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

Appkiller

( :< )

> 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.

S O R N I

DRS wrote:
> "Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> message news:bGfHc.73346$OB3.35601@bgtnsc05-
> news.ops.worldnet.att.net
>> "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?
>
> You left out both the context and the emoticon. Your
> criticism is ill-informed and pointless.

But at least he didn't top-post it!!!

Bill "ya gotta try harder, Leo" S.

Roland2k

"Sam" <marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<iPaHc.9293$oD3.7611@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

(snip)

> 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.

I don't remember where I heard this, but I think USPS spent
about 60 million dollars to sponsor the team over the life
of the contract. Perhaps some industrious soul could confirm
or debunk that number. And I don't think it was so much
about ROI as improving their image. Remember that the USPS
has spawned more than a few shooting sprees. It's called
"GOING POSTAL" for crying out loud! They needed to do
something to change their image.

Roland

Mike

In article <ac4af1d8.0407081009.655f8f36@posting.google.com>, Appkiller wrote:
> ( :< )
>
>> 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.

I don't know what to think about welfare. I'm sure it is
justified in many instances, but how to be objective and
fair... still that's a different topic.

The comment about shutting down a financial center and shift
of global, economic power is valid and I'd not considered it
that way. However, letting Chrysler fail I don't mind. I
don't want people out of work, nor families hurt, etc., but
I don't like cars either. I do one one, two actually, but
all things being equal I'd prefer to use public transport or
my bike. Still, that's a personal stance and not necessarily
a political nor popular stance.

I like Microsoft less than auto manufacturers (Chrysler).

A side thought... government is for the people, to further a
national goal. Is it necessary for a government to keep its
national industry active (oil consumption (even though the
plastics industry consumes more oil than the automotive
industry)) or to let the citizens vote with their paychecks
by purchasing from another company and letting a behemoth(?)
die? (rhetorical)

Mike

Werehatrack

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 02:40:31 +1000, "DRS" <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au>
wrote:

>"Werehatrack" <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote in message
>news:vrsqe0dlo3605m4u7r7bdbgfn6gr6spa4s@4ax.com
>
>[...]
>
>> Recently, of course, the fact that Lance has been winning
>> *in France* has been scoring points with some of the less
>> intellectual Americans.
>
>How could anyone be impressed by beating a bunch of cheese-
>eating surrender monkeys? :-)

The people involved are easily impressed. Many of them are
still in the process of catching up to the punch lines of
the whale oil lamp jokes.

--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug. Some gardening required to
reply via email. Surrealism is a pectinated ranzel.

R.White

Mike <mikee@mikee.ath.cx> wrote in message news:<10eqobd7trjs3fb@corp.supernews.com>...
> In article <VucHc.45732$JG5.989020@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Churchill wrote:
> >
> > "Marty Wallace" <mart@geo.net.au> wrote in message news-
> > :40ed3cff$0$27218$61ce578d@news.syd.swiftdsl.com.au...
> >>
> >> "Sam" <marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> news:iPaHc.9293$oD3.7611@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink-
> >> .net...
> >> >
> >> > "Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
> >> > news:cchmff$o7$2@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
> >> > > In article
> >> > > <152f6cbe.0407070758.11ce6549@posting.google.com>,
> >> > > rondechamp@aol.com 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.

David Reuteler

In rec.bicycles.misc Leo Lichtman <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> 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 reuteler@visi.com

Drew Eckhardt

In article
<152f6cbe.0407070758.11ce6549@posting.google.com>,
> rondechamp@aol.com 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

G.Daniels

search: auto union 1936-38?

Kaiser

Ronde,

If you're a domestic pro bike racer like you say you are,
then in all likelihood, you get to write the word "EXEMPT"
on your W4 forms. So you probably pay no taxes anyhow.

Nice try though.

rondechamp@aol.com (Ronde Champ) wrote in message
news:<152f6cbe.0407070758.11ce6549@posting.google.com>...
> 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!
>
> Thanks, Ronde Champ

Richard Adams

Mike <mikee@mikee.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:<10eqobd7trjs3fb@corp.supernews.com>... [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.)

Tim McNamara

Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net> writes:

> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 12:46:05 -0400, David Kerber
> <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> There are lots. Today's Maillot Jaune is the French
> National Champion.
>
> 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. 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.

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.

Luigi De Guzman

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> 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

Garmonboezia

"DRS" <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote in
news:ccjtd5$hoc$1@lust.ihug.co.nz:

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

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

Mike