Comments on: Somebody find the GOP a carrot

By: Mac29

Mac29 — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:21:08 +0000

How would taxpayers save money if the same amount is laid out, only some of it goes to the patient??

On the education front, not that I would defend the criminal increase in education costs we’ve seen, but the author is mixing apples and oranges. We’ll see how the online revolution and similar experiments fare.
I don’t know about “ideas” from the Heritage Foundation but we’ll always have the poor, ones who don’t can’t or refuse to save.
I side w/RalfW but remind him social spending dwarfs defense outlays. Although the wars have been catastrophic in cost and, guess what, the right still yells tax cuts from their soapbox.
I absolutely agree with usgadfly re: black budgets. It’s criminal. Just for laughs: SamuelReich first needs to learn to spell, then I can laugh at his odd reactions. Coindependent is dreaming.

By: rikfre

rikfre — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:08:02 +0000

a carrot…?? it’s too healthy for them! And, they would need to set up a committee to examine the possible after affects of consuming the carrot. then, they would need funding for this study which means they have to find it “somewhere”. After the funds are received (hmmm) and allocated a meeting in the Bahamas was needed to select the members of the sub-committee. Then, there is sub-committee staffing and funding. I think you can guess which way this is heading…or maybe this needs a committee too.

By: DHGIII

DHGIII — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:59:33 +0000

Demand increases as price decreases. If you offer say free healthcare, than demand will go up.

By: COindependent

COindependent — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:22:08 +0000

The issue is the “federal government”. Perhaps the feds might consider revising their model and move to block grants versus open-ended funding models. If the motivation is to ensure some equity across the states for education, unemployment, medicaid, ad infinitum) they could do it in this manner, using some form of a per capita allocation. Then each state could define how those funds would be distributed based on the specific needs of the state–not some centrally mandated model out of the beltway.

If the feds (Congress, the President) want to remain the focal point for funding social programs, block grants would allow the fed to do so, but the states would be responsible for deployment. The fed could also define parameters that a maximum of 15% of the funding is allowed for administration. That way you eliminate the duplicity of federal administrators and state-level administrators, effectively shrinking the federal government, both in size and its role in these programs.

Additionally, instead of each federal agency continuing to expand their role and capacity to consume tax dollars, they should do what every business does and define their objectives, how funding will be deployed and determine their “yield” each year. Success would determine their funding in subsequent years–versus the “additive” model they operate under now where they only add programs (and seek more funding) and few programs are ever eliminated. It would also force them to re-allocated their manpower versus adding employees to the ever-expanding bureaucracy.

By: CharlotteHughes

CharlotteHughes — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:33:01 +0000

In a recent post to The Hill, what are your thoughts on this opinion that Obama is able to raise the debt ceiling without Congress approval.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/e conomy-a-budget/276703-the-debt-ceiling- must-go

By: mycentstoo

mycentstoo — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:14:17 +0000

This is an interesting article and makes sense in a perfect world where people actually want change. What’s more interesting is the fact that almost everyone wants what the government has – someone else’s money. We don’t seem to care that we are just stealing from ourselves and it can’t last forever. A little more self sufficiency would be good for everyone, including the big companies who line up at the trough. the partnership between big business and government is almost complete in its goal to keep the masses down.

By: SamuelReich

SamuelReich — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:30:56 +0000

Neither party wants to cut costs. In medical care it means creating competing doctors, hospitals and generic drugs. Which would mean free medical school with condition the school cannot charge additional frees to the students ad have the students tested to show the school and students are producing trained doctors. Low cost loans to hospitals independent of the others in the area. Funding the creation of generic drugs.

In education it means cutting corruption and paying the staff only what they are worth, particularly the non-teachers. Which means no elections of school boards since, the voter have no idea of those people and it is just a way to make sure corruption is not traceable to traceable to high ups and special interests
are in charge.

Since more and more regulation will be needed as things we need become more technical and critical and dangerous, we need regulators who have technical expertise and regulations that are drawn up to be
effective but reasonable by people in the know. That means less political appointments.

No mater what happens there will more demand for safety nets in bad times and more demand for no taxes in bad times.

By: sylvan

sylvan — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:13:50 +0000

Though inadvertently, I believe this author identified the real issue for the GOP: they are constantly and only concerned about how they are going to spin something. The issue is your party is devoid of positive ideas on any issue, droning on and on about debt and job creators; rape, and abortion, and birth control; burdening future genrations while admonishing against feeding children in the here and now; refusing to pay your bills; and making every mundane issue a high, righteous drama all about you . At least 51 % of us know what a bunch of sham snake oil salesmen you are, trying to re-invent yourselves in new contortions to protect the plutocracy that funds you. “Corporations are people, my friend” might have made it into law, but until the GOP’s only true friends get a vote for every dollar they produce, we the people say you are a bunch of tired, cranky, angry, old transparent gray faced clowns. So who wants to hear about Santa from the mean scary clowns? Obviously not most of us.

By: SanPa

SanPa — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 01:36:11 +0000

Government sponsored encouragement of procreation in an overcrowded world … only in the mind of Republicans could such an absurd proposal be forged.

By: whitewidow

whitewidow — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 01:25:08 +0000

This is hugely about social spending. For the most part a large part of those “non-profits” solicit everybody and everything that breathes, and, is subsidized. Not only that, but in Canada, all of the Non-Profits are currently refusing to release their financial statements to me from 2000 to 2008, and the banks like CIBC World Markets or RBC Securities will not release their community initiative budgets, or their affiliates subsidized by their budget, and or how much that budget has increased and where.

Because Alberta Oil Sands is currently receiving more revenue in general and administration, but increased “exploration budgets” are our top priority.

For Christ Sakes, think big here.