GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby 22/7 » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:34 pm UTC

Ok, now you're trying a leetle, but not very hard. Why are we suddenly dealing with AA and D batteries? Additionally, why does there need to be some massive storage tank full of batteries at the site where the power is being transformed from solar into electricity? Why can't we charge the batteries off of a solar grid (during they day, when most people are at work) for later use (when they come home and want to have lights on and watch tv and whatnot)? And why can't each house/apartment/building have battery packs and have the house hooked up to those batteries, only switching over to the grid (which could be wind or nuclear or whatever else) when the batteries are running low?
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Steve the Pocket » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:35 pm UTC

Marquee Moon wrote:What he's saying is that the stimulus bill should only have things in it that are specifically targeted at stimulating the economy, creating jobs, etc. It's a bill just for stuff that we do when the economy is in the shitter. Yes, most government spending does stimulate the economy, but that doesn't mean we should put all government spending into one bill. Regular government spending should go in the Regular Government Shit Bill, or the Regular Government Shit Related To Smoking Cessation Bill or whatever.

I think putting everything in this ginormosaurus bill and trying to rush it through was a mistake. Why not just take care of the really critical, fast acting, less contentious stuff now and take care of the less pressing stuff later. Most of these public works projects won't be up and running till 2010/2011 anyway. Though, I must say, I know very little about the nitty gritty details of congress and passing laws.

Plus, the purpose of rider bills (the official name for what is commonly lumped together as "pork") is usually to get support for something that you believe would be shot down if it were its own bill. Some of the big items on this list, like the Homeland Security building and the icebreaker for the Coast Guard, are well within the scope of the national government no matter how big of a federalist you are, and perfectly reasonable things to be supporting. If their proponents honestly think the majority of Congress would vote against these things if they could, our problems as a nation are far greater than the proliferation of pork-barrel spending.

The other big problem I have with rider bills is that they make it impossible to have a voting record that accurately reflects what you do and don't support. You know all those vicious campaign ads that say "But Senator Bobblehead voted AGAINST legislation that would put food on the tables of five thousand hard-working Americans. Is this really the kind of policy you want in the White House?" What they purposely don't tell you is that the "legislation" in question was a rider bill tacked on to a bill authorizing the President to drop the bomb on China or something. Come to think about it, this might be one of the major reasons rider bills are so damn popular in the first place. Why try to defend your own position on the issues when you can just confuse the voters as to what it really is?

SummerGlauFan wrote:Ideally, it should be what I like to call the "large small scale;" basically, individual homes and building use small solar collectors and wind turbines to generate their own power, drawing as little as possible from the grid. Other power sources, say nuclear for the near future, can take up any slack that remains. Heck, buildings as large as Jay Leno's garage generate all the power they need to fully function with just a couple of small turbines and some solar cells. That's it. To try and herd this conversation at least a little bit back on track, I would LOVE to see the government subsidize that.

This. Why cover the desert with solar panels when the roofs of our houses are already standing out in the open with nothing useful to do? With Americans moving more and more out of the big cities into the suburbs, this is starting to make more and more sense every day.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Jahoclave » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:44 pm UTC

mosc wrote:You have no understanding at all of the scale we're talking about. You're saying basically you intend to store lightning with a AA battery and then tell me I'm crazy.

100,000,000,000 watts for 12 hours. How many D cell batteries is that? A D cell puts out ~20 amps for an hour at 1.5 volts. That's 30 watts for an hour. That's 2.5 watts over 12 hours. That means we'd need 40 BILLION D cell batteries. If you stacked these batteries end to end, they'd travel from the moon and back more than 3 times! 100,000 MW is a small load really. It could be a lot higher.

Yes, absolutely, which is why we already have large batteries. Now, I wonder if there was an increased demand for better and more powerful batteries would there be a bigger focus on improving the technology.

http://brainstuff.howstuffworks.com/200 ... ries-work/

Quite frankly, you need to stop trying to shit all over the idea of massive solar power generation. Do you have massive investments in coal and nuclear power?

The goal isn't to get everything from solar and wind, but to get absolutely as much as you possibly can from them.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5401
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby mosc » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:47 pm UTC

Disadvantage: “VRB technology currently costs about $500 per kilowatt-hour.”

100,000 MW for 12 hours = 1.2 Billion kilowatt hours. You just proposed a solution that will cost $600 Billion dollars. Per night. I could be wrong but I believe that even that small amount of power already exceeds the GDP of the earth...

Again, completely not an option.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby 22/7 » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:59 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Disadvantage: “VRB technology currently costs about $500 per kilowatt-hour.”

100,000 MW for 12 hours = 1.2 Billion kilowatt hours. You just proposed a solution that will cost $600 Billion dollars. Per night. I could be wrong but I believe that even that small amount of power already exceeds the GDP of the earth...

Again, completely not an option.
What does "$500 per kilowatt-hour" even mean when talking about a rechargeable battery? Is this not a rechargeable battery? If it's $500 per kilowatt-hour for a single discharge, and you buy a battery that holds, say, 100 kilowatt-hours (about what I use in my ridiculously energy inefficient all-electric apartment over the course of about 3 days in the winter), then that's a $50,000 battery. If the battery can be recharged 10,000 times, then we're looking at the battery's lifespan being in the ballpark of about 30 years, which wouldn't be ridiculous. Additionally, this is all assuming that the cost of the battery never goes down, which, as we all know quite well, is fallacious.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5401
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby mosc » Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:07 pm UTC

Well, I'll throw you guys a bone. The magical battery you are looking for exists. It's called Pumped storage hydroelectricity. The biggest one in the world is on the Virginia/West Virginia border. You don't need fancy batteries that cost huge sums of money and would be impractical to deploy. What you need is a bunch of these with nuclear plants next to them.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby 22/7 » Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:12 pm UTC

That's certainly an option. What I don't understand is why wind and solar couldn't be used in a similar manner.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Jahoclave » Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:12 pm UTC

Yeah, just don't do a shitty job of building the reservoir. Otherwise you get this shit and the news doesn't shut up about it for a month.
And you throw up some wind plants and some solar panels on the thing. Oh it'll be a wonderful power generating time!

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby frezik » Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:21 pm UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:Ideally, it should be what I like to call the "large small scale;" basically, individual homes and building use small solar collectors and wind turbines to generate their own power, drawing as little as possible from the grid. Other power sources, say nuclear for the near future, can take up any slack that remains. Heck, buildings as large as Jay Leno's garage generate all the power they need to fully function with just a couple of small turbines and some solar cells. That's it. To try and herd this conversation at least a little bit back on track, I would LOVE to see the government subsidize that.

This. Why cover the desert with solar panels when the roofs of our houses are already standing out in the open with nothing useful to do? With Americans moving more and more out of the big cities into the suburbs, this is starting to make more and more sense every day.


Because solar reflectors are far more efficient than photovoltaics, but they don't scale well to rooftop sizes. Plus, energy from reflectors goes into the grid as AC, while photovoltaics only produce DC and will need a converter.

If some of the technology in the labs for increasing the efficiency of photovoltaics work out, they may play a role in providing some, but not all, of the energy of a household.

Also, roof-based photovoltaics can't scale with the largest apartment buildings and skyscrapers. Roof space is squared, while the space in the building (and thus potentially how much energy is used) is cubed. Skyscrapers can benefit from wind turbines, which will work very well being so high up, provided the vibration problem can be worked out.

As for overnight energy storage with solar, the technology to look at here isn't chemical batteries. You can pump water up a tower (salt water, if you'd like), spin up a flywheel on magnetic bearings (which have a zero-spin down time measured in years), or electrolyze hydrogen (and simply live with the inefficiency of the process). It's still a large problem, just one that's far easier to solve than with traditional batteries. Superconducting energy storage is also possible, if a bit further off.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby SummerGlauFan » Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:44 pm UTC

mosc wrote:You guys have to understand people need electricity at all times of day on all days of the year. That means steam. Get over it.

Not really. You need to turn a turbine. Most electrical plants generate steam to do that, because there area lot of ways to heat up water. However, any other way to turn a turbine would work. You know, like wind. Heck, even internal cumbustion does it. There are other ways to generate electricity other than turbines, too, but most of them are either not quite effecient enough yet for large scale (like solar collectors, although on a smaller scale, such as an individual building, they can work fairly well), or are a bit difficult to make right now, such as hydrogen fuel cells.

Read my previous post about individual solar cells and small wind turbines for individual buildings. I don't want to keep repeating myself. I think that industry could use a nice subsidy right now. It'd be better than wasting the cash on banks.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
HighCharity
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:04 am UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby HighCharity » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:18 pm UTC

The GOP's reasoning is not that this shit doesn't need to be there, but that it should be somewhere else-in another bill. Amtrak funding shouldn't be in a god damned stimulus bill
folkhero wrote:I feel bad for the hooker, but that guy is too annoying to not make fun of.


Are Thefinvispol, Child wrote:Life is, in a word, caverns.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby 22/7 » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:20 pm UTC

HighCharity wrote:The GOP's reasoning is not that this shit doesn't need to be there, but that it should be somewhere else-in another bill. Amtrak funding shouldn't be in a god damned stimulus bill
Could you address my reasons above as to why it should be in a stimulus bill?
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby frezik » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:24 pm UTC

HighCharity wrote:The GOP's reasoning is not that this shit doesn't need to be there, but that it should be somewhere else-in another bill. Amtrak funding shouldn't be in a god damned stimulus bill


If you had said "Digital TV converter boxes", I might have agreed. But pushing better public transport is exactly what the stimulus should be doing.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Garm » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:27 pm UTC

frezik wrote:
HighCharity wrote:The GOP's reasoning is not that this shit doesn't need to be there, but that it should be somewhere else-in another bill. Amtrak funding shouldn't be in a god damned stimulus bill


If you had said "Digital TV converter boxes", I might have agreed. But pushing better public transport is exactly what the stimulus should be doing.


Sadly the digital converter boxes are one of many holdovers from the previous administration. They are required by some bill that was passed under Bush but then deprived of funding. Seems like Obama left with having to balance the budget retroactive to 4 years ago.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
HighCharity
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:04 am UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby HighCharity » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:29 pm UTC

frezik wrote:
HighCharity wrote:The GOP's reasoning is not that this shit doesn't need to be there, but that it should be somewhere else-in another bill. Amtrak funding shouldn't be in a god damned stimulus bill


If you had said "Digital TV converter boxes", I might have agreed. But pushing better public transport is exactly what the stimulus should be doing.


I'll buy that, but so much of this shit should be somewhere else-like the hybrid car buying, and, like you said, digital tv coupons.

Amtrak sucks
folkhero wrote:I feel bad for the hooker, but that guy is too annoying to not make fun of.


Are Thefinvispol, Child wrote:Life is, in a word, caverns.

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Kachi » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:35 pm UTC

I'm just chapped that a recent poll said that ~30% of Americans thought the bill should pass, but with changes (roughly the same amount said that it should just be passed). Oh really? I'm so sure that that many Americans actually looked at the contents of the bill rather than taking the GOP's word that it was a Xmas list for the lefties. For that matter I'd wager they couldn't name a single specific thing that should be changed.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't know what the so-called pork was either, but I didn't pretend to. And now that I do, I can't say as I'm impressed.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:58 pm UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:Not really. You need to turn a turbine. Most electrical plants generate steam to do that, because there area lot of ways to heat up water. However, any other way to turn a turbine would work. You know, like wind. Heck, even internal cumbustion does it. There are other ways to generate electricity other than turbines, too, but most of them are either not quite effecient enough yet for large scale (like solar collectors, although on a smaller scale, such as an individual building, they can work fairly well), or are a bit difficult to make right now, such as hydrogen fuel cells.

I believe you're missing the point, mosc was taking some linguistic liberties when he described power generation as "needing steam." Wind and solar do indeed drive turbines that create electricity, but they are not consistent - steam-based plants (and hydroelecticity too I suppose, but as already brought up it's a limited resource) however are very flexible in their generative capacities, able to rapidly change output whenever needed instead of being at the mercy of the elements.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5401
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby mosc » Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:34 am UTC

It's much more fundamental than that. It's called reactive power. Solar and Wind just don't make much. What you need is a huge steam plant with a massive spinning turbine. You get this from nuclear, coal, and gas (to a lesser extent). Steam units also correct for sudden changes in the grid which cause fluctuation in voltage and frequency. When the wind stops for a few minutes, the windmill's power output goes away. If you don't have other units that can pick up the slack IMMEDIATELY, you risk blackout.

It's hard for me not to get into a very technical discussion about this but basically people have an expectation for flipping on the lightswitch whenever they so choose. You need massive amounts of generation that can change on the whim of the people and not on the whim of the clouds. That means steam, steam, or steam. The only ways of making steam on that scale effectively are nuclear, coal, and to a lesser extent gas. Embrace nuclear or accept fossil fuels as >50% of your power generation for the next 50 years.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
TheStranger
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
Location: The Void which Binds

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby TheStranger » Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:23 pm UTC

mosc wrote:It's much more fundamental than that. It's called reactive power. Solar and Wind just don't make much. What you need is a huge steam plant with a massive spinning turbine. You get this from nuclear, coal, and gas (to a lesser extent). Steam units also correct for sudden changes in the grid which cause fluctuation in voltage and frequency. When the wind stops for a few minutes, the windmill's power output goes away. If you don't have other units that can pick up the slack IMMEDIATELY, you risk blackout.


Which is why there are many who doubt that the US should be investing massive amounts of money in power plants that will not meet our generation needs.

There is debate on what counts as economic stimulus, and where it would be most effectively used. Pointing to a list of complaints and laughing doesn't really show anything. Things like digital converters, the new DHS headquarters, and a new Icebreaker for the CG could easily be covered under their own programs operating budget. The stimulus package is not a magic moneybag to fund every senators pet projects.
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Telchar » Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:55 pm UTC

22/7 wrote: Why can't we charge the batteries off of a solar grid (during they day, when most people are at work) for later use (when they come home and want to have lights on and watch tv and whatnot)?


Probably because you are using it to power all the businesses that operate during the day and all the household items that still need electricity, like heat.

But back on topic, I think this needs to pass, but it also SHOULD have a ton of shit removed. I guess I'd rather have it pass with shit in than never pass however.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5401
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby mosc » Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:59 pm UTC

Congress passes very few bills a year. This one, for example, has been under debate for over a month now. By the sheer nature of how hard it is to pass ANYTHING, each and every bill that ever passes needs to be amended with unrelated stuff to keep the government functioning. This is democracy 101 people.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Telchar » Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:01 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Congress passes very few bills a year. This one, for example, has been under debate for over a month now. By the sheer nature of how hard it is to pass ANYTHING, each and every bill that ever passes needs to be amended with unrelated stuff to keep the government functioning. This is democracy 101 people.


No it doesn't NEED to, it just does. The big reason this bill has been debated for a month is beause of these things.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5401
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby mosc » Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:03 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:
mosc wrote:Congress passes very few bills a year. This one, for example, has been under debate for over a month now. By the sheer nature of how hard it is to pass ANYTHING, each and every bill that ever passes needs to be amended with unrelated stuff to keep the government functioning. This is democracy 101 people.


No it doesn't NEED to, it just does. The big reason this bill has been debated for a month is beause of these things.

This is naive. Mid-year budgetary fixes have been amended to unrelated bills for more than 200 year. Every year. More than once.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Telchar » Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:06 pm UTC

That's good reasoning. Because we've done it before, lets keep doing it.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5401
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby mosc » Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:15 pm UTC

OOOOOK. So your problem with this bill is so broad that you'd vote against nearly every bill ever passed. Very reasonable argument.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby 22/7 » Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:15 pm UTC

I don't know what it is about this thread, mosc, but you're just being really condescending again rather than actually explaining why you disagree with him. Again, much as it kills me to say it, he's got a point. If we didn't push through a handful of bills each year with billions and billions of dollars worth of random pork but as the bills themselves, it wouldn't take as long to get through each one. Sure, pork can help people out, and sure, there would be a shitton more bills, but each bill would also have to stand on its own merits. Saying that it's simply not possible is disingenuous.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5401
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby mosc » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:52 pm UTC

Unrelated spending to the nature of the bill =/= pork. I reject that definition. Pork is spending on projects sponsored by small interest groups against the will of the majority of congress. Pork is not anything in a bill that does not have to do directly with the main intent of the bill. Budgetary corrections are not pork and never will be pork. The budget got passed and if they were ever pork, they would be pork on the BUDGET bill, not on the other bills where sufficient funding is allocated due to midyear changes.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby BlackSails » Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:56 pm UTC

Tangential question: What exactly do senators and represenatives DO when congress is not in session?

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Lumpy » Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:03 pm UTC

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina didn't appreciate that amendments to the bill were being voted on so quickly, because he didn't have time to "barter" for his vote.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:12 am UTC

And unless I'm misinterpreting the data here, Congress passed around 460 bills in a two year period, which is still a fair amount. Just because you only hear about 5 of them mosc doesn't mean more isn't getting done.

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Lumpy » Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:51 am UTC

Yeah, things like Native American healthcare don't typically make national news when they're deliberated, like I saw on C-SPAN last year. There's also boring crap that takes up time that has to be done, like modernizing sugar subsidies blah blah blah (which was in 2005. I remember watching it because Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon was wearing a bow tie).

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Telchar » Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:30 am UTC

mosc wrote:Unrelated spending to the nature of the bill =/= pork. I reject that definition. Pork is spending on projects sponsored by small interest groups against the will of the majority of congress. Pork is not anything in a bill that does not have to do directly with the main intent of the bill. Budgetary corrections are not pork and never will be pork. The budget got passed and if they were ever pork, they would be pork on the BUDGET bill, not on the other bills where sufficient funding is allocated due to midyear changes.



I never said it was pork. I said it wasn't stimulous, so calling it stimulous is disingenous. If you want it passed, and it's so obvious we need it, it shouldn't be hard to pass legislation for that right? And don't give me the "Democracy 101" crap because not only is the US not a democracy, there is also nothing inherent in a constitutional republic that sets a limit on the ammount of legislation per year.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Kachi » Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:31 pm UTC

Virtually any government spending provides stimulus. I believe this was already discussed by someone else, but it's a mere matter of how high the return is on that spending. Either way, if it provides a needed or even very desirable service, there is no question that it provides a sufficient return. The government hiring fashion designers to get all of America stylin' and profilin' would be poor government spending. Nothing in the current stimulus bill really qualifies. We're not talking about giving people money to sit in a chair, but to create products and services, and in turn, jobs.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby frezik » Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:03 pm UTC

Kachi wrote:Nothing in the current stimulus bill really qualifies.


I wouldn't say "nothing". The tax breaks for Hollywood producers would seem to qualify, and is the sort of thing you need to watch for with Democrats in charge--some democratic congresscritters are well-connected to the entertainment industry. But as I was trying to make clear in the OP, much/most of the GOP's list is filler designed so that they can go on cable news networks and say they have a list of 30 pork items, and hope that nobody looks too carefully at the actual contents.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Telchar » Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:30 pm UTC

Yes, all government spending creates jobs, but that doesn't mean you want your stimulus bill to say "We are just gonna buy a bunch of 400 dollar toilet seats 'cause we in some deep shit!" Theres stimulus spending, things like infrastructure in particular, and then there's digital converterbox funding.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby frezik » Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:43 am UTC

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/08/congress.economy/index.html

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported last week that the measure is likely to create between 1.3 million and 3.9 million jobs by the end of 2010, lowering a projected unemployment rate of 8.7 percent by up to 2.1 percentage points.

But the CBO warned the long-term effect of that much government spending over the next decade could "crowd out" private investment, lowering long-term economic growth forecasts by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent by 2019.


Methinks this is exactly the situation where Keynes would say "In the long run, we're all dead". In other words, there is a high probability that long term growth forcasts will be thrown off by some random event, and are therefore not worth talking about when there are more immediate problems to solve.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

i
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby i » Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:25 am UTC

frezik wrote:Methinks this is exactly the situation where Keynes would say "In the long run, we're all dead". In other words, there is a high probability that long term growth forcasts will be thrown off by some random event, and are therefore not worth talking about when there are more immediate problems to solve.


Personally, I don't think we should worry about global warming. Who knows what will happen in fifty years.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Jahoclave » Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:40 pm UTC

i wrote:
frezik wrote:Methinks this is exactly the situation where Keynes would say "In the long run, we're all dead". In other words, there is a high probability that long term growth forcasts will be thrown off by some random event, and are therefore not worth talking about when there are more immediate problems to solve.


Personally, I don't think we should worry about global warming. Who knows what will happen in fifty years.

Personally, I think we should string up conservatives by their toes. Who knows what stupid world destroying bullshit they'll think up in the next fifty years.

User avatar
Veracious Sole
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:05 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Veracious Sole » Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:57 pm UTC

Here is a list of some of the latest items to be cut from the stimulus package. It is worth noting that this was put forward by Democrats as well as Republicans. The article even suggests (though it does not state outright) that the Democrats were in the majority.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/stimulus.cuts/index.html wrote:Partially cut:
$3.5 billion for energy-efficient federal buildings (original bill $7 billion)

• $75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million)

• $200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million)

• $100 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (original bill $427 million)

• $100 million from law enforcement wireless (original bill $200 million)

• $300 million from federal fleet of hybrid vehicles (original bill $600 million)

• $100 million from FBI construction (original bill $400 million)

Fully eliminated:

• $55 million for historic preservation

• $122 million for Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters

• $100 million for Farm Service Agency modernization

• $50 million for Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service

• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation

• $100 million for distance learning

• $98 million for school nutrition

• $50 million for aquaculture

• $2 billion for broadband

• $100 million for National Institute of Standards and Technology

• $50 million for detention trustee

• $25 million for Marshalls Construction

• $300 million for federal prisons

• $300 million for BYRNE Formula grant program

• $140 million for BYRNE Competitive grant program

• $10 million state and local law enforcement

• $50 million for NASA

• $50 million for aeronautics

• $50 million for exploration

• $50 million for Cross Agency Support

• $200 million for National Science Foundation

• $100 million for science

• $1 billion for Energy Loan Guarantees

• $4.5 billion for General Services Administration

• $89 million General Services Administration operations

• $50 million from Department of Homeland Security

• $200 million Transportation Security Administration

• $122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use

• $25 million for Fish and Wildlife

• $55 million for historic preservation

• $20 million for working capital fund

• $165 million for Forest Service capital improvement

• $90 million for State and Private Wildlife Fire Management

• $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start

• $5.8 billion for Health Prevention Activity

• $2 billion for Health Information Technology Grants

• $600 million for Title I (No Child Left Behind)

• $16 billion for school construction

• $3.5 billion for higher education construction

• $1.25 billion for project based rental

• $2.25 billion for Neighborhood Stabilization

• $1.2 billion for retrofitting Project 8 housing

• $40 billion for state fiscal stabilization (includes $7.5 billion of state incentive grants)
"I never knew words could be so confusing," Milo said to Tock as he bent down to scratch the dog's ear.
"Only when you use a lot to say a little," answered Tock. ~The Phantom Tollbooth~

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby frezik » Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:08 pm UTC

i wrote:
frezik wrote:Methinks this is exactly the situation where Keynes would say "In the long run, we're all dead". In other words, there is a high probability that long term growth forcasts will be thrown off by some random event, and are therefore not worth talking about when there are more immediate problems to solve.


Personally, I don't think we should worry about global warming. Who knows what will happen in fifty years.


That's not comparable. Climate change is already a problem and getting worse. Without some sort of stimulus plan, it's likely the recession will go on a lot longer, and possibly deepen into a depression. In that case, your 10 year economic projections will be off by 10% or more, instead of 0.1%.

During times of crisis, solving immediate problems must be the priority, or you'll never survive to see the long term.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests