Military Sponsorships on Chopping Block?

[rckymtn3]

Fine, hand-crafted tin foil hats for sale!

$2.50 small
$3.00 medium
$4.00 large
$7.50 evil empire is out to get me (largest available)
$15.00 world is out to get us family pack (one of each size)

Be the envy of your local meeting (we know you have meetings)

Shipping included. Shipped in a flat envelope, some assembly required.

 

[Gipraw]

I think this has got out of hand. There are those that don't agree on the Army sponsoring the DSR dragster and those who do agree.

The men and women who are actually in the recruiting billets and get evaluated on how well they do their job think the sponsorships are extremely valuable to them and make their job easier. Shouldn't those opinions carry the most weight?

 

[Gordon]

Is this a political issue? Yes, I suppose it probably is, but it relates directly to a Top Fuel Team so it is NHRA related and despite it's political overtures, probably belongs right here in the NHRA section. Still, I leave the final decision where it belongs, with the Moderators.

It's easy to try to redirect attention when something we love is in the crosshairs. In this case, it's DSR's Top Fuel team (as well as it's remaining cars who carry associate sponsorhip signage). But saying the U.S. government shouldn't concern itself with saving the money that is spent on racing sponsorships to promote the military because the President spends too much on lavish vacations, etc., is extremely pointless and will never serve to solve the tremendous deficit the government has created. The way we, as Americans, stop the President (and Congress) from spending money irresponsibly is by casting our vote when the time comes - not by arguing to keep sponsorship for a racing team.

Does having military sponsorship on the side of race cars generate interest in the military? Yes - No doubt about it. And I'm sure there are people in the Army today who are in because of DSR and the wonderful job they've done over the years. But in today's financial climate, when cuts are being made to national defense budgets, we have to decide where best to save money and I, for one, believe missiles, guns, ammunition, ships, aircraft, tanks, and armor are far more important than a race car... and I bet Don (& Tony) would agree if asked. After all, if we can't defend this great nation and the freedoms it offers - there may not be any racing whatsoever, for anybody.

My #1 fear today is that we're approaching a point in time when more than 50% of Americans are taking their freedom for granted and don't understand their role in preserving it. I was at a race yesterday and during the playing of the National Anthem I saw far too many folks (racers) standing around with their hats on chatting and joking around rather than honoring our flag and what it represents. Despite laws updated in January 1993 regarding conduct during the playing of the National Anthem, these people displayed complete disregard and acted as if it just doesn't matter. I fear similar apathy is spreading and though I don't think I need a tin foil hat, I do believe there is reason for concern.

God bless the U.S.A. and the fact that we can debate this topic freely.

 

[clwill]

The argument that our military is somehow underfunded is patently ridiculous on its face. Spend a couple of minutes looking at this: List of countries by military expenditures We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined, and about 5x what the number two country (China) spends. What possible military objective does that serve, other than to line the pockets of the companies that make the hardware?

You can argue all day and night about how that money is spent, but trying to compare our military spending to anything else (us foreign aid spending, white house entertainment, whatever) is just ridiculous and petty. It is many, many times all of those.

So if you want to argue that we should spend more of that money on soldiers' pay and benefits, I'm good with that (and you'd be right). If you want to argue that recruitment expenditures are unnecessary, fine. If you want to argue whether the army should spend its promotional budget on DSR, cool. But don't try to argue we're somehow underfunding the armed forces.

 

[Dragracer]

The total military budget which includes all the military branches also includes the CIA & NSA and all the ship building, planes, etc. is 9% of the Proposed Annual Budget. Don't take me wrong because 9% is not exactly a drop in the bucket but it is the lowest in many years. I don't know what that means in $$'s.

I think "part" of the reason we spend more than any other country is we are the country that invents and manufactures our own weapons, aircraft, ships and other military items. Then we sell or give away these items to our "so called" friends for less than it costs or nothing. How does that work in Economics 101?

 

[Gordon]

The argument that our military is somehow underfunded is patently ridiculous on its face. Spend a couple of minutes looking at this: List of countries by military expenditures We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined, and about 5x what the number two country (China) spends. What possible military objective does that serve, other than to line the pockets of the companies that make the hardware?

You can argue all day and night about how that money is spent, but trying to compare our military spending to anything else (us foreign aid spending, white house entertainment, whatever) is just ridiculous and petty. It is many, many times all of those.

So if you want to argue that we should spend more of that money on soldiers' pay and benefits, I'm good with that (and you'd be right). If you want to argue that recruitment expenditures are unnecessary, fine. If you want to argue whether the army should spend its promotional budget on DSR, cool. But don't try to argue we're somehow underfunding the armed forces.

The issue isn't about how much our government spends on our military, the issue is about how much our government HAS to spend on our military. The country is in debt to the tune of nearly 18 TRILLION dollars!

Ask yourself these questions. Why isn't JR Todd racing in Top Fuel at every event? How about the Johnson's in Pro Stock? Doug Herbert? Skuza? As I'm sure you're aware, it's largely, if not solely because they don't have the money to do so. If you don't have money, you can't (or shouldn't) be spending it. It's been said that our government spends money like a drunken Sailor on liberty, but I gotta tell ya - I've been a drunken Sailor on liberty and when I ran out of money I went back to the ship. Our government just keeps borrowing from China... so if we're borrowing because we need it to defend the nation (which opens an entirely new argument that would be more suited for the politics room), then that's one thing, but if we're using even a penny of borrowed money to fund race teams it should stop, despite the fringe benefits of doing so.

My point is, and has been, that the government needs to start cutting where it can, and nothing should be considered untouchable, because if everything is considered untouchable we'll never begin to make progress towards cutting into the deficit. It is this poster's belief that despite my sincere appreciation for everything the DSR teams in general and Tony's team in particular, have done for the U.S. Army, they need to seek sponsorship elsewhere - and that applies to the NASCAR teams as well.

 

[cephus]

if it is so great then why aren't the marines, air force, navy, coast guard, national guard also n the deal and why not a true x- serviceman like jack Beckman n the seat ,,, who actually served our country at least Jack is
legit

 

[Gipraw]

Study Confirms Value of Professional Sports Sponsorships to National Guard Recruiting | National Guard Association of the United States


WASHINGTON (May 16, 2013) A respected independent research firm has confirmed the value that professional sports sponsorships provide the National Guard in recruiting and retaining high-quality soldiers.
Alan Newman Research of Richmond, Va., found that 90 percent of Army National Guard soldiers who enlisted or re-enlisted since 2007 were exposed to the Guard through recruiting or retention materials featuring NASCAR cars and/or drivers.
Of those who enlisted or re-enlisted during that time period, 85 percent agree that professional sports are beneficial to attracting and retaining good soldiers.
The survey also found that racing fans are an especially receptive group for the Army National Guard. NASCAR enthusiasts aged 18 to 34 — the Guard’s target recruiting audience — are twice as likely to consider a military career than nonfans.
The Army National Guard turned to professional sports sponsorships in 2007 when traditional, more expensive recruiting efforts were failing to attract enough quality applicants. The force has since seen a surge in recruiting with some units having to turn away potential enlistees.

 

[Gipraw]

My point is, and has been, that the government needs to start cutting where it can, and nothing should be considered untouchable, because if everything is considered untouchable we'll never begin to make progress towards cutting into the deficit. It is this poster's belief that despite my sincere appreciation for everything the DSR teams in general and Tony's team in particular, have done for the U.S. Army, they need to seek sponsorship elsewhere - and that applies to the NASCAR teams as well.

So is your issue how much they spend on recruiting, or where they spend the dollars? In my opinion, one conversation makes sense, one doesn't.

It is in all of the service branches best interest to effectively spend their recruiting budget dollars. Once their budget is approved, how they spend it should be their choice, not some politicians that has no clue how things actually work.

 

[mick]

........I will agree that both party representatives in your examples are, indeed, pandering for votes, but to say that it shouldn't matter because it's likely less than 1% of the particular budget is the kind of argument that needs to stop immediately - regardless of the context. If everybody holds on to their .05% and isn't willing to make a sacrifice, we'll never find a solution that actually starts to make a dent in the almost 18 trillion dollar deficit........

gordon, have to agree with you on this point - although very, very small portions of the military branches' recruiting budgets are in question here,
the fact is our debt-GDP ratio has risen uncontrollably (more than doubled) in the last few years (under a myriad of causes tied to w. bush and obama) and at our current pace of borrowing .40 on every dollar spent this debt ratio will only climb.......i agree with you the gov't. has to lower spending, however large or small the amounts are, no one exempt from examination. keep up our current pace and our dollar will truly lose all of it's value and this forum will discuss drag racing and sponsors that used to be.

 

[cephus]

here is an idea give the money to the men and women who serve as a raise god knows they need one

 

[Gordon]

Study Confirms Value of Professional Sports Sponsorships to National Guard Recruiting | National Guard Association of the United States


WASHINGTON (May 16, 2013) A respected independent research firm has confirmed the value that professional sports sponsorships provide the National Guard in recruiting and retaining high-quality soldiers.
Alan Newman Research of Richmond, Va., found that 90 percent of Army National Guard soldiers who enlisted or re-enlisted since 2007 were exposed to the Guard through recruiting or retention materials featuring NASCAR cars and/or drivers.
Of those who enlisted or re-enlisted during that time period, 85 percent agree that professional sports are beneficial to attracting and retaining good soldiers.

I don't doubt that many folks have been exposed to the National Guard, or the Army for that matter, through recruiting & retention materials featuring NASCAR cars and/or drivers. But what the study doesn't tell us is whether or not those same people would've (re)enlisted with or without that exposure. My gut tells me they would've. Having been on active duty since 1985, I've never met a single Sailor, Soldier, Airman or Marine who joined the military SOLELY because of a race car sponsorship. Most join for far more patriotic reasons, and because they're fans of the motorsport in question (NASCAR, NHRA, etc.) will root for the driver of the car with their branch of service displayed on the hood. I will reiterate, however, that I do believe there is value to military sponsorships on race cars, particularly if paired with the right team - as is the case with DSR. But...

So is your issue how much they spend on recruiting, or where they spend the dollars? In my opinion, one conversation makes sense, one doesn't.

It is in all of the service branches best interest to effectively spend their recruiting budget dollars. Once their budget is approved, how they spend it should be their choice, not some politicians that has no clue how things actually work.

It's both, really. And admittedly, I have no idea how much recruiting money each branch of service gets. But if you think for one minute that if Congress were to send the recruiting money to each of the branches to use as they deem appropriate that politics would somehow be removed from the equation, you are sadly mistaken.

Still, if the branches - particularly the National Guard & Army - are receiving enough money for all their recruiting needs (posters, handouts, etc.) AND they have enough to throw money at race teams, I would argue that they're receiving too much.

I know that some will argue, and with some validity, that race car sponsorships are recruiting needs, but we don't know how eliminating race car sponsorships would affect recruiting because there are no current statistics that I'm aware of to tell us.

This isn't a personal vendetta against DSR or any of the NASCAR teams, it's merely my thoughts on one small way to save the government some money in an attempt to make sure my grandchildren's grandchildren aren't paying off a debt my generation left them with.

 

[Gipraw]

I know that some will argue, and with some validity, that race car sponsorships are recruiting needs, but we don't know how eliminating race car sponsorships would affect recruiting because there are no current statistics that I'm aware of to tell us.

We may not know, but the people directly involved do know. The Army and the Air National Guard spend their dollars where they do because in their experience it is the best bang for the buck. The other branches have chosen other avenues.

Furthermore, saying that spending money on a race team sponsorship is a waste of money, but spending it on a baseball team sponsorship isn't is crazy, and that is basically what these bills do by limiting what sports are allowed and what aren't.

Telling them where they can spend their recruiting budget is micromanagement that is not needed and isn't productive.