What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I absolutely love the Repuglican's sudden concern over fiscal responsibility. It's as if they hadn't encouraged the country to lever up to the hilt over the last 8 years. Hey, wasn't the national debt at 6tr before bush and is now almost 12tr?

Who approved that? Ohh wait, almost all under the Repuglicans!

These fuckers are only pandering further, it's disgusting to think that they spend like drunken sailors when they want to spend, but when somebody else does, they're suddenly Scrooge.

Well, its better than staying the course, right?

No, it's not better. They are playing a bullshit game, because you know damn well that this has nothing to do with countering pork, it has to do with countering the pork that they don't want and putting in pork they do want. It's the "spoiling" game with trying to styme the Dems and make them look bad. It's a game of "gotcha".

It has absolutely nothing to do with a fundamental shift in the Repuglican party back to what they were 30+ years ago. This is an utter bullshit move and is a joke. If more REAL Republicans realized this they'd vote every fucking Faux Repuglican out of office and get some REAL fiscal conservatives in there.

You know if the democrats didnt put shit in the bill, the republicans would have nothing to point to and say "gotcha".

 

[CPA]

I would argue that the waste disposal is better than recycling at this point only because recycling commodities are in the tank. you would end up losing/spending more money to put in a recycling program in today's environment.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: OrByte
One other thing:

How can salary increases at the FBI be considered "wasteful?"

How is that not a direct stimulus to people's paychecks?

That belongs in the general budget.
The FBI is already getting paid.

They are not hiring new agents and if they did, reoccuring expenses does not belong here.

Personal expenses should be kept out of this for every department.

from reading the article it said nothing about misallocating or misdirecting budget expenses only that these line items were considered "wasteful"

maybe the author of the article, or maybe GOP representatives, should choose their words more carefully?

Those types of items do not belong in the stimulus - bottom line.

As soon as I see such an argument posed from members of the GOP or, for that matter, from any of the Dems then I will believe you.

Until then you are blowing smoke and so is the GOP. Those types of items are, according to this article, considered "wasteful" and with little explanation. I don't see how it is considered wasteful. And you are doing a poor job of explaining anything, but up to this point so are our elected representatives too. I'm not buying what any of them are selling right around now.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I'm going to guess that if we were to successfully come up with a clean-coal solution, it would be worthwhile for the entire country - not just the state of IL - don't you agree?

And if not, who cares, we got our fat payoff from the coal lobby up front. And we'll all look like heroes 'cuz we told everyone we were being green and helping the economoy, lol, poor bastards will re-elect us!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Title: What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

Gee, what a tough one. Hmm, let me guess. Everything that IS NOT going to stimulate the economy and create jobs THIS year?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I absolutely love the Repuglican's sudden concern over fiscal responsibility. It's as if they hadn't encouraged the country to lever up to the hilt over the last 8 years. Hey, wasn't the national debt at 6tr before bush and is now almost 12tr?

Who approved that? Ohh wait, almost all under the Repuglicans!

These fuckers are only pandering further, it's disgusting to think that they spend like drunken sailors when they want to spend, but when somebody else does, they're suddenly Scrooge.

Well, its better than staying the course, right?

No, it's not better. They are playing a bullshit game, because you know damn well that this has nothing to do with countering pork, it has to do with countering the pork that they don't want and putting in pork they do want. It's the "spoiling" game with trying to styme the Dems and make them look bad. It's a game of "gotcha".

It has absolutely nothing to do with a fundamental shift in the Repuglican party back to what they were 30+ years ago. This is an utter bullshit move and is a joke. If more REAL Republicans realized this they'd vote every fucking Faux Repuglican out of office and get some REAL fiscal conservatives in there.

You know if the democrats didnt put shit in the bill, the republicans would have nothing to point to and say "gotcha".

It wouldn't matter, they'd find something. They want mostly tax cuts, which is a fuckin joke.

 

[sportage]

Hey dont knock MN.
Its the long term. A nitch that adds up to cleaner air for YOUR kids and theirs.
But naturally, me me me is the concern, as usual.
And Minn also put in that rail people mover system, only costs $1.50 to ride.
Its electric. Clean, modern and actually fun to ride.
Last I heard they are expanding it up to St Cloud.
Minn is trying to do their part.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Genx87
Minneapolis spent a bunch of money on Hydrid buses. I think the cost to the city was about 280K per bus. It gained them 2-4 MPG. It will never pay for itself.

when you go from 6 mpg to 10, it actually makes a pretty big difference. for things that move as much as buses, it coudl accumulate over time.


of course the better option would have been to just use natural gas.

Well I obviosuly exaggerated the time it will pay for itself. What I should have said was it is highly doubtful we will see it in the next 10 years. But then one has to calculate the opportunity costs of the money spent on the newer buses.

The fuel savings was lower than I originally thought. The old buses got 3.88 miles to the gallon while the hybrids get 4.71.

1) The significant advantage of hybrids is eliminating idling use of the engine. There is no possible way that is an accurate portrayal in the reduction of fuel consumption considering how often city buses idle.

Please link where you got those numbers from.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
$75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
Earmarked Pork

Wrong. Healthier workers are more productive, thus make more money and stimulate economy. Plus lower insurance premiums = good

$25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction
Same as above

Same as above. People who aren't alcoholics make more money and stimulate economy.

$10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
Earmarked Pork

Isn't this infrastructure work? I'm assuming if a canal is inspected and found to need work, then people will be hired to fix it.

$650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
Does not belon in this bill - US Forestry Service

Fire management requires people. Specifically people who are HIRED to do the managing. More jobs.

$88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
Earmark Pork

Also more jobs.

$160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
Earmarked Pork

Maybe not "jobs", but people getting paid for helping communities.

$5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
Same as above - GSA Maintenence is not doing their job

Paying people to do an energy efficiency upgrade sounds good.

$100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
Earmark pork - belongs in EPA budget

I notice a pattern here. Lots of things you call pork could easily be included in other budgets. This doesn't negate the fact that people will be getting paid to do the work. It's not like $100 mil is being shot into a black hole or something.

$75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
Earmark pork - DOD & FBI facilites work great - also there are private facilities in place

Construction workers hired to build a new facility = good

$110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
Does not belong in this bill

Same as the lead paint one.

 

[theeedude]

Realize that for every Million you save, that's 10-20 jobs gone.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I absolutely love the Repuglican's sudden concern over fiscal responsibility. It's as if they hadn't encouraged the country to lever up to the hilt over the last 8 years. Hey, wasn't the national debt at 6tr before bush and is now almost 12tr?

Who approved that? Ohh wait, almost all under the Repuglicans!

These fuckers are only pandering further, it's disgusting to think that they spend like drunken sailors when they want to spend, but when somebody else does, they're suddenly Scrooge.

Well, its better than staying the course, right?

No, it's not better. They are playing a bullshit game, because you know damn well that this has nothing to do with countering pork, it has to do with countering the pork that they don't want and putting in pork they do want. It's the "spoiling" game with trying to styme the Dems and make them look bad. It's a game of "gotcha".

It has absolutely nothing to do with a fundamental shift in the Repuglican party back to what they were 30+ years ago. This is an utter bullshit move and is a joke. If more REAL Republicans realized this they'd vote every fucking Faux Repuglican out of office and get some REAL fiscal conservatives in there.

So the GOP can't try to remove pork from the bill, simply because in your opinion, they would want to put their own in? The Dems are the ones who rallied against wasteful Republican spending for the last 8 years. Now when the GOP tries to do the same, they aren't allowed?

Who cares who's pork it is... it shouldn't be in this already astronomically expensive bill.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
$75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
Earmarked Pork

Wrong. Healthier workers are more productive, thus make more money and stimulate economy. Plus lower insurance premiums = good

$25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction
Same as above

Same as above. People who aren't alcoholics make more money and stimulate economy.

Everything else aside, these are just an idiotic arguments.

Originally posted by: senseamp
Realize that for every Million you save, that's 10-20 jobs gone.

I don't see hardly any items in this list that would create significant jobs. I see spending going to government workers, I see going to government agencies, I see spending going to vague outlines of initiatives, and I see spending going to building new government buildings.

How many jobs will you create on furnishing a new government building?

How many jobs will you create with "smoking cessation activities"?

How many will you create trying to help Indians stop boozing?

You might make the case that some of this spending will help people keep jobs that they may otherwise lose, but to try and claim this will stimulate the economy is intellectually dishonest. It would take a long stretch of the imagination to turn most of these into anything but agenda-driven "because we can" spending.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I absolutely love the Repuglican's sudden concern over fiscal responsibility. It's as if they hadn't encouraged the country to lever up to the hilt over the last 8 years. Hey, wasn't the national debt at 6tr before bush and is now almost 12tr?

Who approved that? Ohh wait, almost all under the Repuglicans!

These fuckers are only pandering further, it's disgusting to think that they spend like drunken sailors when they want to spend, but when somebody else does, they're suddenly Scrooge.

Well, its better than staying the course, right?

No, it's not better. They are playing a bullshit game, because you know damn well that this has nothing to do with countering pork, it has to do with countering the pork that they don't want and putting in pork they do want. It's the "spoiling" game with trying to styme the Dems and make them look bad. It's a game of "gotcha".

It has absolutely nothing to do with a fundamental shift in the Repuglican party back to what they were 30+ years ago. This is an utter bullshit move and is a joke. If more REAL Republicans realized this they'd vote every fucking Faux Repuglican out of office and get some REAL fiscal conservatives in there.

You know if the democrats didnt put shit in the bill, the republicans would have nothing to point to and say "gotcha".

It wouldn't matter, they'd find something. They want mostly tax cuts, which is a fuckin joke.

Sure they would however they would look like the fools instead of the democrats if it was frivelous enough. Shoveling this much garbage into a "stimulus" package that was sold on infrastructure construction is ripe for the picking.

Cant blame Republicans for pointing out the obvious.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I absolutely love the Repuglican's sudden concern over fiscal responsibility. It's as if they hadn't encouraged the country to lever up to the hilt over the last 8 years. Hey, wasn't the national debt at 6tr before bush and is now almost 12tr?

Who approved that? Ohh wait, almost all under the Repuglicans!

These fuckers are only pandering further, it's disgusting to think that they spend like drunken sailors when they want to spend, but when somebody else does, they're suddenly Scrooge.

Well, its better than staying the course, right?

No, it's not better. They are playing a bullshit game, because you know damn well that this has nothing to do with countering pork, it has to do with countering the pork that they don't want and putting in pork they do want. It's the "spoiling" game with trying to styme the Dems and make them look bad. It's a game of "gotcha".

It has absolutely nothing to do with a fundamental shift in the Repuglican party back to what they were 30+ years ago. This is an utter bullshit move and is a joke. If more REAL Republicans realized this they'd vote every fucking Faux Repuglican out of office and get some REAL fiscal conservatives in there.

So the GOP can't try to remove pork from the bill, simply because in your opinion, they would want to put their own in? The Dems are the ones who rallied against wasteful Republican spending for the last 8 years. Now when the GOP tries to do the same, they aren't allowed?

Who cares who's pork it is... it shouldn't be in this already astronomically expensive bill.

They aren't trying to remove anything. They are trying to allocate the pork in the way they want it allocated.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sportage
Hey dont knock MN.
Its the long term. A nitch that adds up to cleaner air for YOUR kids and theirs.
But naturally, me me me is the concern, as usual.
And Minn also put in that rail people mover system, only costs $1.50 to ride.
Its electric. Clean, modern and actually fun to ride.
Last I heard they are expanding it up to St Cloud.
Minn is trying to do their part.

It costs 1.50 to the people who actually ride it. To the tax payers of mn the actual cost is closer to 4-5 bucks.

This "doing" their part gets old when the costs start growing. MN's budget for doing the right thing aka expand govt has almost doubled our budget in the past decade. it is up nearly 6 billion in the last 2 years alone.

We also passed a mandate for 20% renewable energy by 2020. This will of course add a hidden tax on the backs of working Minnesotans in the name of green in their electric bills.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Genx87
Minneapolis spent a bunch of money on Hydrid buses. I think the cost to the city was about 280K per bus. It gained them 2-4 MPG. It will never pay for itself.

when you go from 6 mpg to 10, it actually makes a pretty big difference. for things that move as much as buses, it coudl accumulate over time.


of course the better option would have been to just use natural gas.

Well I obviosuly exaggerated the time it will pay for itself. What I should have said was it is highly doubtful we will see it in the next 10 years. But then one has to calculate the opportunity costs of the money spent on the newer buses.

The fuel savings was lower than I originally thought. The old buses got 3.88 miles to the gallon while the hybrids get 4.71.

1) The significant advantage of hybrids is eliminating idling use of the engine. There is no possible way that is an accurate portrayal in the reduction of fuel consumption considering how often city buses idle.

Please link where you got those numbers from.

Id question how much ideling buses consume fuel. Most of these buses dont sit around. They stop for a half minute at a stop and continue on their way. More fuel is spent accelerating than ideling I'd assume.

That said this article talks about the costs and benefits of the hybrids and quotes the fuel mileage which I assume is coming from the mass transit folks.

http://www.startribune.com/local/11828731.html

The hybrids cost $557,000 each, and the ones already in Metro Transit's fleet have averaged 4.71 miles to the gallon, compared with 3.86 for a standard bus. A one-mile-per-gallon difference might not seem worth the fuss, but in percentage terms, it's significant.

 

[sandorski]

It makes me wonder if "Pork" is added to these Bills merely as a means of Negotiating for what you want? It's the old Over/Under Bid strategy in action.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Genx87
Minneapolis spent a bunch of money on Hydrid buses. I think the cost to the city was about 280K per bus. It gained them 2-4 MPG. It will never pay for itself.

when you go from 6 mpg to 10, it actually makes a pretty big difference. for things that move as much as buses, it coudl accumulate over time.


of course the better option would have been to just use natural gas.

Well I obviosuly exaggerated the time it will pay for itself. What I should have said was it is highly doubtful we will see it in the next 10 years. But then one has to calculate the opportunity costs of the money spent on the newer buses.

The fuel savings was lower than I originally thought. The old buses got 3.88 miles to the gallon while the hybrids get 4.71.

1) The significant advantage of hybrids is eliminating idling use of the engine. There is no possible way that is an accurate portrayal in the reduction of fuel consumption considering how often city buses idle.

Please link where you got those numbers from.

Id question how much ideling buses consume fuel. Most of these buses dont sit around. They stop for a half minute at a stop and continue on their way. More fuel is spent accelerating than ideling I'd assume.

That said this article talks about the costs and benefits of the hybrids and quotes the fuel mileage which I assume is coming from the mass transit folks.

http://www.startribune.com/local/11828731.html

The hybrids cost $557,000 each, and the ones already in Metro Transit's fleet have averaged 4.71 miles to the gallon, compared with 3.86 for a standard bus. A one-mile-per-gallon difference might not seem worth the fuss, but in percentage terms, it's significant.

Well my perspective is from NYC where there is a lot of traffic and you idle a lot. Idling in hybrid = 0 consumption, but you are right acceleration is a bulk consumer of fuel. Thank you for the link though, fair enough.

the article claims 1965 gallons of fuel saved per bus.

so you are probably saving 4-5 grand a year, it would definitely take a while to recover the extra 200 grand spent.

Interesting that Seattle claims 30-40% improvement in real world testing, I wonder if they just had really shitty buses before.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

? $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

? $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

I just want to address these two items. Why in the world should the Federal government be involved with municipality issues?

My mentality has not been swayed one bit through the course of my life. Keep the fed for the interstate issues, leave the state for statewide issues and the local government for local issues. Garbage, water and sewer sure seem like local issues to me.

I am sure there are other examples of where the Fed should just stay out (community college computing... yeah let the tuition pay for that), but these two items stick out to me.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

? $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

? $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

I just want to address these two items. Why in the world should the Federal government be involved with municipality issues?

My mentality has not been swayed one bit through the course of my life. Keep the fed for the interstate issues, leave the state for statewide issues and the local government for local issues. Garbage, water and sewer sure seem like local issues to me.

I am sure there are other examples of where the Fed should just stay out (community college computing... yeah let the tuition pay for that), but these two items stick out to me.

This bill also helps state govts meet their projected shortfalls. We have been trying this idea of subsidizing at the city and county level from the state coffers in MN with disasterous results. All the city and counties did was spend that money and still raise taxes as they spent above and beyond. It appears the feds are trying this by subsidizing state govts with federal money.

Pawlenty's plan includes something like 3.4 billion in federal dollars to meet our states projected ~5 billion deficit.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I absolutely love the Repuglican's sudden concern over fiscal responsibility. It's as if they hadn't encouraged the country to lever up to the hilt over the last 8 years. Hey, wasn't the national debt at 6tr before bush and is now almost 12tr?

Who approved that? Ohh wait, almost all under the Repuglicans!

These fuckers are only pandering further, it's disgusting to think that they spend like drunken sailors when they want to spend, but when somebody else does, they're suddenly Scrooge.

Well, its better than staying the course, right?

No, it's not better. They are playing a bullshit game, because you know damn well that this has nothing to do with countering pork, it has to do with countering the pork that they don't want and putting in pork they do want. It's the "spoiling" game with trying to styme the Dems and make them look bad. It's a game of "gotcha".

It has absolutely nothing to do with a fundamental shift in the Repuglican party back to what they were 30+ years ago. This is an utter bullshit move and is a joke. If more REAL Republicans realized this they'd vote every fucking Faux Repuglican out of office and get some REAL fiscal conservatives in there.

Who gives a shit? Pork is pork.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

? $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

? $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

I just want to address these two items. Why in the world should the Federal government be involved with municipality issues?

My mentality has not been swayed one bit through the course of my life. Keep the fed for the interstate issues, leave the state for statewide issues and the local government for local issues. Garbage, water and sewer sure seem like local issues to me.

I am sure there are other examples of where the Fed should just stay out (community college computing... yeah let the tuition pay for that), but these two items stick out to me.

This bill also helps state govts meet their projected shortfalls. We have been trying this idea of subsidizing at the city and county level from the state coffers in MN with disasterous results. All the city and counties did was spend that money and still raise taxes as they spent above and beyond. It appears the feds are trying this by subsidizing state govts with federal money.

Pawlenty's plan includes something like 3.4 billion in federal dollars to meet our states projected ~5 billion deficit.

Even if it is to help states meet shortfalls, these are still municipality issues. Town or at largest, county issues. Not state, and certainly not fed.

 

[Red Dawn]

A lot of those programs are worthwhile but do not belong in this Bill and should be culled.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

? $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

? $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

I just want to address these two items. Why in the world should the Federal government be involved with municipality issues?

My mentality has not been swayed one bit through the course of my life. Keep the fed for the interstate issues, leave the state for statewide issues and the local government for local issues. Garbage, water and sewer sure seem like local issues to me.

I am sure there are other examples of where the Fed should just stay out (community college computing... yeah let the tuition pay for that), but these two items stick out to me.

This bill also helps state govts meet their projected shortfalls. We have been trying this idea of subsidizing at the city and county level from the state coffers in MN with disasterous results. All the city and counties did was spend that money and still raise taxes as they spent above and beyond. It appears the feds are trying this by subsidizing state govts with federal money.

Pawlenty's plan includes something like 3.4 billion in federal dollars to meet our states projected ~5 billion deficit.

Even if it is to help states meet shortfalls, these are still municipality issues. Town or at largest, county issues. Not state, and certainly not fed.

Oh I am not disagreeing with you. I am pointing out they are doing it at the state level as well. And it wont end pretty once states that mandate balanced budgets start requiring the tit of the federal govt to meet that budget.

 

[sandorski]

Notice how they call it "Pork", but don't get more specific than that? What if it's Bacon? Does that change your view on it??