Your tax dollars at work

[maxiep]

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/100-worst-stimulus-projects/428539

http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/03/g...they-say-are-the-100-worst-stimulus-projects/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/03/senators.stimulus.spending/

Here's the full text of the report
http://coburn.senate.gov/public//in...&File_id=e1e0624e-d02a-42d4-9dbb-f5b9f21b3572

I love that #1 is replacing the windows at the Mt. St. Helens Visitor Center (which closed in 2007).

 

[Eastoff]

I love that #1 is replacing the windows at the Mt. St. Helens Visitor Center (which closed in 2007).

maybe they're going to reopen it?

 

[maxiep]

maybe they're going to reopen it?

Does reopening a visitor center seem like the best use of taxpayer dollars?

I'm blown away by how little people seem to care about how their tax dollars are spent.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

My favorite government fleecing was when the Clintons were in the White House. A personal friend of theirs was given $2,000,000.00 to make a video showing homeless people what to eat, and not eat, out of garbage cans. OK, I can get that. Sort of. But as one late night TV show host pointed out- most homeless people don't carry around with them TV's or VCR's.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Does reopening a visitor center seem like the best use of taxpayer dollars?

It very well could be.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

Does reopening a visitor center seem like the best use of taxpayer dollars?

I'm blown away by how little people seem to care about how their tax dollars are spent.

Do you enjoy national parks? state parks? I'm curious. You do know that those places aren't operated by private enterprise? Or maybe you think they should be. Then they could hang billboards off of Abe Lincoln's nose on Mt. Rushmore.

 

[maxiep]

Do you enjoy national parks? state parks? I'm curious. You do know that those places aren't operated by private enterprise? Or maybe you think they should be. Then they could hang billboards off of Abe Lincoln's nose on Mt. Rushmore.

I love parks. One has to prioritize, however.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

I love parks. One has to prioritize, however.

It's obviously much higher on mine than it is yours. NTTAWWT.

 

[maxiep]

It very well could be.

If that's the best use of our tax dollars, then government has outlived its usefulness. I prefer our tax dollars are spent on defense and a social safety net, but to each his own.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

If that's the best use of our tax dollars, then government has outlived its usefulness. I prefer our tax dollars are spent on defense and a social safety net, but to each his own.

Define "Social Safety Net".

 

[maxiep]

It's obviously much higher on mine than it is yours. NTTAWWT.

So, it's okay with you that future generations have to pay for us to enjoy parks because we decided that we don't want to pay for what we consume? Why not just charge higher user fees?

 

[chris_in_pdx]

So, it's okay with you that future generations have to pay for us to enjoy parks because we decided that we don't want to pay for what we consume? Why not just charge higher user fees?

I have no problem with higher user fees. I have no problem with toll bridges. I agree that the ones that use those parks should bear a larger burden of the cost of maintaining them than those that don't.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

same with schools!

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

this is just wasteful spending. going into debt with China to have non-operational windows for 1/2 million dollars. wtf.

some glass company probably is friends with some senator...that's how that happened.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

If that's the best use of our tax dollars, then government has outlived its usefulness. I prefer our tax dollars are spent on defense and a social safety net, but to each his own.

I think there's a balance. There's both value and importance to parks. Jobs are created and sustained, it helps (or should help) the environment. National parks are one thing that should be relatively well funded.

 

[maxiep]

I have no problem with higher user fees. I have no problem with toll bridges. I agree that the ones that use those parks should bear a larger burden of the cost of maintaining them than those that don't.

Currently we borrow $0.41 of every $1.00. Are you telling me that parks should be kept open on borrowed money? Do you believe that parks should be in that top $0.59? I think parks--while great--are a pretty low priority.

 

[maxiep]

I think there's a balance. There's both value and importance to parks. Jobs are created and sustained, it helps (or should help) the environment. National parks are one thing that should be relatively well funded.

Parks are great, but they're not "one thing that should be relatively well funded". If you want to fund it, use it. Create a private trust. Don't get further into debt to keep these things open and in tip-top shape. The jobs that are "created and sustained" don't contribute positively to the GDP. Why not have them staffed by volunteers? Besides, parks have taken care of themselves well for millenia. El Capitan, the Grand Canyon and the Adirondacks will be just fine without the US Government.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

same with schools!

No. Public Education is a societal non-negotiable. The way it's done in this country is wrong and should be seriously overhauled, but the concept is unarguable. Even people with no children benefit greatly from an educated populace.

 

[blazerboy30]

Currently we borrow $0.41 of every $1.00. Are you telling me that parks should be kept open on borrowed money? Do you believe that parks should be in that top $0.59? I think parks--while great--are a pretty low priority.

There are a lot of things I would cut before letting National Parks go. Unfortunately, the people bumming off the system disagree.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

No. Public Education is a societal non-negotiable. The way it's done in this country is wrong and should be seriously overhauled, but the concept is unarguable. Even people with no children benefit greatly from an educated populace.

yeah, i guess it keeps kids off the streets during the day.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Parks are great, but they're not "one thing that should be relatively well funded". If you want to fund it, use it. Create a private trust. Don't get further into debt to keep these things open and in tip-top shape. The jobs that are "created and sustained" don't contribute positively to the GDP. Why not have them staffed by volunteers? Besides, parks have taken care of themselves well for millenia. El Capitan, the Grand Canyon and the Adirondacks will be just fine without the US Government.

Your arguement is falling flat. When money spent creates and sustains jobs, it's usually money well spent when one considers most of the government money is not so well spent. If we had no parks, some our mos treasured areas would be developed, mined, forested and who knows what else. As for hiring tens of thousands of volunteers, that an idiotic statement at best. You know as well as anyone that a national parks system can't possibly be run effectively on non paid positions. No offense, but methinks you're simply not willing to admit you were wrong as it's the weakest thoughts you have ever posted.

 

[maxiep]

Your arguement is falling flat.

Thank you for your opinion of my argument.

When money spent creates and sustains jobs, it's usually money well spent when one considers most of the government money is not so well spent.

That money has to come from somewhere. By your reasoning, if we wished to end the recession, we should hire every single unemployed person and split them into two groups. The first would dig holes, the second would fill them. That is Obamanomics in a nutshell. The idea that you can spend your way out of a recession is a fallacy and it's been proven statistically.

The part you miss is you don't ask or seem to care from where the money comes. It doesn't get paid by us; it's paid by future generations if paid for at all. Weighing future generations with debt is the best way to ensure we become a second rate country. Therefore, tough choices have to be made.

If we had no parks, some our mos treasured areas would be developed, mined, forested and who knows what else. As for hiring tens of thousands of volunteers, that an idiotic statement at best. You know as well as anyone that a national parks system can't possibly be run effectively on non paid positions. No offense, but methinks you're simply not willing to admit you were wrong as it's the weakest thoughts you have ever posted.

Where did I say no parks? I think parks are great, but they were great long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue. You don't need to have them filled with Government-employed Forest Service employees; volunteers of people who use the park will work fine if they need to be populated at all. Make them protected nature areas where assistance won't be provided if you get yourself in trouble. And if these parks require funding, rather than have us support those parks with taxpayer funding, have them supported with user fees. If you want to use Yellowstone, pay money.

Like I said, tough choices have to be made. We can't afford the government we have right now. Therefore, we have to prioritize. You can't tell me populating natural areas with government employees is one of our very top priorities.

 

[bodyman5001]

Over half a million dollars for windows for something that isn't being used and it seems isn't likely to be used in the near future? Really? People defend that? How much would it cost to have a contractor put plywood over the windows until we actually need to use the damn thing?

What are the windows made of? Kryptonite?

Jamming for dollars? Almost 800 thousand dollars huh? Give me a frigging break.

As for the loonies talking about how unemployment benefits will stimulate the economy so much, why don't they just give us all free unemployment money. Give me an extra 400 a week and I will spend every penny of it just for fun. IF some unemployment checks stimulate the economy, why not give out more?

Hell, take all the so called social security trust fund money and start giving it out now to poor senior citizens to buy American cars with. That will really stimulate the economy, plus I will have more work with all the old people causing crashes. IT IS A FUCKING WIN WIN BITCHES.

 

[Denny Crane]

My favorite government fleecing was when the Clintons were in the White House. A personal friend of theirs was given $2,000,000.00 to make a video showing homeless people what to eat, and not eat, out of garbage cans. OK, I can get that. Sort of. But as one late night TV show host pointed out- most homeless people don't carry around with them TV's or VCR's.

I got a chuckle of of this.

 

[mook]

Hate to interrupt the right wing circle jerk here, but sometimes it's important to remember tax dollars aren't always wasted every time.

 

[maxiep]

Hate to interrupt the right wing circle jerk here, but sometimes it's important to remember tax dollars aren't always wasted every time.

C'mon, Mook. That's a strawman and you know it. Most aren't, but you're better than that.

 

[blazerboy30]

Hate to interrupt the right wing circle jerk here, but sometimes it's important to remember tax dollars aren't always wasted every time.

That's an awesome strawman. Congrats.

 

[mook]

How is it a straw man? I'm just pointing out that while conservatives like to bitch that practically everything the government does is a waste of money, it's clearly not true.

What do you want me to say? That all these badly designed programs you are citing aren't bad? Well, they are.

But people get so caught up on focusing on failure that that's all they ever see. It's important to remember all the progress humanity has made over the past 100 years, and that the US Government has been at the forefront of quite a bit of it.

 

[maxiep]

How is it a straw man? I'm just pointing out that while conservatives like to bitch that practically everything the government does is a waste of money, it's clearly not true.

What do you want me to say? That all these badly designed programs you are citing aren't bad? Well, they are.

But people get so caught up on focusing on failure that that's all they ever see. It's important to remember all the progress humanity has made over the past 100 years, and that the US Government has been at the forefront of quite a bit of it.

You really need it explained to you? Seriously?

It's a straw man because no one here is advocating anarchy. Even the posters who are the most extreme advocates of limited government in here are only saying government can be reduced and more judicious with the funds we give it. But if you want me to say government does some good stuff, fine. Government does some good stuff. Congratulations on your victory.

 

[mook]

Government does some good stuff. Congratulations on your victory.

It's a victory indeed. I never thought I'd see you write that.