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
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 4:20 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Veracious Sole wrote: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)

Image

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

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby SummerGlauFan » Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:39 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.


Wait, what? That's like saying we should not worry about Iran's nuclear ambitions, or that we shouldn't worry about getting vaccinated during flu season. Global warming is a proven threat; ignoring it is only going to make it worse.

I need to go lay down. I have a headache now.
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
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8915
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Bakemaster » Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:10 pm UTC

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

Hugely different issues. Natural science is not the same as economic science and should be treated as such.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

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

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby i » Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:30 pm UTC

frezik wrote:
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 know it's already a problem, and that's why we need a solution that will work this year---not fifty years from now. If it doesn't effect the climate tomorrow, then it will take resources away from short-run solutions and make this year worse.

I prefer to hide in uncertainty and pretend that the future cannot be predicted. Sure, there's a 99.99% that liquidating my pension and relying on the lottery for retirement is a bad idea, but it's not 100% and therefore it's a downside not worth considering. It could be thrown off by any random event.

Actually, now that I think about it, that's a really bad idea :?

When it comes to the this economy, there are plenty of models that say we could end up in a worse position with the stimulus than without it. The CNN article you cited doesn't list these---it actually gives a downside we'd endure in a best case scenario.

One model relies on an unchanged propensity to consume. Take a look at the stimulus bill and see if there is anything that requires the private rate of consumption to increase. If the propensity to consume (or invest, I guess) does not increase as gov't spending falls off, the US will go back in a recession with a huge national debt. Then you slap CNN's forecast on top of that (edit: actually more, because a larger percentage of a deflated gdp would have to go to paying off the debt).

That is a long-run situation worth considering, and in my opinion, trumps all short term advantages. In that case, it would be better to endure the recession than try to avoid it.

Just don't say the long-run doesn't matter.

User avatar
d33p
Happy Fun Ball
Posts: 1714
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:06 am UTC
Location: La Maison de la Liberté

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby d33p » Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:50 pm UTC

Wait wait wait.
Our beloved Congress cut $50M for NASA, and kept $75M for smoking cessation programs?
I... That does it. I'm moving to New Zealand.
Parka wrote:I assume this is yours. I don't know anyone else who would put "kill a bear" on a list.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5393
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby mosc » Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:08 am UTC

It's not like smoking costs taxpayers billions in healthcare costs. No, couldn't be that. Makes no sense to me why anybody would try to encourage folks to quit smoking.[/sarcasm]

"A male smoker in the United States that smokes more than one pack a day can expect an average increase of $19,000 just in medical expenses over the course of his lifetime. A U.S. female smoker that also smokes more than a pack a day can expect an average of $25,800 additional healthcare costs over her lifetime."Citation. Now 20.8% of adults in the US still smoke. citation and if you take our adult population at something like 250 million people and 50/50 male/female, that works out to 5.6 Trillion dollars. Hmm, maybe getting people to quit smoking could save us all a lot of money?

Knowledge: get some.
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 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:38 pm UTC

mosc wrote:It's not like smoking costs taxpayers billions in healthcare costs. No, couldn't be that. Makes no sense to me why anybody would try to encourage folks to quit smoking.[/sarcasm]

"A male smoker in the United States that smokes more than one pack a day can expect an average increase of $19,000 just in medical expenses over the course of his lifetime. A U.S. female smoker that also smokes more than a pack a day can expect an average of $25,800 additional healthcare costs over her lifetime."Citation. Now 20.8% of adults in the US still smoke. citation and if you take our adult population at something like 250 million people and 50/50 male/female, that works out to 5.6 Trillion dollars. Hmm, maybe getting people to quit smoking could save us all a lot of money?

Knowledge: get some.
And in the US we still have the right to smoke if we like. And if we wish to operate a bar or restaurant and allow people to smoke there, why should a bunch of people who don't own or operate my restaurant or bar get to tell me whether or not to allow someone to do something that is perfectly legal in my establishment? I'm a pretty avid anti-smoker, but I don't consider my opinion on the matter to be important enough to trump other people's rights. If nonsmokers wanted a place to stop allowing smoking, they'd contact the management/owner and inform them that they wouldn't be going there until it was a nonsmoking establishment and then, and here's the rub and the real reason that these laws get passed, they'd actually have to stop going there. Of course, this won't happen because we in the US get bored waiting for the microwave, but it's ok, because we're so fucking entitled to whatever we want whenever we want it that we'll push a law through to circumvent business owners' rights to manage their establishment. Anyway, when 80% of their business dried up, the management/owner would suddenly realize that their business should become a nonsmoking establishment and, upon changing over, would get their business back. Pushing through laws to force such a policy on a business owner, while slightly more convenient for me, the nonsmoker, it's also using the government to bully the business owner in a way that I'm not comfortable with. If it's suddenly allowable to determine whether or not a bar can allow smoking, what other policies are we going to force on them?
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
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Malice » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:06 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:
mosc wrote:It's not like smoking costs taxpayers billions in healthcare costs. No, couldn't be that. Makes no sense to me why anybody would try to encourage folks to quit smoking.[/sarcasm]

"A male smoker in the United States that smokes more than one pack a day can expect an average increase of $19,000 just in medical expenses over the course of his lifetime. A U.S. female smoker that also smokes more than a pack a day can expect an average of $25,800 additional healthcare costs over her lifetime."Citation. Now 20.8% of adults in the US still smoke. citation and if you take our adult population at something like 250 million people and 50/50 male/female, that works out to 5.6 Trillion dollars. Hmm, maybe getting people to quit smoking could save us all a lot of money?

Knowledge: get some.
And in the US we still have the right to smoke if we like. And if we wish to operate a bar or restaurant and allow people to smoke there, why should a bunch of people who don't own or operate my restaurant or bar get to tell me whether or not to allow someone to do something that is perfectly legal in my establishment? I'm a pretty avid anti-smoker, but I don't consider my opinion on the matter to be important enough to trump other people's rights. If nonsmokers wanted a place to stop allowing smoking, they'd contact the management/owner and inform them that they wouldn't be going there until it was a nonsmoking establishment and then, and here's the rub and the real reason that these laws get passed, they'd actually have to stop going there. Of course, this won't happen because we in the US get bored waiting for the microwave, but it's ok, because we're so fucking entitled to whatever we want whenever we want it that we'll push a law through to circumvent business owners' rights to manage their establishment. Anyway, when 80% of their business dried up, the management/owner would suddenly realize that their business should become a nonsmoking establishment and, upon changing over, would get their business back. Pushing through laws to force such a policy on a business owner, while slightly more convenient for me, the nonsmoker, it's also using the government to bully the business owner in a way that I'm not comfortable with. If it's suddenly allowable to determine whether or not a bar can allow smoking, what other policies are we going to force on them?


22/7, how the flying fuck is any of that related to this stimulus plan? Did the government set aside money to pay somebody to oppress bar owners? Because that seems pretty illogical to me.

Yes, you have the right to smoke. But it's still smart on our part to dissuade you from doing so, because your smoking has negative externalities.
Image

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 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:11 pm UTC

Maybe I misinterpreted the "smoking cessation programs". I'm assuming that they're somehow related to things like anti-smoking campaigns which, in a number of cities/counties/whatever recently, have included removing smoking from public places like bars and restaurants.

Of course, even if it's just a "get people to quit smoking" fund it's still not very stimulusy.

It's also possible that I got a little perturbed by the unnecessarily flippant tone of the previous post.
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: 5393
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby mosc » Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:32 pm UTC

If you could pay somebody $10k and they'd never smoke again, it would be worth it in most cases. The math is clear. Many people who don't even have incomes let alone healthcare except through the government smoke and the added cost goes straight to the taxpayer when they need medical attention. This is a no brainer financial boon for the government IF it can be shown that the programs are even remotely effective. That's very stimulus to me.
Last edited by mosc on Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:00 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:34 pm UTC

I don't doubt that it'd be an eventual financial boon, but I don't see how it's stimulus.
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
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Malice » Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:44 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:I don't doubt that it'd be an eventual financial boon, but I don't see how it's stimulus.


Stimulus = government spending. Even if it's for digging and filling in ditches over and over again.

Better stimulus = government spending with long-term pay-offs. Like getting people to stop smoking.

You seem to be a pretty smart person, 22. What aren't you getting about this?
Image

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Jebobek » Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:51 pm UTC

I'm guessing mosc is talking about people getting a tax break. But yea, when I hear "stimulus" these days I think an immediate payoff to people. I'm not surprised others think the same way.

Maybe I misinterpreted the "smoking cessation programs". I'm assuming that they're somehow related to things like anti-smoking campaigns which, in a number of cities/counties/whatever recently, have included removing smoking from public places like bars and restaurants.
I'm not sure if you're right or wrong; they might be plugging a bit of that money in allowing/forcing private companies go smoke free. The non-profit hospital I work at here in PA went smoke free last year; we used our own funding to put up the warning signs. We pay security to go around and make sure there aren't people on campus smoking. Perhaps this funding would have given us money to help us announce/enforce it?
Image

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 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:13 pm UTC

Jebobek wrote:I'm not sure if you're right or wrong; they might be plugging a bit of that money in allowing/forcing private companies go smoke free. The non-profit hospital I work at here in PA went smoke free last year; we used our own funding to put up the warning signs. We pay security to go around and make sure there aren't people on campus smoking. Perhaps this funding would have given us money to help us announce/enforce it?
I was envisioning the money being used to support pushing through whatever needs to be pushed through to make a city/county smoke free.
Malice wrote:Stimulus = government spending. Even if it's for digging and filling in ditches over and over again.

Better stimulus = government spending with long-term pay-offs. Like getting people to stop smoking.

You seem to be a pretty smart person, 22. What aren't you getting about this?
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I'm not sure I understand how funding advertising campaigns create jobs in the short run. I get the long term benefits (assuming for the sake of argument that these campaigns are actually effective), but I don't see money going to anyone but large media conglomerates. I guess some of these will also go on privately owned billboards? There could be some actors and script-writers getting paid, I guess.
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
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Malice » Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:35 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:
Jebobek wrote:I'm not sure if you're right or wrong; they might be plugging a bit of that money in allowing/forcing private companies go smoke free. The non-profit hospital I work at here in PA went smoke free last year; we used our own funding to put up the warning signs. We pay security to go around and make sure there aren't people on campus smoking. Perhaps this funding would have given us money to help us announce/enforce it?
I was envisioning the money being used to support pushing through whatever needs to be pushed through to make a city/county smoke free.


I was not aware that the federal government could assign funding to a political campaign like that.

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I'm not sure I understand how funding advertising campaigns create jobs in the short run. I get the long term benefits (assuming for the sake of argument that these campaigns are actually effective), but I don't see money going to anyone but large media conglomerates. I guess some of these will also go on privately owned billboards? There could be some actors and script-writers getting paid, I guess.


Advertising costs money to make, and provides jobs that way. They also cost money to run, which provides support to all sorts of media--TV, magazines, newspapers, all of which take that increased income and use it hire new people and expand. And then those new hires take their new income and spend it, increasing the economy again... and so on and so forth.
Image

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5393
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby mosc » Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:08 pm UTC

22/7, it's pretty fundamental to the nature of stimulus in general. Perhaps it's not that you're misunderstanding smoking cessation efforts but instead are misunderstanding the purpose of stimulus? It's spending money on credit (national debt) to put money into the economy. In general, this increases DEMAND. The increased DEMAND gets balanced by increased SUPPLY from the economy which means, in general, the economy grows. Jobs, infrastructure, and GDP. The goal is not just to put money in though, it's to specifically target areas that the government's money will be leveraged into long term growth opportunities.

Smoking cessation is probably a lot of advertising, educational programs, counseling, and discounts on quitting aids. That means new jobs. The long term benefit is reduced healthcare spending which could mean the money could be spent in other more effective places or simply not taxed.
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 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:47 pm UTC

Malice wrote:Better stimulus = government spending with long-term pay-offs. Like getting people to stop smoking.



No. Stimulus should be government spending with short-term pay-offs. There was a report by Moodys Investor Service linked elsewhere that indicated that spending money on infrastructure, in general, is the best form of stimulus, baring some programs like food stamps, where the return is 175% vs infrastructure which is ~150%. You want a high rate of return on stimulus because this isn't on the budget. This is all going into debt, so you have to make certain your return on the stimulus is more than your interest. Things like digital converter boxes and smoking cessation, while they may save money in the long run and are probably good programs, are not stimulus.
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
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 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:53 pm UTC

I understand the purpose of stimulus and the most basic of basics of economics on the national level, thank you. Is the DoD budget on here?
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
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 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:03 pm UTC

What? Department of Defense budget? This isn't in any budget.
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
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 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:07 pm UTC

Surely if they're simply looking for ways to spend money since stimulus = government spending money they could just tack on some massive DoD projects?
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
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 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:13 pm UTC

I don't know what the short term return would be on R&D. Manufacturing more planes, tanks, etc...would surely have some impact, especially if you could get the auto makers to do it, but I don't know 1. if they would, 2. if they could and 3. if it would be worth it for them to spend the money to retool enough plants.
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
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Malice » Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:04 am UTC

Telchar wrote:
Malice wrote:Better stimulus = government spending with long-term pay-offs. Like getting people to stop smoking.



No. Stimulus should be government spending with short-term pay-offs.


There was a report by Moodys Investor Service linked elsewhere that indicated that spending money on infrastructure, in general, is the best form of stimulus,


You want a high rate of return on stimulus


Can we all agree that this statement is true:

Things like digital converter boxes and smoking cessation, while they may save money in the long run and are probably good programs, are not the best stimulus.
Image

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 » Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:42 am UTC

Malice wrote:Can we all agree that this statement is true:

Things like digital converter boxes and smoking cessation, while they may save money in the long run and are probably good programs, are not the best stimulus.


Seconded. All in favor?
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby The Reaper » Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:52 am UTC

Wouldn't not supporting digital converter boxes force people to buy new TVs? Wouldn't that stimulate the economy? -_-

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5393
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby mosc » Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:56 am UTC

It'll force them to buy digital converter boxes. Wow, I don't know how I came up with that one!
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
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby frezik » Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:55 am UTC

The Reaper wrote:Wouldn't not supporting digital converter boxes force people to buy new TVs? Wouldn't that stimulate the economy? -_-


Neither option does a lot for stimulating things. Both devices are going to be built by Asian manufactuerers, and both are sold with minimal markup at retail. Retailers get their money from cables and other accessories.

Keep in mind that part of the plan for these converter boxes is so that TV signals take up less spectrum space, which can then be used for wireless broadband. That's potentially very big in the next few years, but isn't likely to help create jobs immediately.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

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 » Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:02 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:Surely if they're simply looking for ways to spend money since stimulus = government spending money they could just tack on some massive DoD projects?

Well, Brownback wanted all the projects that we were going to fund anyways (the ones that would be massive projects mainly constructed in his state) pushed up. Though, the defense industry isn't hurting. And though it's rather anecdotal, my brother just got a raise simply because a new guy got hired with a salary close to his. And that's before he got another raise. Granted Northrup's had trouble keeping people in that division, but still, when you can just throw money at people like that you're not pinching pennies.

That and I think it'd be hard to get as much public support on defense spending after all the crap with Iraq and the like. That and personally people would be more apt to get behind improvements to the homeland over increased bombing capacity of people who we can utterly obliterate with our current technology and forces.


As for smoking, will nobody think of the children? How do you think we're paying for their health care? Support children, smoke a pack.

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby lesliesage » Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm UTC

Jon Stewart brings out the Big Stimulus Guns: Emergency Christmas.

We're going to have Emergency Christmas every month until we buy ourselves out of this catastrofuck. What, you have a problem with that? Are you saying you didn't get me anything for Emergency Christmas? This is the worst Emergency Christmas EVER!

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 » Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:32 pm UTC

lesliesage wrote:Jon Stewart brings out the Big Stimulus Guns: Emergency Christmas.

We're going to have Emergency Christmas every month until we buy ourselves out of this catastrofuck. What, you have a problem with that? Are you saying you didn't get me anything for Emergency Christmas? This is the worst Emergency Christmas EVER!

Does this mean the War on Christmas is over and Bill and Bill and Hannity and Limbaugh and FOX and the Christian Right can shut the bloody fucking hell up?

User avatar
william
Not a Raptor. Honest.
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby william » Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:35 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote:
lesliesage wrote:Jon Stewart brings out the Big Stimulus Guns: Emergency Christmas.

We're going to have Emergency Christmas every month until we buy ourselves out of this catastrofuck. What, you have a problem with that? Are you saying you didn't get me anything for Emergency Christmas? This is the worst Emergency Christmas EVER!

Does this mean the War on Christmas is over and Bill and Bill and Hannity and Limbaugh and FOX and the Christian Right can shut the bloody fucking hell up?

Haha, those guys aren't going to shut up until some alien comes to Earth and eats their asses(you know, what they talk out of?)
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.

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 » Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:36 pm UTC

william wrote:
Jahoclave wrote:
lesliesage wrote:Jon Stewart brings out the Big Stimulus Guns: Emergency Christmas.

We're going to have Emergency Christmas every month until we buy ourselves out of this catastrofuck. What, you have a problem with that? Are you saying you didn't get me anything for Emergency Christmas? This is the worst Emergency Christmas EVER!

Does this mean the War on Christmas is over and Bill and Bill and Hannity and Limbaugh and FOX and the Christian Right can shut the bloody fucking hell up?

Haha, those guys aren't going to shut up until some alien comes to Earth and eats their asses(you know, what they talk out of?)

Suddenly the SETI project makes so much more sense.

Otis
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:12 am UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby Otis » Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:23 pm UTC

This isn't a completely foreign situation for America. Remember an event back in the 30's called THE GREAT DEPRESSION? Roosevelt tried the exact same thing we're doing now and called it The New Deal. It did the exact opposite of what it was designed to do and actually lengthened and worsened the depression. It is estimated that unemployment would have only increased by 6.7% but after the New Deal was implemented it rocketed to 17.2% and the depression was actually prolonged by 7 years.

We need this stimulus bill like we need a hole in the head. The free market system works, we just need to let it. The same thing happened with the TARP bill. Some major banks started failing and people started panicking but the system started immediately fixing itself when the banks that weren't failing bought up the ones that were along with all their assets. Then along comes the government with their big fancy checks to hand out to the banks that deserved it least and any hope of a quick recovery were soon destroyed.

I agree that we need some tax cuts (for everyone, not just businesses) but to compound that with reckless spending is only going to cause severe inflation down the line.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5393
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby mosc » Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:29 pm UTC

I dispute everything Otis just said. The new deal was a positive thing and did not lengthen the depression.
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
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby lesliesage » Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:55 pm UTC

mosc wrote:I dispute everything Otis just said. The new deal was a positive thing and did not lengthen the depression.
Actually, the New Deal began the depression. People who like inequality got really depressed and never really recovered, not even after Reagan's best efforts. And the free market actually works fantastically... at maintaining class immobility. I guess it's just a question of values.

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 16, 2009 7:20 pm UTC

lesliesage wrote:
mosc wrote:I dispute everything Otis just said. The new deal was a positive thing and did not lengthen the depression.
Actually, the New Deal began the depression. People who like inequality got really depressed and never really recovered, not even after Reagan's best efforts. And the free market actually works fantastically... at maintaining class immobility. I guess it's just a question of values.

Wow, it's like the inverse of Marx.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5393
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby mosc » Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:29 pm UTC

lesliesage wrote:
mosc wrote:I dispute everything Otis just said. The new deal was a positive thing and did not lengthen the depression.
Actually, the New Deal began the depression. People who like inequality got really depressed and never really recovered, not even after Reagan's best efforts. And the free market actually works fantastically... at maintaining class immobility. I guess it's just a question of values.

I guess we've slipped into libertarian world again. Sorry, I live on planet earth. Marx was right. The free market will lead to an endless spiral of class separation. The solution was Keynesian economics and the new deal.
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
slow2learn
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:35 pm UTC

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby slow2learn » Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:35 pm UTC

...a wee bit of a thread jack...

This is PORK.

I think it a horrid idea to get government involved in personal morgages. The capibility for abuse is huge. It takes away part of personal responsiblity for loans. It lets the indebted adquire bigger debts. (The govt will pay that extra 10 grand!). And instead it's sold as "Lets help the people!"

I'm of the opinion that we should let failing economies fail. If something is wrong, it shouldn't be resurrected. If businesses continually make bad decisions, we shouldn't be there to help them help them stand back up. even if this hurts the people. It hurts more to have bad businesses still in business.

I know that hurts the american people. I know that that puts thousands out of jobs. It would create a very hard time on america the entire world.

Tough times make tough people. Tough times can cultivate self responsibility and an understanding of the value of hard work.

I'm not advocating that we purposely make anyones life hard. But that when tradgedy strikes, we should not push new govt programms to 'save', which only further place the people under more problems.
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger,
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: GOP Bailout "Pork" List

Postby lesliesage » Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

mosc wrote:
lesliesage wrote:
mosc wrote:I dispute everything Otis just said. The new deal was a positive thing and did not lengthen the depression.
Actually, the New Deal began the depression. People who like inequality got really depressed and never really recovered, not even after Reagan's best efforts. And the free market actually works fantastically... at maintaining class immobility. I guess it's just a question of values.
I guess we've slipped into libertarian world again. Sorry, I live on planet earth. Marx was right. The free market will lead to an endless spiral of class separation. The solution was Keynesian economics and the new deal.
Wait wait wait. Are you saying that you're against class separation? Then how am I supposed to know whom I'm better than? Someone didn't think this through.

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 16, 2009 7:47 pm UTC

lesliesage wrote:
mosc wrote:
lesliesage wrote:
mosc wrote:I dispute everything Otis just said. The new deal was a positive thing and did not lengthen the depression.
Actually, the New Deal began the depression. People who like inequality got really depressed and never really recovered, not even after Reagan's best efforts. And the free market actually works fantastically... at maintaining class immobility. I guess it's just a question of values.
I guess we've slipped into libertarian world again. Sorry, I live on planet earth. Marx was right. The free market will lead to an endless spiral of class separation. The solution was Keynesian economics and the new deal.
Wait wait wait. Are you saying that you're against class separation? Then how am I supposed to know whom I'm better than? Someone didn't think this through.

I think you missed a sarcasm tag in your post and so everything went to shit. So I will clear this up.

MOSC YOU AGREE WITH LESLIESAGE.

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 » Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:17 pm UTC

Kyohei Morita, chief economist at Barclays Capital in Tokyo, said Japanese policymakers tend to introduce measures to boost approval ratings rather than GDP, especially with mandated elections later this year.


from an article on Japan's economy diving about 13% in Q4 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/02 ... artner=rss

The New York Times and the BBC, I notice, can objectively summarize aspects of Italian, Japanese, and Iranian politics with such statements. I only wish they would be as frank with American politics, where the media must always treat both sides equally to excess, when one can be proven wrong using something as simple as a statute of U.S. Code, or the CIA World Fact Book. When a reporter has the audacity to do this during an interview, his or her guest refuses to make an appearance, and they lose the ratings of the guest's supporters.

So, if this can be agreed upon, what are international sources saying about the bailouts and stimulus packages here? I'd like foreign language sources best, lest the ratings of Americans reading English international news sites affect anything.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests