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

"DRS" wrote in
:

How could anyone be impressed by beating a bunch of cheese-eating
surrender monkeys? :-)


http://www.exile.ru/175/175052003.html

Mike

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" wrote in message
om...
( : )

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.

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 14:59:57 -0000, Mike wrote:

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!
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.

David Reuteler wrote:
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.

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.

In rec.bicycles.racing Benjamin Weiner 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

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]

"garmonboezia" wrote in message
news:HylHc.48718$XM6.39013@attbi_s53
"DRS" wrote in
:

How could anyone be impressed by beating a bunch of cheese-eating
surrender monkeys? :-)

http://www.exile.ru/175/175052003.html

The author of that page is very nearly as ignorant as those he pillories,
but that's an argument I'm not going to get into in this forum. In any
case, my comment was not about the French, it was about certain "less
intellectual Americans".

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On 8 Jul 2004 15:41:16 -0700, (Chalo) wrote:

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.

Now there is a remarkably inept characterization of the S&L crisis of
the 80s.

Much of the third round bailouts were made necessary by the bungling
legislature led by banking committe member (and Democrat) St.
Germaine. What made it disastrous was after using the funny money as a
basis of decisions for two to three years, Congress changed the rules
with billions of net worth going to zero with the stroke of the pen.
If the St. Germaine bill had never been, the damage would have been
probably a tenth of the subsequent result.

Several S & Ls prevailed in subsequent suits. Those that profited by
any one of the three bail-out attempts in the 80s were pretty evenly
distributed among Democrats, Republicans and a few Independents.

FWIW, I was involved in accounting and investments for a conservative
S & L that rode out the crisis while losing 60% of our net worth from
a situation where our cost of money was free to rise and most of our
investments were limited by stature, so that on many days we started
with a net negative interest rate margin of 2 % - on a billion in
money. Unless you sat between the investment desk and the accounting
for customer investments, you probably have no idea of what went into
that crisis. Cost of money started at about 6 % in the beginning and
was (counting fed funds and repos) pushing 21 % on some days, like
end-of-month payroll days and settlement days.

Our biggest source of cash some months? Refunds from carrybacks of the
millions of dollars of losses to the years we were paying taxes.

We were down to about 1% of net worth above required tranches when it
finally bottomed out. A lot of S & Ls were not as fortunate.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"David Kerber" wrote in message


[...]

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.

Today's tour leader: Thomas Voeckler (Fra).

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

In article ,
says...
"David Kerber" wrote in message


[...]

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.

Today's tour leader: Thomas Voeckler (Fra).

Yeah, I discovered that soon after I posted the above message. I was
hoping nobody would notice that I'm an idiot, but my hopes were quickly
dashed GRIN.


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