Bang Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I think $75K for a puppet show is waste- I don't believe it helps create any jobs (someone listed a bunch of jobs it would create, and doing math that would mean less than $10 for each- how is that creating a good job?) Just a thought on this,, could be it creates a summer job program.. keeps some kids working instead of doing nothing all summer. I have no idea, just hypothetically thinking in the positive rather than the negative. We don't have to assume that it's going to the worst place. And, there's a lot of people in this country who simply aren't qualified for the 'good' jobs. Somebody has to push the broom backstage, and they don't deserve to be highly paid for it. But they also are a part of the American workforce that needs to be stimulated. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Now you're just being picky. There are hundreds of regional theatres that have similar stories and impacts. I just picked one as an example. Picky? I compared your individual example to the overall effectiveness of investing in theaters. That's the opposite of picky - un-picky, or non-picky, or in-picky, or something. You're not trying to suggest that we could base sustained economic growth on theater expansion, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 he didn't lie- the numbers he gave were correct and that is what I was asking in the op. Lot's of folks are wrong without lying. By misrepsenting and leaving out context he's been proven wrong in his criticism, even though he didn't lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Lot's of folks are wrong without lying. By misrepsenting and leaving out context he's been proven wrong in his criticism, even though he didn't lie. Kind of how Bill Clinton "never had sex with that woman." Technically, not a lie. Horribly deceitful, nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Picky? I compared your individual example to the overall effectiveness of investing in theaters. That's the opposite of picky - un-picky, or non-picky, or in-picky, or something. You're not trying to suggest that we could base sustained economic growth on theater expansion, are you? As Louis Armstrong would say, "What a wonderful world it would be...." :cool2: (although this feels much more like a Sinatra smilie than a Satchmo one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Double post.... but On the other hand, the entertainment industry is a pretty decent chunk of our economy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 As soon as I saw the title, "Glenn Beck . . . ," I knew it was going to be some rubbishy subject. I hate to say it, but this man only has credibility with his audience and those people foolish enough to buy his books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Lot's of folks are wrong without lying. By misrepsenting and leaving out context he's been proven wrong in his criticism, even though he didn't lie. Kind of how Bill Clinton "never had sex with that woman."Technically, not a lie. Horribly deceitful, nonetheless. Technically all of these are lies, see dictionary definition #2. Main Entry: 3lie Function: verb Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing \ˈlÄ«-iÅ‹\ Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lÄ“ogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lÅgati Date: before 12th century intransitive verb 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2 : to create a false or misleading impression Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbws Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I can always tell when Beck makes up things. His lips move and words come out of his face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 BTW, Democrats are doing a 2% raise this year for federal workers. That is a large reduction from years past-much lower than what Republicans and Bush did. It was always kept to about inflation last i heard inflation was close to 4 percent so they arent even keeping up with inflation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Well let me ask you point blank: Knowing what you now do about the wine train, the fact that the money is actually for the corp of engineers to makes changes to it to prevent flooding that in 2005 cost 115 million in damage, do you still consider it waste? After all that 50 million makes up almost the entire sum Glenn Beck is complaining about.I think we can all admit that realizing what the project is actually for changes things. You might still consider it waste but an infrastructure project aimed at reducing the risk of highly expensive flood damage is not the mental image we all had when we read "wine train". I dont know how much the corps of engineers got but the money or majority of it from what io understand is supposed to go to the company called Suulutaaq which has never done this and fired there on site managers i think it was withen weeks of beginning the project. The big question is how often does it flood if its a rare occurance then yes the money is a waste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 So out of nearly $800 billion, the Republicans at FOX combed it and all they can complain about is $57 million. They have a problem with 1/1500th of it. Problem is that's about how much they spent. The govt hasn't spent all of the stimulus money. I'm not sure on the number exactly, but I do know that they haven't spent all of the 800 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I dont know how much the corps of engineers got but the money or majority of it from what io understand is supposed to go to the company called Suulutaaq which has never done this and fired there on site managers i think it was withen weeks of beginning the project. The big question is how often does it flood if its a rare occurance then yes the money is a waste The Napa river floods every few years. It didn't used to matter because it is a small river in a small flood plain, until people realized that it is the perfect area to grow quality wine grapes. Now there is a tremendous amount of very valuable wine property all over that valley, and flooding does a huge amount of damage every time it happens. Flood control there is anything but a waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted December 17, 2009 Author Share Posted December 17, 2009 The Napa river floods every few years. It didn't used to matter because it is a small river in a small flood plain, until people realized that it is the perfect area to grow quality wine grapes. Now there is a tremendous amount of very valuable wine property all over that valley, and flooding does a huge amount of damage every time it happens. Flood control there is anything but a waste. since you are obviously more familiar with that area than I, would it be possible to re-direct that water to the area that is now dry due to the smelt fish? Or is it too far away? does it seem ironic that in one area they can't get water, and in another just to the north they have too much? Seems like they could find a better solution for both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 you know, I think its pretty ignorant to judge all these projects on just an uninformed first impression, based merely on their subject. Seems like a rush to judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 since you are obviously more familiar with that area than I, would it be possible to re-direct that water to the area that is now dry due to the smelt fish? Or is it too far away? does it seem ironic that in one area they can't get water, and in another just to the north they have too much? Seems like they could find a better solution for both. The two have nothing to do with each other. The Napa Valley is dry, and the Napa River is tiny - you would call it a creek in most parts of the country. Sometimes it is almost bone dry. It does not have enough fresh water to make any difference in water supplies. I doubt that the Napa River provides more than one tenth of one percent of the fresh water that flows into San Francisco Bay. But every few years, there is a big rainstorm, the whole dry valley drains into the little creek, and the creek suddenly becomes a raging river for a few days, washing over its banks onto the vineyards and towns along the valley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sly Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Obama is not to blame Well, when your platform is "change" and all we're getting is more of the same... AND more spending, we have every right to criticize the president and Congress. This is completely ridiculous and absolutely destroying our country. Yes... Glenn Beck is a pompous douche, but he's right in this aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slogriff Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 As with anything dealing with Beck (or Hannity or O"Reilly) just watch MSNBC and they will point out most anything that could be considered wrong. (and vice versa) The best thing about Beck to me is that he presents new positions for illumination & debate. The more info I get from all sides the better. This thread is an example of a good debate on additional gov't spending in a time of financial crisis. Is it needed? What is pork? What will be stimulated? I'm afraid the impending vote on healthcare will not have such a public debate on what is actually in it. There's not been the CSPAN and open public exposure to watch the who and how this bill is being put together like promised from the President. More likely another weekend vote when those voting let alone the public actually knowing WTH is in it. Getting information from Beck (or Olbermann) and then the obligatory response from the "other side" is much better than having no info at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 So out of nearly $800 billion, the Republicans at FOX combed it and all they can complain about is $57 million. They have a problem with 1/1500th of it. ... None of those costs really bother me because they are completely insignificant, and we don't know the whole story anyway. ... So in order to be disgusted by wasteful spending you need to see the whole picture a sampling will not do for you... call wasting your money and my money what it is - waste. To the OP, I just love the prejudice in the title of the thread. Glenn beck said it so it must be false, I can't prove it to be false so somebody help me prove that this guy is a liar. A more fair and balanced title might have been "Glenn Beck on Wasteful spending, could this be true?" I personally can't stand Beck because of his presentation, that does not change whether he is correct or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 To the OP, I just love the prejudice in the title of the thread. Glenn beck said it so it must be false, I can't prove it to be false so somebody help me prove that this guy is a liar. A more fair and balanced title might have been "Glenn Beck on Wasteful spending, could this be true?" :secret: ljs is generally conservative, not liberal. She is a big fan of Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 :secret: ljs is generally conservative, not liberal. She is a big fan of Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin. I don't know... I was thought LJS stood for Legislating Judges are Superior sounds pretty liberal to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspeake Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Why can't Napa pay for the Railroad adjustments out of the property taxes I'm sure they levy on the residents? This sounds like a local issue, surely the residents of New Orleans should not have to help pay for Napa Valley's little flood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Why can't Napa pay for the Railroad adjustments out of the property taxes I'm sure they levy on the residents? This sounds like a local issue, surely the residents of New Orleans should not have to help pay for Napa Valley's little flood. I see what you did there. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.