Defense spending outlays (including "overseas contingency operations" for Iraq and Afghanistan) will be reduced from $670.3 billion in 2012 to approximately $627.6 billion in 2013, a decrease of $42.7 billion or 6.4%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Sequestration [wikipedia.org]

Definition of Massive (adj)
1.bulky: large, solid, and heavy
2.comparatively large: large in comparison with what is typical or usual
3.large-scale: extremely large in amount, degree, or scope
(Bing.com)

A 6.4% cut doesn't qualify as "massive."

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43410519)

What does this have to do with technology? Or is it just another example of writers on Slashdot trying to push a liberal agenda?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?