Bill O'Reilly vs. Laura Ingraham

[Sky Dancer]

Don't believe I've ever discussed it.

I am opposed to any of that done at the Federal level though. Far more efficient, effective, economical, and of real benefit when done locally.

So it were up to you, no more food stamps, school lunch. women infants children' program etc.? Federal programs are already administered by states and counties.

In lieu of what? Faith based charities only?

In lieu of anything that is efficient, effective, economical and of real benefit. And that lets the Federal government pretty much out of anythng like that.

Really? Prove it. Tell me about all that waste of money in the federal hunger programs.
http://www.whyhunger.org/programs/f...grams/introduction/federal-food-programs.html

 

[Foxfyre]

So it were up to you, no more food stamps, school lunch. women infants children' program etc.? Federal programs are already administered by states and counties.

In lieu of what? Faith based charities only?

In lieu of anything that is efficient, effective, economical and of real benefit. And that lets the Federal government pretty much out of anythng like that.

Really? Prove it. Tell me about all that waste of money in the federal hunger programs.
Federal Food Programs

I don't feel obligated to prove anything to you Sky. I'm offering an opinion here just like everybody else. My opinion, however, is based on up close, hands on, personal experience.

If you are so damn sure you're right and I'm wrong, let's see you prove your opinion as the right one. Giving me a link to a federal food program site won't cut it though. Of course anybody in the Federal bureaucracy is going to paint a picture to make themselves look necessary.

Boiled down to the simplest argument again:

You have a dollar collected from the tax payer
The IRS takes a cut collecting the dollar
The executive branch takes a cut
The Congress takes a cut
Several layers of federal bureaucracy take a cut before distributing the dollar among the states.
State governments take a cut
Several layers of state bureacracy take a cut before what is left of that dollar makes it to a school cafeteria.

Just how much of that dollar do you honestly believe gets to the cafeteria?
Not much. Nobody knows for sure, but the best guesses are 10 to 15 cents.

Isn't it simple logic to assume that if the school started out with the dollar in the first place, it would be able to channel a whole lot more of it for food for the kids? And even poor school districts would probably have more to work with than they do after all that money is siphoned off by so many layers of government?

I know that's a lot to absorb.

But it really isn't rocket science.

 

[Sky Dancer]

In lieu of anything that is efficient, effective, economical and of real benefit. And that lets the Federal government pretty much out of anythng like that.

Really? Prove it. Tell me about all that waste of money in the federal hunger programs.
Federal Food Programs

I don't feel obligated to prove anything to you Sky. I'm offering an opinion here just like everybody else. My opinion, however, is based on up close, hands on, personal experience.

If you are so damn sure you're right and I'm wrong, let's see you prove your opinion as the right one. Giving me a link to a federal food program site won't cut it though. Of course anybody in the Federal bureaucracy is going to paint a picture to make themselves look necessary.

Boiled down to the simplest argument again:

You have a dollar collected from the tax payer
The IRS takes a cut collecting the dollar
The executive branch takes a cut
The Congress takes a cut
Several layers of federal bureaucracy take a cut before distributing the dollar among the states.
State governments take a cut
Several layers of state bureacracy take a cut before what is left of that dollar makes it to a school cafeteria.

Just how much of that dollar do you honestly believe gets to the cafeteria?
Not much. Nobody knows for sure, but the best guesses are 10 to 15 cents.

Isn't it simple logic to assume that if the school started out with the dollar in the first place, it would be able to channel a whole lot more of it for food for the kids? And even poor school districts would probably have more to work with than they do after all that money is siphoned off by so many layers of government?

I know that's a lot to absorb.

But it really isn't rocket science.

Link? I'm still waiting to see all that waste in the food stamp program.

Let's give the school a dollar.

 

[Political Junky]

Ezra Klein - Research desk: What's a dollar of stimulus worth?


Research desk: What's a dollar of stimulus worth?

By Dylan Matthews

BHeffernan1 asks:

How many jobs does a federal gov dollar buy? Provide optimistic (most efficient -- extending unemployment? building a smart power grid?), median and pessimistic (tax cuts for wealthy?).

For reasons Ezra has laid out in the past, it's best to focus not on job creation narrowly, but on the general economic impact of a policy. Policies that create jobs have other benefits (and costs) as well. If you're evaluating a proposal to pay workers to build a railroad, you want to know what the value of that railroad is, not just how many workers were hired. If you're giving laid-off workers unemployment insurance, the point isn't just job creation, but also helping them pay rent. So if you want raw job estimates for different policies, see Moody's analysis of the cost per job of job tax credit proposals, or CAP's look (PDF) at the job creation potential of various clean-energy investments. But keep in mind they leave out important effects of various proposals.

We can get a better picture of the overall effectiveness of a stimulus method by looking at its contribution to GDP. The most recent numbers come from April's Senate testimony (PDF) from Mark Zandi of Moody's. Zandi calculated the change in GDP caused by a dollar spent on various stimulus policies. Here are the results, grouped from least effective to most effective. You might want to click on the graph to see the larger, and more readable, version.

bang_for_the_buck_for_various_stimulus_methods_(LARGE).png

The pattern is striking: Direct government spending -- through unemployment benefits, food stamps, work sharing or infrastructure spending -- top the list, giving you more than a dollar's worth of stimulus for a dollar's worth of spending, while cuts to taxes affecting businesses and upper-income individuals -- such as the corporate, dividend, capital gains and alternative minimum taxes -- give you less.

The reason there is clear: A tax cut that ends up with upper-income folks gets saved rather than spent, and a dollar saved doesn't stimulate the economy. That's why some tax breaks, such as the job tax credit and payroll tax holiday, are fairly effective, though still less so than direct spending. The problem, of course, is that the politics of tax breaks are easier than the politics of spending, even though the tax breaks are actually more expensive. But if the government wants the maximum stimulus at the minimum deficit cost, direct spending is the way to go.

See the chart at the link.

 

[MarcATL]

Laura Ingraham Wants Your Kids to Be Obese

Watching videos like these, I think I should start watching Bill again. More and more he looks like the voice of reason at Fox News along with Shep Smith.

It doesn't take much to make that buffoon look like...a buffoon.

On Bill...I'm not impressed. I used to be, but he's partisanship comes out way too often. He does lie...just a lot less than the rest of his fellow GOSSIPNews workers, which they do non-stop.