Amazing Story of Perseverance

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

... Is it so hard to acknowledge that govt. can actually serve a good purpose and beneficial purpose?

Yes.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First,

To say that govt. assistance is never a good thing (as you seem to be saying) or that govt. is always an obstacle is just wrong. My point is that, in this case, the govt helped facilitate the volunteer efforts of many. Yes. Regulation exists, so do roads, and a comfort that our food is safe. You think any of that happens without govt. activity?

Generally, I agree that there is waste in govt. Duh. You want "the trains to run on time"? Go talk to the Nazis or some other form of totalitarian govt. In a democratic society, one of the costs for "fairness" is the lack of efficiency. It is a constant trade off.

Here, the project would not have happened but for the combined efforts of govt., officials (this started as a school project remember?), private companies, and the involvment of committed individuals. Is it so hard to acknowledge that govt. can actually serve a good purpose and beneficial purpose?

Well if your def. of a good purpose is waisting 30% of the money to have people push paper work then I guess the federal goverment is great. Our club tried to get a federal grant once (figured why not they are going to give the money to someone) and after a stack of forms we just said F^%$ it. Not worth the effort. Why do you feel the feds need all this praise to give away money that is not even theirs?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

[/B]

Well if your def. of a good purpose is waisting 30% of the money to have people push paper work then I guess the federal goverment is great. Our club tried to get a federal grant once (figured why not they are going to give the money to someone) and after a stack of forms we just said F^%$ it. Not worth the effort. Why do you feel the feds need all this praise to give away money that is not even theirs?

"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.

[firstdown]

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

I agree. I also think that governement, at all levels, can and should assist and facilitate the ability of people to make projects like this happen.

Again, you say there was a waist of 30% of the money. I am assuming you are just making generalities and don't actually know anything more about the specifics of the relevant transactions than what is revealed in the article. I am most certainly not arguing that the feds (why are you so hooked on the feds? I was just quoting the article) are efficient money distributors. I would suggest that sometimes, even with its inherent inefficiencies, govt. gets it right and when it does it should be applauded. Again, is that so hard to agree to?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I agree. I also think that governement, at all levels, can and should assist and facilitate the ability of people to make projects like this happen.

Again, you say there was a waist of 30% of the money. I am assuming you are just making generalities and don't actually know anything more about the specifics of the relevant transactions than what is revealed in the article. I am most certainly not arguing that the feds (why are you so hooked on the feds? I was just quoting the article) are efficient money distributors. I would suggest that sometimes, even with its inherent inefficiencies, govt. gets it right and when it does it should be applauded. Again, is that so hard to agree to?

My point all along is that they are not efficient money distributers. If they have all this extra money to give out then lower my taxes and leave it at the state level which is more efficient. The 30% that gets eating away at the federal level is probably low and its probably more around 30 to 40%.

Fryday afternoon I opend a bill from the federal goverment for 14 cents. That envelop had a 23 cent postage. Now I have to write a check for .14 and use a .44 cent stamp to pay that bill. I'm guessin it will probably cost the goverment another $10 to process that payment. I guess obama does not want one penny unpaid. He probably needs the money so he can fly here today.