Taking Stimulus a ‘bright’ idea?
Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, isn’t taking stimulus money, I hear. Same with a few other Republican governors. A position I totally respect. A position of principle.
But there is something of a problem with not taking it. And that is that it’s ultimately going to be paid for by his constituents. It’s like saying you don’t want to take out a loan for a new car, because you can’t afford it, but then your brother buys the car and sticks you with part of the bill, which you’re forced to pay whether you get to drive that car or not.
What I think Jindal and other governors who don’t want to take the money should do is take it, and use it to expand existing, and build new long-term businesses and reduce energy prices. One way I’ve been thinking would work is to subsidize solar panels for homes. It would be a cost reducer for those who want it, it would bring business to solar companies, the expansion would likely create more solar panel companies so that in the future it would bring the cost down for anyone wanting to solarize their house.
The cool thing is that this helps more than just the buyers who want those ugly things on their roofs… Excess energy their solar panels produce go back to the grid to pay down the energy bills of everyone else who doesn’t have them. Long-term, the whole state saves the money they then have to use to pay-back the stimulus ‘loan’ they didn’t want in the first place.
Anyway, it’s a thought. I have to get back to work.
Video of the day:
He completely refused all of it? In the beginning he was just saying he would accept parts of it. He didn’t want to accept any money that would require him to change Louisiana law.
I know one of his reasonings was that they still had Katrina money being pumped through the state . . .
I think he’s refused most of it, I don’t have an update.
So, what, Republicans are fine with public funds being shoveled into diverse inane “Homeland Security” programs (the quite fantastic “bioterror” pork factory being among the worst) and caricaturishly badly adminstered foreign military adventures, but not programs intented to help keep the domestic economy afloat? You’d imagine they’d be able to divert some of it into (AFAIK much-needed) infrastructural improvements if nothing else, anyway…
Some priorities.
Watchy, you must be one of the very few people who is so far off the socialist bend in this country, that you think that porkulus bill was a good idea.
If the entire bill was infrastructure, instead of only a small fraction of it, you would have heard a lot less griping, and a much larger percentage of the people in this country wouldn’t have complained so much. But it’s all pork. Or mostly, anyway. The kind of pork only a Socialist could love.
Hi, it’s your old friend Watchman here (had to start using a different nick because WP was being asinine about the password on the old one). Miss me?
So as you may or may not recall, I don’t live in “this” country (ie. the US) but across the pond so…
I haven’t been quite following the US proceedings on the matter in greater detail as of late, so if you would be a good sport and remind me what, specifically, there now was so “porky” about the bill anyway?
The answer to your question, Watchy, is nothing. You can add “pork” to the list of terms Hapajap (and a lot of other conservatives) use without having a single clue what the definition of it is – along with communist, “drink the Kool-Aid,” etc.
But I’ll give Hapajap $5 for every pork provision he can name that actually fits the definition of pork.
Anything in the bill that isn’t infrastructure is pork as far as I’m concerned. I’m pretty sure there was never a legally binding definition of ‘pork’ as relating to congressional spending, but building a super-train from Disneyland to Harry Reed’s front yard, I’m pretty sure would fit the bill.
“I’m pretty sure there was never a legally binding definition of ‘pork’ as relating to congressional spending”
See, and that’s why you’re never getting any money. There actually is a definition of pork, outlined by a conservative watchdog group, which I found in 15 seconds through Wikipedia by following its references to here:
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006#criteria
And since your “super-train” (which isn’t actually a provision of the bill, by the way) doesn’t fit that very specific definition… well, once again, you’re using terms you don’t understand. No money for you!
Eh. It’s not fair to say, “You don’t know anything, Hapajap. You’re wrong,” without proving it. So here’s a link. In fact, the first result on Google News:
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/High_Speed_Rail_Projects_Get_Big_Boost_090320.html
Note the money is actually for higher speed rails, which is infrastructure, which you said isn’t pork. Note the money fits none of the seven requirements CAGW gives for what constitutes pork. Note this paragraph at the end which proves how little you know before you shoot your mouth off incessantly:
“Shortly after the stimulus was passed, some news outlets suggested the high-speed rail money was added to help Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada get funding for a controversial proposal to build a magnetic-levitation rail line between Las Vegas and Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif. While the project would be eligible for such funding, it is not among those that seem likely to win the competition for the limited funds available.”
So now you’re going by conservative watchdog definitions? Seriously? Couldn’t find any liberal watchdog definitions to suit your needs? Oh, wait, that’s because Liberals don’t think ANY government spending is pork… lol
I said ‘legally binding definition’. So once again, you’re wrong, stud. And I don’t need your money. So sorry.
(also, Wiki’s are for idiots)
Hahaha, you’re such a baby, Hap. Accept that Tony pegged you, no harm done in admitting you lost.
Hap, Of COURSE there’s no such thing as a “legally binding” definition of pork. IT’S NOT A LEGAL TERM. That’s like saying there’s no “legally binding” definition of gerrymandering. No, there’s not. It’s just a word that has a definition, and I’d be surprised at this point if you knew what it meant any more than you know what pork means, because you apparently flunked seventh-grade civics.
Whether the definition is “legally binding” or not, you didn’t know what the definition is. I gave you the first hit Google gave me on the definition from a Wikipedia LINK, but if you’d like, when I feel like proving just how big an idiot you are, I’ll copy-paste from more dictionaries.
I don’t know about “liberals,” because I don’t poll every single person on the left of the spectrum nor claim to speak for them, but *I* know what “pork” means, and if I didn’t, I WOULDN’T USE IT. And yes, there IS stuff that’s pork – like, say, most of the money that went to Alaska during Republican Ted Stevens’ term in the Senate, most notoriously the “Bridge to Nowhere” – but the thing you mentioned ISN’T. See?
(I also know the presupposition that pork would exist is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers set up the bicameral legislature – see, they kind of figured it’d be a GOOD thing, and in fact, it CAN be. But there I go, knowing stuff like an elitist because I’m “drowning” in poisoned Kool-Aid you’re supposed to drink to be a part of a cult and not shooting my mouth off about things I don’t know and complaining about provisions in the stimulus package that DON’T EXIST.)
And why don’t you need money, Hap? Did DC change their minds and decide to hire you again after you shat where you ate? Did your mortgage suddenly go bye-bye? Did Dubli finally pay you off?
On the “upside,” I guess you don’t have any excuse to complain about not having time to “draw” (copy-paste) more “Electronic Tigers” cartoons now, do you? Since you’re rolling in money so much.
Yeah, I think you’re full of crap, Tony.
Wiki’s defintion (which I’m generally loath to site): Typically, “pork” involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples.
Answers.com defintion: Government funding of something that benefits a particular district, whose legislator thereby wins favor with local voters. For example, Our senator knows the value of the pork barrel. This expression alludes to the fatness of pork, equated with political largesse since the mid-1800s. [c. 1900]
I think that fairly covers plenty in the stimulus. The Washington post sites some examples: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/12/AR2009021203502.html
So please, put your thesaurus away, pull your head out of your elitist rectum, and deal with the fact that you don’t know everything.
And why don’t I need money? Because I have a gig that is currently paying me very well. Why am I not doing ET? Because ET took a lot of time, and I have said job, a wife, and 4 children that monopolize most of my time, and when I’m not spending time with any of the aforementioned, I actually like to do this thing called ‘relax’. It’s a wonderful thing called ‘having a life’. I suggest you give it a try. As to DC or any other comic company, as soon as my current contract is over, I’m no longer taking work-for-hire jobs. I’ve got bigger plans than drawing funny books for the rest of my life.
I’m glad you miss ET so much that you would go through all that rigamarole to say you want to see more of it. Nice that my work has touched you so.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2009/02/19/finding-the-pork-in-the-obama-stimulus-bill.html?PageNr=1
serious business . . .
THANK YOU, Hap. Was that so hard? You actually LOOKED SOMETHING UP this time before you shot your mouth off on it. You actually looked up “pork” finally, and what do you know? You learned something. The word actually MEANS something. “Government funding of something that benefits a particular district, whose legislator thereby wins favor with local voters.”
Amazingly, Hapajap, me proving you consistently and repeatedly wrong takes me less time than it takes you even to copy-n-paste a nonsensical “Electronic Tigers” cartoon, because I’ve almost always done it with the first Google hit. I don’t have to spend a lot of my day proving you’re a moron. I just let you talk, and you do the work for me.
I don’t need to know everything, Hap. Knowing SOMETHING puts me light years ahead of you.
As for the WaPo article, I saw that. I also saw that almost every paragraph where it lists the pork that COULD COME from the stimulus bill includes words like “could be spent,” “would probably benefit” and “the cost of the requirement is unclear.” They are NOT direct provisions in the bill. And the Kiplinger article I linked earlier addresses the fact that the magnetic levitation train referenced in the article is probably NOT going to get the funding for transportation, which again, is infrastructure, which YOU YOURSELF said is not pork.
And yes, I also saw the US News and World Report article, FairlyObvious. It references five things, two of which are POTENTIAL areas for pork (Homeland Security and state money), one of which the WaPo article mentions was killed (the Coast Guard ice cutter) and two things which aren’t “According to Hoyle” pork. But if only Hap had done the 15 seconds’ worth of research I did, he’d be $10 richer right now, because I absolutely would have paid up for the green golf carts and the Fossil Energy Research and Development program. Even though those are NOT “Government funding of something that benefits a particular district, whose legislator thereby wins favor with local voters,” at least citing those two things would’ve proved Hap had made some effort to KNOW WHAT THE HELL HE WAS TALKING ABOUT before yapping away and proving he hasn’t a clue. And I’d've paid him for it. Hell, if he’d made some effort, I probably would’ve gone ahead and given him credit for all five and a whole $25. It would’ve been an improvement.
You can make all the snarky remarks you want, Hap, but in the end, I set out to prove one thing, and I proved it: YOU. DON’T. KNOW. WHAT. THE HELL. YOU’RE. TALKING. ABOUT. Only AFTER I proved to the average learning disabled six-year-old that you didn’t know what you were talking about did you even bother to look up one thing you could’ve looked up two days ago and saved you a lot of egg on your face. (And you’ve YET to acknowledge your magnetic train fantasy ISN’T IN THE STIMULUS PACKAGE.) You’re like too many other people on both sides of the political spectrum, but WOW do these particular scales tilt heavily right: You don’t have ANY CLUE what you’re talking about. You hear a few words spewed out by talk radio or a Fox News correspondent or a blogger – who either doesn’t know what those words mean or is intentionally misusing them – and you repeat them over and over like an idiot parrot. Except parrots, at least, probably DO know what some of those words mean. At the very least, they know the collection of sounds “Polly want a cracker” means they’re about to get fed. You don’t even have THAT MUCH cognitive awareness. The bird is literally smarter than you.
So I put on the line the only thing I know you care enough about to pathetically beg for it (in fairness, the only thing ANY adult cares about universally): Money. All you had to do was Google something for a CHANCE at earning a few bucks. But you didn’t wanna do that. (In fairness, my second challenge – the “communist” things Obama has done – didn’t exist. Because communist, like pork, is a word that has MEANING, and if you knew what that meaning was, you’d know why you’re an idiot.) But if you’d been clever or creative, I might have given you credit for taking a stab at it – even $30 or $60 is more than zero.
But you couldn’t do that. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and you don’t WANT TO KNOW what you’re talking about, and not even bribery will MAKE YOU find out what you’re talking about. You are both stupid and, to make matters worse, willfully ignorant.
THAT was what I set out to prove, and I proved it. From now on, when somebody calls you on your hogwash, maybe if you take a few moments to find out what you’re talking about, you won’t look quite so stupid. But since you seem to have no interest in that, I take my leave of you.
(All money offers are off the table now, by the way. I don’t intend to keep checking back here. So if you find/write anything, I won’t be seeing it. I’ve made my point.)
Yadda yadda yadda. I stopped reading after the first two insults. I honestly don’t give a rip what you have to say anymore, Tony. Feel free to continue wasting your breath though, I’m sure it makes you feel good to think you’re smarter than everyone. (to wit you will most assuredly retort, ‘no, not smarter than everyone, just smarter than you’ blah blah blah for forty more paragraphs…)
See, this is why I don’t even bother arguing seriously with you. Even when someone does and puts you in your place, you just call them elitist, stupid, whatever, and ignore everything they say. What’s the point?
Well I guess there’s no point at all, is there? Why do you bother at all?
Errr, my point was that there is no point in arguing with you. Way to repeat what I just said. :p
I’m starting to doubt that TonyC has a job . . . or a life . . .
For the record, I actually read a bit of what TonyC said, and wow dude, you take yourself WAY too seriously. You also take the internet WAY to seriously. You also have some weird obsession with Hapa which is WAY just . . . ew.
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/louisiana_to_seek_new_orleansb.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/feb/27/bobby-jindal/Jindal-on-high-speed-rail/
http://selfinvestors.com/tradingstocks/news/details-of-economic-stimulus-package-too-much-pork-too-little-stimulus/
and Hapa was using a quote from Bobby Jindal who said that stimulus money would go towards projects “such as” as Reid’s project. So while it might not be directly stated in the stimulus, that’s what the money could potentially go towards. So in actuality TonyC, sorry, but Hapa really wasn’t far off the mark there . . .