Blue Angels, Thunderbirds Grounded

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by brainstorm

Honestly, I don't think cutting airshows is a bad thing. I just find it odd that we never seem to be able to cut back on things we all agree are wasteful first.

What is it that "we all agree is wasteful" that hasn't been cut?

[gator421]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Yeah, I don't get the how cutting an airshow is "painful" in anyway. It really serves no defense purpose. If money is tight, this is one of the first things anyone with a brain would cut.

My son's house is in the flight pattern the Angels use at Lakeland's sun n' fun fly-in. The planes scare the hell out of my two young grandsons. That being said, I'm glad they're grounding them. My ox isn't getting gored.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by brainstorm

Honestly, I don't think cutting airshows is a bad thing. I just find it odd that we never seem to be able to cut back on things we all agree are wasteful first.

Maybe there's not all that much true "waste" then. Just stuff people disagree on being waste. One man's pork is someone else's local economy.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Maybe there's not all that much true "waste" then. Just stuff people disagree on being waste. One man's pork is someone else's local economy.

And there is the crux of the issue. This is why Republicans love cutting spending in general but refuse to propose specific cuts during their campaigns.

[brainstorm]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Maybe there's not all that much true "waste" then. Just stuff people disagree on being waste. One man's pork is someone else's local economy.

Personally, I don't believe it.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/16/...nding-in-2012/

http://money.msn.com/investing/12-ex...vernment-waste

Just to name a few sources...

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by brainstorm

Personally, I don't believe it.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/16/...nding-in-2012/

http://money.msn.com/investing/12-ex...vernment-waste

Just to name a few sources...

I bet there are significant # of people who don't see those things as pure waste, especially those benefiting from them at the local level, and the Congressmen appropriating the funds.

[PITBOSS]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

the communities that count on those shows for tourism dollars might disagree with you, as would the families and kids that want to see them.
.....

so THIS govt spending creates jobs and is stimulus which is a good thing.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

you still refusing to admit that the sequester was borne in the WH and sold by the administration? really..serious detachment from reality.

the % cut could be relatively painless but the administration wants it to be as painful to the most number of people as possible so that any further discussion of cuts meets opposition from the masses. it doesn't surprise me that you are unwilling to acknowledge that either though

meanwhile my brother with a hs diploma who retired after 30 years in USCG and got first dibs on a 6 figure civil service job just flew out to San Dieago for his 4th training session so far this year. He has spent over 5 weeks of this year to date in training programs being paid for by the military through their civil service program. He is pulling down over $150k combined from the taxpayer plus tricare with a hs diploma and he never set foot out of the country or faced anything more dangerous than driving in DC traffic.

Still refusing to admit the sequester was a WH idea?

When have I refused that?
(Arguing self made up points is a detachment from reality)

The sequester was MEANT to be so illogicval as to force Congress to negotiate...


Republicans decided they liked the stupid option more than negotiating



Again I ask....What's painful about cutting airshows?


Painful is cutting discretionary spending that AFFECTS peoples lives...

Ya know like the stuff you mentioned before....military bases, educational grants & loans, food programs, etc.


I'd cut out crap like airshows & tours all day...


BTW, the life affecting cuts are coming...they'll kick in April but who knows the conservatives will probably shut the whole gov't down then....



In the future, stick to arguments people actually make here rather than creating "strawman" arguments that aren't made to debate...

Thanks.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by brainstorm

Personally, I don't believe it.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/16/...nding-in-2012/

http://money.msn.com/investing/12-ex...vernment-waste

Just to name a few sources...

Looking at the heritage page, you have marketing expenditures, conferences, and scientific research. T

hey then singled out Small Business Loans Guarantees to small businesses because they sound ridiculous but make money. Of course, I would imagine that a law that exempted Small Businesses that make cupcakes or beer from loan guarantees or development block grants would certainly be a bit ridiculous, as you can't really point out why their particular business should be ineligible. And if you tried to pull all small business loan guarantees and development block grants, watch a bunch of those same people that complain about government scream like they never have before.

There are a couple of obvious examples of pork, but we have seen the reaction to cuts in fairly obvious pork to their communities on this very thread. Clearly, there will be pushback on this issue (remember Palin holding up the snarky Nowhere, Alaska shirt in support of the Bridge to Nowhere when running for Governor- that is basically what we are seeing here on a different issue).

The only thing without serious pushback on that list would be the SNAP waste. However, the problem becomes in how much do you have to spend to prevent this waste, and when does it become counter-productive to hire additional enforcement personnel to ensure the lack of waste or fraud instead of just eating the waste and fraud. It is the fundamental question of any enforcement program.

So even on that list, there is maybe 1 thing that "everybody" would agree is a problem, but without evidence that it could be easily and economically prevented.

[gator7_5]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

What is it that "we all agree is wasteful" that hasn't been cut?

I kow this is probably allocated money (which is the problem) , but when I was employed by a GC and performed construction work for a state university, my last 2 jobs were:

Dig a huge hole, and fill it back up. Cost + 500,000.00

Purchase about 100 generators because if the money wasn't spent by years end, it was lost the following yr. Cost + 1,200,000.00

Easiest 255,000 the company ever made.

Wonder if those generators are still stashed in a warehouse 15 yrs later?

[cjgator76]

Originally Posted by brainstorm

Honestly, I don't think cutting airshows is a bad thing. I just find it odd that we never seem to be able to cut back on things we all agree are wasteful first.

That's because it's not about waste. It's about maximizing the cuts' impact on the public by depriving the public of that which it sees, uses and enjoys.

At the local level, the first things to go are typically the municipal pool, the parks, the 4th of July fireworks, and the extracurriculars at school. The bigger dollar issues - whether the city manager really needs 6 deputies, each with his/her own deputies, or whether the fire department really needs to roll 4 state of the art trucks for every sprained knee call, or whether every school really needs umpteen assistant principals with support staff - they aren't explored so much.

The intent is to hit the average citizen between the eyes, in the hope of eliciting an "OMG, the government must be broke, this is terrible!" response. It's all about breaking public resistance to spending and the taxes needed to support that spending.

It's a common tactic. What's new is that we're now seeing it applied at the federal level.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gator7_5

I kow this is probably allocated money (which is the problem) , but when I was employed by a GC and performed construction work for a state university, my last 2 jobs were:

Dig a huge hole, and fill it back up. Cost + 500,000.00

Purchase about 100 generators because if the money wasn't spent by years end, it was lost the following yr. Cost + 1,200,000.00

Easiest 255,000 the company ever made.

Wonder if those generators are still stashed in a warehouse 15 yrs later?

Most capital spending on universities without a specific research component is spent by state governments. I definitely think that governments in general need to re-evaluate the "use it or lose it" idea in their capital budgets (I have heard another story at a state school in another state where they move the bricks around a walkway once a year to make sure their capital budget isn't cut for when they really need it).

To some extent, that stuff is in budgets because state governments have decided it is too expensive to do the research on each individual capital budget, and they figure that the waste is at an acceptable level compared to the cost of this research. I don't necessarily agree, but I doubt you would find a whole lot of that in the federal budget. My impression has always been that the federal government tends to error on the side of budget research expenditures instead of waste when it comes to capital expenses.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by cjgator76

That's because it's not about waste. It's about maximizing the cuts' impact on the public by depriving the public of that which it sees, uses and enjoys.

At the local level, the first things to go are typically the municipal pool, the parks, the 4th of July fireworks, and the extracurriculars at school. The bigger dollar issues - whether the city manager really needs 6 deputies, each with his/her own deputies, or whether the fire department really needs to roll 4 state of the art trucks for every sprained knee call, or whether every school really needs umpteen assistant principals with support staff - they aren't explored so much.

The intent is to hit the average citizen between the eyes, in the hope of eliciting an "OMG, the government must be broke, this is terrible!" response. It's all about breaking public resistance to spending and the taxes needed to support that spending.

It's a common tactic. What's new is that we're now seeing it applied at the federal level.

And this isn't waste?

If you can find the 25% cut needed in activities like this....

Why wouldn't you want all of it to come out of needless crap like what you described?


Whether or not the public "awareness" is affected more by cutting 4th of July fireworks shows...If by cutting activities like those instead of say reducing social services can meet the budget constraint shouldn't we?


Is it the job of the gov't to be putting on airshows & fireworks shows or delivering social services to the people?

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by PITBOSS

so THIS govt spending creates jobs and is stimulus which is a good thing.

For the one-millionth time, some government spending is a good investment...

Wasting it on freebies just to secure votes isn't one of them.

[gator7_5]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

but I doubt you would find a whole lot of that in the federal budget. My impression has always been that the federal government tends to error on the side of budget research expenditures instead of waste when it comes to capital expenses.

lol

[cjgator76]

Originally Posted by gator996

And this isn't waste?

If you can find the 25% cut needed in activities like this....

Why wouldn't you want all of it to come out of needless crap like what you described?


Whether or not the public "awareness" is affected more by cutting 4th of July fireworks shows...If by cutting activities like those instead of say reducing social services can meet the budget constraint shouldn't we?


Is it the job of the gov't to be putting on airshows & fireworks shows or delivering social services to the people?

Easy there, tiger, I didn't say anything about cutting social services or the role of government. I'm just explaining how the game is played when government wants to get the public's attention wrt spending.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gator7_5

lol

Anecdotal evidence, but I know defense contractors often complain about ridiculous hoops that they must jump through to prove they are providing capital at the absolute cheapest level, often costing the firm (which is passed through in price to the government) more than it saves.

That is the trade-off. Higher and potentially wasteful enforcement or the acceptance of waste due to the desire to avoid potentially wasteful enforcement costs.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by cjgator76

That's because it's not about waste. It's about maximizing the cuts' impact on the public by depriving the public of that which it sees, uses and enjoys.

At the local level, the first things to go are typically the municipal pool, the parks, the 4th of July fireworks, and the extracurriculars at school. The bigger dollar issues - whether the city manager really needs 6 deputies, each with his/her own deputies, or whether the fire department really needs to roll 4 state of the art trucks for every sprained knee call, or whether every school really needs umpteen assistant principals with support staff - they aren't explored so much.

The intent is to hit the average citizen between the eyes, in the hope of eliciting an "OMG, the government must be broke, this is terrible!" response. It's all about breaking public resistance to spending and the taxes needed to support that spending.

It's a common tactic. What's new is that we're now seeing it applied at the federal level.

The flip side of it is that the staff at that school provide far more economic benefit than watching fireworks do. Sure, people might spend more money at businesses near the fireworks, but that is basically local level pork as it is a redistribution of spending from businesses not near the fireworks to businesses near the fireworks.

On the other hand, the staff at a school interact directly with students or help to better plan learning such that it is more efficient. In addition, their salaries will be spent in the local community, minus some savings rate and federal tax rate.

But for the sake of argument, try to cut staff at a school in a nice area of a district and we will see how the parents of students at that school feel about the wasteful staff positions at that school. I'm willing to bet that it stops being waste when it is at their school.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by cjgator76

Easy there, tiger, I didn't say anything about cutting social services or the role of government. I'm just explaining how the game is played when government wants to get the public's attention wrt spending.

I think the issue is more that a lot of the benefits of governments that conservatives like tend to be very visible activities. Blue angels, fireworks, White House tours, etc. are very visible but really are either forms of pork or at the very minimum vaguely wasteful programs with limited economic benefits. It is a lot of flag waving stuff, but flag waving things with a real cost to taxpayers and limited potential benefits.

[diehardgator1]

obama has to cut these things as he has no intention of cutting his $4 Million Dollar vacations or MO $ Million dollar ski trips. Its all for him and to hell with the American people where the money comes from. Of course those $ Million dollar golf trips add up also