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

In article , 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

Mike wrote in message ...
In article , Churchill wrote:

"Marty Wallace" wrote in message
om.au...

"Sam" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Alex Rodriguez" wrote in message
...
In article ,
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.

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 ****ty 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

In article , 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 ****ty 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).

In article ,
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.

In rec.bicycles.misc Leo Lichtman 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

search: auto union
1936-38?

Mike wrote in message ...
[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.)

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
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

Alex Rodriguez wrote:

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