If the number one is a known lie, how much is the rest of the list bullshiat?

$3.529 trillion dollar budget for 2012.

/eliminating all pork spending does nothing to put a dent in the dent in the dent of that number
//cut defense already

Bathia_Mapes: Regarding the $16 muffin on the list, there was a followup thread on fark that showed that the $16 included other items, plus gratuity.

From the article linked to that thread: "In Washington, the contracted breakfast included fresh fruit, coffee, juice, muffins, tax and gratuity, for an inclusive price of US$16 per person," said the corporate parent of the Hilton, Conrad and Waldorf Astoria hotels."

$16 for all that is not horribly expensive when you consider it was the Capital Hilton providing the food. Anybody who has ever dined at a high end hotel knows what I'm talking about.

September 24th greenlit thread (new window)

If that one thing on the list was so off base, how accurate are the others listed? Just curious.

none of them most likely.

Satanic_Hamster: If the number one is a known lie, how much is the rest of the list bullshiat?

All of it. The world would have been a better place if I laid in bed thinking about video games rather than reading that article.

I feel dirty now. Fark TruTV.

bravian: //cut defense already


But the military industrial complex is the only jobs program the gov't ever managed to make work.

#2 says it's wasteful because it will take more than 25 years to recoup the money. On average, office buildings last for 73 years, meaning they'll roughly triple the money they used to renovate the building. Seems like a pretty good investment to me.

[ohlookitsthisthreadagain.derp]

$8.3 million is not exactly ridiculous for a golf course. There's a pretty decent case that FEMA shouldn't be involved, but you're not going to get a passable clubhouse for less than $3-4 million.

this list is bad and TruTV should feel bad.

#1 doesn't seem to have a title. So I assume toenail clippings it is?

Are they REALLY biatching about museums? Really?

Helicopter Logging?

That sounds like the perfect combination of stupid and awesome.

Ok, people, listen. Please.

It does not exist. At least not to the extent that everything I've seen it made out to be.

Yes, there is pork. But it's not hat bad.

Now, before you go shouting at me and calling me names, please let me explain.

Yes, there is waste in government, but no-one is that stupid.

Basically all this stuff is used to cover programs that they want to be kept "off record".

Do you REALLY think they are going to list "Development cost of new spy satellite" or "Bribery expense" or "Secret underground bunker" on their official budget? Hell no.

What comes into play is creative accounting, but sometimes it's not done subtly and we wind up with the proverbial $500 hammers and $15 muffins.

Yes, it exists on PAPER, but in reality, it does not.

And in exchange for the fake invoices most likely the companies have to sign some papers to never talk about it on fear of repercussions, and a check or cash or gold bullion to sweeten the deal.

heinekenftw: Helicopter Logging?

That sounds like the perfect combination of stupid and awesome.

I've seen it in N. Idaho. It's pretty cool to see. Super inefficient though

Am I supposed to get worked up about this?

I worked for a government agency which received $18 million to upgrade IT infrastructure. Did we need the equipment right now, and need to spend it? No.

However, we were to spend it as part of the stimulus program, and stored it on pallets until we needed them. Sounds stupid, right?

Wrong. That money bought high end technology from American companies which employed American workers who got paychecks, and bought groceries, furniture, baseball gloves, clothing, electronics, etc from a variety of resellers. Their employees took their wages, and spent that money, etc.

It doesn't necessarily matter that all the money was spent perfectly. What matters is that it was spent to increase aggregate demand.

Nefarious: [i.cdn.turner.com image 332x363]

Looks like money well spent

As far as I can tell from a brief googlin' the Toad art was only one of 4 finalists and no final decision has been made since the controversy first arose back on April 1.

Most Federal contracts over a certain size have a built in percentage of the construction cost (usually from .5% to 1.5%) to go for artifying the place and the Mark Center is certainly a big money project. Latest news I can find on this is that the public outrage from when the art finalists were announced has led to a drop in the budget there.

"The uproar led to millions for road improvements from the DOD and the state - and the axing of the sculpture component of the artwork, with the art budget cut to $250,000."

Link (new window)

So TruTV is what Court TV devolved into?

Anyone know WTF "Not reality, actuality" is supposed to mean in this context?

quatchi: Anyone know WTF "Not reality, actuality" is supposed to mean in this context?

Much like their shows aren't real, but are recreations of things that totally happened, these aren't real examples of pork, but of things that sound kind of wastey if you're only sort of paying attention.

More like the most wasteful butthurt whining uttered in a single blog, 2011.

Hope you get some idiots to vote Republican out of that, TruTV.

Harry_Seldon: Am I supposed to get worked up about this?

I worked for a government agency which received $18 million to upgrade IT infrastructure. Did we need the equipment right now, and need to spend it? No.

However, we were to spend it as part of the stimulus program, and stored it on pallets until we needed them. Sounds stupid, right?

Wrong. That money bought high end technology from American companies which employed American workers who got paychecks, and bought groceries, furniture, baseball gloves, clothing, electronics, etc from a variety of resellers. Their employees took their wages, and spent that money, etc.

It doesn't necessarily matter that all the money was spent perfectly. What matters is that it was spent to increase aggregate demand.

WHAAAAAAAT? You are telling me that millions of dollars in government investment encouraged billions in private funds? A small bit of government investment in science and technology encouraged far more spending in the field? What would you say to conservatives who only want to spend government money on roads and schools...in Iraq? After we blow them up? And before we blow them up again?

/I love your Isaac Asimov-inspired Fark name!

Ctrl+F Iraq = 0 results
Ctrl+F Afghanistan = 0 results
Ctrl+F TSA = 0 results
Ctrl+F Drugs = 0 results (looking for war on drugs)
Ctrl+F Terror = 0 results (looking for war on terror)

List fails.

Harry_Seldon: It doesn't necessarily matter that all the money was spent perfectly. What matters is that it was spent to increase aggregate demand.

Yet that money came out of taxpayers pockets and those taxpayers weren't able to sepnd it on "groceries, furniture, baseball gloves, clothing, electronics, etc" reducing demand from them. So no overall gain.

Alien Robot: Harry_Seldon: It doesn't necessarily matter that all the money was spent perfectly. What matters is that it was spent to increase aggregate demand.

Yet that money came out of taxpayers pockets and those taxpayers weren't able to sepnd it on "groceries, furniture, baseball gloves, clothing, electronics, etc" reducing demand from them. So no overall gain.

If only we had a progressive tax system, in which those who could afford to pay more would indeed pay more. You know, the kind of prgressive taxes we had during WWII. (For you conservatives, that was the last official war in which America engaged.)

God-is-a-Taco: All of those combined is almost a fighter jet, or a few missiles!

Yeah but we need an overbloated military budget because...we just need it. Don't question it.

Or I'll turn you in for socialism.

Alien Robot: Yet that money came out of taxpayers pockets and those taxpayers weren't able to sepnd it on "groceries, furniture, baseball gloves, clothing, electronics, etc" reducing demand from them. So no overall gain.

That's only true if 100% of the money collected in taxes would otherwise have been spent. In reality, someone taking home, say, $3000 a year more won't SPEND $3000 a year more - only a portion of that gets spent. For example, if I paid no taxes, I'd spend a whopping $0 a year more than I do now - I already spend considerably less than my take-home pay, and I don't have a budget per se because I don't really need one. Right now, I buy whatever I need, and I wouldn't buy more if I had more.

That's also not considering that WHERE you spend money greatly matters - certain segments of the economy have a faster velocity of money than others (that is, a given dollar changes hands more times). Directing spending there improves the economy more than directing spending in lower-velocity areas.

Sum Dum Gai: Alien Robot: Yet that money came out of taxpayers pockets and those taxpayers weren't able to sepnd it on "groceries, furniture, baseball gloves, clothing, electronics, etc" reducing demand from them. So no overall gain.

That's only true if 100% of the money collected in taxes would otherwise have been spent. In reality, someone taking home, say, $3000 a year more won't SPEND $3000 a year more - only a portion of that gets spent. For example, if I paid no taxes, I'd spend a whopping $0 a year more than I do now - I already spend considerably less than my take-home pay, and I don't have a budget per se because I don't really need one. Right now, I buy whatever I need, and I wouldn't buy more if I had more.

That's also not considering that WHERE you spend money greatly matters - certain segments of the economy have a faster velocity of money than others (that is, a given dollar changes hands more times). Directing spending there improves the economy more than directing spending in lower-velocity areas.

All of that is fine so long as you agree (for example) that sending tax money to education saves you prison spending. Shuttling government money to scientific research provides you with new medicines and treatments.

Spending millions of dollars on that drone that was pulled down over Iran? Um...well, nerds developed new sensor technology. But why the fark are we spending trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan? We never really got a complete explanation on all of that.

FTA: So basically, $1.4 million has been spent to put rocks next to a highway in the desert. Huh.

FTA (right before the above sentence): over a million dollars has been spent to beautify the highway and restore civic pride, a laudable goal. Beautification efforts include native plants, decorative rocks, pavement graphics, and some large granite boulders.

Author is trying to make a point by ignoring all the facts he laid out beforehand.

No Hypnotoad?

/for shame

Alien Robot: Harry_Seldon: It doesn't necessarily matter that all the money was spent perfectly. What matters is that it was spent to increase aggregate demand.

Yet that money came out of taxpayers pockets and those taxpayers weren't able to sepnd it on "groceries, furniture, baseball gloves, clothing, electronics, etc" reducing demand from them. So no overall gain.

Money is worthless unless enough of it is being spent. Some needs to be saved, some needs to be invested, but the vast majority of it needs to be spent, over and over and over. It is called the velocity of money. Stimulus spending is designed to increase aggregate demand the motor is running too lean.

Sum Dum Gai: That's only true if 100% of the money collected in taxes would otherwise have been spent. In reality, someone taking home, say, $3000 a year more won't SPEND $3000 a year more - only a portion of that gets spent. For example, if I paid no taxes, I'd spend a whopping $0 a year more than I do now - I already spend considerably less than my take-home pay, and I don't have a budget per se because I don't really need one. Right now, I buy whatever I need, and I wouldn't buy more if I had more.

But why do you think Mr. Public Highway Paver (to whom the stimulus money will be given) will spend the money and Mr. Private Sheet Metal worker (from whom the tax money is taken) will not? Wouldn't they be equally likely to spend it or save it?

Coolfusis: #2 says it's wasteful because it will take more than 25 years to recoup the money. On average, office buildings last for 73 years, meaning they'll roughly triple the money they used to renovate the building. Seems like a pretty good investment to me.

I've done a bit of this kind of work, in the planning stages more than the physical labor, so this really jumped out for me. So the article is complaining because, assuming you believe their version of events, this money employed 60 people and will save almost a million dollars a year. And all of that is a bad thing. I hope someone gets kicked in the cock for this retarded bullshiat.

Robots are Strong: Coolfusis: #2 says it's wasteful because it will take more than 25 years to recoup the money. On average, office buildings last for 73 years, meaning they'll roughly triple the money they used to renovate the building. Seems like a pretty good investment to me.

I've done a bit of this kind of work, in the planning stages more than the physical labor, so this really jumped out for me. So the article is complaining because, assuming you believe their version of events, this money employed 60 people and will save almost a million dollars a year. And all of that is a bad thing. I hope someone gets kicked in the cock for this retarded bullshiat.

But...but...we could have killed over 30 Iraqis with that money. Why would we waste it on learning stuff?

AlteredChemical: Ok, people, listen. Please.

It does not exist. At least not to the extent that everything I've seen it made out to be.

Yes, there is pork. But it's not hat bad.

Now, before you go shouting at me and calling me names, please let me explain.

Yes, there is waste in government, but no-one is that stupid.

Basically all this stuff is used to cover programs that they want to be kept "off record".

Do you REALLY think they are going to list "Development cost of new spy satellite" or "Bribery expense" or "Secret underground bunker" on their official budget? Hell no.

What comes into play is creative accounting, but sometimes it's not done subtly and we wind up with the proverbial $500 hammers and $15 muffins.

Yes, it exists on PAPER, but in reality, it does not.

And in exchange for the fake invoices most likely the companies have to sign some papers to never talk about it on fear of repercussions, and a check or cash or gold bullion to sweeten the deal.

you sound crazy

Alien Robot: But why do you think Mr. Public Highway Paver (to whom the stimulus money will be given) will spend the money and Mr. Private Sheet Metal worker (from whom the tax money is taken) will not? Wouldn't they be equally likely to spend it or save it?

Because armies of economists study the economy, and can accurately say,"People are not spending enough money." Microeconomics is not Macroeconomics.

Or as noted liberal, Milton Friedman, wrote,"We are all Keynesians now."

Helicopter logging is not a waste of money. You have to hire road building crews so you can truck the logs out (if you want selective logging, winch logging is the way to go, unless you want to clearcut the area, then you bring in more machinery in the form of feller bunchers), and the price of diesel is not exactly cheap right now. Plus the same road building crew has to go in and do reclamation work. Unless you want big ugly roads scarring up the landscape and clearcuts everywhere. Helicopter logging doesn't leave a huge footprint, like traditional logging does.

Alien Robot: But why do you think Mr. Public Highway Paver (to whom the stimulus money will be given) will spend the money and Mr. Private Sheet Metal worker (from whom the tax money is taken) will not? Wouldn't they be equally likely to spend it or save it?

Not at all. While of course individuals are individuals, there are very distinct patterns of spending across various groups of people. Some segments of the population are characterized by very low velocities of money (especially the wealthiest) and some by extremely high velocities of money (especially the poorest). There's variation within each group, but the variation among groups is much larger.

Plus, of course, the government spends money, it doesn't gift it. That sheet metal worker doesn't get a free gift of take-home pay, he gets money in exchange for his goods - so much of that money goes to his suppliers and to their suppliers and the shipping and so on and so forth. Every dollar government spends changes hands once purely because of the government action; not every dollar would otherwise have changed hands at all.

Well, as long as we have bizarre distractions to keep us away from the wholesale institutionalized waste. GREAT! Toads and Helicopter Solar Panel Golfing! Weeee.

Alien Robot: Sum Dum Gai: That's only true if 100% of the money collected in taxes would otherwise have been spent. In reality, someone taking home, say, $3000 a year more won't SPEND $3000 a year more - only a portion of that gets spent. For example, if I paid no taxes, I'd spend a whopping $0 a year more than I do now - I already spend considerably less than my take-home pay, and I don't have a budget per se because I don't really need one. Right now, I buy whatever I need, and I wouldn't buy more if I had more.

But why do you think Mr. Public Highway Paver (to whom the stimulus money will be given) will spend the money and Mr. Private Sheet Metal worker (from whom the tax money is taken) will not? Wouldn't they be equally likely to spend it or save it?

Because a dollar Mr. Paver gets doesn't all come from Mr. Metal worker. Instead Mr. Metal workers' dollar gets split up and combined with Mr. Banker's dollars, and Mr. Construction worker's dollars and Mr. Coca Cola's dollars, and Dr. Mrs. Doctor's dollars, and Mr. Farmer's dollars, and Mrs. Lawyer's Dollars, and Mr. Microsoft's dollars, and Mr. Exxon Mobil's dollars and Mrs. Office Worker's dollars and etc. All of those dollars combined have been split and while some might go to Mr. Paver it's also going to Mr. Truck driver and Mr. Cement maker and many others and in the end Mr. Metal worker gets to go to work every morning on a road and not some mud-pit of a path through the woods.. Not every single dollar of his gets spent on things that directly benefit him, but we're not purchasing some product when we pay taxes, we're trying to build and maintain a society.

I've always thought it would be awesome if some congressman could force a bill through that would provide his state with a huge contract for making pork barrels. I don't know what you could do with a barrel designed for storing pork, but the literalness of it all would be kick ass. Perhaps we need to have a strategic pork reserve.

> Building renovation

25 year reclaimations on office building improvements are not particularly uncommon.

> Franked mail in Illinois

Franked mail is mail fraud if used for campaigning, as is insinuated here.

> Solyndra

Solyndra was 3% of a program that held 10% of its value in expected losses, not unusual in R&D.

> The system isn't perfect, but it seems fair enough. Where this falls apart is when only 10% of all those receiving unemployment in Tennessee have to meet this condition. This means that $310.7 million of your tax dollars could be going to people who may or may not be looking for work.

It's highly dubious to extrapolate a metric set too low (only 10% of unemployed must be working) in a single state to mean that all of the money that is being spent is "wasted".

> What's shameful is when the disbursement system is so broken that the Georgia Department of Public Health had to return $2 million federal funds because it was unable to get it to the people who need it fast enough.

This isn't wasted money. It goes right back into the federal coffers.

> $16 Muffins

Outright lie.

"4. $253,000 Bugs
... Aren't there enough nerdy adolescents in San Diego willing to volunteer for this vital and fascinating work?"

I don't know what the merits of this project are but when the only argument against it is nerd hate this tends to mark the whole article highly uninformed outrage pandering.

Harry_Seldon: Am I supposed to get worked up about this?

I worked for a government agency which received $18 million to upgrade IT infrastructure. Did we need the equipment right now, and need to spend it? No.

However, we were to spend it as part of the stimulus program, and stored it on pallets until we needed them. Sounds stupid, right?

Wrong. That money bought high end technology from American companies which employed American workers who got paychecks, and bought groceries, furniture, baseball gloves, clothing, electronics, etc from a variety of resellers. Their employees took their wages, and spent that money, etc.

It doesn't necessarily matter that all the money was spent perfectly. What matters is that it was spent to increase aggregate demand.

All depends. Was it for upgrades that were going to happen anyway? Would we rather have a short-term mega increase or preserve the long-term demand?

My problem with the stimulus is that most of these projects won't create new jobs. Obviously, preserving current jobs is a good thing, but what good does it do to temporarily keep a few old jobs? I feel that somehow we missed an opportunity to do something massive, to create new industry. Create a national drive to bury all utilities, or something. (Personally, I'm just sick of telephone poles.) Coat the southwest in solar power plants. SOMETHING. Instead money went to do the things we were probably going to do anyway, just now and not 18 months from now.

And then there are the mandates to publicize, like the NIH, which desperately needs more money, forced to spend a million bucks to a consulting firm in order to create a communications package to show where the stimulus went. THAT's the sort of waste that drives me nuts.

HairBolus: "4. $253,000 Bugs
... Aren't there enough nerdy adolescents in San Diego willing to volunteer for this vital and fascinating work?"
I don't know what the merits of this project are but when the only argument against it is nerd hate this tends to mark the whole article highly uninformed outrage pandering.

Yeah, not to mention there's far more to it than simply sticking bugs to cork board. The person who wrote that knows absolutely nothing about professional museum work.

HairBolus: "4. $253,000 Bugs
... Aren't there enough nerdy adolescents in San Diego willing to volunteer for this vital and fascinating work?"
I don't know what the merits of this project are but when the only argument against it is nerd hate this tends to mark the whole article highly uninformed outrage pandering.

Not to mention that the author of TFA seems to think its a good idea to have school kids curate museums rather than experts.

Coolfusis: #2 says it's wasteful because it will take more than 25 years to recoup the money. On average, office buildings last for 73 years, meaning they'll roughly triple the money they used to renovate the building. Seems like a pretty good investment to me.

This is American dammnit! If it can't be measured between quarters on our books, it's not real! Wargarble!

Harry_Seldon: Am I supposed to get worked up about this?

I worked for a government agency which received $18 million to upgrade IT infrastructure. Did we need the equipment right now, and need to spend it? No.

However, we were to spend it as part of the stimulus program, and stored it on pallets until we needed them. Sounds stupid, right?

Wrong. That money bought high end technology from American companies which employed American workers who got paychecks, and bought groceries, furniture, baseball gloves, clothing, electronics, etc from a variety of resellers. Their employees took their wages, and spent that money, etc.

It doesn't necessarily matter that all the money was spent perfectly. What matters is that it was spent to increase aggregate demand.

AD and the math behind it is econ 201... you should know better then to bring math to Fark. Econ 101, and it's nice bedtime stories, rules all here.