The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Cutting Spending: Stop the Waste

  1. #11
    Senior Member hotel4dogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SW of Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,430

    Default

    wonder how much the inauguration is costing?

    Barb Gibson
    with
    CH Rosewood Little Giant UDX VER RA MHU SH MXP MJP XFP T2BP DJ VCX WCX CCA CGC FFX-OG
    also UCH HR UUD UJJ URO1 UHIT
    (golden retriever) born 3-10-07
    a.k.a. "Tito", "The Tito Monster"
    www.GoTeamTito.com

  2. #12
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Rockwall, TX
    Posts
    5,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hotel4dogs View Post
    wonder how much the inauguration is costing?
    It shouldn't cost me a penny.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  3. #13
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,440

    Default

    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.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Golddogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M&K's Retrievers View Post
    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.
    Never trust a dog to watch your food!

  5. #15
    Senior Member starjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    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.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by starjack View Post
    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.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  7. #17
    Senior Member starjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    899

    Default

    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.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    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.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    11,041

    Default

    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
    Last edited by Franco; 01-18-2013 at 10:17 PM.
    Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge



  10. #20
    Senior Member HPL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Coastal Bend of Texas
    Posts
    2,903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    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.
    Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
    (John Dewey)

    Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
    (George Washington)

    Gig'em Aggies!! BTCO'77HOO t.u.!!

    www.HughLieck.photoshelter.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •