Can’t wait to read defense of money to NASCAR vs. budget slashing to health care/aid to military veterans…

I blame Michelle.

avoidswork said:
Can’t wait to read defense of money to NASCAR vs. budget slashing to health care/aid to military veterans…

Defense? Its an interesting issue. Marketing is necessary and this is marketing. Our Armed forces are all volunteer. If the money was just supporting the NASCAR then I would say not only cut it but it should never have been supported in the first place. Just how much return do the armed forces get for this investment? Young people who sign up? Good will? Or is it just that someone likes NASCAR or is able to use it to divert tax money into some ones pocket? Until they release those facts I can’t take a side here.

“Rep. Betty McCollum, a Democrat from Minnesota, opened up a writhing can of worms when she proposed cutting Pentagon funding for NASCAR teams in an effort to save taxpayers’ money”

.
I’m not asking to make a point b/c I have no idea exactly what point would be made but does this mean a cut of about $30 million to the Defense Budget or specifically cutting that $30 to NASCAR advertising or just a general $30 million cut to the Pentagon’s PR/recruiting budgets?

Does anyone know?

The only relevant question is, are the armed forces going to just advertise somewhere else? What is their budget for all sources they advertise with (TV/Radio/Billboards/Nascar/ etc etc etc..

Before anybody starts singling one medium out, it would help to know the total budget, I bet it’s enormous. And my guess is, if it were solely about saving taxpayer dollars, the coherent politician would suggest cutting the overall advertising budget, but of course that’s common sense and we wouldn’t want any of that.

If paying for healthcare and other services isn’t worth tax payers money according to Republicans, why in the world would supporting Nascar be?

Pentagon funding for NASCAR “created or saved” more jobs then Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus did, so it’s a bargain in comparison.

Based on this from ABC it seems that McCollum’s cuts are aimed specifically at NASCAR and anything related to motor racing:

“Taxpayer-funded NASCAR race cars are an absurdity at a time when the Republican-Tea Party is cutting federal support for homeless veterans, law enforcement officers, and firefighters,” McCollum said in a statement when she introduced the amendment this week. “I know NASCAR fans are passionate and patriotic. This amendment gets the government out of NASCAR and gives them the opportunity to encourage the private sector to demonstrate its patriotism by donating a military sponsorship”

“According to McCollum’s office, her fight will not end here.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/02/pentagons-nascar-sponsorship-gets-a-green-light-congress-rejects-measure-to-cut-funding-for-ads-on-r.html

So it appears to be an “earmark” in reverse.

Does she object to the money spent or to the specific activity it is being spent upon. Probably both, IMO.

Cut the total PR/advertising budget for the military but let them best decide where the money is best spent. As it is right now only half the Sevices still support the motor sports industry with their advertising dollars spent as a recruitment tool.

The Minnesota Democrat intends to introduce legislation that would prohibit taxpayer money from being used to sponsor race cars, dragsters, Indy cars and motorcycle racing.”

Alex, if this picture was supposed to represent your story and the armed forces sponsoring cars, you failed. I know this is not a Cup Series car, I would suspect it is a regional picture. Next time, do a minimum amount of research and get it right.

On Justifying the $$.

It is called advertising, we need an all volunteer force, even you lefties damn sure don’t want the draft back.

The National Guard is the big spender; I assume they are getting their money’s worth.

I am surprised you lefties don’t complain about the fly-over’s. I like them too. Before you start bitching about that, it is part of their training budget, whether they fly over a race track on Sunday or an open field on Friday.

OOPS, I meant to include this from the article:

“According to McCollum’s office, her fight will not end here.

The Minnesota Democrat intends to introduce legislation that would prohibit taxpayer money from being used to sponsor race cars, dragsters, Indy cars and motorcycle racing.”

BatBoy said:
Alex, if this picture was supposed to represent your story and the armed forces sponsoring cars, you failed. I know this is not a Cup Series car, I would suspect it is a regional picture.

I chose the picture because it depicts a race car and the women posing next to it are in military-inspired uniforms. I didn’t for one fraction of a second assume – nor did I think anyone else would – that this was part of an Army-sponsored initiative. It’s a fun picture of a race car and hotties in fatigues. That’s all it’s meant to be.

I live in NASCAR Country and a old NASCAR town called Rockingham, NC that has a track called Rockingham Motor Speedway AKA North Carolina Motor Speedway! She is right to to pull money for the sponsorship of teams and take away the Track tax credits! Anybody who watches NASCAR knows if they want to join the armed forces or not so the sponsorship on cars is not needed all you need is TV ads which they already play during the race. I have never heard any of my friends tell me NASCAR ads or car ads are the reason they joined the armed forces normally its because the need a job that pays good because the mill jobs are gone and they don’t want to go to school right now. The track credits are a big waste of taxes dollars because they are based on faith that the person who ask for them is going to follow through with the work to the fullest extent. Which never happens. Case in point Lowe’s motor speedway got tax credits from the state and federal government and never follow through with the work to the fullest extent and left the tax payers with a good debt and little to show for it and nobody is ever willing to call the owner out on it to get our money back. So it maybe hard to believe but the Democratic Congresswoman is correct that there is waste in this. But as a NASCAR fan since birth and will be to my death I support her. Just so you know if you want to pick on me I’m a Jeff Gordon fan and that last win of his was a thing of beauty.

Alex Alvarez said:
I chose the picture because it depicts a race car and the women posing next to it are in military-inspired uniforms. I didn’t for one fraction of a second assume – nor did I think anyone else would – that this was part of an Army-sponsored initiative. It’s a fun picture of a race car and hotties in fatigues. That’s all it’s meant to be.

Alex,
If you want to write a story about Hotties in Fatigues standing by a race car, that would be fine.

But…your story is NOT about Hotties in Fatigues, it is about NASCAR racing and its funding.

You wrote: “…I didn’t for one fraction of a second assume – nor did I think anyone else would …”
There lies your problem, you assumed and tried to think.

Alex Alvarez said:
I chose the picture because it depicts a race car and the women posing next to it are in military-inspired uniforms. I didn’t for one fraction of a second assume – nor did I think anyone else would – that this was part of an Army-sponsored initiative. It’s a fun picture of a race car and hotties in fatigues. That’s all it’s meant to be.

Fast cars and fast womin! Yeehaw!

BatBoy said:
Alex,If you want to write a story about Hotties in Fatigues standing by a race car, that would be fine. But…your story is NOT about Hotties in Fatigues, it is about NASCAR racing and its funding. You wrote: “…I didn’t for one fraction of a second assume – nor did I think anyone else would …”There lies your problem, you assumed and tried to think.

I took offense to the picture myself because of the implied connection with the armed forces and NASCAR. Should never have chosen the stereotype of sexy woman around a race car. I think it was unprofessional and wondered if you (Alex) are biased about NASCAR participants and fans.

Well, to say that the government gives NASCAR money, we could also say they give money to the NFL, MLB, NHL, and so on. Any “male-popular” organization will have sponsorship by the military… which equates to tax payer dollars. Not to mention their sponsorship in the form of commercials, which means dollars to FOX, NBC, CBS, ESPN, and so on.

Sooo… the fact that she singled out NASCAR suggests that she was going for something “safe,” knowing that most Liberals already have a low opinion of NASCAR.

That said, I’m not opposed to examining their advertising budget, and possibly cutting back. The military is like Pepsi… how much do you really need to advertise? Do you really think people have forgotten about you?

BatBoy said:
Alex,
If you want to write a story about Hotties in Fatigues standing by a race car, that would be fine.

But…your story is NOT about Hotties in Fatigues, it is about NASCAR racing and its funding.

You wrote: “…I didn’t for one fraction of a second assume – nor did I think anyone else would …”
There lies your problem, you assumed and tried to think.

I’m saving my Hotties in Fatigues story for SportsGrid.

Ajolily said:
I took offense to the picture myself because of the implied connection with the armed forces and NASCAR. Should never have chosen the stereotype of sexy woman around a race car. I think it was unprofessional and wondered if you (Alex) are biased about NASCAR participants and fans.

Nope. I neither dislike nor am an avid fan of NASCAR, although I have no problem with the sport or its fans. I’m sorry that you felt offended.

Grammie said:
Cut the total PR/advertising budget for the military but let them best decide where the money is best spent. As it is right now only half the Sevices still support the motor sports industry with their advertising dollars spent as a recruitment tool.

That makes sense but are you sure it works that way? Is there a portion of the budget that is just marketing, and advertising or is money allotted to specific things , like TC ads , Nascar, etc.

Considering all the clamor to make cuts this cut makes sense, or at least an overall budget cut.
Interesting that the vote seemed to be along partisan lines. While wanting to cut funding for all kinds of programs , we continue to use tax dollars to sponsor Nascar?

BatBoy said:
The National Guard is the big spender; I assume they are getting their money’s worth.

BatBoy said:
There lies your problem, you assumed and tried to think.

Couldn’t help but notice, and chuckle a bit.

Alex Alvarez said:
Nope. I neither dislike nor am an avid fan of NASCAR, although I have no problem with the sport or its fans. I’m sorry that you felt offended.

Just wondered. Its an interesting site where you can ask the writer and he/she can respond. Still think you made a bad choice. Lesson learned?

How about a compromise….

Put NASCAR on PBS and leave them both the f@#k alone.

CosmosDan said:
That makes sense but are you sure it works that way? Is there a portion of the budget that is just marketing, and advertising or is money allotted to specific things , like TC ads , Nascar, etc.

.
As I understood from my research that is the case and my description that she is proposing an earmark in reverse is accurate. She is proposing specifically that the Pentagon can not spend any recruiting budget on motor sports and to cut their budget by that specific amount.

I think that this is a purely partisan political move wrapped in the banner of reducing the budget. Cut the recruiting budget but let those who do the recruiting decide where and by what amounts to meet the total.

Could this be one reason she garnered bipartisan opposition to her proposal?

Grammie said:
I think that this is a purely partisan political move wrapped in the banner of reducing the budget.

Exactly.
You guys go after something urban intellectuals enjoy (PBS) and we go after something racist rednecks enjoy.

.

BFD said:
Exactly.
You guys go after something urban intellectuals enjoy (PBS) and we go after something racist rednecks enjoy.

.
I watch PBS very regularly and have never seen a motor sport event or even know who the contenders are. My opinion about what the proper function of government is and what it should and should not be spending everyone’s tax dollars upon has nothing to do with my viewing habits and sporting activities.

If yours do then that should be your problem but unfortunately it has managed to become a problem for everyone who pays taxes.

I have no problems with the Pentagon deciding to not use their recruiting dollars on NASCAR or to switch them to PBS IF it their best decision made on their best assessment of the most effective use of that resource.

Why are you so intent on making something so simple so convoluted?

BFD said:
Exactly.You guys go after something urban intellectuals enjoy (PBS) and we go after something racist rednecks enjoy.

“Urban intellectuals”? The only people who watch PBS are retirees and Sesame Street fans. Maybe you meant NPR? If so, “hippies driving subaru’s” is a more apt description than “urban intellectuals”.

Cuts in funding at Argonne and Fermi labs, big deal, just don’t touch NASCAR.

Grammie said:
As I understood from my research that is the case and my description that she is proposing an earmark in reverse is accurate. She is proposing specifically that the Pentagon can not spend any recruiting budget on motor sports and to cut their budget by that specific amount.

There wasn’t anything in your link to indicate that there is an advertising budget that includes the Nascar program. That may be the case, but nothing there said that.

Grammie said:
I think that this is a purely partisan political move wrapped in the banner of reducing the budget. Cut the recruiting budget but let those who do the recruiting decide where and by what amounts to meet the total.

It may be, or it may be a matter of her personal values and seeing more value in some of the programs that are being cut than an investment in Nascar. Isn’t it reasonable to make value judgments about how tax dollars are spent?

Would you say the proposals to cut PBS and PPH are purely partisan?

CosmosDan said:
There wasn’t anything in your link to indicate that there is an advertising budget that includes the Nascar program.

.
I read several other articles at different sites. She is the one who wrapped her cut up in motor sports. Perhaps if she had not she might have garnered more support or at least from her own party.

CosmosDan said:
It may be, or it may be a matter of her personal values and seeing more value in some of the programs that are being cut than an investment in Nascar.

Her proposal is very specific to prevent the Pentagon from using this, and only this, recruitment advertising budget. In this I think the only viable value judgment is whether the Pentagon is spending their money wisely. According to one of the high ranking officers their NASCAR dollars significantly outperform viable potential recruits than dollars spent elsewhere. Her objection seems to be to NASCAR rather than recruitment funds or she would have not married the two into a single unit.

CosmosDan said:
Would you say the proposals to cut PBS and PPH are purely partisan?

It could very well be. For my part I oppose it basically b/c I don’t consider such funding, especially when such funding is necessarily tied into disseminating political opinion, to be the proper role of government. There was a better case for it when I was young and there were not that many outlets and only that with very broad and deep support could be heard and we had more disposable income.

If it was ever a legitimate function it is long since gone now, IMO. PBS has had many commercial bonanzas and should be able to compete in this day and age where cable channels such as Current are able to hang on without allocating what is increasingly scarcer Federal resources to it.

If NPR can’t survive on its own what possible reason is there to subsidize an outfit that has a decided political bent in one direction?

Re PBS and NPR type funding I am a proponent of subsidizing Cspan b/c it serves a legitimate function that the private sector could not do as they do.

BTW, as I pointed out to BFD I am a regular watcher of PBS programming, have never even watched NASCAR on TV and don’t listen to NPR if I can help it.

our Military is there to keep us safe at home, not to advertise and create a whole new industry by themselves and spending money on private enterprises.

@ Socialist

Then how do the get new members?

But however would we spend our time without NASCAR, NRA, KKK, the Grand Lizard, Cyclops, et al?? This is not a superficial subjct. Human life & ways of life depend on these matters. It’s genetic. Not to be dismissed easily.

Cut all funding to NASCAR–teams, tracks, everything. On the fed., state and local level. Do the same for baseball, football, basketball, hockey, soccer, you name it. No more tax breaks to move teams. No govt. money to build stadiums. Unless the teams agree to profit sharing with the citizens that give the breaks, this is just another case of socialism for the rich.

ImNotBlue said:
@ Socialist

Then how do the get new members?

then whats ROTC for?

Democratic reasoning: Spend $29 Million on a what amounts to handful of jobs? Add to that, $45 Million in tax-breaks for a private enterprise that shouldn’t around if they can’t do it on their own, and you have the Democratic agenda in a nutshell. The parade of Washington nonsense just keeps on parading, and we pay for it.

CAconservative said:
Democratic reasoning: Spend $29 Million on a what amounts to handful of jobs? Add to that, $45 Million in tax-breaks for a private enterprise that shouldn’t around if they can’t do it on their own, and you have the Democratic agenda in a nutshell. The parade of Washington nonsense just keeps on parading, and we pay for it.

You’re also paying to sponsor Nascar teams. Maybe you can get a ride in the car so it will all be worth it.

===== http://www.chic-goods.com/ =====

===== http://www.chic-goods.com/ =====