Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Ali Qayyum
4891 Followers
adam jones
8206 Followers
Dominique Conte
1824 Followers
Yuki Cross
1368 Followers
420 Mary Jane
-3 Followers
alanocuFeb 10, 2011
And Obama spent $787 billion on a stimulus that was useless.
So what's the point here?
thechauvinistFeb 10, 2011
All you say is bulls**t that gets buried. Does it not have any effect on you? I am not suggesting that you become a slave to popular opinion, but rather to at least consider how moronic you sound.
davidtcFeb 10, 2011
You should consider that you just got trolled...
linageeFeb 10, 2011
The less people that are in the military, the more we have to use technology to compensate for smaller number of troops. (Hint: This means more technological advancements funded by government dollars. Sometimes these technological advancements trickle down to citizens and sometimes they just save tax payer money.)
Not sure why anyone would think a motivation to put more people into "the meat grinder" is a good thing...
Closed AccountFeb 10, 2011
GG USA, GG
thomasjosephslaFeb 10, 2011
unacceptable
thegeek20Feb 10, 2011
That's huge amount.
AlpolinkFeb 10, 2011
Can't argue with ratings. If he doesn't do it, they should at least get another comedian who will roast them all.
cuishi14Feb 10, 2011
Alanocu, I can't reply to you on my iPod but just before bush left office he gave wall street 750 billion. Where did all that money go?
thechauvinistFeb 10, 2011
Bummer you couldn't reply directly to that moron...
I think all that money went in suitcases to fatten the wallets of mysterious "businessmen."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 10, 2011
IS that a joke? I am not siding with Alan's original comment, but your reply was even more asinine considering almost all of that money was paid back WITH INTEREST in less than 2 years. That made that Wall Street bailout one of the BEST financial investments our government has ever made.
I have done cost analysis for government projects before and the usual rule of thumb is that the proposal is considered a good idea if it is expected to pay for itself in twenty YEARS. This paid for itself in twenty MONTHS.
So...to answer your question of where it went...it went right back into the government's pocket...with interest. (And this is not even taking into consideration any benefits of giving them the money at the height of the recession to prevent it from getting worse.)
Now...I am sure I will get buried. But remember kiddies...burying facts does not CHANGE the fact. So it will not change the fact that the government has gotten back more of that money than they gave out...and they did so in less than 2 years.
linuxpersonFeb 10, 2011
You do realize that the "bailout" consisted of far more than just TARP, correct?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-r-talbott/tarp-uncovered-the-real-c_b_746959.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/the-true-cost-of-the-bank-bailout/3309/
http://mises.org/daily/3062 (far more conservative estimate)
Even if ALL the money gets repaid, which will never happen, a very dangerous precedent has been set. Your facts: they are not factual.
ncmusicFeb 10, 2011
And the gov't encouraged all the too big to fail banks to absorb other banks and become too bigger to fail.
boshausFeb 10, 2011
How about it was scheduled with regular training? A pilot needs so many hours of flight time a year so its not necessarily costing us anything extra.
Wow digg sucks, this was covered on reddit 2 days ago with 1045 comments.
dralezeroFeb 11, 2011
good point on the training. that makes since.
Closed AccountFeb 10, 2011
Why did it cost $450,000? Surely it couldn't be fuel costs & man hours.
thechauvinistFeb 10, 2011
Probably auxiliary expenses that we'll never know about...
And don't call me Shirley.
blacklilyninjaFeb 10, 2011
wow.. i'm speechless
Closed AccountFeb 10, 2011
Thank god..since you believe this bulls**t, it is god that we don't have to read your ignorant whining about it.
zzmeeyFeb 10, 2011
Three secs. Oh, it's much faster than Charlie Sheen spent his five hundred grands to drugs and hookers
Closed AccountFeb 10, 2011
Except noo...it was not tax payer money, morons.
Jasper_donald12Feb 10, 2011
what a waste of money
ParentingCoachLisaFeb 10, 2011
yeahhh... so toxic
hardsideFeb 10, 2011
The fly by is a standard training excercise, a pilot must do X amount of flying a month, and they chose that day and that time to do, where the stadium is.
This has been discussed every year.
charlotte_webFeb 10, 2011
Exactly. Civilians don't understand that about the military, that that money would have been spent, regardless.
Plus, people don't understand how military budgeting works. I was with a jet squadron in the Navy. They were allotted so many millions of dollars per year for their budget. Whatever money wasn't spent by the end of the year was lost, and the following years' budget was reduced by that amount. And of course, at the end of every year we had a surplus. We didn't want our budget cut, so what did my squadron do? For the last week of the fiscal year, we had the planes in the air doing touch-and-go's continuously. For no reason other than to blow out our budget surplus. That's government budgeting for ya.
Even worse is that the planes can't land with fuel in their wings; that fuel has to be dumped. So, they would fill up the wing tanks, launch the plane, circle it around, dump the wing tanks, and land the plane. Over and over and over.
blindoggbooksFeb 10, 2011
I may not understand the military budget...but I certainly understand waste. If the money is wantonly spent simply to insure its reallocation the following year it seems to me that we have a leak in the boat...and instead of bailing the water out we're just moving it from one area of the boat to another...
davidnivenFeb 10, 2011
Military planes CAN land with fuel in their tanks. They do it all the time.
charlotte_webFeb 10, 2011
The fuel in their wing tanks. The planes we had had three or four different fuel tanks, which includes one in each wing. I assume that the weight of the fuel in the wings adds a lot of stress to the frame on touchdown.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
macparrotFeb 10, 2011
This is part of the problem with govt spending. Instead of doing the SMART thing which is to bank (not litterally bank but it's all a paper chase) the remaining alocation toward the next year and rewarding those managers that are fiscally responcible, they punish them by cutting their budget.
zipkoFeb 10, 2011
Private companies do the same thing. If you have a manufacturer with plants all over the country, each plant is given a certain operating budget. At the end of the year, you'll see sites go on huge spending binges to make sure they spend all of the money allocated to them, otherwise it disappears and they won't see it again the next year.
thetronFeb 10, 2011
It's considered a promotional thing for any defence force. Here in Australia they do the same thing in effort to create some interest with people to enlist in the defence force
For example Australia use to have F111's just show up at events doing dump and burns. It's also a feature of fireworks events
http://vimeo.com/6554648
blindoggbooksFeb 10, 2011
We really need to re-examine our priorities.
davidnivenFeb 10, 2011
Crazy that the liberal wackos whine about $500,000 for a Navy flyover, which was going to be spent on training flights anyway...but are totally cool $750+ billion being wasted on a stimulus which didn't stimulate.
Just be quiet, hypocrites. Don't even open your mouths again.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hawkmoon78Feb 10, 2011
You have absolutely no authority or evidence to back up the wild claims and assumptions you've made.
You are wasting your right to freedom of speech by using it in an asinine way.
paultripFeb 10, 2011
Happens everywhere, at parades.....this is lame!
DanzhenzFeb 10, 2011
That is basically the fuel cost...
hawkmoon78Feb 10, 2011
Now, I didn't know about required training hours, and that this would have been done regardless of the superbowl.
But really, are we to just assume that the 500K figure was correct in the first place? Are we to be mesmorized by the number without any thought as to what was behind it? Why is the author describing a two hour flight as a two second flyover?
We need to temepr our outage at things like this until we learn a bit more about the circumstances (a job normally undertaken by reporters). But if anyone doesn't feel like doing the work to get the full story, can they please withhold their judgment and not jump to conclusions?
TanakaKhanFeb 10, 2011
WTF
cold0008Feb 11, 2011
they spend a lot more on recruitment commercials that a lot fewer people
jamesatbbFeb 11, 2011
So what...Taxpayers spend $181K per hour to run air force one... Not to mention the half a billion+ spent on each new one.
teezerFeb 13, 2011
Could have provided a hot meal for 100,000 hungry homeless, or provided shelter for 500 families for a month. Like anyone really needed that three second show.
teezerFeb 13, 2011
Could have provided a hot meal for 100,000 hungry homeless, or provided shelter for 500 families for a month. Like anyone really needed that three second show.
alleebabachiefFeb 14, 2011
Its ridiculous, we can show our 'patriotism' in better ways. >.>
acuppyFeb 18, 2011
And to think, I watch it for the commercials.