Dan Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 How about the medical personnel needed to provide services paid for by medicaid, or the workers who will do the weatherizing and the companies that produce the weatherizing materials, and the workers who provide childcare which allows parents to go to work at such jobs as rebuilding the infrastructure. I really dislike your avatar.
The Big Cat Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I really dislike your avatar. I stared at it for a long time. I'm still not sure how I feel about it. What other teams in the NFL have a logo with the kind of longevity ours has had?
Dan Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I stared at it for a long time. I'm still not sure how I feel about it. What other teams in the NFL have a logo with the kind of longevity ours has had? Not sure about that... but off the top of my head: Packers, Steelers, Chiefs, Raiders, Cardinals, Bears, Lions. So a few, I'd guess. If the Bills switched to that logo, they'd take away the last thing about the team that I still like.
John Adams Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Not sure about that... but off the top of my head: Packers, Steelers, Chiefs, Raiders, Cardinals, Bears, Lions. So a few, I'd guess. If the Bills switched to that logo, they'd take away the last thing about the team that I still like. Continuing off the top of head: Dolphins, Cowboys, Giants (?), Redskins, Bengals (longer than current Bills helmet), Browns, Colts, 49ers, Rams, Colts...maybe Seahawks.
Andrew in CA Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Giants- old ( http://newyorkgiants365.com/uploaded_image...lmet-752264.JPG ) new ( http://nineteen69.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/helmet.jpg ) Cardinals- old ( http://www.hollywoodcollectibles.com/autog...rley_Trippi.jpg ) new- ( http://www.schwartzsports.com/images_x/lei...entic-thumb.jpg ) Seahawks- old ( http://www.hollywoodcollectibles.com/Image...seattle_mid.jpg ) new ( http://www.amincousa.com/zcart/images/nfl/nfl-pn-002-14.gif ) have all changed recently.
PastaJoe Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I stared at it for a long time. I'm still not sure how I feel about it. What other teams in the NFL have a logo with the kind of longevity ours has had? In case you didn't notice, it's actually the Sabres logo modified for the Bills.
finknottle Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 6/800 = 0.0075 (0.7%)2/800 = 0.0025 (0.25%) Are these the portions of the bill you really want to beef over? What happened to $100 billion for Medicaid? You know, 12.5%? I've got a really big beef with that. One of you math wizards claimed that the pork was less than 1%. Well, these things add up. $79 billion in direct aid to states to compensate for lost federal revenue $39 billion to pick up the tab on COBRA for the unemployed $20 billion to increase the food stamps benifit by 13% (I've said it before and I'll say it again - the price of food is not a problem in this country). $2.5 billion for carbon capture demonstrations $6 billion for mass transit (that will really help the Big 3). $6 billion for low-income housing $500 million for Native American Housing block grants $500 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs buildings $150 million for the Smithsonian buildings $15 billion to increase Pell Grants $6 billion for "Higher Education Modernization." $650 million for TV conversion $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts $250 million for State Department Computers $200 million to spruce up the National Mall $670 million to rebuild restrooms and facilities in National Parks (more than their annual budget) $87 million for expanding family planning services $108 million to extend worker retraining and make the first $2,400 of unemployment tax free (like somebody laid off is going to rush out and spend that money, and like worker retraining has ever been shown to prepare workers for tomorrows jobs) $300 checks to social security recipients and disabled veterens (I don't know the total) $198 million to Filipino veterens (most of whom do not live in the US). Ohhh, what great jobs these will all generate! Definately worth the ~40k per tax-payer. Mind you, the bill does not offer $825 billion in spending. It proposes $550 billion, with $275 in tax cuts: $500/$1000 tax credit (that means free money, not a tax cut) for individuals not making a certain amount Greater access to the $1000 tax credit per child Expansion of the earned income tax credit to families with three children A $2500 college tax credit Repealing the requirement that a first-time home buyers $7500 tax credit be paid back
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 $200 million to spruce up the National Mall Actually, it's not "spruce up" as much as "completely overhaul". Adding a metro stop at the Jefferson Memorial? I don't think memorial accessibility is one of the more pressing problems facing DC.
Dan Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 What happened to $100 billion for Medicaid? You know, 12.5%? I've got a really big beef with that. One of you math wizards claimed that the pork was less than 1%. Well, these things add up. $79 billion in direct aid to states to compensate for lost federal revenue $39 billion to pick up the tab on COBRA for the unemployed $20 billion to increase the food stamps benifit by 13% (I've said it before and I'll say it again - the price of food is not a problem in this country). $2.5 billion for carbon capture demonstrations $6 billion for mass transit (that will really help the Big 3). $6 billion for low-income housing $500 million for Native American Housing block grants $500 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs buildings $150 million for the Smithsonian buildings $15 billion to increase Pell Grants $6 billion for "Higher Education Modernization." $650 million for TV conversion $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts $250 million for State Department Computers $200 million to spruce up the National Mall $670 million to rebuild restrooms and facilities in National Parks (more than their annual budget) $87 million for expanding family planning services $108 million to extend worker retraining and make the first $2,400 of unemployment tax free (like somebody laid off is going to rush out and spend that money, and like worker retraining has ever been shown to prepare workers for tomorrows jobs) $300 checks to social security recipients and disabled veterens (I don't know the total) $198 million to Filipino veterens (most of whom do not live in the US). Ohhh, what great jobs these will all generate! Definately worth the ~40k per tax-payer. Mind you, the bill does not offer $825 billion in spending. It proposes $550 billion, with $275 in tax cuts: $500/$1000 tax credit (that means free money, not a tax cut) for individuals not making a certain amount Greater access to the $1000 tax credit per child Expansion of the earned income tax credit to families with three children A $2500 college tax credit Repealing the requirement that a first-time home buyers $7500 tax credit be paid back I think it's time for a definition of "pork". Yes, some, perhaps many, programs in this Bill seem questionable. However, I think the vast, vast majority could be beneficial to helping the economy not just by creating jobs, but by also maintaining jobs and by injecting money into the economy. Of course, that all depends on how the money is actually spent which, as far as I can tell, is not clearly defined the the Bill. For example, $250 mill for computers. That presumably buys alot of computers which keeps Dell (or whoever) and the computer parts makers from laying off workers while updating computers that are probably horribly out dated. I don't really see that as a bad thing. For a second example, $670 mill for National Parks facilities. Again, you'll need people to rebuild those facilities, supplies, wood, paint, etc. That either creates jobs or potentially allows Sherwin Williams to not lay off workers. Plus the National Parks get a much needed face lift. Not really a bad thing. Again... if done properly. If they spend $1,000 on a gallon of paint then we got problems.
The Big Cat Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 In case you didn't notice, it's actually the Sabres logo modified for the Bills. I did notice that, actually. It just got me thinking. My alma mater used the Bills logo as its logo UNTIL my freshmen year (figures) and the upgrade kinda sucked (Link, Link). I was just imagining what a change would be like (and how it would impact my wardrobe).
Johnny Coli Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Yes, but how does that help the long-term economic competatitiveness of the US? Are we going to export nurses, insulation, and nannys? Who will pay their salaries in 10 years? Not the government - it will be hard pressed to tread water maintaining the debt. You cannot grow the economy by paying everybody to paint each others houses. This is not a stimulation bill, it is a handout. It creates jobs in the short term for people who are out of work. The economy will recover and then these jobs won't be the only thing out there for people. Really, is it so hard for some of you heartless bastards to understand that having people employed and not living in boxes under bridges while the economy recovers is a good thing? If it takes three to five years for many of the blue-collar jobs to recover, then what do you expect all of these people to live on for those three to five years? But, people like you who scream and stamp their feet that this money goes into short-term programs for the people who need it the most won't be happy unless the first package out of congress includes your tax breaks. Too !@#$ing bad for you. The long-term cpompetitiveness of the US depends on getting the people who don't have jobs now working. I think you can live without your tax breaks.
finknottle Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I think it's time for a definition of "pork". Yes, some, perhaps many, programs in this Bill seem questionable. However, I think the vast, vast majority could be beneficial to helping the economy not just by creating jobs, but by also maintaining jobs and by injecting money into the economy. Of course, that all depends on how the money is actually spent which, as far as I can tell, is not clearly defined the the Bill. For example, $250 mill for computers. That presumably buys alot of computers which keeps Dell (or whoever) and the computer parts makers from laying off workers while updating computers that are probably horribly out dated. I don't really see that as a bad thing. For a second example, $670 mill for National Parks facilities. Again, you'll need people to rebuild those facilities, supplies, wood, paint, etc. That either creates jobs or potentially allows Sherwin Williams to not lay off workers. Plus the National Parks get a much needed face lift. Not really a bad thing. Again... if done properly. If they spend $1,000 on a gallon of paint then we got problems. At the end of the day, the health of the US economy is inexorably linked to jobs that export goods and services. If we continue to run trade deficits, the wealth of the country drains away. I see nothing in this bill that encourages companies that export, except the business tax cuts, the construction (which helps Catepiller, an important exporter, and the construction services industry) and *arguably* the climate and alternative energy research. Companies go where the money is - why start a company exporting widgets when you can get a fat contract refurbishing government buildings. Do we really want the next generation of workers in this country, and the output of all those worker retraining programs, to be a bunch of painters and Sherwin Williams reps? I remember Boston's Big Dig. For the first several years, the biggest 'job creation' was companies telling workers how to cash in on all the jobs it would bring!
finknottle Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 It creates jobs in the short term for people who are out of work. The economy will recover and then these jobs won't be the only thing out there for people. Really, is it so hard for some of you heartless bastards to understand that having people employed and not living in boxes under bridges while the economy recovers is a good thing? If it takes three to five years for many of the blue-collar jobs to recover, then what do you expect all of these people to live on for those three to five years? But, people like you who scream and stamp their feet that this money goes into short-term programs for the people who need it the most won't be happy unless the first package out of congress includes your tax breaks. Too !@#$ing bad for you. The long-term cpompetitiveness of the US depends on getting the people who don't have jobs now working. I think you can live without your tax breaks. Lot's of big talk about people living under bridges. Fine. How does $15 billion to increase Pell Grants $500 help them? Or $150 million for the Smithsonian? $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts? $87 million for expanded family planning? Or my favorite, $198 million to the Filipino Veterans of WWII? If you want to say this bill is a handout to get the poor through hard times, ok. Just don't be disingenuous and call it an economic stimulus, not when the actual 'stimulus' spending only comes to about $90 billion and only 20% of that is expected to be spent by 2010. I call it a non-stimulative orgy of spending on every pet project they can think of.
Dan Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 At the end of the day, the health of the US economy is inexorably linked to jobs that export goods and services. If we continue to run trade deficits, the wealth of the country drains away. I see nothing in this bill that encourages companies that export, except the business tax cuts, the construction (which helps Catepiller, an important exporter, and the construction services industry) and *arguably* the climate and alternative energy research. Companies go where the money is - why start a company exporting widgets when you can get a fat contract refurbishing government buildings. Do we really want the next generation of workers in this country, and the output of all those worker retraining programs, to be a bunch of painters and Sherwin Williams reps? I remember Boston's Big Dig. For the first several years, the biggest 'job creation' was companies telling workers how to cash in on all the jobs it would bring! I'm not the best person to argue these points, I admit (so don't beat me up too bad). But, isn't the economy linked to all sorts of jobs? Yes, the exportation of goods and services seems important, but so are many other things. If the housing market is failing, new homes aren't being built, and a multitude of jobs, goods, and services are declining. The result is layoffs and depression. So, how is not rebuilding national park facilities (just to continue with that example) not good? It would seem to help offset those losses and declining demands from the housing market. That would keep people employed and lessen the economic decline. Yes, having people paint houses isn't necessarily the best type of jobs and the best for long term economic growth. However, it does serve an immediate need. I'm not at all convinced that this Bills is good or will "stimulate" anything. But, one thing about all the "pork" that strikes me is that it seems extremely far reaching. Let's just say all programs in this Bill pass and are funded... there's hardly an area of the economy that won't see some benefit - short term and long term. Contrast that with the Big 3 bailout. A relatively narrow section of the economy is helped for just the short term. Which is better to help the economy, I don't know. Look at the TARP bailout, thing. You're helping the financial institutions, freeing up lending and credit and all that jazz. Great, I guess. But, we're giving the banks billions so they stay in business, but the banks aren't giving me anything to keep me in my house. So, how is that helping exactly? It's been explained 10 ways to Sunday, but for my simplistic mind it just seems to be perpetuating the "live beyond your means" mentality that got us all in this mess. I don't need more credit. I need a job; I need cheaper groceries (yes, food prices have gone up quite a bit); I need an alternative energy source that isn't subject to the whims of terrorists. So we give the banks billions to stay in business, but we shouldn't give anyone else anything but the ability to go further into debt? I think I've strayed from the point, but it's not like I know half of what we're talking about any way. I guess it would be easier to judge this Bill if there was a decent alternative to discuss. But, all I've heard is tax breaks for every one and I really can't see how giving people a tax break is going to help with this huge cluster!@#$ of a mess. I assure you, any tax refund I get is going straight into savings in case I lose my job.
Dan Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Lot's of big talk about people living under bridges. Fine. How does $15 billion to increase Pell Grants $500 help them? Or $150 million for the Smithsonian? $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts? $87 million for expanded family planning? Or my favorite, $198 million to the Filipino Veterans of WWII? If you want to say this bill is a handout to get the poor through hard times, ok. Just don't be disingenuous and call it an economic stimulus, not when the actual 'stimulus' spending only comes to about $90 billion and only 20% of that is expected to be spent by 2010. I call it a non-stimulative orgy of spending on every pet project they can think of. This one puzzles me as well. A quick google gave me some background. Who knows about the merits of this. But, it would probably sound quite a bit different if there were a group of Texas national guardsmen that were being denied benefits. Some of the others, for ex. the $87mill for family planning. I would put firmly in the "depends how it's spent" category. What if they use that money to hire social workers and print brochures (just made up some service)? Well, that's maybe not such a waste. I suppose there's some history on this portion of the Bills as well, if I chose to look into it.
Fingon Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 1] Most of the alleged pork projects are the ones that can be started right away. That is why they are there, because they can be started right away.2] Again, the bill was always designed to both spend right away for jobs, as well as create/help industries that would not be temporary jobs (like construction) but long term jobs as well as job training and educating the work force which will help the economy long term and make the country back into an entity that makes and manufactures things. This is being billed as an emergency stimulus bill. This is NOT the place to stick your long term pork projects. The point of a stimulus is for short term growth. and by the way, it would take over 5 years to start the majority of these construction projects.
Johnny Coli Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Lot's of big talk about people living under bridges. Fine. How does $15 billion to increase Pell Grants $500 help them? Or $150 million for the Smithsonian? $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts? $87 million for expanded family planning? Or my favorite, $198 million to the Filipino Veterans of WWII? If you want to say this bill is a handout to get the poor through hard times, ok. Just don't be disingenuous and call it an economic stimulus, not when the actual 'stimulus' spending only comes to about $90 billion and only 20% of that is expected to be spent by 2010. I call it a non-stimulative orgy of spending on every pet project they can think of. I didn't say it was a handout at all. You people like to throw the "handout" word around because you find the idea of helping the very people that this package would put back to work, namely the middle class and the poor, distasteful. I said it was a way to create jobs for the people who need it, with a good portion of those jobs going into rebuilding the Nation's infrastructure. That's not a handout. I'm also not surprised you and yours wouldn't want to expand the Pell Grant which would help out the people getting an advanced education. $500 may not seem like much to you Ivory Tower/Gated Community folks, but that's a ton of cash for a college student. There were semesters where my books totaled slightly more than that. The Smithsonian and NEA money absolutely creates jobs in construction and the Arts. In my opinion, $87 million for Family Planning isn't nearly enough for programs that directly impact large swaths of other social programs. What the hell do you have against WWII veterans? Of course you don't call it "stimulus." It doesn't stimulate your bottom line. Tough sh--. This isn't about you. It's about fixing the economy and getting people back to work while the economy recovers.
finknottle Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Look at the TARP bailout, thing. You're helping the financial institutions, freeing up lending and credit and all that jazz. Great, I guess. But, we're giving the banks billions so they stay in business, but the banks aren't giving me anything to keep me in my house. So, how is that helping exactly? It's been explained 10 ways to Sunday, but for my simplistic mind it just seems to be perpetuating the "live beyond your means" mentality that got us all in this mess. I don't need more credit. I need a job; I need cheaper groceries (yes, food prices have gone up quite a bit); I need an alternative energy source that isn't subject to the whims of terrorists. The spin has shifted. The bailout was sold not as as a bailout, but as a macro-move to unfreeze the markets. Individual institutions would be allowed to fail - it was all about unfreezing lending. For example Lehman Brothers, 28600 employees and one of Americas oldest financial institution, was allowed to go bankrupt. AIG, on the other hand, was proped up not because of its workers or shareholders, but because it was ultimately so intertwined in nearly all underwriting that chaos would result if they couldn't honor their policies. It was that argument that ultimately swayed Republican opposition. Things change, and TARP is now looking like what it's opponents prophesized - a bailout slush fund for favored companies. I don't think it would have passed had we known what we know now.
Chump Change Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Look at the TARP bailout, thing. You're helping the financial institutions, freeing up lending and credit and all that jazz. Great, I guess. But, we're giving the banks billions so they stay in business, but the banks aren't giving me anything to keep me in my house. So, how is that helping exactly? It's been explained 10 ways to Sunday, but for my simplistic mind it just seems to be perpetuating the "live beyond your means" mentality that got us all in this mess. I don't need more credit. I need a job; I need cheaper groceries (yes, food prices have gone up quite a bit); I need an alternative energy source that isn't subject to the whims of terrorists. If living beyond our means on a micro level got us into this mess then please explain to my simple mind how living beyond our means on a National or macro level is going to get us OUT of this mess? I'm sure smart guy Johnny Coli has an insult for my heartless question...but I doubt he has a reasonable answer.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 This is being billed as an emergency stimulus bill. This is NOT the place to stick your long term pork projects. The point of a stimulus is for short term growth. and by the way, it would take over 5 years to start the majority of these construction projects. Wrong. It was never being sold as just an economic stimulus plan. Right from day one, as I posted earlier, there were 5-6 things it was supposed to do simultaneously, only one of them being to create immediate jobs and get the economy going. If you thought this bill was supposed to be just an economic stimulus plan you simply weren't following it. It was always, always, always supposed to be for both short and long term, it always included huge amounts for education. That was the whole idea for it, that we were going to try to put as many people to work right away building things, but we were simultaneously going to rebuild infrastructure, create new industries and green jobs for the future economy, establish new grids for electricity and broadband, and help educate the workforce so years from now when our economy is back we will again be the world leaders in making things that we export, like energy efficiency technologies and products to wean us off foreign oil. That was always the plan and it was never just to jumpstart the economy. Some projects, the "pork" people were talking about, were always part of the deal because those were the jobs that were being labeled "shovel ready" or were all set to go in certain states, they just couldn't fund them so the feds were going to give the states money to fund them. A lot of these education bills which people are complaining about are actually construction jobs to rebuild schools, and that, too, was always in the plan from day one. And there was always supposed to be jobs that started right away, many of which were temporary, as well as jobs that started in a couple years when the project was ready to go (since it wasn't "shovel ready" as we speak), as well as some down the line when the industries emerged.
Recommended Posts