RINO Romney enters prez race

Rick, you're misinformed about the Affordable Care Act.

The medicaid expansion is largely funded by the federal government.

http://iowapolicypoints.org/2011/01/20/unfunded-mandates-not-quite-governor/

TS, Al Gore didn't say he invented the internet, and he's to be commended for his work on Global Warming.

John McCain, like John Kerry, married a rich woman. What a lame attack.

It is the concensus of all the Democratic party and a good chunk of the GOP that they are a part of the cause. You already know how I feel about the financial institutions and their role. Deregulation in the 80's and the mistaken belief that free trade is an obtainable goal are 2 more ideologies that helped the disaster along. Mentioning the tax breaks to the rich is like beating a dead horse, these last views are fundamental differances between us, all debated in previous threads.

Once upon a time, the GOP was in favor of tax increases because they were fiscally responsible. Those days are gone, of course. Now we're on the way to a Randian "Paradise".
 
Werbung:
I saw that on Fareed's show. She looked like a high school student trying to lecture Harvard doctorates. I think Spitzer was trying not to laugh at her, not that I'm a big fan of his hypocritical ass. She would roll her eyes and attempt an inane sarcastic remark, Fareed kept on saving her-I don't know why. Previous to this I thought she might be an intelligent enough shill for the GOP, being a writer and all, now I guess she's just a has- been version of Palin/Bachmann coming in a distant third. The radical right has new babes to wank off to now.
 
I saw that on Fareed's show. She looked like a high school student trying to lecture Harvard doctorates. I think Spitzer was trying not to laugh at her, not that I'm a big fan of his hypocritical ass. She would roll her eyes and attempt an inane sarcastic remark, Fareed kept on saving her-I don't know why. Previous to this I thought she might be an intelligent enough shill for the GOP, being a writer and all, now I guess she's just a has- been version of Palin/Bachmann coming in a distant third. The radical right has new babes to wank off to now.

I greatly respect Fareed's show for his interviewing skills and his encyclopedic knowledge of world events. His conclusions are often left of my outlook on the world, but still he gets great guests.

However, in this case, I think he really tripped and fell. Anne Coulter and Eliott Spitzer are more media-made entertainment rather than true journalists. Furthermore, neither is an economist nor are they in any way qualified to discuss Keynesian Economics.

In fact, the term Keynesian Economics is an old theory and popularly considered to be synonymous with the term government stimulus spending. The original theory is far more complex than generally perceived. Plus, 70 years of economic study have uncovered many new factors that influence economic recovery. Anyone who uses the term to Keynesian Economics better explain what they are talking about. The term is as vague as "war on terrorism" or "Green Environmental policy".

If you want to debate the efficacy of stimulus spending by the government to bring a nation out of a recession, you must discuss exactly where are you going to put the money. Simply increasing defense spending or building infrastructure projects make no attempt to focus the money on the problem.

Right now, we have a large number of both unemployed residential construction workers and unemployed factory workers. If a government stimulus program were focused on bringing these people back to work, the money may be well spent. But wildly throwing money into the general economy to solve the unemployment problem is like opening a can of beans with a sledge hammer.

When people talk for or against Keynesian economics, they are using a code word for Republican or Democrat political positions on the economy. It is the same thing as the word "Green" attached to any idea. That is a code word for an array of Democratic/ Obama programs.

Shame on you Fareed for demeaning your program with such trivia.
 
I can agree 100% with the stimulus dispersment. The Feds were not allowed to direct the money once it got to the states-states rights and all that. The money was used to pay off the states debt and prevent them from becoming unsolvent. When the money was put up no one realized the enormity of the problem or how much money the states had lost in revenue. If all of it had gone to infrastructure and the states allowed to reorganize debt the problem would be substancially smaller.
 
Rick, you're misinformed about the Affordable Care Act.

The medicaid expansion is largely funded by the federal government.

It is you who are uninformed - new medicaid mandates on states under obozocare will financially crush states, many of which are already nearly bankrupt from liberal spending policies. This is all over the net - eg:

http://www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/28124/Obamacare_and_Medicaid.html

Medicaid is the companion program to Medicare, providing for poor people what Medicare provides for the elderly. It is run out of the same federal office—the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In 2008 Medicaid’s total expenditures were $204 billion, approximately 10 percent of the total healthcare costs for the United States.

Despite that high cost, Medicaid payment schedules are not particularly generous and vary from state to state, since states have a say in fees schedules. The states administer the Medicaid programs and the federal government monitors the programs, establishing standards for benefits and eligibility. States pay about 43 percent of the costs, but that varies because federal matching funds offer more support for poorer states.

Medicaid has become the program for all sorts of special needs, HIV/AIDS treatment, nursing home care for qualified poor, treatment of disabled or poor children, and obstetrics (37 percent of all deliveries) and pediatrics for low-income mothers, even dental coverage for those under age 21.

Budget expansions of the Medicaid program, particularly when including the State Children’s Insurance Program (SCHIP), do not begin to compare to the projected increases in beneficiaries. Eligibility is based on disabilities and annual income of less than 133 percent of the federally designated poverty level—roughly $29,000 for family of 4 and $14,400 for singles—which allows for a massive number of Medicaid users.

Enormous Financial Challenges

According to a recent study by Ed Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation, the rolls of beneficiaries and the costs of Medicaid continue to rise, bringing state budgets to the point of crisis. Thanks to Obamacare, this process has been accelerated.

Under Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid can be expected to add 35-40 million enrollees in the next ten years, with cost projections amounting to a 35 percent increase of the current state burden of $190 billion. States will face massive cost-sharing increases, with a disproportionate increase in the Mountain States.

When Nevada announced it would join a lawsuit by various state attorneys general to challenge the legality of President Obama’s bill, state officials calculated its increased Medicaid costs under Obamacare at $1 billion a year—and keep in mind, that estimate does not even begin to account for the likely increase in utilization that comes from the illusion of “free” healthcare.
 
I can agree 100% with the stimulus dispersant. The Feds were not allowed to direct the money once it got to the states-states rights and all that. The money was used to pay off the states debt and prevent them from becoming insolvent. When the money was put up no one realized the enormity of the problem or how much money the states had lost in revenue. If all of it had gone to infrastructure and the states allowed to reorganize debt the problem would be substantially smaller.

You see, the Federal government has a Department of Defense and a Department of Interior, but it does not have a Department of Public Works. If the Feds want a bridge or highway fixed, they give the money to the States.

Maintaining infrastructure is still one of the rights given to the States. I know it must make you Federalists cringe.

Now one would hope Washington DC would recognize that many of the States in the Union were suffering equally from the economic slowdown and deep in debt. Consequently, if Washington is going to give money to the States, it is only reasonable that they will use the money to keep from going bankrupt. Wouldn't you think some Harvard graduate would be able to figure that out?

You may not know this, but the Feds have what they call the Highway Trust Fund. This is a special fund that States can use only for very specific purposes related to Highway construction and maintenance. At a State and City level, these funds are kept separate from the General Fund.

It seems strange that the politicians didn't put the stimulus funds into the Highway Trust Fund --thus guaranteeing that the money would be used for Highways. Perhaps it is not so strange because that stimulus money has the distinct smell of pork. And federal pork has its own set of accounting rules, written and directed by beltway lobbyists.
 
Correction: Congress is infamous for looting the highway trust fund for any number of pet projects, eg, under-utilized light rail, bikepaths, etc. see eg

http://www.talkgwinnett.net/main/se...-infrastructure-by-looting-highway-trust-fund

That is all very true. As a Public Works Director for a City, I used to cringe when the Federal government put out regulations that I had to spend money on bikeways. But, as everybody knows, if you want a bikeway along a road, then you must also 1) widen the road, 2) pave the road, and 3) put in curb, gutter and sidewalks along the entire distance. Funny how making bikeways result in as complete rehabilitation of a road! The horn-rimmed accountants can't argue with a registered civil engineer (complete with pocket protector) on how to build bikeways - I got the friggin' license.:D

You can't get the pork out of Washington. But at least the Highway Trust Fund is a lot more efficient at building infrastructure projects that the "free-money" program that came out of the Stimulus Bill.
 
Considering that the infrastructure in this country is crumbling before our eyes. I wouldn't call anything that the federal government does as "efficient".
 
Considering that the infrastructure in this country is crumbling before our eyes. I wouldn't call anything that the federal government does as "efficient".
Since the Highway Trust Fund is the pocket of money that is used to repair roads and highways, I must say the program is relatively efficient, compared to other government programs. The money is passed downhill to the local level, where the design plans are drawn up and a truly competitive bid is held to award the contract.

At least them money travels from Washington DC directly into building roads. Of course, the big problem is the lack of money. Our highways have been neglected for too long. Kind of like a wife, you send her to the beauty salon and pay for her membership at the gym, and she stays in pretty good shape for a long time.

The same engineering principle holds true with highways. Deferred maintenance always costs more to fix in the long run!
smiley-char020.gif
 
Since the Highway Trust Fund is the pocket of money that is used to repair roads and highways, I must say the program is relatively efficient, compared to other government programs. The money is passed downhill to the local level, where the design plans are drawn up and a truly competitive bid is held to award the contract.

At least them money travels from Washington DC directly into building roads. Of course, the big problem is the lack of money. Our highways have been neglected for too long. Kind of like a wife, you send her to the beauty salon and pay for her membership at the gym, and she stays in pretty good shape for a long time.

The same engineering principle holds true with highways. Deferred maintenance always costs more to fix in the long run!
smiley-char020.gif

Infrastructure is a helluva lot more than "highways". Bridges. Sewer systems. Water systems. Levies. Overpasses. Dams. The list is endless. I have seen MANY wasteful and worthless "infrastructure" projects, costing millions of dollars, that were not needed, and were a complete waste of money that could have been spent much better elsewhere.
 
Infrastructure is a helluva lot more than "highways". Bridges. Sewer systems. Water systems. Levies. Overpasses. Dams. The list is endless. I have seen MANY wasteful and worthless "infrastructure" projects, costing millions of dollars, that were not needed, and were a complete waste of money that could have been spent much better elsewhere.
If you are talking systemic inefficiencies caused by the fact that it passes through the Federal system, then no one in their right mind would disagree with you.

My favorite example is to ask someone if they would ever hire the US government to build or do anything for their personal use. For example, would you ask the Army Corps of Engineers to build a house for you? The smallest bungalow would cost $$millions! Can you imagine fighting the American Revolution at a cost of $1 million per year per soldier? Even adjusted for inflation, we would still be a colony of Britain.

If you are talking about political pork, the so-called bridge to nowhere, that's another element of inefficiencies. The US government EATS money.

To illustrate how crazy it is, the Army CoE developed a computer program which allows any organization responsible for maintaining roads and highways to generate a plan for the most efficient way to maintain roads. For example, suppose you enter the current state of disrepair 100 different roads. The program will tell you which method is the most cost method for fixing the road, and the year the work should be accomplished.

For a given budget, it may be more cost effective to repair a road that is in a state of semi-disrepair, than to completely replace a road in very bad condition. It is a way to optimize the use of the money you have as well as giving you the cost required to bring all roads up to good condition over the next X number of years.

I am certain the same kind of program exists for other infrastructure projects. So we engineers have the tools to do the job at the lowest possible cost. Of course, the whole program gets shot to he11 when a Congressman calls up the mayor and says the road in front of his house is in terrible condition. Suddenly the whole Pavement Management Program gets a lot more expensive because one road is pushed to the top of the list. It means that 30 other roads will not get that cheap fix that will keep them in good condition for another 20 years. The 30 other roads will rapidly deteriorate because one road in front of the Congressman's house gets priority.

Since when did we make our politicians God, and stop looking at how to make government more efficient? All we hear now is "which programs to cut". Make all programs more efficient, and we can keep many of the programs that are necessary.
 
Werbung:
Since the Highway Trust Fund is the pocket of money that is used to repair roads and highways, I must say the program is relatively efficient, compared to other government programs. The money is passed downhill to the local level, where the design plans are drawn up and a truly competitive bid is held to award the contract.

At least them money travels from Washington DC directly into building roads. Of course, the big problem is the lack of money. Our highways have been neglected for too long. Kind of like a wife, you send her to the beauty salon and pay for her membership at the gym, and she stays in pretty good shape for a long time.

The same engineering principle holds true with highways. Deferred maintenance always costs more to fix in the long run!
smiley-char020.gif
Apparently you have never sent money to Louisiana. States have just as much graft as the Feds. The Feds get some control of money distribution by attaching requirements to it's dispersal such as saftey and quality regulations on the Interstate system. The Army Corp of Engineers can and have nixed State projects that were not up to spec. All large programs waste money and the individual states wouldn't be in so much trouble if they didn't do it also.
 
Back
Top