Re: Why do my hard earned tax dollars support a bike team?



M

Mike

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>>
>>
>> Also, I think the USPS is privatized and therefore not supported by the
>> US government.

>
> Not exactly true. I don't know about their monetary support, but when
> the USPS decided to take over some residentially-zoned land in our
> village, they were definitely "supported by our government" - as in,
> they came into town, laid the site plans on our mayor's desk, and said
> "By the way, we know this violates your zoning, but your zoning laws
> don't apply to us. we're an arm of the federal government."
>
> This enraged the citizens quite a lot, as you might imagine. In the
> ensuing meetings, I had one of their representatives yell at me, saying
> "Look, if we want to, WE CAN TAKE YOUR HOUSE!"
>
> So Lance or no Lance, I'm not a fan of the USPS.
>
>


I'm not a fan of government nor of the type of behavior you mention.
However, in the OP's comments about USPS sponsoring a bike team... I feel
USPS sponsoring a team is a good thing. I *don't* think the behavor you
mention is right and the person should have been reprimanded, taken to
the media, published to the state and federal governing types.

Mike
 
R

R.White

Guest
Mike <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Churchill wrote:
> >
> > "Marty Wallace" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >>
> >> "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]
> >> >
> >> > "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]
> >> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > > [email protected] says...
> >> > > >Hey,
> >> > > > Why does the US federal Government support a bike team in France? I
> >> > > >work hard for my money, and think the taxes I pay could be better
> >> > > >used. What a Boondoggle!
> >> > >
> >> > > Like any other company, you have to advertise to get more business.

> USPS
> >> > > wanted to get more customers in Europe to use their service, so they

> sponser
> >> > > a bicycle racing team. For the money they spend, they get an

> excellent
> >> > > return on investment. So they continued to do so until ignorant folks
> >> > > started to complain.
> >> > > -------------
> >> > > Alex
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I would like to see some proof that they are getting bang for their buck

> in
> >> > terms of promotion and advertising. I doubt they are.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> My God you're an idiot.
> >> The fastest rider and the fastest team in the biggest race in the world!
> >> And you want proof?
> >> If you don't think thats good promotion and advertising then you tell us
> >> what is.
> >>
> >> Marty

> >
> > Speaking as a non-American I would never have heard of the "USPS" if it
> > wasn't for the Tour, so their marketing worked in my case :)
> >
> > USPS is smart to do this, they are getting all of Europe focused on their
> > name, cycling 'I sense' is much more popular in Europe than North America :)
> >
> >

>
> Also, I think the USPS is privatized and therefore not supported by the
> US government. Complain instead about how the US government does support
> the US automakers, US highways, and the US petrolium industry. Talk about
> a boondoggle. Since when is it the responsibility of any government
> to 'bail out' a corporation (Chrysler) or a city (New York)?


As far as Chrysler goes, it was in the countries best economic
interest, IMO. Chrysler was the 10th largest industrial corporation
in America at that time. It had 147,000 employees and 4,700 dealers.
Those dealers had 150,000 employees. In addition, Chrysler had 19,000
suppliers, who themselves had 200,000 employees. Chrysler received a
loan guarantee from the U.S. government. It did not receive a dime of
the U.S. Treasury's money. The U.S. government, in return for its loan
guarantee, received the entirety of Chrysler's assets as collateral.
These assets were carried on Chrysler's books at $6 billion
and appraised by the government as having a liquidation value
of $2.5 billion. The U.S. government was in position to collect
its entire loan from the collateral before any other creditors.
Chrysler paid back every penny 7 years before the due date.
 
R

R15757

Guest
Appkiller wrote in part:

<< What would happen if the NYC gov't or Chrysler collapsed? Certainly
more economically painful (short term)than propping them up. Whether
or not we are interfering with governmental and corporate "natural
selection", ....>>

Chrysler needed a government bailout because they
made a shitty product that was rejected by consumers
who favored much better, more practical cars that
were being produced in Japan and Germany.

So the American taxpayers give this gift to prop up
Chrysler, whose products they reject, just so Chrysler
can get acquired by the Germans' Daimlier-Benz.

It was good to see United's request for (additional)
massive loan guaranties get rejected.

The "free market" is a complete fantasy.

Robert
 
D

David Kerber

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, r15757
@aol.com says...
> Appkiller wrote in part:
>
> << What would happen if the NYC gov't or Chrysler collapsed? Certainly
> more economically painful (short term)than propping them up. Whether
> or not we are interfering with governmental and corporate "natural
> selection", ....>>
>
> Chrysler needed a government bailout because they
> made a shitty product that was rejected by consumers
> who favored much better, more practical cars that
> were being produced in Japan and Germany.
>
> So the American taxpayers give this gift to prop up
> Chrysler, whose products they reject, just so Chrysler
> can get acquired by the Germans' Daimlier-Benz.


That was many years after Chrysler had already repaid the entire loan.
There was no "gift"; all the govt did was to give loan *guarantees*, to
allow Chrysler to get a reasonable interest rate on the loan they needed
to remake itself.

United is a different case: they never tried to remake themselves while
they had the chance, and deserve to go under. There are plenty of other
airlines ready to pick up their passenger load, while Chrylser was one
of only 3 major auto makers based in the US.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
 
D

Drew Eckhardt

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>Hey,
>Why does the US federal Government support a bike team in France? I
>work hard for my money, and think the taxes I pay could be better
>used. What a Boondoggle!


They don't.

Since 1971 USPS has been a self-supporting corporation owned entirely
by the US government.

In 2003, they had revenues of $68,529,000 with expenses of $63,902,000
for a $4.6 billion profit.

--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.
 
D

David Reuteler

Guest
In rec.bicycles.misc Leo Lichtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> "DRS" wrote:
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
> THIS REMARK: How could anyone be impressed by beating a bunch of
> cheese-eating surrender monkeys?


ohh, i dunno, i kinda like wisconsin. they've got some beautiful rural
riding behind the cheddar curtain, they're mostly nice folk & their 2am
bar close & sunday sales kept us minnesotans in after hours liquor for
years until we finally came to our senses (so to speak).

On Wisconsin say i.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]
 
R

Richard Adams

Guest
Mike <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
[gnip]
>
> Also, I think the USPS is privatized and therefore not supported by the
> US government. Complain instead about how the US government does support
> the US automakers, US highways, and the US petrolium industry. Talk about
> a boondoggle. Since when is it the responsibility of any government
> to 'bail out' a corporation (Chrysler) or a city (New York)?
>
> Mike


They showed their mettle to the struggling airlines, however, after
the 9/11 attacks. Thanks to that I think we'll have more foreign
ownership of air carriers.

I tell ya, though, if you don't live in a frozen wasteland, those
hybrid cars are the thing. My sister's Prius would work wonderfully
for me where I live. Lots of big 4x4's for sale out here (huge
surprise.)
 
R

R15757

Guest
David Kerber wrote:

<< That was many years after Chrysler had already repaid the entire loan.
There was no "gift"; all the govt did was to give loan *guarantees*, to
allow Chrysler to get a reasonable interest rate on the loan they needed
to remake itself. >>

True, but it's academic now. Any loan guarantee to a
struggling company could easily become a gift.

<< United is a different case: they never tried to remake themselves while
they had the chance, and deserve to go under. There are plenty of other
airlines ready to pick up their passenger load, while Chrylser was one
of only 3 major auto makers based in the US. >>

The point is that consumers obviously didn't need or
want three US carmakers. Whether they really even
want two is up for debate. I would say Let the Market Decide, but that is not
the way it works here in America. Look forward to massive
loan guarantees for Ford Motor Company, "an
American institution." "If we don't save Ford, there will
be only one American automobile company."
Unthinkable.

When Ford finally goes down, it will be a sign of great
progress in human society.

United's latest bid for loan guarantees was denied
because they don't need it, not because the govt. has
decided to let United die. There is still something like
10 billion of taxpayer money in the ATSB kitty. The
money is already gone, whether the airlines use it now
or later.

Robert
 
R

R15757

Guest
David Kerber wrote:

<< That was many years after Chrysler had already repaid the entire loan.
There was no "gift"; all the govt did was to give loan *guarantees*, to
allow Chrysler to get a reasonable interest rate on the loan they needed
to remake itself. >>

True, but it's academic now. Any loan guarantee to a
struggling company could easily become a gift.

<< United is a different case: they never tried to remake themselves while
they had the chance, and deserve to go under. There are plenty of other
airlines ready to pick up their passenger load, while Chrylser was one
of only 3 major auto makers based in the US. >>

The point is that consumers obviously didn't need or
want three US carmakers. Whether they really even
want two is up for debate. I would say Let the Market Decide, but that is not
the way it works here in America. Look forward to massive
loan guarantees for Ford Motor Company, "an
American institution." "If we don't save Ford, there will
be only one American automobile company."
Unthinkable.

When Ford finally goes down, it will be a sign of great
progress in human society.

United's latest bid for loan guarantees was denied
because they don't need it, not because the govt. has
decided to let United die. There is still something like
10 billion of taxpayer money in the ATSB kitty. The
money is already gone, whether the airlines use it now
or later.

Robert
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 12:46:05 -0400, David Kerber
> <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote:
>
>>I don't even know if there are any French in the race; the top
>>competition is Spanish, Italian, German and American, with a few
>>Aussies, Dutch, and Russians thrown into the mix.

>
> There are lots. Today's Maillot Jaune is the French National
> Champion.
>
> The French are in an awful Tour de France slump, though.


Although they've had a winner of the polka-dot jersey several times in
the last decade, thanks to Virenque and Jalabert. And this year
there's already a French stage winner and Maillot Jaune. So the slump
is not as bad as it could be, although the French have seemed
seriously outgunned since instituting the most stringent anti-doping
policies in the sport. Could be a coincidence, might not be.

Of course, for the entire field to have to compete against Miguel
Indurain and then Lance Armstrong is also an issue, these guys have
been unusually dominant. I think in part that's due to having been
very specialized to compete in the Tour primarily, as the Tour
continues to outweigh the entire rest of the racing calendar in
importance. From 1986 to 2003, there were, what, 13 Tours won by
three racers (Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong) and a scattering of tours
won by Roche, Delgado, Pantani, Ullrich, Riis. If we start from
1990, there's been only 5 winners of the Tour.
 
L

Luigi de Guzman

Guest
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> The French are in an awful Tour de France slump, though.

>
>Although they've had a winner of the polka-dot jersey several times in
>the last decade, thanks to Virenque and Jalabert.


It'll be stiff competition for the polka-dot jersey this year. I
wonder if Mayo is starting to think that maybe he should gun for
polka-dots this year, instead of Yellow, considering his position in
the GC...

>And this year
>there's already a French stage winner and Maillot Jaune. So the slump
>is not as bad as it could be, although the French have seemed
>seriously outgunned since instituting the most stringent anti-doping
>policies in the sport. Could be a coincidence, might not be.


Hadn't thought of it like that....

>Of course, for the entire field to have to compete against Miguel
>Indurain and then Lance Armstrong is also an issue, these guys have
>been unusually dominant. I think in part that's due to having been
>very specialized to compete in the Tour primarily, as the Tour
>continues to outweigh the entire rest of the racing calendar in
>importance. From 1986 to 2003, there were, what, 13 Tours won by
>three racers (Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong) and a scattering of tours
>won by Roche, Delgado, Pantani, Ullrich, Riis. If we start from
>1990, there's been only 5 winners of the Tour.


True...but didn't Lemond used to race more of the classics back in the
day than Armstrong does now?

Ah, Lemond! I was just talking to a friend of mine. We were both
little kids when Lemond was winning those Tours de France--he was like
"wow. I remember when Lemond won against that dude with the ponytail!
[Fignon]" He's not a cycling fan, usually, but it was a neat thing to
have remembered.

-Luigi
 
C

Chalo

Guest
Alex Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [email protected] says...
> >
> >Since when is it the responsibility of any government
> >to 'bail out' a corporation (Chrysler) or a city (New York)?

>
> Both paid back what they got with interest. So it was one of the better
> investments on the governments part.


Arguably yes, unlike the much bigger taxpayer-funded bailout of
criminal S&Ls, allowed to run rampant by Ronnie Raygun (may he
incinerate eternally in a notional White Anglo-Saxon Protestant hell).
No return on investment there-- unless you were, say, a
well-connected Bush.

However, why should a Chrysler or a NYC get bailed out of their
predicament while small businesses and small cities have to just take
their lumps and get on with it? It's more a matter of fair treatment
than of whether the money got paid back.

Chalo Colina
 
C

Chalo

Guest
Alex Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [email protected] says...
> >
> >Since when is it the responsibility of any government
> >to 'bail out' a corporation (Chrysler) or a city (New York)?

>
> Both paid back what they got with interest. So it was one of the better
> investments on the governments part.


Arguably yes, unlike the much bigger taxpayer-funded bailout of
criminal S&Ls, allowed to run rampant by Ronnie Raygun (may he
incinerate eternally in a notional White Anglo-Saxon Protestant hell).
No return on investment there-- unless you were, say, a
well-connected Bush.

However, why should a Chrysler or a NYC get bailed out of their
predicament while small businesses and small cities have to just take
their lumps and get on with it? It's more a matter of fair treatment
than of whether the money got paid back.

Chalo Colina
 
S

Sam

Guest
Chrysler received a guarantee on the loan, not direct money. Also, Chrysler
was building tank parts at the time. That said, I think it was not a good
idea and neither was bailing out the airlines following 9/11 or paying death
benefits to people killed in those attacks. Of course, I find about 3/4 of
federal spending to be wrong.


"Appkiller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> ( :< )
>
> > Talk about
> > a boondoggle. Since when is it the responsibility of any government
> > to 'bail out' a corporation (Chrysler) or a city (New York)?
> >
> > Mike

>
> ( :< )
>
> Consider this Mike:
>
> What would happen if the NYC gov't or Chrysler collapsed? Certainly
> more economically painful (short term)than propping them up. Whether
> or not we are interfering with governmental and corporate "natural
> selection", that is another discussion. Look at the short-term
> political consequences for those who chose to let the natural course
> of things occur. In the case of NYC, you are talking the shutdown of
> the world's largest financial center. Not good at all for anyone
> making THAT decision, in addition to a global shift in economic power.
> In the case of Chrysler, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of
> workers suddenly and painfully glutting the job market. They will
> drive down wages, eat up resources (unemployment insurance payments)
> without contributing and the cost of re-education/re-training that
> many workers? Yikes!
>
> Not necessarily advocating corporate and municipal welfare, but if
> changes can be enforced as a condition of assistance, is that not
> better than the alternative?
>
> App, who believes in the social benefit of paying his property taxes
> that fund schools despite his lack of children.
 
H

H. Morgan

Guest
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 14:59:57 -0000, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Churchill wrote:
>>
>> "Marty Wallace" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>> >
>>> > "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> > news:[email protected]
>>> > > In article <[email protected]>,
>>> > > [email protected] says...
>>> > > >Hey,
>>> > > > Why does the US federal Government support a bike team in France? I
>>> > > >work hard for my money, and think the taxes I pay could be better
>>> > > >used. What a Boondoggle!

Since when is it the responsibility of any government
>to 'bail out' a corporation (Chrysler) or a city (New York)?
>
>Mike


Corporate welfare is nothing new. Sometimes the economic consequences
of a large-scale corporate failure are far greater than the direct
cost of subsidy. Sometimes the lost jobs just translate into lost
votes, however.
 
B

Benjamin Weiner

Guest
David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote:
> In rec.bicycles.misc Leo Lichtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "DRS" wrote:
> > Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
> > THIS REMARK: How could anyone be impressed by beating a bunch of
> > cheese-eating surrender monkeys?

>
> ohh, i dunno, i kinda like wisconsin. they've got some beautiful rural
> riding behind the cheddar curtain, they're mostly nice folk & their 2am
> bar close & sunday sales kept us minnesotans in after hours liquor for
> years until we finally came to our senses (so to speak).


> On Wisconsin say i.


If they weren't such a bunch of cheese eating surrenderers
they never would have had to hand over the UP to Michigan
after the Great Michigan-Wisconsin War of 1928.

Hmm, on second thought, maybe the Wisconsinners knew what
they were up to.
 
B

Bob Schwartz

Guest
In rec.bicycles.racing Benjamin Weiner <[email protected]> wrote:
> If they weren't such a bunch of cheese eating surrenderers
> they never would have had to hand over the UP to Michigan
> after the Great Michigan-Wisconsin War of 1928.


> Hmm, on second thought, maybe the Wisconsinners knew what
> they were up to.


The original plan for Wisconsin included both the UP of
Michigan and northern Illinois north of the southern tip
of Lake Michigan. Chicago and northern Illinios is a
grim place to ride a bike so we've never complained
about the boundary moving north.

The UP was a swap for Toledo. Michigan was in a dispute
with Ohio for the western tip of Lake Erie. Ohio got
to keep Toledo and in return Michigan got the UP. Since
Wisconsin was not yet a state we were screwed by the
Feds. Ain't that always how it works.

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]
 
F

Frank Krygowski

Guest
Chalo wrote:

>
>
> However, why should a Chrysler or a NYC get bailed out of their
> predicament while small businesses and small cities have to just take
> their lumps and get on with it? It's more a matter of fair treatment
> than of whether the money got paid back.


Chalo, your problem (like mine) is that you see things in terms of
fundamental fairness.

It leaves us by the wayside in a culture that values "what pays."

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 

Similar threads