What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
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.

strangely enough, despite the massive increase in the size of the debt, it was actually more affordable than when bush took office.
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
I posted this is the other thread too but for those following this one:

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Just because I know people are curious and also lazy I went ahead and summed all of those figures up. The grand total is 24.6 billion rounded off.

I believe the bill is estimated to be 900 billion right? So that means 2.7% of it is pork according to CNN's list.

It's hard to use that as an argument when the only reason it is such a low percentage is that the entire bill is so mind bogglingly large. Just because these programs listed (which I'm sure are only a small representation of many, many similar outlines) account for such a low percentage of the entire bill, doesn't mean that they aren't significant amounts of money. This just makes it easier for politicians to throw money at everything they always wanted to, because they have something much bigger with which to dwarf their otherwise still outrageous spending.

In short, it's like a poor person spending $100 a week eating out because he pays $3700 a week in medical bills. Granted, he has to take out loans to pay for everything, but what is $100 compared to $3700?
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp

I didn't know furnishings built and installed themselves. It all creates jobs. Furniture makers, activity coordinators, counselors, etc.

So, in your estimate, how many jobs is this going to create? No doubt it will be contracted through an existing government supplier. How long will those jobs last? What will be the economic impact?

But if you'd rather pay those people unemployment to do nothing, by all means proceed.

Fallacious argument. You're begging the question.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: Xavier434
I posted this is the other thread too but for those following this one:

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Just because I know people are curious and also lazy I went ahead and summed all of those figures up. The grand total is 24.6 billion rounded off.

I believe the bill is estimated to be 900 billion right? So that means 2.7% of it is pork according to CNN's list.

It's hard to use that as an argument when the only reason it is such a low percentage is that the entire bill is so mind bogglingly large. Just because these programs listed (which I'm sure are only a small representation of many, many similar outlines) account for such a low percentage of the entire bill, doesn't mean that they aren't significant amounts of money. This just makes it easier for politicians to throw money at everything they always wanted to, because they have something much bigger with which to dwarf their otherwise still outrageous spending.

In short, it's like a poor person spending $100 a week eating out because he pays $3700 a week in medical bills. Granted, he has to take out loans to pay for everything, but what is $100 compared to $3700?

Correct, but you're missing the point to my post. I wasn't trying to argue that it is a small amount of pork. I was trying to point out that while the pork has a tendency to get people's panties tied in a knot, we really should be focusing most of our attention of the remaining 97.3% of the bill. Don't completely ignore the pork, but recognize that in terms of priorities it currently is lower on the totem poll.
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: Xavier434
I posted this is the other thread too but for those following this one:

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Just because I know people are curious and also lazy I went ahead and summed all of those figures up. The grand total is 24.6 billion rounded off.

I believe the bill is estimated to be 900 billion right? So that means 2.7% of it is pork according to CNN's list.

It's hard to use that as an argument when the only reason it is such a low percentage is that the entire bill is so mind bogglingly large. Just because these programs listed (which I'm sure are only a small representation of many, many similar outlines) account for such a low percentage of the entire bill, doesn't mean that they aren't significant amounts of money. This just makes it easier for politicians to throw money at everything they always wanted to, because they have something much bigger with which to dwarf their otherwise still outrageous spending.

In short, it's like a poor person spending $100 a week eating out because he pays $3700 a week in medical bills. Granted, he has to take out loans to pay for everything, but what is $100 compared to $3700?

Correct, but you're missing the point to my post. I wasn't trying to argue that it is a small amount of pork. I was trying to point out that while the pork has a tendency to get people's panties tied in a knot, we really should be focusing most of our attention of the remaining 97.3% of the bill. Don't completely ignore the pork, but recognize that in terms of priorities it currently is lower on the totem poll.

Ok, I see what you did there.

I agree, and I hope a more thorough examination of the spending is done. As it is now, all I have seen are vague descriptions of spending outlays, and no real plan. I have a feeling that this is going to become another black hole.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Ok, I see what you did there.

I agree, and I hope a more thorough examination of the spending is done. As it is now, all I have seen are vague descriptions of spending outlays, and no real plan. I have a feeling that this is going to become another black hole.

Well, without going into detail (I did that in another thread last week), I can assure you that the real meat of this bill is going to greatly stimulate my ability to circulate dollars in this economy sooner than later. I know I am only one citizen from one household and I can't speak for anyone else, but I can assure you that there is a lot of potential here. It really boils down to the people and their decisions after the bill passes and not so much the government. The government is just trying to make the circulation of funds occur more and occur faster. The theory is that the natural flow of our economy and markets will pick it all up from there and mend things over time at a faster rate than they would have without government involvement assuming they are able to pick it back up at all without assistance.

Now, will it actually work? I cannot say for sure and no one else here can either. I hope it does and I do understand the potential it carries for success. I believe that one thing is for certain though. The bill is going to pass in one form or another.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Guys if this "pork" gives investors incentive to buy movies then that's a shit ton of people working.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Guys if this "pork" gives investors incentive to buy movies then that's a shit ton of people working.

To be perfectly honest, I find there to be potential for economic stimulus in most of the pork listed here. I think people are asking the wrong question. They are asking whether or not the pork is a complete waste of money. The answer to that one is simple and that answer is no. It is not a complete waste of money because it will most likely at least have some positive effect on the economy. That answer doesn't really help us think objectively though.

The real question is whether or not that same amount of money could be used to better stimulate the economy if invested elsewhere which is very possible after one considers some of these porkish line items and starts thinking about where else that money could be spent to stimulate things. It could be as simple as cutting the pork and adding that money to some of the more potent line items already listed.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
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.

Yawn.
 

idiotekniQues

Platinum Member
Jan 4, 2007
2,572
0
76
the republicans are obscene. they have consistently gotten us into the worst deficits but now act like the guardians of the bank.

the bill needs more work, but what the repubs are labeling as pork is just nothing more but a game - as some is pork, but so much of what they call is not - theya re just playing their word games like cheney/bush did with 9/11 and saddam. they are disgusting ilk.

good answer by obama here for one example of the bullshit republican game of labeling something one thing buta lways doing the other.

" Couric: Sen. Mitch McConnell said over the weekend that surely you're privately embarrassed by some of the product that came out of the house version and let me just mention some of the spending in this package: $6.2 billion for home weatherization, $100 million for children to learn green construction...

Obama: Lets take that example. I'm stunned that Mitch McConnell use this as an example ... We're going to weatherize homes, that immediately puts people back to work and we're going to train people who are out of work, including young people, to do the weatherization. As a consequence of weatherization, our energy bills go down and we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What would be a more effective stimulus package than that? I mean, you're getting a threefer. Not only are you immediately putting people back to work but you're also saving families on your energy bills and you're laying the groundwork for long term energy independence. That's exactly the kind of program that we should be funding."
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Why buy a car if the steel is made in China, the electronics made in Japan, and assembled in South America, and has an American company logo on it?
 

Superrock

Senior member
Oct 28, 2000
467
1
0
This is what I like in the bill:

? $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

? $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

? $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

? $75 million for "smoking cessation activities.

? $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

? $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

? $500 million for state and local fire stations.

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

? $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

? $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

? $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

? $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

? $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.


Any dollar spent on making us healthier or developing cleaner, alternative energy is money well spent in my opinion because it will help us in the longer run as well as the short run.







 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: Ozoned
? $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

How about rules that all drivers of public vehicles must cease from idling their engines for long periods of time?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about they use their own personal transportation for shit that isn't work related,,,, like getting there and back for starters.

Didn't we give the automakers 25Billion plus? Hell we should have just walked into the showroom and handed them our chinese credit card and walked out with those vehicals. h and wtf are you gonna do if you need a truck? Or chase a bad guy?
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Computers at community colleges = good thing

Seriously, making learning at these institutions easier is one of the best investments any government can make. It's sad enough that we're the last western nation to still charge tuition at our public colleges and universities.

Buying computers for community colleges is a wise way to spend some of the stimulus bill. Seriously, education investment has a high rate of return when you're a tax collector.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Superrock
This is what I like in the bill:

? $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

? $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

? $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

? $75 million for "smoking cessation activities.

? $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

? $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

? $500 million for state and local fire stations.

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

? $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

? $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

? $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

? $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

? $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.


Any dollar spent on making us healthier or developing cleaner, alternative energy is money well spent in my opinion because it will help us in the longer run as well as the short run.
Those things are good but they don't belong in this Bill.
 

Possessed Freak

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 1999
6,045
1
0
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Seriously, making learning at these institutions easier is one of the best investments any government can make. It's sad enough that we're the last western nation to still charge tuition at our public colleges and universities.
Since when did computers make learning easier anyway? Does it actually help with memory retention?

Oh, and the day I am mandated to start paying for every soul to attend college is the day I stop paying taxes.
 

evident

Lifer
Apr 5, 2005
12,154
774
126
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.

don't forget that BS war started in the middle east in 2003 that cost how many lives and how many dollars?
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
So...have we started discussing the other $875 billion dollars that this bill contains here yet? You know....the part of the bill which will actually have a true effect on this country whether that be for better or worse? Or are we still yapping like mindless drones about the pork because it is just too big of a red herring to focus on what actually matters the most right now...
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
In case you weren't paying attention, production of domestic autos decreased over 17% in 2008 - ditto for PCs (actually I think it was greater than that).

Further declines are projected in 2009. Now. Do you get the point?

Maybe we should just say, "To Hell with it." and move that production overseas, too, eh?


Originally posted by: evident
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.

don't forget that BS war started in the middle east in 2003 that cost how many lives and how many dollars?

This is the Con in Voodoo Economics Tax Cuts. Incur massive debt in times of economic expansion - Proceed with unfunded military action.

The 'upside' today (if you want to call it that) is that the only significant economic activity in the United States is defense related.

It's safe to say that significant deficit spending for defense activities during times of economic expansion (see Raygun) is a recipe for Economic Fail.