Was a Superbowl Flyover Worth the $

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

[saden1]

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 stand corrected, the Air Force spends 150 million, the Navy spends 260 million (army 545 million and the marines spend 1 billion). Not sure exactly how much they spend on recruiting vs advertising but I do know that they have a ton of commercials on TV. Honestly though, these guys aren't in the business of spending money wisely and why should they? No one holds them accountable and the more you spend the more you get.

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.

You overestimate the desire of the current generation to serve.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

You overestimate the desire of the current generation to serve.

I know you have to consider personnel cost cuts in the DoD & USCG and the real effects on Main St. USA of the current economy, but all services are meeting their recruiting goals. There are also some forced separations upcoming in the USAF officer ranks. I don't think there's any less desire to serve by the current generation.

Services Exceed 2010 Recruiting Goals

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I know you have to consider personnel cost cuts in the DoD & USCG and the real effects on Main St. USA of the current economy, but all services are meeting their recruiting goals. There are also some forced separations upcoming in the USAF officer ranks. I don't think there's any less desire to serve by the current generation.

Services Exceed 2010 Recruiting Goals

Have they raised their standards to what it was a decade ago? If you look at the numbers you will see they are barely meeting their goal which is a red flag to me. What are they doing? Stop recruiting once the goal is met? Set the goal lower? I mean, you got guys on 3 tours of involuntary duty out there so why stop recruiting? I am curious to see how these numbers related to previous recruiting decades.