Ten Guidelines for Reducing Wasteful Government Spending

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
If anyone federal money goes to the project, it is no different than persevering a landmark in another city/state.

Federal spending on all of those needs to go away.

Actually I mean phased out not just eliminated.

But the Federal Government and the whole United States benefits from it. A tourist attraction/landmark is beneficial to ALL of the country. It is also representative of history. I see no reason to discontinue the funding of historical landmarks. If it was a BS new-age art museum or some crap like that I would understand. I mean who honestly believes pissing in a bottle and setting it on fire is art?

I don't agree. If AL/Birmingham wants to erect a statue then they should pay for it. You also highlight another problem wth federal funding. Who's to say what is art and what is not. The Feds? No. Again if AL/Birm. wants a statue or wants someone to piss in a bottle and set it on fire let them pay for it.

It is OBVIOUS that you haven't read the links. Vulcan has been around for almost a 100 years. They aren't "erecting" a statue, but rather persevering and repairing it.


Well given it has been there for 100 years, there should have been plenty of time for the city to save money to do needed repairs. This is strictly state/city spending and not federeal spending.

Read the links. It has been repaired numerous times over the years. It is an iron structure that is exposed to the elements just like the statue of liberty. The City HAS raised money and taken private donations. Sadly, not enough has been raised and essential services would have to be cut to finish the project. The latest solution is a lot more permanent. BTW, please read the links.

 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
I'd like to see damn near everything on that list done. Not only would it cut down on wasteful spending, it would also have the added side benefit of restoring freedoms back to the states & individuals that the federal government has usurped.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
If anyone federal money goes to the project, it is no different than persevering a landmark in another city/state.

Federal spending on all of those needs to go away.

Actually I mean phased out not just eliminated.

But the Federal Government and the whole United States benefits from it. A tourist attraction/landmark is beneficial to ALL of the country. It is also representative of history. I see no reason to discontinue the funding of historical landmarks. If it was a BS new-age art museum or some crap like that I would understand. I mean who honestly believes pissing in a bottle and setting it on fire is art?

I don't agree. If AL/Birmingham wants to erect a statue then they should pay for it. You also highlight another problem wth federal funding. Who's to say what is art and what is not. The Feds? No. Again if AL/Birm. wants a statue or wants someone to piss in a bottle and set it on fire let them pay for it.

It is OBVIOUS that you haven't read the links. Vulcan has been around for almost a 100 years. They aren't "erecting" a statue, but rather persevering and repairing it.


Well given it has been there for 100 years, there should have been plenty of time for the city to save money to do needed repairs. This is strictly state/city spending and not federeal spending.

Read the links. It has been repaired numerous times over the years. It is an iron structure that is exposed to the elements just like the statue of liberty. The City HAS raised money and taken private donations. Sadly, not enough has been raised and essential services would have to be cut to finish the project. The latest solution is a lot more permanent. BTW, please read the links.

Ok so what you are now saying is that this statue is not important enough for the city/state to take care of.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Sadly, not enough has been raised and essential services would have to be cut to finish the project.

Oh fscking well. I guess the city has a choice to make then don't they. One of the options should NOT be to go to the Feds.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
If anyone federal money goes to the project, it is no different than persevering a landmark in another city/state.

Federal spending on all of those needs to go away.

Actually I mean phased out not just eliminated.

But the Federal Government and the whole United States benefits from it. A tourist attraction/landmark is beneficial to ALL of the country. It is also representative of history. I see no reason to discontinue the funding of historical landmarks. If it was a BS new-age art museum or some crap like that I would understand. I mean who honestly believes pissing in a bottle and setting it on fire is art?

I don't agree. If AL/Birmingham wants to erect a statue then they should pay for it. You also highlight another problem wth federal funding. Who's to say what is art and what is not. The Feds? No. Again if AL/Birm. wants a statue or wants someone to piss in a bottle and set it on fire let them pay for it.

It is OBVIOUS that you haven't read the links. Vulcan has been around for almost a 100 years. They aren't "erecting" a statue, but rather persevering and repairing it.


Well given it has been there for 100 years, there should have been plenty of time for the city to save money to do needed repairs. This is strictly state/city spending and not federeal spending.

Read the links. It has been repaired numerous times over the years. It is an iron structure that is exposed to the elements just like the statue of liberty. The City HAS raised money and taken private donations. Sadly, not enough has been raised and essential services would have to be cut to finish the project. The latest solution is a lot more permanent. BTW, please read the links.

Ok so what you are now saying is that this statue is not important enough for the city/state to take care of.

No, that is not what I am saying and you are misconstruing my post to fit your agenda. The state NOR the city can afford it right now. Essential services at the state and city level have ALREADY been cut. We have been laying off teachers and public safety left and right. Considering it is a NATIONAL landmark(look it up) the feds have their business in seeing in preserved.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Sadly, not enough has been raised and essential services would have to be cut to finish the project.

Oh fscking well. I guess the city has a choice to make then don't they. One of the options should NOT be to go to the Feds.

I bet you supported Bush's tax cut that gave bail-outs to the state didn't you? Well that blows your whole theory doesn't it? We should stop giving out grants to Unis and the like as well. Let the state pay for it even if the ENTIRE NATION benefits from it. Great logic you people are showing. No wonder I stay out of this forum.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
I bet you supported Bush's tax cut that gave bail-outs to the state didn't you? Well that blows your whole theory doesn't it?
[Yes I do and no it doesn't since I already stated I think it should be phased out not abruptly cut.

We should stop giving out grants to Unis and the like as well. Let the state pay for it even if the ENTIRE NATION benefits from it.
The overwhelming majority of students at Unis are residents of that state and will stay in that state when they grad. The States get the most benefit, the State should pay for it.

Great logic you people are showing. No wonder I stay out of this forum.
Thank you. I'm sure you're highly regarded over in the pimple farmer forum.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
If anyone federal money goes to the project, it is no different than persevering a landmark in another city/state.

Federal spending on all of those needs to go away.

Actually I mean phased out not just eliminated.

But the Federal Government and the whole United States benefits from it. A tourist attraction/landmark is beneficial to ALL of the country. It is also representative of history. I see no reason to discontinue the funding of historical landmarks. If it was a BS new-age art museum or some crap like that I would understand. I mean who honestly believes pissing in a bottle and setting it on fire is art?

I don't agree. If AL/Birmingham wants to erect a statue then they should pay for it. You also highlight another problem wth federal funding. Who's to say what is art and what is not. The Feds? No. Again if AL/Birm. wants a statue or wants someone to piss in a bottle and set it on fire let them pay for it.

It is OBVIOUS that you haven't read the links. Vulcan has been around for almost a 100 years. They aren't "erecting" a statue, but rather persevering and repairing it.


Well given it has been there for 100 years, there should have been plenty of time for the city to save money to do needed repairs. This is strictly state/city spending and not federeal spending.

Read the links. It has been repaired numerous times over the years. It is an iron structure that is exposed to the elements just like the statue of liberty. The City HAS raised money and taken private donations. Sadly, not enough has been raised and essential services would have to be cut to finish the project. The latest solution is a lot more permanent. BTW, please read the links.

Ok so what you are now saying is that this statue is not important enough for the city/state to take care of.

No, that is not what I am saying and you are misconstruing my post to fit your agenda. The state NOR the city can afford it right now. Essential services at the state and city level have ALREADY been cut. We have been laying off teachers and public safety left and right. Considering it is a NATIONAL landmark(look it up) the feds have their business in seeing in preserved.

Ok, let me break the bad news to you, almost every state is hurting right now. Your state need not pony up the funds to fix this statue, but you have no problem letting someone else that has the same financial problems foot the bill. Maybe if folks in your state were not paying for some cowboy museum in Texas, they could afford to fix the statue themselves.

 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
If anyone federal money goes to the project, it is no different than persevering a landmark in another city/state.

Federal spending on all of those needs to go away.

Actually I mean phased out not just eliminated.

But the Federal Government and the whole United States benefits from it. A tourist attraction/landmark is beneficial to ALL of the country. It is also representative of history. I see no reason to discontinue the funding of historical landmarks. If it was a BS new-age art museum or some crap like that I would understand. I mean who honestly believes pissing in a bottle and setting it on fire is art?

I don't agree. If AL/Birmingham wants to erect a statue then they should pay for it. You also highlight another problem wth federal funding. Who's to say what is art and what is not. The Feds? No. Again if AL/Birm. wants a statue or wants someone to piss in a bottle and set it on fire let them pay for it.

It is OBVIOUS that you haven't read the links. Vulcan has been around for almost a 100 years. They aren't "erecting" a statue, but rather persevering and repairing it.


Well given it has been there for 100 years, there should have been plenty of time for the city to save money to do needed repairs. This is strictly state/city spending and not federeal spending.

Read the links. It has been repaired numerous times over the years. It is an iron structure that is exposed to the elements just like the statue of liberty. The City HAS raised money and taken private donations. Sadly, not enough has been raised and essential services would have to be cut to finish the project. The latest solution is a lot more permanent. BTW, please read the links.

Ok so what you are now saying is that this statue is not important enough for the city/state to take care of.

No, that is not what I am saying and you are misconstruing my post to fit your agenda. The state NOR the city can afford it right now. Essential services at the state and city level have ALREADY been cut. We have been laying off teachers and public safety left and right. Considering it is a NATIONAL landmark(look it up) the feds have their business in seeing in preserved.

So if you bought a 3 million dollar house and you couldn't afford it, what would you do? Run to mommy and ask for a hand out. That would be the irresponsible thing to do and you know it. Responsible thing to do if one could not afford to keep something would be to get rid of it. Whether it's selling it to a private party or melting it down into scrap metal, you gotta set your priorities. Since you say its a national landmark, why the hell doesn't anyone except alabamastians know about it. I mean national landmarks should be known nationally. I believe this needs to go back under a state landmark or even a city landmark.

KK

 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
If anyone federal money goes to the project, it is no different than persevering a landmark in another city/state.

Federal spending on all of those needs to go away.

Actually I mean phased out not just eliminated.

But the Federal Government and the whole United States benefits from it. A tourist attraction/landmark is beneficial to ALL of the country. It is also representative of history. I see no reason to discontinue the funding of historical landmarks. If it was a BS new-age art museum or some crap like that I would understand. I mean who honestly believes pissing in a bottle and setting it on fire is art?

I don't agree. If AL/Birmingham wants to erect a statue then they should pay for it. You also highlight another problem wth federal funding. Who's to say what is art and what is not. The Feds? No. Again if AL/Birm. wants a statue or wants someone to piss in a bottle and set it on fire let them pay for it.

It is OBVIOUS that you haven't read the links. Vulcan has been around for almost a 100 years. They aren't "erecting" a statue, but rather persevering and repairing it.


Well given it has been there for 100 years, there should have been plenty of time for the city to save money to do needed repairs. This is strictly state/city spending and not federeal spending.

Read the links. It has been repaired numerous times over the years. It is an iron structure that is exposed to the elements just like the statue of liberty. The City HAS raised money and taken private donations. Sadly, not enough has been raised and essential services would have to be cut to finish the project. The latest solution is a lot more permanent. BTW, please read the links.

Ok so what you are now saying is that this statue is not important enough for the city/state to take care of.

No, that is not what I am saying and you are misconstruing my post to fit your agenda. The state NOR the city can afford it right now. Essential services at the state and city level have ALREADY been cut. We have been laying off teachers and public safety left and right. Considering it is a NATIONAL landmark(look it up) the feds have their business in seeing in preserved.

Ok, let me break the bad news to you, almost every state is hurting right now. Your state need not pony up the funds to fix this statue, but you have no problem letting someone else that has the same financial problems foot the bill. Maybe if folks in your state were not paying for some cowboy museum in Texas, they could afford to fix the statue themselves.

Umm... I am aware of ALL of this. Thanks for the lecture though.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: KK
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
If anyone federal money goes to the project, it is no different than persevering a landmark in another city/state.

Federal spending on all of those needs to go away.

Actually I mean phased out not just eliminated.

But the Federal Government and the whole United States benefits from it. A tourist attraction/landmark is beneficial to ALL of the country. It is also representative of history. I see no reason to discontinue the funding of historical landmarks. If it was a BS new-age art museum or some crap like that I would understand. I mean who honestly believes pissing in a bottle and setting it on fire is art?

I don't agree. If AL/Birmingham wants to erect a statue then they should pay for it. You also highlight another problem wth federal funding. Who's to say what is art and what is not. The Feds? No. Again if AL/Birm. wants a statue or wants someone to piss in a bottle and set it on fire let them pay for it.

It is OBVIOUS that you haven't read the links. Vulcan has been around for almost a 100 years. They aren't "erecting" a statue, but rather persevering and repairing it.


Well given it has been there for 100 years, there should have been plenty of time for the city to save money to do needed repairs. This is strictly state/city spending and not federeal spending.

Read the links. It has been repaired numerous times over the years. It is an iron structure that is exposed to the elements just like the statue of liberty. The City HAS raised money and taken private donations. Sadly, not enough has been raised and essential services would have to be cut to finish the project. The latest solution is a lot more permanent. BTW, please read the links.

Ok so what you are now saying is that this statue is not important enough for the city/state to take care of.

No, that is not what I am saying and you are misconstruing my post to fit your agenda. The state NOR the city can afford it right now. Essential services at the state and city level have ALREADY been cut. We have been laying off teachers and public safety left and right. Considering it is a NATIONAL landmark(look it up) the feds have their business in seeing in preserved.

So if you bought a 3 million dollar house and you couldn't afford it, what would you do? Run to mommy and ask for a hand out. That would be the irresponsible thing to do and you know it. Responsible thing to do if one could not afford to keep something would be to get rid of it. Whether it's selling it to a private party or melting it down into scrap metal, you gotta set your priorities. Since you say its a national landmark, why the hell doesn't anyone except alabamastians know about it. I mean national landmarks should be known nationally. I believe this needs to go back under a state landmark or even a city landmark.

KK

The problem is, that it IS a national landmark. As I said look it up. The house comparison is apples to oranges and is not reflective of real life.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
No I've never dealt with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama . . . in truth . . . I've never heard of them. But let me look . . .

I don't love chiropractors but they hate AL BCBS
Court Dismisses Monopolization Counts, but not Conspiracy to Restrain Trade

Naughty on the Nurses
The district court correctly determined that a conflict of interest existed in this case and that Blue Cross's denial of reimbursement was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the district court properly awarded judgment for Nightingale in Case No. 93-6867.

urban institute
Private health insurance continues to be dominated by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which insurance officials estimate holds 70?75 percent of the market (measured as a percentage of premiums paid). While Blue Cross/Blue Shield is generally viewed as a "benevolent dictator" by providers,13 other insurers have complained that the concentration in the market makes it difficult for them to negotiate with providers. Employer-sponsored insurance is by far the most common form of insurance, with only one insurer offering individual plans. Insurance officials report that small group insurers are leaving the market.


I cannot contradict your claim that AL BCBS is doing a better job than the state of AL . . . then again . . . we are talking about Alabama. :D According to their website, AL BCBS claims overhead of 6% . . . the only way they can manage 6% is if they do NOT pay taxes. My guess is they have private, not for profit status in AL. Regardless, I stand corrected . . . at least ONE state does have a private company providing services at a lower cost than the government.

 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I bet you supported Bush's tax cut that gave bail-outs to the state didn't you? Well that blows your whole theory doesn't it?
[Yes I do and no it doesn't since I already stated I think it should be phased out not abruptly cut.

We should stop giving out grants to Unis and the like as well. Let the state pay for it even if the ENTIRE NATION benefits from it.
The overwhelming majority of students at Unis are residents of that state and will stay in that state when they grad. The States get the most benefit, the State should pay for it.

Great logic you people are showing. No wonder I stay out of this forum.
Thank you. I'm sure you're highly regarded over in the pimple farmer forum.

Newsflash to you Dave. This is also a Newsflash to RD and Geekbabe as well. That joke is a groaner, and it was only moderately funny the first time I saw it. No on else finds it funny unless they are 60+ years of age and in a wheelchair.

BTW- I was really playing Devil's Advocate here. I don't really give a damn WHAT happens to Vulcan.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Newsflash to you Dave. This is also a Newsflash to RD and Geekbabe as well. That joke is a groaner, and it was only moderately funny the first time I saw it. No on else finds it funny unless they are 60+ years of age and in a wheelchair.
:D

BTW- I was really playing Devil's Advocate here.
Welcome aboard.
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I bet you supported Bush's tax cut that gave bail-outs to the state didn't you? Well that blows your whole theory doesn't it?
[Yes I do and no it doesn't since I already stated I think it should be phased out not abruptly cut.

We should stop giving out grants to Unis and the like as well. Let the state pay for it even if the ENTIRE NATION benefits from it.
The overwhelming majority of students at Unis are residents of that state and will stay in that state when they grad. The States get the most benefit, the State should pay for it.

Great logic you people are showing. No wonder I stay out of this forum.
Thank you. I'm sure you're highly regarded over in the pimple farmer forum.

Newsflash to you Dave. This is also a Newsflash to RD and Geekbabe as well. That joke is a groaner, and it was only moderately funny the first time I saw it. No on else finds it funny unless they are 60+ years of age and in a wheelchair.

BTW- I was really playing Devil's Advocate here. I don't really give a damn WHAT happens to Vulcan.

See you don't care what happens to the Vulcan, and you're from Alabamastan. ;) Why the hell should it be a national landmark. I could see st. louis arch and things like that being a national landmark, but for this vulcan statue? Come on now, If I take a dump can I submit the proceeds to be a national landmark too.

I think most people will agree that it's this kind of wasteful spending that's causing problems with the way our government functions. They need to form a committee to look into wasteful spending and how to reduce it.

KK