America's Army Cost Taxpayers $32.8 Million

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
it's not even the best game, Also how many people has it gotten to join the army. I am guessing vary few. thats a waste of money if you ask me for what they have done. For that cost they should have 20 games


Oliver
http://www.emergencysurvivalkitsgear.com/
 
Tried AA3, was very buggy, within 10-15 minutes, quit AA3.
More of a RPG fan myself.

If the military recruited in BF2 maybe, that would have been better.
 
Article just shows what was invested in the games development, what was the revenue? They could have made a profit on this game and actually earned tax payers some money (not that you'd see any of it). This is a VERY cheap way to recruit people in the army and will extend to an audience that it might not have otherwise been able to pursue.
 
The US military overall takes up around 52% of the budget. We spend 8x as much as China (second place spender on military) and more than all the other militaries combined.

Time to take an axe to that budget.
 
[citation][nom]annisman[/nom]Considering Obama and Co. Just spent Trillions of dollars in his first term, and inflated the deficate and our currency beyond belief, not to mention the 787 billion dollar 'stimulus' bill that has not only stopped job creation, but has put us in even more debt I think 30 million dollars for a game I enjoy is actually worth it.Hey guess where the money that is being returned to us from the banks that we helped bail out is going.... back to you and me ? Oh, no it's being spent by our government on more entitlement programs. Spend our way out of debt? Hmmm that just doesnt sound right.[/citation]
The bailout was actually paid by Bush. I don't like a lot of what Obama has (and hasn't) been doing, but a huge part of the deficit was carried over from Bush. That and the gov'ts income has dropped. Stupid Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Taxes on the wealthy used to be in the 70% range and we were doing awesome. Now it's dow in the 30% range and the rich are paying off politicians to deregulated and allow them to make even more.
 
[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]The bailout was actually paid by Bush. I don't like a lot of what Obama has (and hasn't) been doing, but a huge part of the deficit was carried over from Bush. That and the gov'ts income has dropped. Stupid Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Taxes on the wealthy used to be in the 70% range and we were doing awesome. Now it's dow in the 30% range and the rich are paying off politicians to deregulated and allow them to make even more.[/citation]


If you think for ONE SINGLE SECOND that taxing the rich 70% is an ok thing to do, please leave the US. We were 'doing awesome' during the Clinton Era because the economy was riding the dotcom bubble and Clinton SLASHED military funding. Through no fault of any one mans it just so happens that the dotcom bubble burst around the turn of the century and then we were attacked by cowards. Bush DID spend way too much money, I won't defend him there, but tax cuts are ALWAYS a good thing.
 
[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]The bailout was actually paid by Bush. I don't like a lot of what Obama has (and hasn't) been doing, but a huge part of the deficit was carried over from Bush. That and the gov'ts income has dropped. Stupid Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Taxes on the wealthy used to be in the 70% range and we were doing awesome. Now it's dow in the 30% range and the rich are paying off politicians to deregulated and allow them to make even more.[/citation]
Fair comment, don't blame Obama for inheriting a financial shit-storm, I dare anyone to wave a magic wand and fix it. You will still be paying for this from the taxes of your great grand children.

Oh, and AA is a much better and cheaper advert for joining the US Army than regular deliveries of coffins flown in from Iraq. AA send the message that it's a cool game. Iraq sends the message that as soon as you tool up you will get blown up by a roadside bomb.

$33 million over 10 years? Bargain.
 
[citation][nom]MrHorspwer[/nom]Since when has Tom's become a political sounding board?What's next, religion and it's place in the smartphone market?[/citation]
Maybe, perhaps all the muslim suicide bombers will use the exploding iPhone to foil airport scanners.
 
[citation][nom]astrodudepsu[/nom]If you think for ONE SINGLE SECOND that taxing the rich 70% is an ok thing to do, please leave the US. We were 'doing awesome' during the Clinton Era because the economy was riding the dotcom bubble and Clinton SLASHED military funding. Through no fault of any one mans it just so happens that the dotcom bubble burst around the turn of the century and then we were attacked by cowards. Bush DID spend way too much money, I won't defend him there, but tax cuts are ALWAYS a good thing.[/citation]

I never said we SHOULD raise it that much (which I don't think we should). I just said it USED TO BE that high (decades ago, mind you).

Tax cuts for the top wealthy 1% were a terrible idea. Do you have any concept of how the government gets ANY money? Are they just supposed to print more all the time? Or just keep borrowing and increasing the deficit? Taxes GRADUATED IN THE RIGHT AMOUNTS is a GOOD thing.

Tax breaks for the lower and middle classes are needed, and tax increases (the amount determined by someone who actually knows money and is watching out for the middle class) are needed for the rich. Even 5-15% increase in taxes for the rich would help A LOT.

At the moment the rich are having free rein, buying up politiians left and right and squeezing out the middle class. Deregulation is also a terrible idea and led us into this financial mess via the big banks.
 
After countless hours of me playing this game.... I guess i can say I approve.
 
[citation][nom]MrHorspwer[/nom]Since when has Tom's become a political sounding board?What's next, religion and it's place in the smartphone market?[/citation]
More important question: how dumb are the toms readers actually, given how they actually fall for the whole democrat vs republican, bush vs obama stuff? don't they know that both politicians, errr... puppeticians... are controlled by the same person?
 
Who would know if its money well spent or not? How much does the army spend on recruiting/advertising each year? What percentage of that does this game take? Was there an increase in applicants becuase of this game? Is there a way to track who may have joined as a result of this game?

All I know as I didn't like the game that much.

I typically like the government spending as little of my money as possible, so no, I'm not to thrilled about it.

The bailout was actually paid by Bush. I don't like a lot of what Obama has (and hasn't) been doing, but a huge part of the deficit was carried over from Bush. That and the gov'ts income has dropped. Stupid Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Taxes on the wealthy used to be in the 70% range and we were doing awesome. Now it's dow in the 30% range and the rich are paying off politicians to deregulated and allow them to make even more.
Click to expand...

I call BS on most all of this. Someone please explain this 70 - 30% rich tax reduction...Never happened. Obama and has spent or proposed more spending than all 8 years of Bush combined and then some.

 
Just one more thing..

Companies need to raise what they pay employees. Its been practically flat-lining for far too long. Control over how many times over the employees the CEOs etc get paid and controls over bonuses would be helpful too (remember the money that got paid to the banks? Some went to fix problems, a lot went to the guys who messed up in the first place as bonuses).
 
Okay...political rant mode: ON

[citation][nom]astrodudepsu[/nom]If you think for ONE SINGLE SECOND that taxing the rich 70% is an ok thing to do, please leave the US.[/citation]

I have tried. Wanna get me a job in Ireland and pay for the move? I'll be glad to go pay taxes elsewhere.

[citation]We were 'doing awesome' during the Clinton Era because the economy was riding the dotcom bubble and Clinton SLASHED military funding.[/citation]

Actually during the Clinton era, it wasn't all the cuts in military spending. That was a drop in the bucket. Base closures saved money, but the mass of the expense (manpower, programs, projects, etc) were "realigned" meaning...most just got moved elsewhere.

What really made money is that tax rates on the wealthiest Americans increased from 28% in 1988 to a peak of 39.6% (1993-2000). The tax rates for the wealthy started to drop when?

A) Firstly when Republicans took control of Congress in 1995.
B) After Bush was elected in 2000.

Democrats passed the last hike in 1993. Then in 2001 with the signature of Bush, Republicans started working on lowering it again.

This propagated tax rate drops on the wealthiest Americans from 39.6% back down to currently 35% and in 2005-2006 was being planned to be cut back down to 33% before the Republicans lost control of the House and Senate in 2007.

Source:http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

As well, more loopholes and write-offs have been written into the tax code that only the most wealthy can afford. Care to write off part of the $70,000 cost of the added 1200 square foot sunroom you just built on as an "energy efficient home improvement"? Anyone?

[citation] Through no fault of any one mans it just so happens that the dotcom bubble burst around the turn of the century and then we were attacked by cowards. Bush DID spend way too much money, I won't defend him there, but tax cuts are ALWAYS a good thing.[/citation]

Actually, it's typical of government to allow business to have carte blanche with their operations. 2000 dotcom bubble. 2006 housing bubble. 2008 bank bubble and car maker bubble.

It's *business'* fault that business failed, and government's fault for not keeping them honest.

Is it right to ensure a loan that's had no review and there is no collateral for?
Is it right for a business to ignore fuel cost trends and continue making fuel-inefficient cars that aren't selling?
Is it right for a server company to sell stock in a company that's only assets are written manuals and data on hard drives they don't even own?

Fact is, Teddy Roosevelt had the concept right: Capitalism allowed to do as they wish without restraint or limit will always breed corruption and dishonesty.

As for Bush? Not only was he a hypocrite saying he was a conservative, but I am glad he's gone and we have a president now who can pronounce 5th grade words like "nuclear" correctly.
 
[citation][nom]coolkev99[/nom]Who would know if its money well spent or not? How much does the army spend on recruiting/advertising each year? What percentage of that does this game take? Was there an increase in applicants becuase of this game? Is there a way to track who may have joined as a result of this game? All I know as I didn't like the game that much.I typically like the government spending as little of my money as possible, so no, I'm not to thrilled about it.I call BS on most all of this. Someone please explain this 70 - 30% rich tax reduction...Never happened. Obama and has spent or proposed more spending than all 8 years of Bush combined and then some.[/citation]

I clarified above. It happened over the course of decades, not something relatively recent.

Here:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/TaxTimeline.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_capital_gains_tax_in_the_U.S.
 
[citation][nom]jcknouse[/nom]Fact is, Teddy Roosevelt had the concept right: Capitalism allowed to do as they wish without restraint or limit will always breed corruption and dishonesty.As for Bush? Not only was he a hypocrite saying he was a conservative, but I am glad he's gone and we have a president now who can pronounce 5th grade words like "nuclear" correctly.[/citation]

Ah, good ol' Teddy and his New Deal. He started out weak with it, but over time he made it stronger.

I only wish Obama gets stronger, too. Bowing to the conservatives and giving pretty words to the liberals isn't doing much good at the moment.

I mean, take the Public Healthcare Option. Polls consistantly show around 60% are in favor of it and that people want a MORE liberal healthcare reform. Meanwhile the private insurance bought votes and Republicans refuse to give an inch regardless of how much we give up. The public option is now dead and they continue to water things down.

Afghanistan war. The Taliban is in PAKISTAN! So we send a huge surge of troops to Afghanistan? Afghanistan is in the middle of a civil war that's been going on for decades. The president we put in power is corrupt and his brother is a huge drug lord.

And there's so much more 🙁
 
[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]The bailout was actually paid by Bush. I don't like a lot of what Obama has (and hasn't) been doing, but a huge part of the deficit was carried over from Bush. That and the gov'ts income has dropped. Stupid Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Taxes on the wealthy used to be in the 70% range and we were doing awesome. Now it's dow in the 30% range and the rich are paying off politicians to deregulated and allow them to make even more.[/citation]
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Yes, there was a stimulus package under Bush, as well as the TARP program. But that was little-league stuff compared with the spending of the current administration which has increased the debt and deficit by over $1.5 TRILLION in his first few months in office.

Your most glaringly ignorant statement was about the Bush tax cuts. The "Bush tax cuts" refers to two different pieces of legislation:
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. The provisions of these bills included lowing the tax brackets ACROSS THE BOARD. The lowest marginal rate went from 15% to 10% while the highest marginal rate went from 38.5% to 35%. Additional child tax credits were created which helped middle-class families. Depreciation schedules for businesses were accelerated. The marriage penalty was eliminated. Capital gains taxes were decreased. And the double-taxation on dividend income was eliminated. These are all things that are aimed at the middle class, and small businesses. Of course, it also helped the wealthy, which is why socialist idiots call this, "tax cuts for the rich."

That brings me to my next point: since when did being successful become such a horrible thing? Why is it morally palatable to steal from someone because they are rich? People spend years in college, then end up getting good jobs and climb to the top of the corporate ladder, and we feel we need to punish these people by taking a disproportionately large sum of money THEY EARNED? Or someone starts a successful business and becomes wealthy, and the reward from the government is that they step in and help themselves to a large chunk of their success even though they contributed NOTHING?

Think of it this way... imagine you own a house in the woods. You spend all summer and fall working your ass off to accumulate a hugh pile of wood. I mean, you've got enough wood to run several wood stoves everyday, all winter long. Now along comes the sheriff. He tells you that they are going to take some of your wood to heat the sheriff's office, but because you have more, he's going to take more from you than your neighbors. Oh, also, some of your neighbors don't have any wood, so he's going to take some of your wood to help them too. After he's helped himself to your pile, almost half of it is gone before you're even lit your stove. Do you find that acceptable? Imagine if he took 70% of your wood pile, like you were advocating.

Now next summer comes... how motivated do you think you will be to bust your ass gathering wood?
 
[citation][nom]jcknouse[/nom]Okay...political rant mode: ONI have tried. Wanna get me a job in Ireland and pay for the move? I'll be glad to go pay taxes elsewhere.[citation]We were 'doing awesome' during the Clinton Era because the economy was riding the dotcom bubble and Clinton SLASHED military funding.[/citation]Actually during the Clinton era, it wasn't all the cuts in military spending. That was a drop in the bucket. Base closures saved money, but the mass of the expense (manpower, programs, projects, etc) were "realigned" meaning...most just got moved elsewhere.What really made money is that tax rates on the wealthiest Americans increased from 28% in 1988 to a peak of 39.6% (1993-2000). The tax rates for the wealthy started to drop when?A) Firstly when Republicans took control of Congress in 1995.B) After Bush was elected in 2000.Democrats passed the last hike in 1993. Then in 2001 with the signature of Bush, Republicans started working on lowering it again.This propagated tax rate drops on the wealthiest Americans from 39.6% back down to currently 35% and in 2005-2006 was being planned to be cut back down to 33% before the Republicans lost control of the House and Senate in 2007.Source:As well, more loopholes and write-offs have been written into the tax code that only the most wealthy can afford. Care to write off part of the $70,000 cost of the added 1200 square foot sunroom you just built on as an "energy efficient home improvement"? Anyone?[citation] Through no fault of any one mans it just so happens that the dotcom bubble burst around the turn of the century and then we were attacked by cowards. Bush DID spend way too much money, I won't defend him there, but tax cuts are ALWAYS a good thing.[/citation]Actually, it's typical of government to allow business to have carte blanche with their operations. 2000 dotcom bubble. 2006 housing bubble. 2008 bank bubble and car maker bubble.It's *business'* fault that business failed, and government's fault for not keeping them honest.Is it right to ensure a loan that's had no review and there is no collateral for?Is it right for a business to ignore fuel cost trends and continue making fuel-inefficient cars that aren't selling? Is it right for a server company to sell stock in a company that's only assets are written manuals and data on hard drives they don't even own?Fact is, Teddy Roosevelt had the concept right: Capitalism allowed to do as they wish without restraint or limit will always breed corruption and dishonesty.As for Bush? Not only was he a hypocrite saying he was a conservative, but I am glad he's gone and we have a president now who can pronounce 5th grade words like "nuclear" correctly.[/citation]

39% is a FAR CRY from the 70% quoted earlier. My comment is what it is, if anyone thinks that any group of people should be taxed at 70% they are fools. 39% is not 70%. You're argument is a total non sequitur as to what was being discussed, 70% taxes on a group of people. That's all the comment was. You made a whole lot more out of it.

Lowering taxes is always a good thing, period. The government needs to spend less. Both sides spend too much money, period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom