Should NASCAR get $45 million from taxpayers? Maddow twit...

[1776Forever]

Something GOP doesn't want to cut: Funding for NASCAR
By Barbara Barrett | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The Minnesota Democrat who's out to get rid of the Pentagon's sponsorships for NASCAR teams says she won't back away from her efforts and, despite GOP resistance, will broaden her fight to repeal tax breaks for track owners, too....

Rep. Betty McCollum says her work could save American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. But Defense Department officials and lawmakers from NASCAR country say the sponsorships help military recruitment, and that the tax breaks could save jobs in the struggling economy.

(more at link)

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/25/109477/something-gop-doesnt-want-to-cut.html#ixzz1FHmiEUL7

[MineralMan]

1. Not a freaking penny, in my opinion.

BTW, that's my congress member. Betty's a great representative. I'm sending her an email in support of this right now.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. But, but, but it's for the military........

....that makes it ok to some, I guess.

[DebJ]

3. So how many jobs does that save? 15-20? Arghh... n/t

[BeFree]

4. Shhhhhhh..

If the teabaggers find out about this they'll crash and burn.

People, you must think of the teabaggers and stop making it hard to give the rich leets of nascar more and more and more money. They need your money! How dare you deny them more money?

:puke:

[MindPilot]

5. So it's okay to throw people out of work...essentially shuttering a business

as long as we disapprove of the nature of their work?

[DoBotherMe]

6. Aren't the dollars mainly for sponsorship/advertising

that the military hopes is converted to enlistments? Dana ; )

[MindPilot]

10. Yes, and that is how the teams are financed.

But that money doesn't just vanish into the ether. In addition to what you see on TV, there are mechanics, welders, painters...all kinds of ordinary jobs that depend on that advertising/sponsorship money coming in.

[Mojeoux]

7. I would rather shut down the Military Industrial Complex

But, why does NASCAR need money from taxes?

[MindPilot]

11. Now you are talking about my job.

I work for a DoD contractor. You would like to see me unemployed?

Of course NASCAR doesn't need tax money, but it is a very effective advertising venue and as such the military uses that for recruiting. No different than paying a studio to create an ad, then buying time from a tv network to run it. All along the way that money keeps people employed.

As much as most of us would prefer that there be no huge military budget and that the MIC didn't exist, it is the most effective jobs program we currently have.

[Dappleganger]

23. We should keep feeding the War Machine Giant because it give people jobs???

Seriously, I have taken a wrong turn again this morning.

NO. I grew up in VA and we have family who built a business which is 80% DoD contract work, and I would still say HELL NO.

You may need to find or make a job elsewhere, but we are where we are today economically in part due to the mismanagement and over-indulgence of the War Machine economy. MY family has been laid off several times so we do know what it's like to be out of work, and one of those times was due to a DoD contract being lost--but still, we have to put this monster to sleep and create an economy not based on US imperialistic fantasies.

[Badfish]

40. His logic tells us...

more war is good cause it creates jobs.

[jmowreader]

58. NASCAR is just another place to advertise, to the military

The total DOD recruiting budget--military auto racing sponsorships fall under the recruiting budget--is nearly $8 billion.

The BIG question is, why does Don Schumacher--google "Don Schumacher nitromethane"--need money from taxes?

[Badfish]

13. Yes , thats right.

If the money is used to create a larger army for waging wars , .....then yes , fuck those jobs.

[MindPilot]

15. I think you are the lowest count poster I've ever put on ignore.

You're fired.

[Badfish]

21. We could also open up torture clinics across this nation...

creating thousands of jobs.

using your twisted logic , we should go for it cause it creates jobs.

After all , not agreeing with the issue doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

Take a bow.

[Modern_Matthew]

17. +1

[DainBramaged]

8. NASCAR still has a Southern State hillbilly mentality

I love NASCAR, said it loud and long here, but they ain't going nowhere further until they stop with the PANDERING TO THE GOOD OLE BOYS, decide that the rock & roll lifestyle is not your country uncle's next door neighbor, enough with the prayers before the race, decide that becoming a part of the digital era is a must, and use 100% ethanol in FUEL INJECTED motors instead of 15% bullshit with carbs.


Those boys don't need the fucking taxpayers money, not a dime.

[Obamanaut]

59. I 'rec' the last line of your post. And most of the rest as well. nt

[sarcasmo]

9. No way.

[Blue_Tires]

12. That money should have been pulled away years ago, for a multitude of reasons...

But it is funny to see these GOP acrobatics in defense of their little sacred cows in this current fad of scorched earth, penny-pinching budget slashing...

[One_Life_To_Give]

14. One team out of 45?

Symbolism here is perhaps more important than this being a good choice for advertising dollars or not.

For Nascar it means Ryan Newman's Stewart-Haas Chevrolet team would need to find a new major sponsor.
And Nascars most popular driver Dale Earnhardt Junior's Hendrick Chevrolet would have to choose who to replace the National Guard sponsorship. (Junior probably has a waiting list due to the sheer airtime he gets)

[Modern_Matthew]

16. No tax dollars for ANY sport. Period. n/t

[Little Star]

20. +1

[lonestarnot]

18. Not one red cent!

How dare them! Only thing they do to their credit is turn LEFT!

[MindPilot]

19. Funny no one seems to have an issue with military sponsorship

of NHRA.

http://www.goarmy.com/army-racing/nhra-top-fuel/dragster.html

[bighart]

22. Just for clarity "NASCAR" does not receive $45 million from taxpayers.

There are some NASCAR teams that are sponsored by the military, but there are no government funds going to "NASCAR" as an entity.

[Dappleganger]

24. Where does the military get it's money?

US. More money down the drain.

[bighart]

25. My point is that NASCAR as an organization does not receive

government money. The military sponsors some teams that are a part of that organization but that does not equate to the government directly funding NASCAR. The military also has sponsorships in NHRAand IRL and I would bet there are more. To pick out a NASCAR sponsorship as the one that needs to go just seems questionable to me, almost bigoted (as in those damned rednecks), and I am not a particular fan of NASCAR but do like NHRA and IRL racing.

[Dappleganger]

26. You're really stretching it.

Bigoted? No, just fucking wasteful. It also is a pet project with OUR tax money which could be put to better use and help those who need it most in this country.

BTW, I am from the south and still live here and this outcry is anything but bigoted.

[bighart]

28. So why single out a NASCAR sponsorship?

Why not military sponsorship for all motor sports, or all sports period, should be banned? I find it rather seemly that ONLY NASCAR sponsorship is being discussed for defunding.

[Dappleganger]

29. That's just the beginning.

Start with NASCAR, move on to the other sports.

Why are you so defensive of them anyway, it's not like they don't have millions of dollars thrown at them by corporate sponsors already.

[bighart]

31. I am not defending NASCAR but it is really questionable in my mind

to single out a sponsorship, possibly one of the more effective from a recruitment standpoint. It just really looks like a big FU to NASCAR fans who tend to be southerners and are stereotyped as rednecks.

[Dappleganger]

38. Oh ok, so you're defending rednecks.

That probably won't go over so well around here, just an fyi.

And if that's a big FU to NASCAR fans, big deal--they have PLENTY of other corpoRATs in the wings wanting sponsorships. I don't think that the military should be advertising to the gullible anyway.

[bighart]

39. My real issue is one of fairness.

I don't like the idea or even appearance of the whole "we don't like them so let's mess with them" approach, after all isn't that the kind of mentality behind all of the birther arguments.
If the goal of advertising, which is essentially what a sports sponsorship is, is to get your message to a target audience then I would think NASCAR would pay a big ROI.

[Dappleganger]

41. Well you are arguing to excuse this...

so that hardly seems FAIR. We want to stop all military advertising--are they having recruiting issues again? NO.

The war machine needs to be de-funded.

[bighart]

42. Show me where any official has suggested or proposed that we

"stop all military advertising". The article linked specifically singles out NASCAR, if you have something pointing to an across the board ban or defunding of "all military advertising" I would certainly like to read it.

edited for spelling.

[Dappleganger]

44. I stated my opinion, that isn't their's.

And you are all over this thread defending NASCAR, LOL.

[bighart]

46. My opinion is if you want to restrict military advertising then go ahead but do it across the board.

If the idea is to get the best ROI for advertising dollars than do what anyone who spends advertising dollars does and find out where your dollars are most and least effective and cut out the least effective advertising programs. This is neither.

[JonLP24]

37. Good point

I'm curious if funding also goes to those All-American high school football and basketball all-star games. The reason I wonder is those events are heavily sponsored by the Army.

[bighart]

30. If this really is about the money and the money alone then all

sports sponsorships by the military should be discussed for cuts, not just NASCAR. Additionally all military advertising budgets should be brought into the discussion along with Army's on-line role playing game that is used as a recruitment tool.

[bighart]

32. What exactly am I stretching?

[Johonny]

27. i say yes

Going around in circles perfectly describes to the average american the us wars in afghanistan and iraq. Join the military, if you liked that first trip around the track, good. You're going to be cycling back again and again. Unless you get into a crash.

[GSLevel9]

33. It's not "funding"...

The US is purchasing a product, advertising space on a race car viewed by millions. Cut the NASCAR sponsorships and also cut the advertising in magazines, newspapers and TV.

[Motown_Johnny]

34. cut the funding and add a tax to make up for the money it has already received

[bighart]

36. So do we do the same thing to all military sponsored sporting events

and teams? Better include all newspapers, magazines and radio and tv stations that accept advertising dollars from the military as well.

[Motown_Johnny]

43. not quite the same thing, is it?

Advertising in newspapers, radio, magazines and tv isn't the same. People are not buying the newspaper for the ads nor are they watching the tv show for the commercials.

People do go to see Dale, Ryan and A.J.. Giving them taxpayer money is a mistake.

[MindPilot]

50. How is it not the same?

People don't go to a motorsports event to read the ads on the side of the car any more than they go to a football game to read the ads at the bottom of the scoreboard.

And to reiterate a point another poster made, it's not "giving them taxpayer money", the US government is purchasing a service from a private entity.

[bighart]

60. Please explain how advertising differs from advertising?

That is what a newspaper ad is for and that is what a NASCAR sponsorship is for.

[SidDithers]

35. Should the government spend any money on advertising?...nt

Sid

[fishwax]

45. I still don't see the point of banning sponsorships for one sport

I'd rather see military spending cut than simply shuffled around, and I haven't heard a good reason why spending money to sponsor a NASCAR team is problematic in a way that other advertising/recruiting money isn't.

Getting tax breaks for track owners I can certainly support, though ...

[fittosurvive]

47. They should not make special arrangements for NASCAR. However,

if these funds are coming from the recruiting budget, the decision should be up to the people in charge of recruiting.

If Congress wants to cut these funds from the budget, fine, but they shouldn't try to micro-manage the recruiting process.

[KamaAina]

48. Well, that's $45 million they aren't using to bomb brown people

:eyes:

[Obamanaut]

51. It's also $45 million that is not going to feed hungry children in the US. or

assist some elderly citizens who are going without their Rx, or helping to rebuild defective bridges or roads.

There's plenty of good stuff here those millions could be used for.

[KamaAina]

52. True dat.

Probably should have thrown in a :sarcasm: thingie for good measure.

[Dappleganger]

54. +10000

[bluedigger]

49. It is a waste of time to legislate DOD's marketing plan.

The people who make the decisions on how those dollars are spent should be rewarded or replaced based on their effectiveness, nothing else. Nascar obviously fits their demographics, DU popularity notwithstanding. The only thing Congress needs to concern itself with is the amount made available.

[bighart]

53. What a sane and sensible way to look at it.

[Fearless]

55. Nothing.

[hughee99]

56. The military can save all this marketing money by just bringing back the draft!

That way, we won't have to spend ANY money trying to entice new volunteers, and we won't have to worry about not being able to get on the campus of Harvard or Columbia to make sure those students have the opportunity to serve in the military. By just bringing back the draft, we can fix two problems at once. :)

[Renew Deal]

57. If it's worth it, then they should spend the money.

How many people does it recruit? That's really what the question should be.