1. Welcome to the new MacRumors forums. See our announcement and read our FAQ

GOP Leaders list what they deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Cleverboy, Feb 3, 2009.

  1. macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    #1
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
    This is obviously a counter to:
    Obama To Go On Media Offensive
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/stimulus-spin-war-obama-t_n_163305.html
    Personally... my digital coupon expired before converters were available, and I'm not alone. How can I get a converter discount, if it expires before I can use it? I don't care WHAT Engadget says, the program needed more funding, and it needed to be postponed one last time (because Bush was botching it again).

    ~ CB
     
  2. macrumors newbie

    #2
    Whether or not one thinks there is some moral good in certain expenditures is beside the point. Irrelevant.

    We are told that the money is to help save jobs in threatened sectors, and to create new jobs. If the proposed expenditure does not do that, it should not be a part of the bill.

    And remember that the focus of the public push for passage has strongly emphasized "infrastructure". When you look at the allocations, however, spending on infrastructure construction is a small percentage of the total. I see no real difference between this and Bush's "WMD" stuff, pre-Iraq.

    The usual political BS: Spend, spend, spend. Buy that bling on credit.

    'Rat
     
  3. macrumors G5

    leekohler

    #3
    There are a few things I don't like on that list, like furniture for the homeland security offices. Most of it I think is great though, such as computers for community colleges and money for Amtrak. And the GOP thinks these things are wasteful? REALLY?
     
  4. macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    #4
    Actually the amtrak one was the one that I was worried about.
    "$850 million for Amtrak." Thats it? What's the money for specifically?
     
  5. macrumors demi-god

    Peace

    #5
    Remember this is part of the Senate version and I see nothing wrong with most of it.

    The republicans are merely being obstructionist. Plain and simple.
     
  6. macrumors G5

    leekohler

    #6
    Amtrak has been doing much better lately. I can only assume the money would be for train cars, maintenance and infrastructure. And if you've never ridden Amtrak, you should. It's fantastic, fun and a great way to travel.
     
  7. Guest

    iGary

    #7
    And without government money, it'd be out of business.

    Isn't this bill supposed to be a stimulus?
     
  8. macrumors G5

    leekohler

    #8
    And apparently, so would our entire financial system.
     
  9. Guest

    iGary

    #9
    What does that have to do with a "private" (government owned corporation) train system that we prop up to the tune of about 1.2 to 1.4 billion a year?

    There are some good earmarks in this bill, but I guess I'm concerned when we start doling out money nearly a trillion dollars at a time.
     
  10. macrumors G5

    leekohler

    #10
    I'd say that's fairly obvious, iGary. We just propped up Wall Street. Isn't that supposed to be "private" too?
     
  11. Guest

    iGary

    #11
    The country isn't going to collapse if Amtrak goes away.

    Why isn't anyone screaming for a balanced budget? When are we going to pay back all of this money and how?

    Any a quarter of a billion dollars for "furniture?"
     
  12. macrumors G5

    leekohler

    #12
    Some of these things do need to go indeed as I mentioned earlier. I agree. I find it funny that the GOP is now screaming about a balanced budget. :rolleyes: Never seemed to be a concern of theirs before, if ever.
     
  13. Guest

    iGary

    #13
    And they should be, but yes, it's political at this point.

    How about we spend a few billion dollars to figure out how to cut waste?
     
  14. macrumors regular

    #14
    Amtrak could disappear tomorrow and 95% of Americans wouldn't even know it.

    $650 million for people to watch TV? Hybrids for government employees? (I wonder how many of those are for US produced hybrids) Smoking cessation?

    Ridiculous. This is the best our elected officials can come up with for economic incentives? No wonder they went into politics; they sure can't come up with any good business ideas.
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    Theophany

    #15
    Anybody willing to put a little perspective on this? Seems to me the Republicans are unwilling to accept funding for a lot of that because it has little or no relevance to what the stimulus package is being sold as - a recession recovery device.

    People in a recession don't need tax breaks to buy new cars, nor do they need to see Hollywood film makers receive tax breaks. People need to learn the art of frugality again, accept that times are hard and make do.

    This entire bail-out mentality has gone too far now. Nobody is making any money out of this and it's only going to prolong the problems, which will come back to haunt at a later date. If I remember correctly, Obama said he didn't expect to get voted in again if he didn't fix the economic problems of the USA within the next four years. This entire bail out is sleight of hand that will downplay or mask the effects of the recession until it's too late.

    I thought somebody would have learned something from the Great Depression...
     
  16. macrumors G5

    leekohler

    #16
    Again- there are things on that list that definitely need to go. But there are things on that list that are quite relevant to recovery, such as the development of green initiatives, youth job programs and computers for community colleges. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The Republicans are clearly wrong to reject a lot of this list.
     
  17. macrumors demi-god

    skunk

    #17
    What energy efficiencies can you make in a cemetery? :confused:
     
  18. macrumors demi-god

    Peace

    #18
    Being a veteran I find those comments completely insulting.

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


    You do realize there's buildings don't you?
     
  19. macrumors 6502

    PcBgone

    #19
    And didnt Obama Lie to Mccain during the Debates stating that he would get rid of earmarks in bills? Or at least cut down on them?

    Do we really need to fork out 246 million dollars for hollywood movie producers?

    How about 88 million dollars to DESIGN a new arctic ship? Is that Necessary? How about refitting our existing ships for less?

    248 Million dollars for furniture at the Homeland Security Headquarters? Does the director really need that expensive of a desk?

    600 million dollars to by hybrid vehicles for federal employees? Why? Whats wrong with the vehicles they have now? Maybe less fuel efficient, but at this cost which ultimately I am paying for, why do they need it?

    And what is 75 Million dollars for smoking cessation Activites? This sounds ridiculous.

    I can go on...but these are the first few that caught my eye. Its ridiculous spending. You cant throw money at this contracting economy and expect it to be fixed. The economy has been inflated for awhile, its natural for it to contract and get back into "normal" .

    I disagree with this bill. And yes Im a Republican.
     
  20. macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    #20
    That would seem to indicate more of a problem on Americans' part than on Amtrak's.

    I agree that there are items that could be cut out of the bill. I don't know what the hell Hollywood producers have to do with it. And paying FBI salaries out of this? Really? You mean we couldn't pass a standalone bill to do that?

    But if the Publicans published this list as an example of "pork", it fails in most respects.

    As I see it, there are two types of things that can validly be inserted into a recovery bill like this:
    • Anything that creates or preserves jobs. Preferably that would be things like bridge-building and other infrastructure projects, but it can also be the government buying needed items.
    • Anything that deals with the effects of job losses: unemployment benefits, medical care, counseling, job retraining programs, etc.
    Some things, like flood reduction projects, should result in jobs. Others, like smoking cessation, won't. But by and large, without knowing any more details than those that are supplied in that list, it's hard to say for an absolute fact that most of them won't keep people employed.

    So this list is less than impressive.
     
  21. macrumors 601

    #21
    I'd love to do that if they had schedules that made any sense. I suppose up north it's different, but down here in Texas the trains are few and far between, and always at inconvenient times. I wanted to use Amtrak for a trip from Austin to San Antonio (a very short, direct route) recently but the trains only ran late at night going and early morning coming back; they just were not feasible for me.
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    Bobdude161

    #22
    my apologies. Wasn't thinking when I posted that.
     
  23. macrumors G5

    leekohler

    #23
    I'd say it is different here and in the East. The schedules are pretty good most of the time.
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    #24
    A balanced budget? Are you kidding me? A balanced budget would be the absolute worst thing the government could do right now. There's nothing worse than one of the biggest movers of money (i.e. the government) pulling money out of the economy during a recession.

    The government's budget is not like a personal budget; it's not necessarily good to have a balanced government budget and a deficit is definitely not a bad thing.
     
  25. macrumors 68020

    freeny

    #25
    There are long term and not so obvious reasons for some of these items. The Dems need to explain why some of the items are here because some look silly on paper. Some are even selectively deceiving...

    Things like the the Tax Break for movie producers. These are tax breaks for producers who promote things like volunteering, civil service, recycling, charity etc in their films.

    Some of these things arent obvious. If you are going to set the rule of "does this create jobs" then yes, a lot of these things are going to be nixed. If this is a more forward thinking approach, most are feasible.

    And yes, some shouldn't be on the list at all.
     

Share This Page