Sequester Grounds Blue Angels 341
SchrodingerZ writes "The Blue Angels squadron, known for their intricate and death-defying aerial demonstrations, has canceled all scheduled air shows for the rest of the year. The United States Navy, which controls the Blue Angels, has reported that the grounding comes from the massive rollbacks in spending, due to the 85 billion dollar sequestration given by the federal government. In a statement from the office of the Commander Naval Air Forces in San Diego, the Navy said, 'Recognizing budget realities, current Defense policy states that outreach events can only be supported with local assets at no cost to the governmen.' Currently, the cost of an air show is above $100,000. This story came just a week after the announcement by the Air Force that their Thunderbird shows will also be canceled."
good. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a GREAT place to stop spending money we don't have. If ticket sales can't cover the costs, fuck 'em.
Re:good. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a GREAT place to stop spending money we don't have. If ticket sales can't cover the costs, fuck 'em.
But how will the US government continue with their policy of bread and circuses without circuses?
Re:good. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If only they did... But people might start to dream, maybe even that American Dream, that could be dangerous. They might, ya know, think they could climb that social ladder, and when they notice they can't... not a good idea, nono.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So... we had a flying team to subsidize random private businesses? No wonder we have problems.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Shutdown White House Tours - Check
Yet, none of these sequester cuts seem to keep the Obama White House from partying like there is no tomorrow. The one last night [whitehousedossier.com] was an all star blow out.
I wonder how much that one cost the tax payers?
Re: (Score:3)
Probably nothing. Did you bother to look it up, or are you just channeling Glenn Beck, asking "questions?"
Re:good. (Score:4, Informative)
He didn't travel. So there's a shit load of savings right there.
I love the distortion too. No mention that it is part of the "In performance at the White House" program has been around since 1978 and airs on PBS and American Forces Network nor that "Corporate funding for this program is provided by Pepsi-Cola. Foundation support is provided by The Annenberg Foundation and the Anne Ray Charitable Trust. Major funding is also provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS and public television viewers. Support programming like In Performance at The White House through your local PBS station."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How many businesses really depend on shows that usually are only there about twice a year or whatever?
Sure its a great bonus, but if your business depends on it, you may have been investing wrongly. Especially since you claim local businesses, not ones that would follow the airshow wherever they go.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Private profits for socialized losses...
yeah... we need less of that bullshit now.
sucking money out of EVERYONES pocket for a few tourist related companies to make money. fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and local businesses who depend on these air shows for tourist income will flirt with failure and pit more people out of work, fucktard.
Let those "local businesses" pay for it themselves. Why should the government be subsidizing everybody?
Re:good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and local businesses who depend on these air shows for tourist income will flirt with failure and pit more people out of work, fucktard.
So let's take the money and use it to start fixing our massive national infrastructure problems. Because... you know. Hiring people to do work that needs doing seems like a more efficient way to put people to work than showing off fancy airplanes.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop peddling that argument. Private solutions are never cheaper. Even if they could be done more cheaply, it only increases the profit margin.
Re: (Score:2)
Private solutions are never cheaper.
LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
If Army is so cheap, how come I can hire a clown for my daughter birthday from the private sector?
Er, because the army doesn't, and has never dealt with the business of clowns, at least not intentionally. :)
Compare with the US Air Force, where planes and flying have some, er.... *minor* involvement in their raison d'etre.
Where's the Army clown here to entertain my daughter for cheaper, yet still more profit?
There aren't any, all the clowns gravitated towards the private sector. ;-)
:-P I'm not concerned whether or not the US funds or doesn't fund an aerial display team I hadn't even heard of until toda
Disclaimer: I'm only saying this because I think your clowns analogy is rather silly.
Re:good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Great idea mate! That would really start to make some budget savings.
I think you've just found the solution!
Re:good. (Score:5, Insightful)
If we had stayed out of Iraq, we could have saved more than a decade's worth of the sequestration. The F35 cost us another 15 years worth so far. So we're up to 25 years worth without a single person feeling a pinch.
Throw in taxing the 1% as much as the middle class pays and we're flush with cash.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you had stayed out of Iraq, Hussein would have started selling oil for Euros, which would have been the beginning of the end for the petro-dollar. You could not afford not to invade Iraq.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
China has begun their own version of SWIFT and starting on Sept 6th, 2012, announced to the world that anyone who wants to buy or sell oil may use the Renminbi/Juan instead of the US Dollar. So far, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have begun to use this system when selling oil to China. More and more countries are dropping the USD for the Renminbi/Juan when trading with China and others. After Obama's disasterous meeting in Cambodia in Nov of 2012 which Asian/Oceanus countries told him that the US will not
Re:good. (Score:5, Insightful)
The F35 cost us another 15 years worth so far. So we're up to 25 years worth without a single person feeling a pinch.
I generally agree with your sentiments, but this one isn't quite true: The people that would definitely feel the pinch if we killed the F35 are all the people who currently work on designing and building it. And that makes a difference, because a fair number of Congresscritters get their seats by promising to bring home the military pork spending. Even Congresscritters who's stated position is that we need to "cut spending".
Re:good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:good. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but they are a good PR show, and they can easily boost support for the armed forces. Even if the kid may not be material to become a pilot, the very least he'll take away from the air show is that he was well entertained by our "men at arms" and that the army (navy, whatever) is a good thing.
Else, what's he gonna get? A recruitment goon at his school who may or may not woo him with ... well, more or less empty promises, and evening news telling us how yet another bunch of our kids died and how some others piss on enemy's graves while taking pics of it with their iPhone.
Re:good. (Score:4, Insightful)
What could be a better PR mouthpiece for the US military than Fox News?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What could be a better PR mouthpiece for the US military than Fox News?
All those programs/movies showing how Obama single-handedly shot Bin Laden?
All the "USA, fuck yeah!" military programs on Discovery?
The "Serviceman comes home" Ford Mustang commercials?
etc.
A few "Join the Army" stands in low-income-area shopping malls will fill the ranks more than the Blue Angels ever will.
Re:good. (Score:4, Interesting)
And why hasn't NASCAR been paying for those military flyovers for every race [which also were just cancelled]? Or is it 'payment in kind' by mentioning the military as part of the starting ceremony?
Re:good. (Score:5, Informative)
The flyovers are typically done as part of routine training hours flights. Pilots and their air crews are required to spend a minimum number of hours in the air, to keep up with their training requirements. This includes fighter pilots, as well as bomber and cargo aircraft pilots. That's why sometimes you'll get a formation of F-16s, and sometimes it'll be a lone B-52. The flyovers might be 1/100th of what a typical training flight would include.
Re:good. (Score:4, Insightful)
yes, thats it. mod down the truth. davester is clueless, the flights ARE already paid for as training. jackknife is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had any modpoints (and hadn't commented in this thread) I'd mod you up, simply for your signature. All hail the brain slug!
Re:good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the kid may not be material to become a pilot, the very least he'll take away from the air show is that he was well entertained by our "men at arms" and that the army (navy, whatever) is a good thing.
Or they could just rerun Top Gun on TV - same thing (except more people will see it).
Re:good. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am seriously shocked that someone thinks that the military should spend millions of dollars of taxpayer funding on public relations. It is bad enough that the services spend a boat load on recruitment using glitzy tv ads during major sporting events at a time when they reject the vast majority of applicants.
If people want these types of airshows they should pay a ticket price which covers the cost. In the same manner, no active duty soldier should be participating nor should any equipment attached to the armed forces be used. There are plenty of ex-pilots who could do this for pay and using retired equipment purchased from the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually think that the government is in the business of selling off its weapons systems? Sure, after World War II, when the military made a huge leap to jet powered aircraft, they sold P-51s and the like in droves, and many are still flown today. Others, like B-17s, B-24s, etc, were purchased by heritage groups that want to continue flying them for history's sake. That said, post-WWII, it's very rare that something like a F-4 makes its way to private hands, and it's damn near impossible for anyth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a lot of them go on to become mechanics on the birds if they cant qualify for flying them.
Re:good. (Score:5, Informative)
Going to airshows and military installations as a kid inspired me to try to go to the Naval Academy, in the hopes that I could fly. As it turned out, I couldn't get the Congressional appointment that's required, and it's nigh on impossible to fly if you didn't go to a service academy, so here I am, building weapons systems for the military to use, rather than actually using them.
They're a great recruiting tool, and they help to inspire legions of young men and women to join the armed forces when they're older.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Next cut Welfare payments in 1/2 and stop paying for anchor babies after the 2nd child.
I'm curious, how much money would that actually save? How many people are there in the US with three anchor babies on welfare?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just to be fair... could you also describe the positive influence of those illegal aliens if there are any ?
I'd imagine they are atleast exceptionally cheap workers who wont mind crappy working conditions. How important for the economy are they really in that regard ?
It would also be interesting to actually discuss how money could be spent to help them in ways that will also pay of for everyone else in the future or atleast reduce future costs.
Re: (Score:3)
But for the rest of us they're a strain on government services and competition for jobs.
This is why the 1% of both political parties support illegal immigration.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You don't eat in fast food restaurants? You don't have garbage pickup service? You don't shop in big box stores or shopping malls? You never get your oil changed at a mechanic shop? Pretty much any low-skilled labor task you can imagine... I think you'd be surprised how many cheap services from illegal alien labor you (indirectly) use every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Garbage services make a crapload of money, and many of them, even in small towns, are unionized. Big box stores and shopping malls don't use illegal immigrants for the simple fact that they're too big for a scandal, and most require background checks for any of their employees. Fast food? Different story, with the exception of larger chains, like McDonald's and Burger King. Landscaping? Same thing.
The importance of supercheap immigrant labor is vastly overstated in this country, and the drain on the ec
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine they are atleast exceptionally cheap workers who wont mind crappy working conditions. How important for the economy are they really in that regard ?
Important for the economy? You have no idea how this works, do you? They're important to the economy. See, when there's labor available cheap, it is devalued. This should not be a complex concept, but I notice you couldn't figure out how to log in, either. The reason no one should be permitted to work for less than minimum wage is that a race to the bottom is something no one wins.
Re:good. (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of chicano (no, that's not slang, look it up) groups idolize Caesar Chavez. Most don't know though that he hated illegal immigrants, badly. I don't know if this is because he didn't like how they worked, or if it was because they competed with his labor model.
Also, unrelated but interesting, the more activist chicanos idolize Che Guevara, who very vocally hated Mexicans in general.
Re:good. (Score:4, Insightful)
They work cheap, but that's only good for people who don't seem to care for the long term.
wrong... that's all anyone cares about in the long term (including consumers)
proof: how much stuff in your house ISN'T made in China?
Navy budget is $180 billion (Score:5, Insightful)
"studies estimates nearly $2 billion dollars goes to illegal aliens annually"
Navy Budget is $180 billion, and that's just the Navy part, not the army, Airforce, NSA CIA etc.
At some point you gotta bite the bullet and trim it, not 'pretend trim it', not 'increase it this time (again) and promise to cut it in future', CUT IT!
Suppose illegal immigrants DO cost $2 billion, and you find a way to save that without shifting it to mortuary costs, and road cleaning services and border patrol costs. YOU NEED TO CUT $900 BILLION A YEAR off the budget! Get a grip, stop making excuses, stop blaming other, CUT SPENDING, RAISE TAXES, get on and fix it already!
Re: (Score:2)
you don't honestly think politicians give a shit about balancing the budget do you?
the only statesman willing and able to see past the next election was Ron Paul, and US voters fucked up their chances to vote him into the presidency multiple times... apparently US voters don't give a shit about balancing the budget either, instead not being able to see past their next welfare check and/or food stamp
regardless of how many battles the mighty US military fights and wins, america's biggest threat is itself, and
Re: (Score:2)
the only statesman willing and able to see past the next election was Ron Paul, and US voters fucked up their chances to vote him into the presidency multiple times'
That's because voters realize that while budget deficits are bad, putting crazed hard-core libertarians into power and turning this nation into a banana republic would be much worse.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The budget will never be balanced until after an economic collapse happens. I didn't really believe this myself until after the sequester happened.
Have you ever seen one of those mock newscasts where the news anchors and reporters are reporting an alien invasion? They do a pretty good job of making it surreal in many cases. Arne Duncan put on a show like a disaster was already in progress with regard to teachers being fired as he spoke. Just like the mock newscasts, was all bullshit, but it created a media
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Considering the exposure they get, $100K a show is very cheap as advertising rates go.
Advertising is good when you're trying to expand a business.
Right now the military needs to do the opposite.
They'll be flying drones soon anyway so all the training/recruitment can be done via Xbox.
Re: (Score:2)
The air shows are a good public relations and recruiting tool.
They can cut the funding in the short term, but in the longer term they'd have to spend a lot more on traditional advertising to get the same exposure.
Considering the exposure they get, $100K a show is very cheap as advertising rates go.
why the fuck do they need exposure? they already have enough recruits - more and more isn't the way to go, and if they run out and they have a _real_ need they can always go drafting. seriously, you're justifying that it's a good expense since it's good bang for buck FOR ADVERTISING! ADVERTISING THE FUCKING MILITARY?? is it wwf?? WHAT THE FUCK.
Re:good. (Score:4, Insightful)
I can think of a fantastic way for the US military to reduce recruiting costs AND increase recruiting.
Operate ethically. Stop going to war for lies and treasure. Demonstrate (not just talk about) care for servicefolks and vets.
I almost applied to enlist in the AF as a teenager, but in the end my conscience couldn't support it. I wanted to support my country, but the politics of the last half century of American warfare has made most of the country appropriately skeptical. I was worried that I'd be used as a murderbot and then dumped if I break. My recent experiences talking with some new vets has confirmed my worst fears, too. I still think I made the right choice, but it makes me sad as well.
If the military thinks advertising and PR can "fix" their recruiting problems without altering their actual behavior, they're acting like every huge corporation - actions don't matter, only spin. It's sickening.
Re: (Score:3)
Operate ethically. Stop going to war for lies and treasure. Demonstrate (not just talk about) care for servicefolks and vets.
You know that the military doesn't have anything to do with this, do you? It is the civilian government that sets the budget and authorizes sending of troops into battle and what weapon systems to buy and from whom and what bases to keep open and shutdown (in the US anyhow). So are you saying that this is a recruitment disaster for the washington DC political cartel? I think not. If anything, it's a boon.
Basically, the military in the US is given a certain pile of money for a congressionally mandated re
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Washington monument gambit, again. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, while the federal government as a whole is only slowing the rate of increase, the defense department specifically does have real cuts.
Of course your point is still correct-- the blue angels are being targetted to make it publicly visible.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The defense department should be cut back, too. It needs to be cut way back.
Re:Washington monument gambit, again. (Score:5, Insightful)
You could cancel the entire defense department and chop out only half a year's deficit.
Your normal inter-party memefest blaming each other fails, that's how out of control spending is. These idiots are talking about saving a trillion over 10 years, borrowing more than that every year.
You could tax 100% of the income of the rich and get about $500 billion a year more than now. Assuming they continue to work for 0$ a year. You can't balance without taxing the middle class, which won't happen. And even that won't be enough to begin to cover the $40 trillion in still-unfunded retirement liabilities of all retirement funds from SS to county and city promised pensions -- promised by politicians long gone to buy labor peace, knowing they wouldn't have to deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus Christ! Finally, a sane, rational thought! THANK YOU!!!
Re: (Score:2)
In order to make your point effectively, you need to say how much more money than the $500 billion we'd potentially get by taxing the middle class or poor at the similar rate of 100%. (Of course, define the thresholds for rich and middle class as well).
Re: (Score:2)
(Just talking discretionary here)
1. Not true. It would actually account for ~70% of the deficit(and 30% of the entire budget)
2. "One year's deficit" is a completely absurd misnomer. It would affect every fucking year's deficit.
3. You could cut literally every other agency's discretionary budget to nothing for the less savings. Do the math yourself, please [wikipedia.org]
Now, I'm not denying that you could cut social security and medicare and medicaid for a lot of savings, but the fact that you're lying ought to be mad
Re: (Score:2)
But that doesn't mean they haven't made cuts that are aren't quite so visible to the general public or so likely to garner widespread (national) media attention and aren't prepared go further.
PSNS [wikipedia.org] is close enough to my house that I can hear Colors
Re: (Score:2)
So they have to furlough to make up for the overall budget increase?
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/02/media-hype-over-sequester-cuts.html [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There are no cuts in the so-called "sequester cuts".
Bullshit. Tell that to the people taking a forced 20% pay cut for the rest of the year and likely into the next, via mandated furloughs.
If there are no cuts then there's no need to change anything, and you can just keep spendign like the year before. No need for furloughs, no need to ground planes, etc.
This "there are no cuts" BS is just that: BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Who are these people and why aren't they protesting/rioting in the streets?
How bad are their managers if they couldn't at least maintain their department's payroll from one year to the next?
Re: (Score:2)
I entirely agree with your points, but I'd point out that since the US gov't has been borrowing to cover ongoing budget shortfalls for years, TECHNICALLY there are a lot of things that they "paid for" last year that they actually couldn't afford.
Re: (Score:2)
The US military is mostly a useless pork-barrel project, too.
Pretty soon it will be all drones and robots. A single regiment with helicopter can probably cover the part that needs men on the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit I LIKED the poll tax. Right now I'm paying more per adult for use of council services than any house containing two or more adults, and most of those have two or more incomes.
Meanwhile because I don't have kids, I'm not old, I'm not physically disabled, I don't need a subsidised bus service, I don't even use most of the council services.
A poll tax would at least put me on an equal financial footing with all of those households that cause the council funding needs to be so high.
Local businesses will feel this (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
From the rest of us: You're fucking welcome we have been paying for this so your businesses can make a profit for their PRIVATE companys.
Lets stop doing that shit now. because socialisim is bad m'kay.
Re: (Score:2)
From the rest of us: You're fucking welcome we have been paying for this so your businesses can make a profit for their PRIVATE companys.
Lets stop doing that shit now. because socialisim is bad m'kay.
So... You want a bunch of little guys to come together and collectively fund an air show for the good of all.... Yet you're against socialism. I think you need a dictionary, son.
Socialism and Capitalism work hand in hand. One without the othe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The term you're looking for isn't socialism, it's Fascism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFlKJmE4gVE [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"The merger of state and government is called fascism." -Gerald Celente
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFlKJmE4gVE [youtube.com]
Bad last link (Score:3)
Here is (was) their performance schedule. [airshow.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they don't have the same draw as the Blue Angels.
Still, it was kind of a bummer to see the canceled list. I've seen them here at Nellis several times.
In spirit I share your sacrafice! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, duh...
Be honest, if you could set your income yourself, and decide where to cut spending, while at the same time neither being in any way accountable for the expenses nor having to be in any way cost efficient, where'd you make the cut? Your salary?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no - one of the reforms enacted in the past is that a sitting congress can only alter pay of future congresses, not their own. Presumably, this is designed to keep a sitting congress from voting themselves $1 billion or something similarly outrageous in salary.
They could still refund a portion of their salaries. Most (if not all) wouldn't even have to tighten their belts if they refunded 100% for a year or two, and it would be a major gesture of solidarity.
I mean, they won't, because fuck us, that's why. But they could.
Re: (Score:2)
This only affected how soon the congress people receive their pay raise. Look at the ridiculous incumbency rate despite of low approval ratings.
yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah don't stop the trillion dollar wars.
Don't stop the money printing.
Don't stop the money wasting.
Stop the stupid air shows, close down airport towers..
Austerity for all except the bankers, the war mongers blah..
Idea (Score:2)
Dumb. (Score:3)
What they really need to do is end the F-35 and F22 Raptor programs. That will free up "assloads" of money.
Re: (Score:2)
or they could allow the F-22 to be sold abroad - OR EVEN JUST WITHIN NORAD - where it would be a far better fit for Canada's Arctic Patrol requirement than the single engine F-35 - after all that's what USAF themselves fly out of Alaska to intercept pesky Russian varmints flying too close to Sarah Palin's house. (Although RCAF would probably want a probe and drogue refuel which would complicate matters)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not so fast Charley. Yes, you've 'lost' quite a bit of sunk expense but there are still enormous real dollars that will have to be spent to keep those useless birds fed, flying and fixed. If you were really worried about that, you could put the planes in a long term development mode (where they belong anyway) and keep iterating the things until we have a need to such an advanced weapon. Drop out 90% of funds and make Lockheed Martin actually work for a living. Despite all the scary talk, China hasn't mov
Re: (Score:2)
We can probably counter the North Vietnamese threat
The war is over man
What war? It was just a simple police action.
Re: (Score:3)
AC:
ColdWetDog:
AC:
Re: (Score:2)
Ending the F-22 program won't save a dime.
Apart from the billions in running costs...
Seriously, there's only 300-odd million Americans and not all of them pay taxes (maybe more than half).
A billion here, a billion there, it adds up.
Re: (Score:2)
300-odd million Americans and not all of them pay taxes (maybe more than half).
Maybe less than half. The only Americans who don't pay taxes are the ones with tax shelters.
Re: (Score:2)
I was almost with you up until that last sentence...
I agree that most of the money for the F-22 and F-35 has already been spent and we can't get it back. But that doesn't mean we need to keep throwing money at it. Will a fleet of 500 raptors do something for us that a fleet of 170 won't?
As for the constitution, the first sentence includes the phrase "promote the general welfare" amongst the things the federal government is there to do. Whereas the constitution only authorizes an army and a navy, so if anyth
Sequestration did not cut budget (Score:5, Informative)
The sequestration portrayed in the press as reckless budget slashing is anything but. In actuality, it's a slightly lower rate of increase.
For 2013, the announced 'sequestration' is $84B in a $3600B budget which is an increase of about $140B over last year's. So by the official numbers, the 'cuts' are actually an increase of ~$56B. To go on, half of that $84B decrease actually doesn't take place until later years but is represented in 2013 via accounting sleight-of-hand. So in the end those crazy sequestration cuts - closing air-traffic towers, grounding the Blue Angels, and ending White House tours - are really a $100B increase over last year.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Tell that to the people taking a forced 20% pay cut for the rest of the year and likely into the next, via mandated furloughs.
If there are no cuts then there's no need to change anything, and you can just keep spendign like the year before. No need for furloughs, no need to ground planes, etc.
You are conflating one whole pie with another whole pie, and ignoring the changes to all the little pieces.
This "there are no cuts" BS is just that: BS.
Yes, you CAN spend more than last year, or you can (Score:3)
there's no need to change anything, and you can just keep spendign like the year before. No need for furloughs, no need to ground planes, etc.
Yes, when you get MORE money, there's no NEED to furlough anyone. Furloughs can, however, be great political theatre for politicians who want to get even more of your money next year.
Re: (Score:2)
The cuts are being made because they are great theater.
Massive? (Score:2)
The United States Navy, which controls the Blue Angels, has reported that the grounding comes from the massive rollbacks in spending ...
Defense spending outlays (including "overseas contingency operations" for Iraq and Afghanistan) will be reduced from $670.3 billion in 2012 to approximately $627.6 billion in 2013, a decrease of $42.7 billion or 6.4%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Sequestration [wikipedia.org]
Definition of Massive (adj)
1.bulky: large, solid, and heavy
2.comparatively large: large in comparison with what
Re: (Score:2)
What does this have to do with technology? Or is it just another example of writers on Slashdot trying to push a liberal agenda?
The tag line for Slashdot used to read: News for nerds, stuff that matters.
I would classify this as news for nerds, as I know a bunch of "nerds" (like myself) that are really into jets and such. Heck, I know one guy who has at least 3 f idfferent F-18 posters in his apartment and he's not in the military (nor is anyone in his family).
By the same token, "stuff that matters" would cover Slashdot posting a big non-tech stories. Such as when 9/11 was going on.
Re:How About Blue Drones? (Score:4, Funny)
Wouldn't a "Blue Drones" show be cheaper, and still fuel business at the public events? Besides, the kids could get a chance at flying live, in special booths on the ground. Fully sublimated, of course.
Let's let that Ender kid have the first go.