Obama '08?

Understood, but don't you think that all government programs need to be on the table for potential cutting and cost saving? We are broke as a country, do you understand that? After all, it is hardly proven that Pell Grants are a mandated function for government to be involved in. And it should be obvious to everyone that some programs lend themselves more easily to fraudulant activities. I think this may be one of those.

Are all commercial transactions federal crimes? I doubt it, ci. And just because something is a federal crime does not mean the laws are enforced. Remember the case of Dan Rather's forged documents program a day or two before an election in an effort to alter a federal election? That was a federal crime as well, but to this day nothing has ever been done, and not even one lousy investigator or reporter have shown enough interest to track down the guilty.
No I do not, because I doubt what you say is true. I doubt all commercial transactions are a federal crime if done fraudulantly. To use a simple example, if somebody is defrauded on an Ebay transaction, is that a federal crime? I doubt it, ci.

The obvious common sense answer to this issue is that we cannot stop all fraud and we cannot stop all government operations, but we can curtail the number of programs that are more prone to fraud. Surely you would agree with that, ci? Or maybe you are in favor of more programs, especially the ones that are prone to more fraud? If you are offering free money for something, ci, people will line up to get it. Another example was the Cash for Clunker program. It was predictable the fraud that resulted from that, but the program was not a logical thing to do from the very beginning. In fact, I think it was downright stupid.

Yes, but that's not your original position. By all means, "all government programs" should be looked at, but what you advised before is the stupid way to proceed.

If you have any intelligence, use it. Cutting government programs because of fraud is not rational. Fraud is a federal offense, and those caught should do the time. That's part of the republican credo - just in case you forgot.

Yes, and MOST fraud occurs in the military budget.

What is obvious is that you are merely looking for an excuse to get rid of programs you don't like or you would be for eliminating the military spending completely.

Defense spending is one of the largest portions of the budget, and I happen to think it should be, parados, because I think national defense is one of the primary functions of the federal government, as mandated by the constitution. So due to the sheer size of the operation, it is not surprising that fraud occurs.

Perhaps you are unaware, but I am in favor of prosecuting fraud wherever it occurs, and we need to take a good hard look at everything in the defense budget. It is only logical however to first eliminate the unnecessary programs where fraud occurs also. You cannot quit spending on essentials, but you can quit spending on non-essentials.

Example, if you are managing a household, you cannot eliminate your grocery budget, and even though there may be waste in what you buy, such as junk food, those can be examined and refined, but you don't quit buying food. However, if you are spending money on going to the local theme park to throw darts at the balloons, that is an obvious area of waste, and instead of trying to spend your money more wisely at the theme park, it makes more sense just to quit going to the theme park altogether. Feeding your children is your responsibility, but taking them to a theme park on a regular basis is not. If they want to go bad enough, perhaps they should pay for it themselves? Do you get the common sense reasoning of that, parados, or not?

okie, What's the good of a national defense as our country crumbles into nothingness? Do you know anything about the competitive world economy?

Our schools are falling behind all developed and developing countries in math and science. How long do you think this downward trend in our children's education will support any economy?

You want a country with all soldiers and no commerce?

Then fraud is not a criteria on which to judge a program's worth then, don't you agree?

So an educated America is not essential?

I guess that says something about your education okie.

Get the federal government out of the way, and we can once again be competitive. Without a federal department of education, we grew into the most technologically advanced and educated nation on the face of the earth. We can do it again, without a nanny state.
Not forever as long as we continue a failed system. The failed system is government education, but not only that it is more management of education from Washington. We need to turn the trend around and return the educational system into the total hands of local people and government. We also need to look at some of the voucher systems that have been proposed. Spending thousands per child in this country has gotten to the point of ridiculous when you look at the poor results. We are not getting what we are paying for.

No, and that is why I am in favor of drastic reforms. We need major reform of the educational system, such as the ones mentioned above, and we also need major tax reform. I have said this many times, but we should look at eliminating the income tax completely in favor of a better way of taxing, and if not, we should at least eliminate all income tax on business and corporations, and tax the income at a different point, from shareholders, etc.

Another very important fix is to have a president and a congress that totally believe in the American people and the free market system, and then seek to get the government out of the way of the peoples desire and ability to turn this economy around.

I have proposed specific fixes for the mess we are in. I want to see if you have any fixes besides higher taxes and more spending, which only continues the failed path and failed policies that we currently are following due to liberal policies.

What it says is about your education, because you apparently cannot read my posts with any comprehension.

Get the government "out of the way" from what, exactly? You need to provide detail of what you mean. Your generalities don't say much; they are not a solution by any meaning of the word.

And, exactly, how will that "getting out of the way" help our economy and job creation? Please explain that for us.

You say we need "major reform in our taxes and education," but fail to say how, where, when, and how much?

Not very good at explaining things, are you? Just generalizations - like what the GOP have been doing for the past several years.

ci, seriously, you really don't get it, do you? Or are you simply ignoring the reality of what is meant by the phrase "get the government out of the way?" Conservatives and liberals have been debating this forever, and so I think you know very well what is being talked about. It is about big government vs smaller more efficient government and more regulations vs less and more efficient regulations, and its about allowing the people to do for themselves what they can do for themselves, rather than government doing it for them. It was a common expression used by Reagan, and we all know that everyone knew exactly what the "great communicator" meant. Or perhaps you did not?

okie, This is a dynamic world where things change; we are now in a Great Recession, and what might have been proper government control two decades ago may be wrong for today.

You need to be specific as to what you mean. Government control is too general to put into action or understand. Please explain yourself, if you can.

Government control of what?

Oh.. so where you NOT comparing education to a trip to the theme park to throw darts at balloons?

Then what exactly DID you mean?

Obviously, this forum is not able to discuss every single issue and regulation, ci. It is more a matter of philosophical approach as it is the specifics. Philosophical approach then brings about the final results or consequences. What we need is more trust in people instead of blind adherence to regulation. What we need is to reduce the adversarial relationship of government toward business in general, and it starts right at the top, with the president.
I will try to give you an example. I was recently told about a business that had a contract to purchase a commercial building and storage areas. However, before the purchase of the building could be completed, it came to the attention of the city, which decided that they wished to extend their city limit out to encompass the building. Given this eventuality, it was then determined that curb and gutter would be required, plus paving and handicap access and parking. The silly part of this is that the use of the building and storage is not used by the handicap, it is a commercially used building, plus parking spaces for boats, rvs, and stuff like that. It has been graveled forever, and there is no need to pave the thing. It is in an area of relative undevelopment, plus the city owns land across the street that is overgrown with weeds. The whole issue was silly, and because of the prospect of having to spend alot of money to buy the property, the sale fell through so that the current condition will continue at the property. To be clear, that was a local issue, but it is a good example of how inefficient and silly that government can be.

Another case recently had a major fast food chain decide not to come to town, simply because they would be required to pay for additional turn lanes and widening of a street, which would make their parking too small, even though none of the adjacent businesses had turn lanes with no problems existing. This was not on a major thoroughfare, but on a lightly traveled frontage road.

Blind adherence to regulations reminds me of the military and basic training. Army manual xxxxx dash 38 dash 14 or some such number, you get the drift, said that each foot locker of every soldier had to have a shaving brush neatly placed in a certain position in the locker, and it better be that way at inspection, or else, even though most of us were using electric razors. So we all had to go out to the PX to buy shaving brushes for everybody even though most never used them.

okie, Bad example; there are laws on many city and county books that requires access for the handicapped. It's not a silly law, as you call it. It's difficult enough for the handicapped to move about freely - that most of us take for granted. However, if I or any of my family member or friend were handicapped, I would want those handicap ramps and railings. Many city buses now have lifts for the handicap. That's a good thing; we must learn to accommodate as well as we can all our brothers and sisters to have free movement.

The building was not to be used for public access, such as retail, ci. Actually, the handicap parking thing was not the sticking point, it was all the other stuff involved that would cost the most money, that nixed the deal.

It doesn't matter; it still denies the handicap freedom of movement, and require an unnecessary detour around that block.

ci, you do not understand. Things can be taken to the nonsensical. Would you require handicap access to a cow barn in the middle of a section of land on the prairies in Kansas? That may be a nonsensical example, but that is about how nonsensical some of this stuff can get. Take my word for it, I know the owner and the would be buyer of this property, and what is going on there. In fact, I have rented commercial space there, and thought I was getting a new landlord, until they told me what happened with the city's requirements and how it had nixed their deal.

Who's talking about a cow barn here? That is nonsensical.

I'll be honest, I'm conflicted by it.
I know how good Pell Grants are, I got one myself to go to school.
However, I also see the repubs point in saying no to the increase.
The govt has to start cutting expenses somewhere, and when they do a lot of people are going to see their favorite ox gored.
But, you have to make choices.
And holding the line on Pell Grants is one of those choices.

As I understand it, the repubs are not cutting Pell Grants, they just arent increasing them.