Shawn C. Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Yeah, it's a giant S^&* sandwhich and we're all gonna have to take a bite. And by all I mean the middle class. I'm prepared for the sequester; nothing I can do about it and part me says screw it; let's go over the cliff and then start picking up the pieces. Congress is not going to come up with a real solution. The best they are going to do is kick the can down the road for a few more months, and really, what is that going to accomplish? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 (edited) The Army and Marines seem to do fine in their recruiting efforts without the aid of airshows, I'm sure the Air Force will survive as well. The Army has the Golden Knights at air shows, it also has sent air assets to air shows for display and static including troops at time for simulations of mission profiles. The Marines also have members in the USN Blue Angels including always 1 pilot on the flight demo team. They have support crews for the Blues incl. Fat Albert (Blue's support Herc) and they have in the past sent Harriers, and Cobra attack copters, and even USMC F-18's to air shows. Edited February 23, 2013 by Les / Creative Edge Photo Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Best spin yet.....lawmakers may have to fly commercial, the horror! http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/air-force-chief-sequester-might-ground-lawmakers/2013/02/22/c1bc9992-7d21-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_blog.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JasonW Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 The Army has the Golden Knights at air shows, it also has sent air assets to air shows for display and static including troops at time for simulations of mission profiles. The Marines also have members in the USN Blue Angels including always 1 pilot on the flight demo team. They have support crews for the Blues incl. Fat Albert (Blue's support Herc) and they have in the past sent Harriers, and Cobra attack copters, and even USMC F-18's to air shows. Yes, I am aware of those things. That is all well and good, but airshows are not the major focus of the Army and Marines recruiting efforts. And yes, those two services will go on with minimal impact to their recruiting even in the wake of airshow cancellations. Heck I'd be willing to bet if you spoke to an AF recruiter he'd tell you that airshows aren't even the major focus of the USAF's recruiting strategy/program.My point is that the argument that recruiting will suffer due to airshow cuts is just not true. If I am the DoD and I have to trade some airshow date funding for some new equipment, training budget and a troop pay raise, it is a no-brainer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Yes, I am aware of those things. That is all well and good, but airshows are not the major focus of the Army and Marines recruiting efforts. And yes, those two services will go on with minimal impact to their recruiting even in the wake of airshow cancellations. Heck I'd be willing to bet if you spoke to an AF recruiter he'd tell you that airshows aren't even the major focus of the USAF's recruiting strategy/program. My point is that the argument that recruiting will suffer due to airshow cuts is just not true. If I am the DoD and I have to trade some airshow date funding for some new equipment, training budget and a troop pay raise, it is a no-brainer. Recruiting is ancillary to DoD participation in air shows, fly bys other military events etc. This participation is one way for a direct connection with the civilian population and the taxpayer. It costs pennies compared to the total DoD budget. It's being used as a political whipping boy IMO in order to have the public show some complaint that they are not getting even a glimpse of their military participation in the community and IMO it's all a part to help force reversal of budget cuts in whole or in part. I know that is what I'd do if I were a higher up decision maker in DoD faced with budget cuts I may not like. I'd go after low hanging fruit and take the one real direct connection the military has with the public and tax payer, air shows, fly bys, other events and parades etc. What is it that saying goes sorta like this. Life in the military is mostly about training for war/conflict and parades (incl. air shows and such similar civilian events) only to be broken up by possibility of conflict and war from time to time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 If I were in charge, I'd cut stuff across the board. I'd probably start with the billions of dollars in foreign aid being pumped into Pakistan and all these other countries that tell us to pound sand on a daily basis. We've got plenty of our own problems to use the money on. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt all basically look like the next Iran to me. No need to pump money and military equipment into those places. That's all well and good but Pakistan is an Islamic country with nukes and is also the primary lifeline to supplying our troops in Afghanistan. Saudi is a strategic partner in the gulf and would be of huge value if things with Iran (another Islamic country that will probably soon have nukes) ever boil over. How would Desert Storm have played out if we didn't have access to Saudi bases? If we want to be a player in the world, we need to have connections with certain countries, regardless of whether we really like them. Otherwise, we should just revert to isolationism and let the Chinese buy their way into having global clout. It's a bit arrogant to assume that all of these countries will whore themselves out to the US on every issue just because we are giving them foreign aid $. They need to answer to their own public and if we can still keep them as allies on the truly critical issue, to me, that is money well spent. If you want to save money, ask yourself why we are still paying to base fighter wings and armored divisions in Europe. I don't think the Rooski's are coming through the Fulda gap anytime soon. Same for S. Korea. They have a very robust economy. If they need us to protect them from the stone-age North, let them pay 100% of the tab to keep those AF fighter wings and the 2nd INF division based there. I don't think anyone can make the case that the NK's are a direct threat to the US now or at any time in the next few decades. We also spend just as much funding Israel and many would argue that the money spent there does not yield a significant strategic benefit to the US. Egypt post-Mubarak is a different story. It's simplistic to say that we should just zero out all of this aid money and still want the US to be a global player. Can't have it both ways. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Best spin yet.....lawmakers may have to fly commercial, the horror! http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/air-force-chief-sequester-might-ground-lawmakers/2013/02/22/c1bc9992-7d21-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_blog.html With the plebeians? now I know this won't happen Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shawn C. Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Well said, 11bee. Something I thought about pointing out but couldn't find the correct wording. I'm thinking of all the extra fishing time I will have this spring and summer so that means the sequester won't happen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 (edited) That's all well and good but Pakistan is an Islamic country with nukes and is also the primary lifeline to supplying our troops in Afghanistan. Saudi is a strategic partner in the gulf and would be of huge value if things with Iran (another Islamic country that will probably soon have nukes) ever boil over. How would Desert Storm have played out if we didn't have access to Saudi bases? If we want to be a player in the world, we need to have connections with certain countries, regardless of whether we really like them. Otherwise, we should just revert to isolationism and let the Chinese buy their way into having global clout. It's a bit arrogant to assume that all of these countries will whore themselves out to the US on every issue just because we are giving them foreign aid $. They need to answer to their own public and if we can still keep them as allies on the truly critical issue, to me, that is money well spent. If you want to save money, ask yourself why we are still paying to base fighter wings and armored divisions in Europe. I don't think the Rooski's are coming through the Fulda gap anytime soon. Same for S. Korea. They have a very robust economy. If they need us to protect them from the stone-age North, let them pay 100% of the tab to keep those AF fighter wings and the 2nd INF division based there. I don't think anyone can make the case that the NK's are a direct threat to the US now or at any time in the next few decades. We also spend just as much funding Israel and many would argue that the money spent there does not yield a significant strategic benefit to the US. Egypt post-Mubarak is a different story. It's simplistic to say that we should just zero out all of this aid money and still want the US to be a global player. Can't have it both ways. I must say John I find this message a little contradictory, on one hand its important to pay countries and not be isolationist, on the other the US should no longer be forward deployed in Korea/Germany, because they are not a direct threat to the US. Anywho, See my sigline (and not for the hot chick) Edited February 23, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Johnopfor Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Can't see it getting any worse than things were back in 08-09. Pretty much all metrics have been trending up in the last few years. Personally, I'm not close to saying that life is perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than it was when the last guy left office. Most of the folks I know that were out of work have now found decent jobs, housing values are finally going up, stock market has made up nearly all of it's losses (until it crashes when we go over the cliff). All in all, still have a way to go but things could also be much, much worse. Folks can't slag the gub'ment for overspending and then cry that their beloved social program, nearby military base, favorite fighter jet, or local airshow gets eliminated. Not aiming that last comment at Jason's post, just a general observation. Everyone wants to cut federal spending, so long as their pet program is left untouched. This has been true regardless of what party has been in office. As far as eliminating fly-overs - who cares? Is a 15 second straight and level pass over your stadium really that big of deal? It's not better, it's still the same. The problems have moved elsewhere......new taxes are being enacted, and other taxes are going up. People are starting to find decent jobs, but they pay less, and the current uncertainty has most people worried if they will keep them. Job losses have slowed a lot, but job creation isn't making up for them. Cities and counties are filing for bankruptcy. New housing sales are just barely moving. Social Security is still going bankrupt and Medicare cuts are getting so bad that medical companies and Doctors are refusing to accept it. Meanwhile, we have a bunch of individuals that get paid $137,000 a year, or more from us taxpayers, get free medical care paid by taxpayers, free travel and other perks paid by taxpayers.....but they refuse to do thier jobs because they are beholdened to special interest groups and individuals. So it dosen't matter if it is the "current guy" or the "last guy" in office, it's all the same......... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Johnopfor Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Best spin yet.....lawmakers may have to fly commercial, the horror! http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/air-force-chief-sequester-might-ground-lawmakers/2013/02/22/c1bc9992-7d21-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_blog.html Hell, I wouldn't stop there. Maybe the AF should retire all of those VIP jets that carry lawmakers around the nation and use the money for the combat fleet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 beholdened to special interest groups Special interest groups are the worst!! I think I hate the AARP and the Disabled Veterans of America the most. but the AIDS action counsel is also pretty awful, and I could do without the American Cancer Society. ACLU? NRA? who needs em? Veterans of Foriegn wars? Vietnam Vets association? Police Foundation? Or is this one of those cases where we say special interests and mean only the "bad" ones and not the "good" ones? This stuff gets so tricky sometimes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Johnopfor Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Special interest groups are the worst!! I think I hate the AARP and the Disabled Veterans of America the most. but the AIDS action counsel is also pretty awful, and I could do without the American Cancer Society. ACLU? NRA? who needs em? Veterans of Foriegn wars? Vietnam Vets association? Police Foundation? Or is this one of those cases where we say special interests and mean only the "bad" ones and not the "good" ones? This stuff gets so tricky sometimes. Well, being that I am a member of two special interest groups (VFW & FL), if it wasn't for Congress costantly attempting to destroy benefits that were promised to Veteran's, these groups wouldn't be needed. Are you stating that this is good? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Well, being that I am a member of two special interest groups (VFW & FL), if it wasn't for Congress costantly attempting to destroy benefits that were promised to Veteran's, these groups wouldn't be needed. Are you stating that this is good? I am stating that everyone says politicians are "slaves" to "evil" special interest groups, unless its a special interest group they belong too, in which case politicians are suddenly "working" for "good" special interests. do you see my point? Nothing makes me laugh harder than old people railing against "special interest groups" and then I ask them if they are members of the AARP. The AARP of course being a heavy hitting SIG in DC, that is only growing stronger with baby boomers that overwhelm all other populations, which is why we will cut the military to shreds before we ever touch Social Security, or Medicaid. I'm a youngin at 29 years old and it sucks that I will get to pay that debt because my demographic doesn't have the votes or influence to touch such a huge voting block, and reel in any of that spending. AARP has become quite the faction in DC, they tell the blue hairs how to vote Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 USAF, Open houses "Air shows" Are for community relations purposes. All Flybys "Must have personnel on the ground for recruitment purposes". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigasshammm Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 on Facebook, the Tbirds posted they are headed to the Daytona 500 As spectators? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bad Turbine Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) They were at the airport yesterday, but they didn't have a flyby on the tube today. Edited February 24, 2013 by Bad Turbine Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigasshammm Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Yea I didn't see a flyby not the signs of one. Couldn't hear the engines or see people looking up at the sky. Pretty sure it was canceled. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Yea I didn't see a flyby not the signs of one. Couldn't hear the engines or see people looking up at the sky. Pretty sure it was canceled. Yeah, that would be typical of idiot bureaucracy. Lets see the T-Birds flew to Daytona, were put up in hotels etc. Other expenses paid on the taxpayer dime but nope no fly over to celebrate the race.... Jeebus help us now. Bureaucracy always has money to feed itself but to do the proper things not always. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.