Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
"all this praise"??. My only point is that when govt. works with and facilitates volunteerism by private individuals it is doing a good thing and showing what can be accomplished by good govt. If public funding ecourages or facilitates others contributing two to three times (or more) of the government expense (including waste), why is that a bad thing. Was the local, state and federal resources that went into this project a bad expense? Should the govt. have done nothing? Do you think this particular project with these particular kids would have gone forward without the assistance of public funds?
Could this project been accomplished without any govt. assistance? (I mean other than the fact that it was started by children attending a publicly funded school, and receiving the encouragement and leadership of the teacher - a govt. employeee). Maybe. Knowing the area and demographics as I do, I would suggest, however, that it is unlikely.
|
If they believed in the project then yes it would have. I'm not saying the Fed. goverment did anything wrong I'm saying that the federal goverment is probably the most inefficient way to distriput funds. Why not keep all this grant money at the local level and not waist 30% of the money is my point. I also think thing like this happen because of people not because of the federal goverment.