PDA

View Full Version : Cutting Spending: Stop the Waste



Gerry Clinchy
01-17-2013, 10:46 PM
Maybe we can use this thread to annotate the many wasted tax dollars that simply do not have to be spent.

For example, we are paying $184.26 for Bill Clinton's premium cable TV. My basic package from Dish is about $55. That gives you all the news stations, which a former President might be considered to truly "need". That would be a savings of about $130/mo, or $1,560. We're also paying for the Carter's cable TV. If we throw in GW and HW Bush (though figures for Bush were not mentioned), that's $6240/year. That's $62,400 over 10 years. All these fellas could easily afford to pay for cable TV entirely out of their own pocket, having far more in income than the average Joe making $60K a year. So, why do we pay for it?

As with "corporate welfare", sould we call this POTUS welfare?

Clinton is provided

nearly $1 million dollars allocated to him from the government to cover post-presidency expenses like personnel, travel, rent and postage.
That seems quite generous ... you can buy a lot of services for $1 million a year. For 5 former POTUSes tha's $5 million a year ... plus the Secret Service protection (which they will now get for life).

Seems like they could do just fine much less.

JDogger
01-17-2013, 11:02 PM
Maybe we can use this thread to annotate the many wasted tax dollars that simply do not have to be spent.

For example, we are paying $184.26 for Bill Clinton's premium cable TV. My basic package from Dish is about $55. That gives you all the news stations, which a former President might be considered to truly "need". That would be a savings of about $130/mo, or $1,560. We're also paying for the Carter's cable TV. If we throw in GW and HW Bush (though figures for Bush were not mentioned), that's $6240/year. That's $62,400 over 10 years. All these fellas could easily afford to pay for cable TV entirely out of their own pocket, having far more in income than the average Joe making $60K a year. So, why do we pay for it?

As with "corporate welfare", sould we call this POTUS welfare?

Clinton is provided

nearly $1 million dollars allocated to him from the government to cover post-presidency expenses like personnel, travel, rent and postage.
That seems quite generous ... you can buy a lot of services for $1 million a year. For 5 former POTUSes tha's $5 million a year ... plus the Secret Service protection (which they will now get for life).

Seems like they could do just fine much less.

Wow. you really are bored tonight. JD

luvmylabs23139
01-17-2013, 11:16 PM
Wow. you really are bored tonight. JD

WHy should we pay for TV services for any president? Even better why should I the taxpayer pay for anyones cell phone?????

JDogger
01-17-2013, 11:19 PM
WHy should we pay for TV services for any president? Even better why should I the taxpayer pay for anyones cell phone?????

Try to stay OT Luvvy....OK?

Ennui?

Gerry Clinchy
01-17-2013, 11:39 PM
Add another $1.8 million that could be saved:


A North Carolina congressman is denouncing the use of federal dollars to “promote the rich cultural heritage of Islamic civilizations.”

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) told Fox News that he was appalled by the hundreds of thousands of dollars used to fund the program through a National Endowment for the Humanities grant – calling it “wasting taxpayer money.”

Jones was referring to the “Bridging Cultures Bookshelf: Muslim Journeys” program. The NEH program put dozens of books promoting the Islamic culture in more than 800 libraries in all 50 states. The program is funded by a $1.8 million grant.

Libraries that participate in the government program will receive 25 books about the Islam, along with films and access to the Oxford Islamic Studies Online. The libraries will also be required to host community discussions about the Muslim faith and culture.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/islam/2013/01/17/lawmaker-denounces-federal-program-promote-islamic-culture#ixzz2IIaKvN5B

luvmylabs23139
01-17-2013, 11:51 PM
Try to stay OT Luvvy....OK?

Ennui?

Wasn't the topic waste of actual taxpayers money?
Hmmm paying for former presidents TV waste of actual taxpyers hard earned money/
Obama voters free phones waste of actual taxpayers money.
Same topic.. Waste of my hard earned money stolen from me by the govt for a bunch of crap!!

HPL
01-18-2013, 01:06 AM
I think I'm going to have to side with luv this time. Seems as on point as lots of other posts on other threads.

JDogger
01-18-2013, 01:26 AM
I think I'm going to have to side with luv this time. Seems as on point as lots of other posts on other threads.

Cable TV was mentioned in the OP, not cell phones. Former Presidents are afforded many perk's. I suppose we could just send them to the rescue missions.

road kill
01-18-2013, 06:22 AM
Maybe we can use this thread to annotate the many wasted tax dollars that simply do not have to be spent.



Opening line of OP.

Just trying to help!!;-)

Jason Glavich
01-18-2013, 07:59 AM
Bill Clinton still has a flip phone....

On a side note we pay for these things because a certain president was poor when he left office. Truman was the man, he was poor as poor could be, well as much as a president can be poor so they passed the act to make sure such honored people would not be destitute. At the time of the laws passage Hoover also took the money but it is said he only did it to not embarass Truman as Hoover was very wealthy. At the time it was only 25k a year total.

Still messed up overall, but it is just as bad as the Hawaii vacations and rounds of Golf while in the White house, hell this even costs less over 20 years than 1 Obama vacation, lets stop those first.

hotel4dogs
01-18-2013, 08:08 AM
wonder how much the inauguration is costing?

M&K's Retrievers
01-18-2013, 09:44 AM
wonder how much the inauguration is costing?

It shouldn't cost me a penny.:(

Gerry Clinchy
01-18-2013, 12:10 PM
Another $8 Billion (yes that is a "B" this time) could be saved on Headstart.

Don't know if you read it the other day ... Human Services agency has sat on the results for 4 YEARS!

They did their own study on the effects of HeadStart. Truthfully, the program's premise sounded like good sense to me, so I'm really pretty stunned at the study's results (remember, from the govt agency who actually runs the program). First they did a study tracking HeadStart kids v. control group through 1st grade. The HeadStart kids showed no advantage over the control group by 1st grade. I guess they didn't want to believe that, so they extended the study through 3rd grade. By 3rd grade, not only did the HeadStart group show no advantages from being in that program, some of those kids scored worse on some parts of the study parameters than kids who never went to HeadStart.

Evidently, something that looked good on paper didn't work out. At the very least, one would have to say that the theory was not implemented correctly to produce any results anticipated. Remember, this is not some right-wing think tank ... it's a study done by the very govt agency that administers the program.

Estimates are that $180 Billion (yes, that's a "B") have been spent upon HeadStart since its inception.

So far that's $8,400,300 PER YEAR ... over 10 years (which is the way the politicians like to frame their "savings") that is $84,003,000.

I also agree with putting a cap on the amount a President can spend on his "recreational" flying in expensive Air Force One (both of them, since they always put two of them in the air). Probably could have brought POTUS whole family to DC area for a holiday vacation and celebration at Camp David for less than it cost to send the POTUS to HI for 2 weeks.

It just occurred to me ... does the POTUS ever spend any time in Chicago, where he still has a residence, and where he spent most of his adult life? Never seem to hear about him going there. Truthfully, I can't blame him for preferring HI to Chicago.

Golddogs
01-18-2013, 12:30 PM
It shouldn't cost me a penny.:(

If I recall corectly, the only gov expense is the actual inaguration. All the balls and parties are privately funded. I seem to recall a big stink when Reagan was inaugurated because of the opulent ball Nancy planned.

starjack
01-18-2013, 12:57 PM
Maybe we can use this thread to annotate the many wasted tax dollars that simply do not have to be spent.

For example, we are paying $184.26 for Bill Clinton's premium cable TV. My basic package from Dish is about $55. That gives you all the news stations, which a former President might be considered to truly "need". That would be a savings of about $130/mo, or $1,560. We're also paying for the Carter's cable TV. If we throw in GW and HW Bush (though figures for Bush were not mentioned), that's $6240/year. That's $62,400 over 10 years. All these fellas could easily afford to pay for cable TV entirely out of their own pocket, having far more in income than the average Joe making $60K a year. So, why do we pay for it?

As with "corporate welfare", sould we call this POTUS welfare?

Clinton is provided

nearly $1 million dollars allocated to him from the government to cover post-presidency expenses like personnel, travel, rent and postage.
That seems quite generous ... you can buy a lot of services for $1 million a year. For 5 former POTUSes tha's $5 million a year ... plus the Secret Service protection (which they will now get for life).

Seems like they could do just fine much less.Right on the money if we could cut all the wasteful spending we would have enough money to put armed guards in every school. Hell we would have some left over.

Gerry Clinchy
01-18-2013, 01:31 PM
Right on the money if we could cut all the wasteful spending we would have enough money to put armed guards in every school. Hell we would have some left over.
This would be the whole point in cutting out programs that do NOT work. Take 1/2 the savings and put them into programs that DO work.

I am still stymied by the failure of HeadStart. As a psych major in college, it seems that good pre-school programs should be a success for kids who otherwise might have a less enriched experience in pre-school years. Small children have an amazing capacity for learning. How could the govt fail so badly in providing the kind of enrichment that seems to be so beneficial to children of these ages? By comparing the HeadStart kids to a control group of similar background (outside of the program), it seems downright impossible.

In the case of HeadStart it seems downright stupid to continue a costly program that is have zero positive results and even putting some children farther behind than if we just left them alone!

We might spend some of that money to find out why this has failed so badly. We might actually come up with something that actually works.

starjack
01-18-2013, 02:01 PM
I work in and around the green bay schools. I and others call headstart a goverment baby sitting. The schools want it there for all the fed. money they are getting. But have talked to some of the head start teachers and they really feel the kids are just toyoung for being in that kind of structured enviroment.

caryalsobrook
01-18-2013, 02:41 PM
This would be the whole point in cutting out programs that do NOT work. Take 1/2 the savings and put them into programs that DO work.

I am still stymied by the failure of HeadStart. As a psych major in college, it seems that good pre-school programs should be a success for kids who otherwise might have a less enriched experience in pre-school years. Small children have an amazing capacity for learning. How could the govt fail so badly in providing the kind of enrichment that seems to be so beneficial to children of these ages? By comparing the HeadStart kids to a control group of similar background (outside of the program), it seems downright impossible.

In the case of HeadStart it seems downright stupid to continue a costly program that is have zero positive results and even putting some children farther behind than if we just left them alone!

We might spend some of that money to find out why this has failed so badly. We might actually come up with something that actually works.


You point out in Headstart, a program whose goals are noble but whose results have been nil. One might learn that the Fed.kk gov. is structurally incapable of implementing such a program. The Fed. Gov. is full of such programs and the answer is always to just SPEND MORE MONEY ON THE FAILED PROGRAM because that is the cause for failure. Until we recognize this fact as a people, we will continue to spend money on such failed programs, reducing the willbeing of society as a whole.

Franco
01-18-2013, 04:02 PM
Here are some areas that could be eliminated that annually cost a couple of hundred million and some into the billions;

Corporate Welfare & 90% of the subsidies
Foreign Aide
Foreign Bribes
Cut military spending but not Defense spending
Dept of Education
Dept of Energy
HUD
90% of the Endowments and Grants
War On Drugs (that would save more lives than all of Obama's 21 edicts on gun control)
IRS and go with a flat tax where everyone pays, ends loopholes
end the wars, bring the troops home and place some on the boarder
eliminate Congresses' medical and pensions to match the tax payers
cut Congresses' pay until we have a budget surplus
eliminate Public Sector unions
cut medicaid benefits, foodstamps and turn welfare into workfare
cut back on unemployment benefits
Obamacare
&
the EPA

these are just a few to get started with

HPL
01-18-2013, 04:28 PM
This would be the whole point in cutting out (or re-instituting) programs that do NOT work.

In the case of HeadStart (assault weapon bans) it seems downright stupid to continue (re-institute) a costly program that is have zero positive results and even (possibly) putting some (people) children farther behind (at greater risk) than if we just left them alone!

We might spend some of that money to find out why this has failed so badly. We might actually come up with something that actually works.

Just wanted to point out that stupidity seems to be the way the feds roll.

Gerry Clinchy
02-21-2013, 11:11 AM
Obama's proposal for expansion of pre-school programs seems downright counter to logic.

If the DOE has determined, with both studies, that most advantages of Head Start are lost by the time kids are in 1st grade, and totally gone by 3rd grade, logic tells me that the Head Start program works UNTIL the kids get into their public school system! There does seem to be good things for the kids when they are still in the pre-school, but are not sustained when they leave those programs.

So, rather than expand the pre-school programs, shouldn't we start by spending that money (if, indeed, additional funds were available) to clean up what's wrong with the higher grades in public schools?

For starters, there are probably not a lot of pre-schoolers who bring knives or other weapons to school. Not many pre-schoolers could batter their teachers ... nor other students. I think that violence is a big part of it. We can see that many of the schools that have the poorest academic records are in inner cities where there is also the highest amount of violence. Just curbing the violence (that engenders fear in both the teachers and non-violent students) could go a long way to improving the academic standards in those schools.

I was always under the impression that all of our individual rights and/or privileges (like the privilege of a free, public education system) depended upon not interfering with the rights of someone else. If the most troublesome kids form into groups, how about putting these students into community service ... but not putting them in the same place for that service; i.e. break down the group/mob mentality of those troublesome students. They might actually learn more from their community service experience than in those schools. Obviously, "detention" is useless ... unless it requires those students to actually DO something; not just sit there with "free time" to indulge their whims.

Cost? Is it more expensive for the school system to run a bus to different community service assignments than it is to lose the futures of the non-violent students who could benefit from the education they are NOT getting in a violent school? If this stuff is more common in poorer neighborhoods, then if parents are collecting welfare because they are not working, how about doing some "work-fare" by using them to help in the neighborhood school? If using this additional "labor force" does not reduce the regular staff, how could the teachers union argue that it's costing union jobs? They could also do jobs like removing graffiti from walls, etc. That particular job would also be a good thing for "community service" assignments for those transported students. Not in their own school, but in another school where they don't have the support of their regular group.

There are so many things that could be done, for which costs would be minimal, that are common sense & logical, and nobody even suggests such changes!

Marvin S
02-21-2013, 11:45 AM
If this stuff is more common in poorer neighborhoods, then if parents are collecting welfare because they are not working, how about doing some "work-fare" by using them to help in the neighborhood school? If using this additional "labor force" does not reduce the regular staff, how could the teachers union argue that it's costing union jobs? They could also do jobs like removing graffiti from walls, etc. That particular job would also be a good thing for "community service" assignments for those transported students. Not in their own school, but in another school where they don't have the support of their regular group.

There are so many things that could be done, for which costs would be minimal, that are common sense & logical, and nobody even suggests such changes!

As usual an interesting post - I have an issue with these poor examples being used in any manner that they can influence easily influenced minds. It is all too often that we read in the LSM that someone in some sort of youth program has been busted for a serious violation. Not sure those people advance any cause.