Why can't conservatives let us have nice things?

Seems like military bands perform for the public way more often than for the troops, who I'd think would be more interested in contemporary popular music than this kind of silliness. Do we really need our dollars to be funding this kind of stuff? I don't get it. At all. I guess that makes me a bad liberal, but this just seems like a total waste of money. If these people want to do this stuff in their spare time, great. Makes no sense to pay them a taxpayer-funded salary to do it full time. 

https://youtu.be/IOhg_-W8tFM?t=10m22s

Jeez, people.  Why don't we work towards a world where the only questionable expense is money spent on bands.  The military wastes or misallocates billions of dollars for various reasons - sometimes congressional pressure, sometimes interbranch rivalry, sometimes because they can't deal with changing military threats.

Just because there is also waste in other places doesn't mean we can't eliminate this particular waste. If this expense is questionable, as you say, then let's question it! 

tjohn said:

Jeez, people.  Why don't we work towards a world where the only questionable expense is money spent on bands.  The military wastes or misallocates billions of dollars for various reasons - sometimes congressional pressure, sometimes interbranch rivalry, sometimes because they can't deal with changing military threats.

sheesh,  talk about penny-wise and pound foolish.  

I'd wager the cost of military bands over the past 100 years is far less than 1 obsolete F-whatever thats still being built.

That is such a frequent, but absurd, retort of the statist. The old dodge - "Why focus on that waste where there is all that even worse waste elsewhere."

Exactly.  I am reminded of a time when I worked to eliminate all unnecessary household expenses.  I think I got rid of most enjoyable distractions and saved enough to cover maybe one mortgage payment per year.

hoops said:

sheesh,  talk about penny-wise and pound foolish.  

I'd wager the cost of military bands over the past 100 years is far less than 1 obsolete F-whatever thats still being built.

bramzzoinks said:

That is such a frequent, but absurd, retort of the statist. The old dodge - "Why focus on that waste where there is all that even worse waste elsewhere."

point missed as usual.

the focus should be on prioritizing where the best return is - which you of all posters should be on board with.

personally, I believe there is both a traditional and current place in the military for bands, for music of all sorts, for entertainment.  

I don't much care for the anti-military vibe I get in this area - hate the military until we need the military.

bramzzoinks said:

That is such a frequent, but absurd, retort of the statist. The old dodge - "Why focus on that waste where there is all that even worse waste elsewhere."

Jimmy Carter was an awful President and extremely anti-Israel but one thing I will give him credit for was getting rid of having an honor guard play Hail to the Chief whenever he went somewhere.

The day we "need the military" to high-knee-kick their way around Disney World while belting out "There's No Business Like Show Business" will be a frightening day indeed. 

tjohn said:

I don't much care for the anti-military vibe I get in this area - hate the military until we need the military.

bramzzoinks said:

That is such a frequent, but absurd, retort of the statist. The old dodge - "Why focus on that waste where there is all that even worse waste elsewhere."

bramzzoinks said:

Jimmy Carter was an awful President and extremely anti-Israel but one thing I will give him credit for was getting rid of having an honor guard play Hail to the Chief whenever he went somewhere.

Yes, those Camp David accords were a real step backwards.

There's a whitehouse.gov petition to support funding for bands. The last sentence says it all. Outsourcing these functions would cost a lot more than doing it in-house, not to mention the security issues and logistics of finding civilian contractor musicians willing to travel constantly all over the world.

Continue Military Bands Funding

Rep. Martha McSally has added an amendment to the proposed Department of Defense budget for 2017 (H.R. 5293) that would severely restrict funding for military band performances. This amendment states that "none of the funds made available by this Act may be used for performances by a military musical unit (as defined in section 974 of title 10, United States Code) described in paragraph (2)(B) or (3) of subsection (a) of such section." This would limit band performances so that they could not participate in: patriotic parades or concerts (including July 4th), official receptions and banquets, concerts for troops in war zones, state funerals, even the national anthem at almost any event. If these events were contracted to civilian musicians the cost would be significantly higher.

But she is OK with forcing the Air Force to keep the A-10 when it is quite possible that the OV-10 Bronco might be the most cost effective close air support aircraft option.

kthnry said:

 If these events were contracted to civilian musicians the cost would be significantly higher.

I'd like to see the evidence of this. Defies logic that paying full-time salaries and travel expenses would be cheaper than hiring five local horn players for an hour. 

We  are spending $1 trillion dollars on the F35 fiasco and some of you want to eliminate military bands?

imonlysleeping said:

kthnry said:

 If these events were contracted to civilian musicians the cost would be significantly higher.

I'd like to see the evidence of this. Defies logic that paying full-time salaries and travel expenses would be cheaper than hiring five local horn players for an hour. 

Yea, just like Blackwater convinced the pentagon that contract soldiers were cheaper. How did that privatization work for you?

By all means, let's not waste money on the F35 fiasco either. It's not an either/or. 

wedjet said:

We  are spending $1 trillion dollars on the F35 fiasco and some of you want to eliminate military bands?

Don't see the relevance. Sorry. 

wedjet said:

imonlysleeping said:

kthnry said:

 If these events were contracted to civilian musicians the cost would be significantly higher.

I'd like to see the evidence of this. Defies logic that paying full-time salaries and travel expenses would be cheaper than hiring five local horn players for an hour. 

Yea, just like Blackwater convinced the pentagon that contract soldiers were cheaper. How did that privatization work for you?

wedjet said:

We  are spending $1 trillion dollars on the F35 fiasco and some of you want to eliminate military bands?

A penny saved is a penny earned.

The government spends a lot on ceremony - not unlike private companies and individuals.  Where do you stop cutting this waste.  Does the White House need a cook.  Why can't they just serve freezer food from Shoprite?  Who needs state dinners?

I believe the military bands are a luxury we can afford and is, among other things, a rounding error in the military budget.

Societies need some ceremony.

Music has been part of the armed forces since forever. From drumbeats during battle to keep troops focused to lifting troop morale. It is part of the military culture which supports their humanity. But it would probably be better to train killing machines, or how about just killer robots? Then we could cut out humanity completely. 

Do not get me started on waste. No the White House does not need a full time cook. Except when there are visitors the President can certainly fend for himself like everyone else.

I do believe army musicians still have to go through basic training. They are soldiers who serve.

bramzzoinks said:

Do not get me started on waste. No the White House does not need a full time cook. Except when there are visitors the President can certainly fend for himself like everyone else.

Right.  It isn't as if the President and First Lady are busy or anything.

Maybe so, but once they are assigned to a band unit, that is what they do full-time. They cannot be sent into combat or given other duties. We pay them salaries to do nothing but prance around Disney World and play the occasional National Anthem.

NizhoniGrrrl said:

I do believe army musicians still have to go through basic training. They are soldiers who serve.

bramzzoinks said:

Do not get me started on waste. No the White House does not need a full time cook. Except when there are visitors the President can certainly fend for himself like everyone else.

That's just laugh-out-loud-funny.

tjohn said:

bramzzoinks said:

Do not get me started on waste. No the White House does not need a full time cook. Except when there are visitors the President can certainly fend for himself like everyone else.

Right.  It isn't as if the President and First Lady are busy or anything.

There are no official duties of the presidents spouse. Giving that person an expensive "office" is another total waste. That person is not an employee of the government and should not be provided any staff or budget.

Oh stop.  Being First Lady must be one of the hardest white collar jobs in existence.  You get judged on your looks constantly.  You are expected to adopt and push worthy causes.

bramzzoinks said:

tjohn said:

bramzzoinks said:

Do not get me started on waste. No the White House does not need a full time cook. Except when there are visitors the President can certainly fend for himself like everyone else.

Right.  It isn't as if the President and First Lady are busy or anything.

There are no official duties of the presidents spouse. Giving that person an expensive "office" is another total waste. That person is not an employee of the government and should not be provided any staff or budget.

I sure as hell hope Dolly Madison had an office before it burned down.

tjohn said:

Oh stop.  Being First Lady must be one of the hardest white collar jobs in existence.  You get judged on your looks constantly.  You are expected to adopt and push worthy causes.

bramzzoinks said:

tjohn said:

bramzzoinks said:

Do not get me started on waste. No the White House does not need a full time cook. Except when there are visitors the President can certainly fend for himself like everyone else.

Right.  It isn't as if the President and First Lady are busy or anything.

There are no official duties of the presidents spouse. Giving that person an expensive "office" is another total waste. That person is not an employee of the government and should not be provided any staff or budget.

None of those are official duties that warrant government money. The president is being paid. There are too many White House expenses but some, much striped down is likely necessary. But zero should go to a presidents spouse for any office.