Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ban of NASCAR military sponsors sought
UPI ^ | 16 Feb 11 | staff

Posted on 02/16/2011 10:59:30 AM PST by saganite

The U.S. military should not be spending money on sponsoring NASCAR teams, Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., said in a budget bill she sponsored.

McCollum's chief of staff, Bill Harper, told The Virginia-Pilot newspaper in Norfolk his boss sponsored the budgetary amendment to address the plight of a growing number of veterans and their families.

"There's an amendment on the floor to eliminate all funding for homeless veterans," he said. "On one hand, we're eliminating assistance to men and women who served our country ... and on the other hand, we're paying for race cars."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: 112th; bettymccollum; military; moonbats; nascar; recruiters; recruiting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-65 last
To: HamiltonJay

The country is broke, there are no jobs and they can get as many kids as they want now. Cut cut cut and keep cutting.

51 posted on 02/16/2011 1:30:21 PM PST by Frantzie (HD TV - Total Brain-washing now in High Def. 3-D Coming soon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: All

the all time government waste was the advertisement for the one dollar coin. EPIC FAIL in marketing and use.

52 posted on 02/16/2011 1:32:44 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! and
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: saganite
If advertising is meant to generate results there could be no better sport to advertise in than NASCAR.

That’s a generally conservative patriotic audience and I’m sure the services benefit from the publicity.

I agree 100%

Over the years I have noticed that there are very few avid NASCAR fans here on FR.

The average age of a NASCAR fan is much younger than those who post here on FR

53 posted on 02/16/2011 3:12:28 PM PST by TYVets ( ..... ethanol free gasoline by state and city)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: saganite
I think the government spent more advertising dollars on the 2010 Census than they spent on military ads at NASCAR and a lot of other places last year.

OK, Betty lets be fair now. How about telling Michelle Obama to back off the Let's Move program. You can also knock off the Obesity Garden out back of the house too. We know you don't even eat those veggies. Her and Zero can also cut out the date nights and the big parties they have at the White House. Enough with Smoky Robinson and Wegu Beef. For crying out loud. Don't you know we're broke.

While you are at it, take out all the Congressional dining facilities, they can start brown bagging or order out from some fast food place like everybody else. These dining establishments operate in the black. Cut out all Congressional limousine service. Use buses and taxis like the masses. There are probably thousand more cuts you can think of Betty, let's get going.

54 posted on 02/16/2011 3:28:48 PM PST by Harley (Life is Tough, But It's a Lot Tougher When You're a Liberal. Stop Global Whining Now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStone1000

While we’re at it, let’s get rid of the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds since they do nothing but fly around looking pretty. And might as well get rid of all the military recruitment centers since they only serve to “advertize” and don’t provide any defense capabilities.

Gee, with an all volunteer military what do we need advertizing or enticement for?

No, lets keep the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds....and keep the recruiting centers

It costs 15 to 20 million per year to sponsor a NASCAR Sprint Cup car....and just for a smaller sticker on a car runs a few million.

NASCAR TV ratings and support has dropped in recent years, so there is not the “bang for the buck” as before.

NASCAR sponsorship is not as effective anymore

55 posted on 02/16/2011 3:55:08 PM PST by UCFRoadWarrior (Newt Gingrich and Chris Matthews: Seperated at Birth??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

I assume that there are people in the military whose job it is to determine “best bang for buck” when it comes to recruiting. And I’ll take their analysis over some military hating demwit any day.

56 posted on 02/16/2011 4:02:02 PM PST by PhilosopherStone1000 (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
Let's also cut out housing allowance for married enlisted soldiers and send their families home. That costs billions and serves no good purpose that I can think of.

I hope you were being sarcastic on that one. That allowance is the only way military families can make it. Even with it up till E-6 they are at or below poverty level. A person being stationed in Germany four years or even Alaska four years and family staying back in Maine means the wife and kids will see each other once a year. Military wife's and kids already make significant sacrifice for nation by the usually very limited time they do have with the enlisted parent especially those assigned to ships.

Doing away with it and even with a draft it will still result in very serious shortages of E-4 and above enlisted. Not many would stick around without a very substancial bonus for retention {far above their living allowance per enlistment} and I don't blame them.

Our service members deserve to have a family life. BTW recruitment advertisement has indeed been a long standing expense.

One other point to add. The military now obligates enlisted up to eight years service even on first enlistment. Keeping a military family together near command or a base is good for morale and is for the good of the service as well. It also has the family close to needed support facilities during deployments. Enlisted is the backbone of the military. It's best & CHEAPER to take care of them than retrain & replace another one after leaving on completion of first enlistment.

57 posted on 02/16/2011 4:42:55 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
The country is broke, there are no jobs and they can get as many kids as they want now. Cut cut cut and keep cutting.

In 1982 there were no jobs. Not even Mickey D's in my state. Every day that I go now out I see Now Hiring signs at various businesses. An 18 year old can flip burgers and still make more per year than likely an E-3 in the military.

In late 1982 the Reagan military was mostly full. When you did four years active and if you got out you came home and had a two year call up obligation with no reserve drills required. The USA was not at war and deployments were usually one time per enlistment or a total of 12-16 months per enlistment. I did a 15 years total overseas under Carter in my four year enlistment. Those were in three deployments. Two were six month and one was for three month. BUT times were different today in many ways. A recruit today may see up too 5 one year tours to Iraq or Afghanistan in his now eight year obligation. These are deployments into hostile nations. The reserves and National Guard isn't much better really. They are now likely to be called up as well. Such has been the state of the United States Military since Poppy Bush.

Here's the problem. Back when the military reductions began under Poppy the End Troop Strengths were lowered. Clinton and congress lowered them more up to what was set in 1996. They have stayed at that level every since that time. Congress sets those numbers. End Troop Strength is the maximum number of active duty and reservist allowed to serve at any time. That means the so called help from the so called adults never arrived even after 9/11.

If I had a son and he asked my advice about enlisting I would say please don't not under the current conditions. Even though my enlistment was great for me things inside the military have changed for the worse. The military is by no means the best place to be today even in this economy. If advertising wasn't being done the recruitment goals would likely not be met. Not many persons want to fight for a POTUS and Congress like the ones we've had since 1989 who lack the will to win and punish you if you hit the enemy back. My guess is many Veteran Parents are discouraging enlistments as well if they do the research on the current obligations. Many persons are not aware of the 8 year obligation.

58 posted on 02/16/2011 5:16:28 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Correction: I did a 15 “MONTHS” total deployments time overseas under Carter in my four year enlistment. Plus some additional at sea time which is not quite the same thing as a deployment. Those were in and out a week or two at a time for training.

59 posted on 02/16/2011 5:21:46 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: numberonepal
DEFUND IT ALL! You might want to re-think that assertion. You are seriously of the mind that funding for military recruiting should be nixed? I seriously doubt you are.

Yes, I am serious. We are on the precipice of bankruptcy. We cannot afford advertisements for the military if we have to continuously borrow money to do it. And please don't mix recruiting (which is what soldiers do) with advertising (spending money on media time).

Flame away but I have had it with the fed gov bankrupting me for what they can do without.

60 posted on 02/16/2011 5:23:21 PM PST by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

Wouldn’t not hiring the 15,500 new IRS agents for BaraqqiCare save even more money?

61 posted on 02/16/2011 5:27:40 PM PST by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I can hear it now:

“Just because Washington did it, doesn’t mean we should do it.”

62 posted on 02/16/2011 7:12:10 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain & proud of it: Truly Supporting the Troops means praying for their Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
What I would like to see is that the military not enlist young married men at all. It puts too much hardship on them, and as you point out, they are at poverty levels already. This does great damage to all concerned. If manning is such a problem then we do need a draft, or a smaller mission. I was in the military long enough to verify your statement about the quality of life of these young families. It's very upsetting that the families of those who serve should live this way. Not only that, the soldier's effectiveness is compromised by constantly agonizing over their families back home. I don't need to discuss the levels of divorce and violence involved. It's sky high. Much of this problem is simply due to the youth of the people we're discussing. NCOs are typically old enough to handle it much better, but some 19 year old kid with a wife and two children? Forget about it. I think this is a very serious unreported problem in our military.
63 posted on 02/17/2011 11:44:33 PM PST by Batrachian (9/11 confirmed everything I already knew about Islam. Not that it needed much confirming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
My late uncle joined to get medical help for his wife. He ended up going from E-1 to O-5 and C.O. of a ship. He did 30 years. They remained married till death did they part. Yea I saw some marriages break up even in the E-6 ranks. I also saw E-3's and E-4's with solid marriages.

Draft? LOL what next you'll order a mandatory divorce as well if drafted then? Manning is a problem because of congress. Congress sets the allowed number of troops and that number has not changed but a few thousand since 1996 under Clinton. No not even 9/11 changed it but by a few thousand. Men were turned away at 9/11 because Mr Global Trade King didn't go to congress and say hey we need more troops nor did his recycled Ford era Sec of Def do such either. The decline started under Poppy continues today and not one POTUS has protested. That is what is causing major problems. Today's troops are seeing more deployments for longer times than those in WW2. They served four years the duration. Some guys today are doing eight on first sign up.

BTW I was an NCO at E-4. I was such about a third of my four year enlistment. On second enlistment nearly all were married usually struggling money wise E-5's.

As for the violence again much of it isn't due to marriage it's due to over deployments too close together. You can;'t keep sending men into combat a year, bring them home six months to a year, send them back, and repeat several this more times in 6-8 years without bad things happening behavior wise. It's not the marriage doing it it's the deployment policies.

If a person enlist today at 18 Uncle Sam now owns them till 26. Many times they will have to serve the 8 active or get home after 4-6 years, get married and at 7 years 6 months get called back up. When I enlisted in 76 I did four years and came home. Two years later my DC came in the mail. It was all volunteer back then. Actually I came home, married, and ended up in a job where I was gone for two weeks sometimes three and home for two days. The marriage was fine.

Do you think think it's fine to have our troops being paid poverty level pay? I don't. I don't think it right to demand they put their family plans on hold especially for 6-8 years either. Actually I think first enlistments should be limited to four years active duty and only a formal declaration of war be reason to call up a man in his remaining two years inactive. I would make the first enlistment obligation limited to six years under any circumstances with seperation from active at four. The only exception to a four year limit I can see justifiable is in such programs as the Navy Nuclear Propulsion where 18 months of schooling is required before reporting to first duty. That should be limited to six total and all active duty.

Our missions can't get smaller do the math. We are well under 300 ships thanks to Poppy, Clinton, Junior and Obama as well as congress. The ships are showing it too as they are over deployed and maintenance missed. Over half the Reagan military levels and programs are gone and have not been replaced. That is why our troops are being ran ragged today. The adults never showed up with the help. One Smirking Chimp lands on a carrier with a banner Mission Accomplished and the blind sheep were in awe of his support for the troops? Pay no attention to that over deployed into combat PFC or SGT with PTSD though or his pending court martial for assaulting poor Omar in Baghdad.

Reagan used the recession to fill the ranks of the military. In less than two years it went from being undermanned and offering $15-$18K retention bonuses for a second hitch to all billets filled. I know because after I married I tried to go back in. I was in a critical rating when I got out and turned down such a bonus.

64 posted on 02/18/2011 12:45:03 AM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

“Cut somebody else’s pet project!” is the battle cry heard everywhere. Things aren’t THAT bad, I guess.

65 posted on 02/18/2011 12:32:47 PM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-65 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson