Sequestration - good, bad, or indifferent?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

No but their pilots very well could have rotated in and out of Iraq and or Afghanistan and their F-16 are combat ready minus the paint job, so whats your point?

You made my point, no one is losing a job, they can still serve and when (if ever) budget sanity is restored, the Thunderbird and Blue Angel aerial demonstration units can be brought back on line. An aerial demonstration team is a nicety, 2 is a luxury.

My bigger point, is inline with Daseals, is that you are going to cry over a military unit's deactivation, even though no one is going to lose a job. Cost savings will come from reduced fuel consumption, less bureaucratic overhead and travel/per deim. Compare that to fewer lower income families receiving assistance, or a person losing a job when a general contractor reduces their staff.

Cuts(or to appease FD, spending increase reductions) are going to affect everyone, and these are trickles. If letting these two teams take a few years off, so be it. It's a reasonable action that won't reduce our military effectiveness one iota.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

You made my point, no one is losing a job, they can still serve and when (if ever) budget sanity is restored, the Thunderbird and Blue Angel aerial demonstration units can be brought back on line. An aerial demonstration team is a nicety, 2 is a luxury.

My bigger point, is inline with Daseals, is that you are going to cry over a military unit's deactivation, even though no one is going to lose a job. Cost savings will come from reduced fuel consumption, less bureaucratic overhead and travel/per deim. Compare that to fewer lower income families receiving assistance, or a person losing a job when a general contractor reduces their staff.

Cuts(or to appease FD, spending increase reductions) are going to affect everyone, and these are trickles. If letting these two teams take a few years off, so be it. It's a reasonable action that won't reduce our military effectiveness one iota.

I dont view them as a military units.
I view it as a source of national pride and an American icon. So do a lot of other people.
Something every president in my lifetime has been able to finance except the guy from Hawaii.
And your luxury word is fairly stupid since you cant put a price on national pride.
But like I said, the treehuggers are in charge and treehuggers arent going to care....

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

I dont view them as a military units.
I view it as a source of national pride and an American icon. So do a lot of other people.
Something every president in my lifetime has been able to finance except the guy from Hawaii.
And your luxury word is fairly stupid since you cant put a price on national pride.
But like I said, the treehuggers are in charge and treehuggers arent going to care....

but they are military units, specifically the USAF Air Demonstration Squadron, and the Flight Demonstration Squadron.

Your statement about every president is ridiculous in light of the fact that I could say the same about several entitlement programs that I would prefer be reduced or cut. The fact that it has been around doesn't prove it's worth when our country's national economic health is on the line. In fact, after the tragic crash in 1982, the AF considered disbanding the unit, but didn't. (said to point that it's not some unpatriotic tree hugger idea, when the military legitimately debated it, when our finances weren't nearly as bad).


You never did answer what defense cuts you would make to offset keeping the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels going. It's only 4mill a year(2mil each) so surely you can suggest another option?