CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 19, 2012 08:03 PM UTC
15 Comments
Nitpicking individual budget items is a dangerous road to go down and it is guaranteed to lead you into a position where you have to contradict yourself.
72 million dollars sounds like a lot out of context, but its just a tiny portion of the military’s overall budget. In fact, it’s only a tiny portion of their advertising and recruitment budget.
But that’s not the point, making the comparison of nascar advertising versus feeding poor people is a fallacy and its deceptive, because it implies that if this money weren’t spent on sports advertising, that it would be spent feeding the poor. But it wouldn’t. It would still be spent on advertising, just in a different venue, like making a big budget propaganda film about navy seals.
The military has an advertising and recruitment budget. They spend a bunch of money convincing teenagers to sign themselves and their lives over to the government to be used however they see fit. It’s expensive. And you can make arguments about the expense of recruiting, but don’t make it based on where they are using that money. That’s ridiculous and its purposefully deceptive, in the vein of the GOP lies that we all decry here daily.
But the most dangerous thing about going after military recruitment spending is that it opens you up to attacks on things you (presumably) value. For instance:
In 2011, the US Government spent $154 million on art projects. (National Endowment for the Arts)
Each year, the US Government spends just over $18 billion on space exploration (NASA).
I can keep going, but the idea is clear. Any small portion of the federal budget will seem huge when taken out of context and can therefor be used to attack anyone who supports it for misplaced priorities. But we should make an effort to be above that nonsense and look at the big picture of the budget and address actual problems, not made up ones.
Wasteful spending exists, but this is not a particularly egregious example of it. It’s just an example. Attacking this is like attacking the healthcare bill for how many IRS agents will have to be hired to enforce it.
.
before enlisting in the Army during the Vietnam war,
I carefully studied the healthcare provided by the VA.
I had my accountant come up with a dollar value for the home loan guarantee benefit.
Most importantly, I assessed the gravestone benefit, and selected the bronze marker, in case it should come to that.
Here’s a list of NASCAR sponsored cars.
http://www.nascar.com/kyn/nbtn…
We could use any as example- but let’s pick GEICO since I’m familiar with them and their leadership.
Why on earth would GEICO waste their money sponsoring a car? Because it’s profitable advertising for them.
Same for the DOD.
Is all sports related advertising unacceptable or just NASCAR ? (I have no numbers- but suspect NASCAR is a very good recruiting investment.)
What about tv advertising? Radio? Print?
What about posters? Is any advertising ok?
What about David Robinson?
Officially too tall to attend the US Naval Academy – the Secretary of the Navy gave him a waiver.
Likewise, most USNA graduates incur a five year active duty service commitment. Mr. Robinson’s was just two years so he could play basketball for the Spurs.
Sometimes the far right is just downright crazy. Sometimes so is the far left. This is one of those times.
the money comes from the DOD, this should be on the table.
I’d like to see some truth in advertising. Every recruiting ad says something like “Paid for by the U.S, Army.” They should say, paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
I think most people know that the army is paid for by the US taxpayer (who else would it be?) so you really don’t need to say it twice. I tend to agree with Bateman on this.
If the rational is that “nitpicking” at the budget is a dangerous road to go down, I categoreically dispute that notion. Let the nitpicking begin. Or, conversley, eliminate whole overseas stations, whole weapons systems, whole platoons, etc.
Then, not to pile on, “most people” never read the fine print and do not question that the ad is paid for by the U.S. Army. These ads should clearly state who is paying for the ad, i.e., the U.S. taxpayer. That’s what it should read.
supporting Boy Scouts and I am so ready to put a stop to that
I can’t support institutional homophobia…or any kind for that matter.
Do you dislike the military or how much of our budget it spends? Do you dislike NASCAR because it is too lowbrow and not in line with the typical brie and quiche eating art gallery tastes of liberal elites?
Sports marketing is advertising (and my career path prior to medicine.) Companies will hang their logo on anything they think puts their product in a positive light in front of their intended demographic. If this were the Afghan army, they’d be recruiting at goat’s head polo matches.
I think you’ve let your tastes naively dictate your criticism. If you think the army shouldn’t be advertising for recruiting, then make that argument.
and people at sporting events
Unless the stadium authority is paying for it.
F-15s ain’t cheap to run.
…and it all works, based on the demographic targeted. Since the Pew Foundation Study “War and Sacrifice on the Post 9/11 Era” shows that almost all military recruits come from the Midwest and Mountain West, I’m guessing it works pretty well.
The recruiting guys have a job to do, and if this helps them get their job done, so be it. I’d like for the remaining .5% to step up and volunteer as well, but I don’t see that happen in a era where the VA is still underwater, and one Active Duty soldier kills themselves every day.
I’m more concerned with the money DoD spends on America’s Army, because I personally hate War Pr0n twitch games, and that demo is usually too fat, too out-of-shape and too unfocused to even pass the basic physical and written exams.
(You’d know more about that ‘tad, so feel free to expound on it.)
That got me laughing:-)
if they can’t make their case without advertising then we have a smaller military less likely to go to war. All the marketing they do and the results stay the same. Kids, largely from rural areas join the military. They die because defense contractors have created “cool” weaponry and politicians will lie their ass off and refuse to even fund a war if they think it will get less support.
just have those GSA accountants change the line item expense reporting from “marketing and advertising” to “making [the] case.” Happy?
I don’t disagree with your sentiment, but isn’t advertising a way — maybe, the way — to “make [the] case.”
Or, maybe it’s OK with you to have advertising, just so long as it’s not effective advertising?