[MD] Barfuesserkirche (ZMM & Dewey)

[Case]

[Arlo]
> Case suggested a while back ""Throwing more money at the problem isn't the

> answer" is one of the most asinine political statements ever uttered.

[Gene]
Generally, you get what you pay for.  But paradoxically, throwing more money
at a problem can be counter-productive when:
1) It creates special-interests (public & private) that ensure the problem
doesn't get solved & dry up their flow of revenue/power.
2) It discourages those who provide the money from continuing to try to
solve the problem.
3) It diverts resources from more important problems.
4) It creates waste & unaccountability.

[Case]
And even more generally speaking you don't get what you don't pay for. 

1) Special interests? Where the hell is George Lakof? When did non-profits,
schools, environmentalist and anyone seeking the common good become labeled
a "special interest." Special interests are private parties seeking to
promote their own interests at public expense whether that is a direct
subsidy from the government or through a looting or desecration of public
resources. 

2) Most of the problems that receive public funding are ones that are either
too large for private interests or ones that do not lend themselves to the
profit motive. Homelessness is one example. The only organizations seeking
to solve that problem are doing so because the believe God is telling them
to do it.

3) If important problems are being neglected it is because right wingers
spouting pretentious nonsense have convinced people that spending money in
the public interest is not in their interest. The special interest double
speak you spewed above is a shining example.

4) You clearly haven't the slightest clue how public funding is
administered. The most wasteful thing about the process is all the effort
that goes into accounting for how the money is spent. Agencies that receive
grants have to account for every dime. In contrast private companies don't'
have to account for diddly.

[Arlo]
> You also seem to suggest that funding education for children whose parents

> are poor is wrong. What is the alternative? A pauper class? Send 'em 
> straight to the sweatshops? 

[Gene]
Appropriately, the first, alternative step is education.  

[Case]
As long as it is delivered on the cheap.

[Gene]
Prospective parents should be educated that raising & paying for a child is
their responsibility, not an entitlement from the state.  
This has 2 important consequences:  a) parents will budget for education
(like they do for a new car) & not blithely perpetuate a pauper class & b)
parents will become more involved/invested in their children's
education--like Penn State profs & the Oakridge Boys.

[Case]
And if they don't listen maybe we should just take it out on the shiftless
little bastards that spring from their worthless loins.