Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $

I hired this plane and crew once upon a time at $1000 for about an hour ride.....good value

YouTube - B-17 Bomber, TEXAS RAIDERS, Flight 2001 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s12JNAWsATc&feature=player_embedded#at=82)

Houston, we have a problem (http://wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/). 150 million million for naval recruiting and advertising...not a bad deal in light of other defense expenditures.

This encapsulates the problem with the US economy, and the government running a multi-trillion dollar economy. When you look at numbers that are huge, somehow the details get lost, and any one budget item doesn't look like that big a deal. BUT when you look at a 450,000 for a specific item you just know that that was a waste, and that flyover was a waste.

Houston, we have a problem. 150 million million for naval recruiting and advertising...not a bad deal in light of other defense expenditures.

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 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.

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.Well, just throwing some rough numbers out there; divide the 150M by 50 states = 3M per state. Now figure 5 recruiting offices per state and you're at $ 600K / yr. per office. That includes all operating expenses and most likely personnel expenses. Could there be more efficiencies, probably, but it doesn't seem a gross over-expediture to me.

Shall we look at some of the other items on the Chart?
- 788M for DoL "One Stop Career" Centers
- 9.4B for HUD's Project Based Rental Assistance...I'm sure there's no fraud there
- 19.5B for HUD's Tenant Based Rental Assistance...ditto
- and how about (drum roll please) $ 251B for Interest on the National Debt, at an increase of 34% year over year.

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

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.

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?

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'tMedicare, 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.

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

Obama Sends $3.7 Trillion Budget to Congress - FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/14/obama-sends-trillion-budget-congress/)

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."

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.