America's Army Cost Taxpayers $32.8 Million

Page 3 - 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.
[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]

Since Tom's decided to post potential politically inflammatory news articles vaguely related to tech.
 
[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... Spend our way out of debt? Hmmm that just doesnt sound right.[/citation]

Are you from Pennsylvania? I want to vote for you for a Senate seat. Specter and Casey are useless. Our state may have the most useless senator duo in the country.
 
on another note, any person that can play this game does ha\/e some idea of military protocol, so that means that when we do end up needing to be a regular militia here in the states we will ha\/e some minor form of training. 😛
 
[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]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).[/citation]

Many people would consider control over how many times over the employees the CEO's get paid as a socialist view. And in this country socialism is automatically considered evil. But what I often wonder is why it's so awful to take good ideas from other political and economic systems. I believe it's Japan where an executive can make no more than 100 times of the lowest paid employee. If that person wants to make more they will have to raise the pay of the lowest paid employee. And I still see making 100 times as much as someone else as doing pretty well for yourself. I also think it's hard for many people to sympathize with the rich because we simply are not rich. Myself for example, the minimum wage in my area is 7.50 /hr, I cannot comprehend how anyone could be upset with making $750 /hr. And that's the view a lot of us take we look at the figures that we see and we say to ourselves exec so and so makes a million dollars a year and yet he's acting as though he's suffering. I don't understand that, but I'm not him/her so I'm convinced there's something I must not be understanding because I'm not rich.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]So you suggest invading Pakistan? Way to ratchet up the body count, let's declare war on a nation with nuclear weapons.[/citation]
No, I'd like to suggest we leave things be and concentrate on our own problems
 
I believe that this game is an advertising cost related to branding which in comparison to corporate branding is a relatively small price to pay for their target audience.

This cost is justifiable if their goal was to educate and inform a specific target audience about their equipment, their rules of conduct, and their methodology related to the army experience.

 
[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]
Actually that sounds like what absolutly needs to happen. Take an economics class retard. Spend to get out of a recession. The only problem is bailing out the companies and not individuals. The individuals end up paying to save big business, and then are still left holding the bills for it. For instance I buy a chevy cobalt. I owe 1000 left on it. They use my tax money to keep chevy alive. I still owe them 1000. Thats the f-ed up part. But yes you do have to spend money to get out of financial crysis.
 
[citation][nom]jellico[/nom]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]

You clearly don't know anything about SUSTAINABLE economics.

And we're talking about a "person in the woods" who has more "firewood" than he could use in his lifetime regardless of how many stoves he has in his house (for all I care he could have thousands), not someone who has maybe enough for a few years ahead plus retirement. And as I have said NUMEROUS TIMES I am NOT advocating for 70%. I said that USED TO BE the rate DECADES AGO. A 5-15% increase might be all we need.

The already huge income and wealth gap is growing all the time, and if you can't see what is right infront of you and understand some basic econimcs, then there is clearly no hope for you. Especially as I've been repeating myself and you don't seem to have listened or tried to comprehend a word of it.
 
So we blow all of this money to recruit the troops, and then when they become disabled we turn our backs and often give them inferior health care. It sucks. They could use that money to refurbish the local VA clinic...yes it is Army money, but what the hell the place needs some parking spaces.
 
[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]No, I'd like to suggest we leave things be and concentrate on our own problems[/citation]
You mean like sitting back and waiting for a bunch of Saudi nationals to fly planes into skyscrapers? That kind of thing?
 
Wtf 32 million! How do you spend that much on developing a video game? The most expensive games are made on a tiny tiny fraction of that budget. Seriously, wtf do you have to do for a video game to cost that much to make?
 
Well if I had it my way, the military would have all the funding it could ever want, but then again, I am a soldier and I want the best for my brothers-in-arms and I want our military to continue being the best in the world, no matter the cost. Besides, I think this country needs to worry more about congress's out-of-control spending on useless social programs and crutches for failing companies and dare I mention, healthcare.
 
@Jellico

Your wood argument works for the most part except it assumes we are living like hermits. We live in a world where peoples actions effect one another. I used to think a flat tax was what's fair. With a flat tax of say 20% someone making 50k brings home 40 and someone making 100 brings home 80, the person making 100 is still bringing home twice as much as the person making 50, thus his hard work has paid off and the social class structure is preserved.

I have since changed my views, I think a progressive tax is proper. Find me a company that does not preach teamwork as one of its basic principles. Our success is dependent on others. A rich executive is rich not only because of the brilliant work he/she has done but also because of all of the work done by their subordinates. In addition the support of his/her customers has played a heavy influence on his/her success. Does it not make sense for this executive to pay a little extra back in appreciation? Granted there has to be a line drawn so that this person is not making less than their subordinates.

If we were all hermits that were not interdependent on each other I could see your point. And even there are some flaws. How was the land secured? Did people go to war so he could have his land? How did this person have enough time to cut all this wood, were others handling some responsibilities for this person to have the time to cut the wood?

Now I'm sure I'll probably get labeled a socialist or communist for my views, in which case I challenge you to actually look up their definitions.
 
[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]

This same thing popped into my mind when I read the amount spent by our military. $30 million (key being that it was spent over a period of TEN years) is nothing compared to what else our government has been doing with our money over the past year alone.

So if the math is right, the army has spent an amount over ten years that equates to what government manages to spend in what - five days?
 
[citation][nom]byrddogg77[/nom]The game sucks too! The only thing I want from my Government is Military and Social Security, the rest of the programs should be cut![/citation]
What about NASA? Public School System? FDA? CDC? APA? So many other useful parts of government? Granted there is a bunch that should be fixed in a lot of government, but do you want to completely get rid of these things and ignore what the prupose of them is? Take the care to see what each part of government does before you decide you want it cut.
 
[citation][nom]Matt_B[/nom]This same thing popped into my mind when I read the amount spent by our military. $30 million (key being that it was spent over a period of TEN years) is nothing compared to what else our government has been doing with our money over the past year alone. So if the math is right, the army has spent an amount over ten years that equates to what government manages to spend in what - five days?[/citation]

This article is on what the military spent creating ONE GAME. Overall the military is 52% of the government's spending. The current war hasn't been payed, it's all borrowed (aka a large chunk of the deficit)
 
Eh, with how much money has been spent on developing games throughout the year, it's no biggy. The Army has HUGE budgets, this is like pennies to them. When you're talking 1.2trillion anually on budget, 32million is chump change. You have to understand numbers of scale, and that means 32m or 9 years is child's play. On top, that put valuable jobs, experience and information in the hands of the american people.
 
[citation][nom]Matt_B[/nom]This same thing popped into my mind when I read the amount spent by our military. $30 million (key being that it was spent over a period of TEN years) is nothing compared to what else our government has been doing with our money over the past year alone. So if the math is right, the army has spent an amount over ten years that equates to what government manages to spend in what - five days?[/citation]

I think this is a dangerous mentality. Let me preface this with the fact that I think the money the military spends on AA is well spent and worth it. What I think is wrong is to justify any cost with the fact that a similar cost is marginally more expensive. These little things add up after a while, and if we continually ignore them they become problems. We need to always be careful what we spend our money on no matter how big or how small the cost is. This is why transparency and regulation are so important.
 
[citation][nom]Honis[/nom]Context with other recruiting tool costs:Navy/Marines Blue Angles F-18A/B: $18 million a piece plus maintenance. They have 10 demonstration planes (A) and 2 double seat (B).Air Force Thunderbird's F-16C/D: $18.8 million a piece. Six demonstration (Cs) and 2 double seat (D).Army Americas Army video game: Between $2 and $4 million annual cost. Total cost YTD: 32.8 million.You see, the Army is saving us tax payers on its advertising compared to the other branches. You can argue the effectiveness of advertising using a video game verse a spectacular air demonstration but when it comes to price, the Army has gone the cheaper route.[/citation]

Don't forget the Army has the Golden Knights (Jump Team). I imagine that their equipment isn't that cheap to maintain either. But overall, I'm sure the Army is spending less on equipment upkeep for their recruiting efforts.
 
[citation][nom]phexac[/nom]Wtf 32 million! How do you spend that much on developing a video game? The most expensive games are made on a tiny tiny fraction of that budget. Seriously, wtf do you have to do for a video game to cost that much to make?[/citation]

Have you any proof? I wonder how much money it has cost to develop the entire COD series?
 
Here's a quote from the Los Angeles Times.

"Call of Duty cost $40 million to $50 million to produce, people close to the project said, about as much as a mid-size film. Including marketing expenses and the cost of producing and distributing discs, the launch budget was $200 million, on par with a summer popcorn movie -- and extremely high for a video game."

Keep in mind this is a much better game, but it is only one game!! Not the entire series!!
 
[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]This article is on what the military spent creating ONE GAME. Overall the military is 52% of the government's spending. The current war hasn't been payed, it's all borrowed (aka a large chunk of the deficit)[/citation]

[citation][nom]deathblooms2k1[/nom]I think this is a dangerous mentality. Let me preface this with the fact that I think the money the military spends on AA is well spent and worth it. What I think is wrong is to justify any cost with the fact that a similar cost is marginally more expensive. These little things add up after a while, and if we continually ignore them they become problems. We need to always be careful what we spend our money on no matter how big or how small the cost is. This is why transparency and regulation are so important.[/citation]

Both you guys are digging way too shallow into my post. I'm laughing at the dollar amount in a hysterical sense (with overall government as the big picture). Our country spends what it does without even thinking twice about it and in the blink of an eye. What's a few million when we've already spent what/how we have so far? It's downright aggravating as a concerned taxpayer to see my/our money squandered away like it is today.
 
[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.[/citation]

Government needs to spend less? Yes, on certain things.

For instance. I guess you'd like that cents per gallon federal fuel tax of money back in your pocket, then love to join a citizens consortium in your area to negotiate and fund all local roads, 50-90% of State and US highways, and 50-100% of your interstates?

I agree, things like welfare need to be modified.
Things like federally-built gyms and golf clubs for Congressmen who make $130k a year and up need to be eliminated.

But, a tax-cut is never going to be a great thing. Why? Because, all those Congressional officials are voting in the loopholes and tax cuts for themselves and their campaign sponsors.

Don't know if you're old enough to remember, but you used to be able to write off the interest from your credit cards off your income taxes. Working people got a break from that. Now, most loopholes are either for those who don't work or those who have substantial wealth and want to not pay the rate their government sets on their dividend and earnings income.

It's working people who get the tax salami up the backside, and all the tax cuts in the world won't make a difference because the people who spend the proportionate amount of funds in this country (the working class) rarely see those benefits.

Either increase the taxes and open no new loopholes, or close most of the loopholes that the wealthy use to do things like offshore investments or bury their assets away from paying their fair share on it.

Then, you'll see a fair and stable system that won't need more of your tax dollars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom