login
burhead wants to know
-
No new posts
 2011-02-19 7:35 AM |
 Subject: burhead wants to knowI'm starting this thread since burhead asked in the WI thread about wastefull spending. Here is is post from that thread. "Ok, we all get it now, governement spending is bad, even when it's on ordinary Americans. Good question burhead. Here is just a partial list regarding Federal Gov. spending or legislation from the feds that require states to spend money. This in No particular order. NPR while I'd like to completely defund it tomorrow it should be greatly reduced until it is 0 over the next 3 to 5 years Federal Education, do away with it, it's a local issue, no good has come from the feds being involved National Endowment of the Arts, same as the NPR. All federal Welfare, medicare, medicade, get the feds out of it. All federal un-funded mandates to the states. These are just a few that come to mind.
|
| 2011-02-19 8:00 AM in reply to: #3362811 |
Member 169  | Subject: RE: burhead wants to know Thanks for starting a new thread. So no reductions in militiary involvements around the world? I would think that would have the biggest impact. |
| 2011-02-19 8:09 AM in reply to: #3362836 |
| Subject: RE: burhead wants to know burhed - 2011-02-19 6:00 AM Thanks for starting a new thread. So no reductions in militiary involvements around the world? I would think that would have the biggest impact. I thought it was a good topic you brought up, glad you likey. Absolutely, I see no reason why we have so many bases around the world. One example is S. Korea, if we are going to provide military support for them they should at least pay the tab. I said my list was far from complete, just a few things that first came to mind. Federal funding for Planned parent hood is anothe that comes to mind. Having the ability to fire federal employees more like the private sector so we can promote the good ones and weed out the bad. I know this example is a state issue but how many Cali teachers get sent home with pay for crimes or some other wrong doing. |
| 2011-02-19 9:21 AM in reply to: #3362811 |
 Payson, AZ | Subject: RE: burhead wants to know crusevegas - 2011-02-19 6:35 AM All federal Welfare, Medicare, medicade, get the feds out of it. Medicare is the one I am most familiar with. When you say get the feds out of it you mean completely get rid of Medicare correct? Medicare is actually state run but I can pretty much guarantee no state would be able to afford it without federal money, so when you say get the feds out that is pretty much what would happen. To implement a system a state gets certified and if they succeed (most do) then 90% of that implementation is funded by the feds. I can guarantee if the feds didn't ensure certain components of the system were operational then well, quite frankly the system would be . I know this cause of what state it is in when we take over a state after it has been running for 10 or so years by themselves. Having a federally mandated system actually helps the state recover a great deal of money that goes directly back to the state. I actually wish the feds would mandate more of the system and not allow so much flexibility on the states. That would greatly reduce the costs of Medicare for all states. I suspect you'd be fine with no Medicare at all though but I am just pointing out that the Feds really in this case are not the problem. It really is the states. And I say this after being very very very familiar with nearly each and every state Medicare system. |
| 2011-02-19 9:48 AM in reply to: #3362925 |
| Subject: RE: burhead wants to know bzgl40 - 2011-02-19 7:21 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-19 6:35 AM All federal Welfare, Medicare, medicade, get the feds out of it. Medicare is the one I am most familiar with. When you say get the feds out of it you mean completely get rid of Medicare correct? Medicare is actually state run but I can pretty much guarantee no state would be able to afford it without federal money, so when you say get the feds out that is pretty much what would happen. To implement a system a state gets certified and if they succeed (most do) then 90% of that implementation is funded by the feds. I can guarantee if the feds didn't ensure certain components of the system were operational then well, quite frankly the system would be . I know this cause of what state it is in when we take over a state after it has been running for 10 or so years by themselves. Having a federally mandated system actually helps the state recover a great deal of money that goes directly back to the state. I actually wish the feds would mandate more of the system and not allow so much flexibility on the states. That would greatly reduce the costs of Medicare for all states. I suspect you'd be fine with no Medicare at all though but I am just pointing out that the Feds really in this case are not the problem. It really is the states. And I say this after being very very very familiar with nearly each and every state Medicare system. Where does the Federal Govt. get it's money from, I mean when they aren't printing it and deflating the $$$$? Government entitlement programs are a problem, they become a sacred cow, just as we watch now our President is a coward and won't propose a reasonable budget in large part due to the sacred cows, the Republican who he has punted the ball to are trying to hand it back to him,,,,, it's a game of chicken they are playing with our nations futuer at stake. This is why I am so adamantely opposed to government welfare programs, and even more so when they are at the Federal level. |
| 2011-02-19 12:56 PM in reply to: #3362943 |
| Payson, AZ | Subject: RE: burhead wants to know crusevegas - 2011-02-19 8:48 AM bzgl40 - 2011-02-19 7:21 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-19 6:35 AM All federal Welfare, Medicare, medicade, get the feds out of it. Medicare is the one I am most familiar with. When you say get the feds out of it you mean completely get rid of Medicare correct? Medicare is actually state run but I can pretty much guarantee no state would be able to afford it without federal money, so when you say get the feds out that is pretty much what would happen. To implement a system a state gets certified and if they succeed (most do) then 90% of that implementation is funded by the feds. I can guarantee if the feds didn't ensure certain components of the system were operational then well, quite frankly the system would be . I know this cause of what state it is in when we take over a state after it has been running for 10 or so years by themselves. Having a federally mandated system actually helps the state recover a great deal of money that goes directly back to the state. I actually wish the feds would mandate more of the system and not allow so much flexibility on the states. That would greatly reduce the costs of Medicare for all states. I suspect you'd be fine with no Medicare at all though but I am just pointing out that the Feds really in this case are not the problem. It really is the states. And I say this after being very very very familiar with nearly each and every state Medicare system. Where does the Federal Govt. get it's money from, I mean when they aren't printing it and deflating the $$$$? Government entitlement programs are a problem, they become a sacred cow, just as we watch now our President is a coward and won't propose a reasonable budget in large part due to the sacred cows, the Republican who he has punted the ball to are trying to hand it back to him,,,,, it's a game of chicken they are playing with our nations futuer at stake. This is why I am so adamantely opposed to government welfare programs, and even more so when they are at the Federal level. I'm ok with you being against federal programs, regardless of what they are. But if your going to be against them it should be at both levels (which I think you are) cause really, despite all the crys of the federal government can't run anything and the state is so much better at it, this program clearly shows (and I see it from the inside) that it is the states throwing your money away in this case. And this is before you even throw in end user abuse and providers breaking the law, of which there is plenty of both. Personally I like government programs. But, I think they need to be more tightly run (regardless of the level) and regulations or whatever put in place to make it such that it cannot be abused as easily as they are now. However, I doubt we'll ever end up at that place since government is too busy trying to please everyone and not just doing what needs to be done. Except in WI of course.  |
| 2011-02-20 2:18 PM in reply to: #3363133 |
| Subject: RE: burhead wants to know bzgl40 - 2011-02-19 10:56 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-19 8:48 AM bzgl40 - 2011-02-19 7:21 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-19 6:35 AM All federal Welfare, Medicare, medicade, get the feds out of it. Medicare is the one I am most familiar with. When you say get the feds out of it you mean completely get rid of Medicare correct? Medicare is actually state run but I can pretty much guarantee no state would be able to afford it without federal money, so when you say get the feds out that is pretty much what would happen. To implement a system a state gets certified and if they succeed (most do) then 90% of that implementation is funded by the feds. I can guarantee if the feds didn't ensure certain components of the system were operational then well, quite frankly the system would be . I know this cause of what state it is in when we take over a state after it has been running for 10 or so years by themselves. Having a federally mandated system actually helps the state recover a great deal of money that goes directly back to the state. I actually wish the feds would mandate more of the system and not allow so much flexibility on the states. That would greatly reduce the costs of Medicare for all states. I suspect you'd be fine with no Medicare at all though but I am just pointing out that the Feds really in this case are not the problem. It really is the states. And I say this after being very very very familiar with nearly each and every state Medicare system. Where does the Federal Govt. get it's money from, I mean when they aren't printing it and deflating the $$$$? Government entitlement programs are a problem, they become a sacred cow, just as we watch now our President is a coward and won't propose a reasonable budget in large part due to the sacred cows, the Republican who he has punted the ball to are trying to hand it back to him,,,,, it's a game of chicken they are playing with our nations futuer at stake. This is why I am so adamantely opposed to government welfare programs, and even more so when they are at the Federal level. I'm ok with you being against federal programs, regardless of what they are. But if your going to be against them it should be at both levels (which I think you are) cause really, despite all the crys of the federal government can't run anything and the state is so much better at it, this program clearly shows (and I see it from the inside) that it is the states throwing your money away in this case. And this is before you even throw in end user abuse and providers breaking the law, of which there is plenty of both. Personally I like government programs. But, I think they need to be more tightly run (regardless of the level) and regulations or whatever put in place to make it such that it cannot be abused as easily as they are now. However, I doubt we'll ever end up at that place since government is too busy trying to please everyone and not just doing what needs to be done. Except in WI of course. I'm not against all Federal Programs, for sure most of the federal social/welfare ones. Military & our space program come to mind that I am in favor of generally speaking. I'm not sure what you mean by at both levels? Government programs are usually going to have a lot of waste in them, when you have people managing resources/money and there is very lax accountability for it. I would say it's safe to say some states will be more efficient at handling some programs than the feds and some will do a worse job. My opinion is that we would be better off as a nation without a lot of the welfare/social programs we have now, if we are going to have them I think the federal govt should have no input in them whatsover, let each state do as it sees fit. And I unlike you, don't like all the govenmet programs. |
| 2011-02-20 5:22 PM in reply to: #3362811 |
| Payson, AZ | Subject: RE: burhead wants to know Oh trust me, I don't like them all. I know, hard to believe.  |
| 2011-02-25 2:17 PM in reply to: #3362811 |
| Subject: RE: burhead wants to know A couple of other things came to mind that the govt should quit spending money, both state & federal. Anti tobacco adds Seat belt adds If people don't know by now I don't think all the advertising in the world won't do any good. |
| 2011-02-25 3:16 PM in reply to: #3362811 |
Extreme Veteran 3177  | Subject: RE: burhead wants to know crusevegas - 2011-02-19 5:35 AM I'm starting this thread since burhead asked in the WI thread about wastefull spending. Here is is post from that thread. "Ok, we all get it now, governement spending is bad, even when it's on ordinary Americans. Good question burhead. Here is just a partial list regarding Federal Gov. spending or legislation from the feds that require states to spend money. This in No particular order. NPR while I'd like to completely defund it tomorrow it should be greatly reduced until it is 0 over the next 3 to 5 years Federal Education, do away with it, it's a local issue, no good has come from the feds being involved National Endowment of the Arts, same as the NPR. All federal Welfare, medicare, medicade, get the feds out of it. All federal un-funded mandates to the states. These are just a few that come to mind.
I am curious what information you have on the bolded part. From what I have been able to figure out NPR receives no direct federal funding and most NPR stations do not receive direct state funding either. They can and do apply for and receive some funding through state and federal grants. However most of their funding comes from direct listener donations (such as I like to make) and from corporate donations/sponsership. So unless you have information I am unaware of, or just want to get rid of all state and federal broadcasting and education grants (which might be 10-15% of a given stations budget) then NPR is already not a part of the federal budget to get rid of. As for other things to get rid of or defund, I would agree that we can do away with the department of education at the federal level. It is nice to have some common statistics to compare across all state but not needed. I would also like to see most international military bases closed down to cut defense costs (even if only a little). I am unsure about defunding certain federal programs like Medicare because in my profession we deal with a lot of people who depend on that medical coverage. If it could be done without disrupting that and thus causing a lot of issues for our older generations I would agree but I am not sure that is feasible. |
| 2011-02-25 3:39 PM in reply to: #3372890 |
| Subject: RE: burhead wants to know I can't say I'm 100% sure on the NPR but here is an exerpt out of an article http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/11/19/end-federal-funding-for-npr As the GOP explains it, “NPR receives taxpayer funding in two different ways. First, they receive direct government grants from various federal agencies, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Arts.” [See who donates the most to Lamborn.] Over the last two years, the GOP says, the direct funding has been approximately $9 million. But that is only part of the equation as NPR also receives indirect taxpayer funding, such as the grants the CPB makes to public radio stations. Weather they are grants or direct funing, it all comes from the same place. I may have been thinking about PBS but that may be the same as well. Did i mention the Nat. Endowment of the Arts,,,,,, I'm not sure in these times or any times that's the best use of our resources either. |
| 2011-02-25 4:18 PM in reply to: #3372930 |
Extreme Veteran 3177 | Subject: RE: burhead wants to know crusevegas - 2011-02-25 1:39 PM I can't say I'm 100% sure on the NPR but here is an exerpt out of an article http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/11/19/end-federal-funding-for-npr As the GOP explains it, “NPR receives taxpayer funding in two different ways. First, they receive direct government grants from various federal agencies, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Arts.” [See who donates the most to Lamborn.] Over the last two years, the GOP says, the direct funding has been approximately $9 million. But that is only part of the equation as NPR also receives indirect taxpayer funding, such as the grants the CPB makes to public radio stations. Weather they are grants or direct funing, it all comes from the same place. I may have been thinking about PBS but that may be the same as well. Did i mention the Nat. Endowment of the Arts,,,,,, I'm not sure in these times or any times that's the best use of our resources either. interesting but I think that just backs what I said. There is no direct funding in the budget. There are grants that NPR gets and has gotten but a grant is never guarranteed. If you are wanting to defund all arts and education grants that is fine, it is an across the board cut, but cutting any grants NPR has received simply because it is for NPR makes no sense. I would concur that at this point the National endowment for the arts is something that could be put on hold until the economy fully recovers but I think it is important in good times to fund aspects of american culture that are expressed through art. If private grants were widely availabel for all similar art projects then I would say to get rid of it completely. |
| 2011-02-25 9:36 PM in reply to: #3372773 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: burhead wants to know crusevegas - 2011-02-25 3:17 PM A couple of other things came to mind that the govt should quit spending money, both state & federal. Anti tobacco adds Seat belt adds If people don't know by now I don't think all the advertising in the world won't do any good. I admire your desire to save money by cutting programs...but I think you are missing the point on some of these. Effective social programs are net-positives. Anti-tobacco efforts are saving us billions of dollars in healthcare costs down the road. The heavy taxes on tobacco bring in a lot of revenue and serve to keep citizens healthier (a.k.a. less costly). Seat belt ads, I might be with you on those. Have the law, enforce it, tax the heck out of folks violating it, no tv ad needed, and be done with it. There, net positive revenue producer. Planned Parenthood is a vital program. What other program out there is helping to ensure people who are not fit to be parents, or do not want to be parents, can do just that regardless of how much money they have? or more importantly, how much money they don't have? Planned Parenthood is the perfect example of why it really isn't just about saving money. It's part of a conservative agenda to defund programs that don't fit their views on social issues. If it were all truly about saving money (balancing the budget) the folks on the Right would be talking seriously about slashing military/defense spending, Medicare, and Social Security...not worrying about a few drops in the bucket like NPR, PBS, or Planned Parenthood funding. I am with you on education to a point. To say that federally funded schooling hasn't helped is just not true. How quickly do you think desegregation would have come along without federal intervention? Be honest...I think you know the answer. I will agree with you that teachers unions have become too strong...and I do believe in some sort of voucher system. Competition may be just what the public schools need, but I'll be damned if my tax money is used to support a school teaching fairy tales in the science classroom. |
| 2011-02-25 11:22 PM in reply to: #3373238 |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: burhead wants to know In the USA: Liberals: pro Social Security, Medicare. Conservatives: pro military / projection of power You could consider both to be in favor of different entitlement programs. It's particularly amusing to see how much the Republicans rant about socialized medicine and "Obamacare" while at the same time they support the VA program and veterans' medical benefits (an example of such a system that works, for the most part). |
| 2011-02-25 11:55 PM in reply to: #3373291 |
| Master 1895 | Subject: RE: burhead wants to know spudone - 2011-02-26 12:22 AM In the USA: Liberals: pro Social Security, Medicare. Conservatives: pro military / projection of power You could consider both to be in favor of different entitlement programs. It's particularly amusing to see how much the Republicans rant about socialized medicine and "Obamacare" while at the same time they support the VA program and veterans' medical benefits (an example of such a system that works, for the most part). Those veterans put their lifes on the line to ensure that you and I can sleep comfortably at night. I have no problem at all taking care of them when the come back home from war. Quite frankly, they couldn't be compensated enough for what they volunteer to do. That is one group that the government should ALWAYS take care of...IMO. |
| 2011-02-26 8:01 AM in reply to: #3373300 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: burhead wants to know hamiltks10 - 2011-02-26 12:55 AM spudone - 2011-02-26 12:22 AM In the USA: Liberals: pro Social Security, Medicare. Conservatives: pro military / projection of power You could consider both to be in favor of different entitlement programs. It's particularly amusing to see how much the Republicans rant about socialized medicine and "Obamacare" while at the same time they support the VA program and veterans' medical benefits (an example of such a system that works, for the most part). Those veterans put their lifes on the line to ensure that you and I can sleep comfortably at night. I have no problem at all taking care of them when the come back home from war. Quite frankly, they couldn't be compensated enough for what they volunteer to do. That is one group that the government should ALWAYS take care of...IMO. I don't think spudone was saying VA programs and vets' medical benefits shouldn't be funded...he was pointing out that the Republican side tends to pick and choose where it wants to spend money it doesn't have (just as the democratic side does) hamiltks10, I don't think there's anybody here who would disagree with your post btw. nice post. |
| 2011-02-26 1:50 PM in reply to: #3362811 |
| Subject: RE: burhead wants to know @ bel83 I'm not sure how they get their money and as I mentioned if it comes from the Feds I am in favor of a gradual reduction to 0, for the NPR & PBS. @ CD Yeah, I never considered the school integration and the part the feds played in that, at this point I think the feds are more of a problem to our education system than they are a benefit. I'm not in favor of doing away with gov. funded education, I'm in favor of it being left up to the states, it appears the federal govt has enough on their plate. On the smoking, I don't think the $$ spend on anti smoking/tobacco commercials do any good at this point it's like NS Captain Obvious. Regarding the federal govt funding Planned Parenthood, well we have very differnt opinions on the duty of feds on this subject, so we'll agree to disagree on that. I've often wondered if having abortion retroactive to the age of 18 would provide some incentive for the chldren to be better behaved. |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK