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]
> >> .net...
> >> >
> >> > "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.