Cost to benefit is estimated, conseravtively, at $5 dollars saved for every $1 spent.
It did not encapsulate the decreased criminal justice costs, so is likely well underestimated IMO.
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/201...cy_thomas.aspx
If you want to reduce the size of government, and en lement programs, this is kind of a no-brainer.
FWIW:
Abstinence-only sex education programs are also designed to discourage teens from having risky sex. The bulk of the high-quality research literature on these programs suggests that they have little effect on the behavior of the individuals who participate in them.
I heard "community/free care" SA doc (would be slimed as a socialist by Repugs and conservatives) make exactly the same argument a couple years ago.
For every $ his group spent treating poor/uninsured, it saved, his estimate, $20 vs not treating the person who then showed up later in the ER with disease advanced and perhaps incurable.
Of course it does. I'm glad poor people can get contraceptives and abortions.
Here's the problem tho'.
If you sign a pledge saying you will NEVER raise taxes, and an opportunity comes up to raise taxes, spend $400M, in order to save $2bn down the road, then you will never get the savings.
Taxes will therefore be higher than they should have, because one paradoxically doesn't want to raise taxes.
Ooooh the delicious irony.
The blanket "no new taxes" pledge is dumb.
Soon after we approve free birth control for everyone, RG will provide us with a study that it will save taxpayers money if we give free STI testing and exams for all. I can just imagine all the money's our country will save! God bless.
Birth control / abortions are a lot cheaper than paying the welfare mother to raise the child.
Cost benefit analysis. What a crazy idea.
"yeah free disease screenings save money"
The question is whether (prostate, uterine, breast) cancer screening save lives (health care doesn't care about costs, since they know they will get paid in any case). Lots of controversy around that question. There's no doubt that such screening COSTS $10Bs/year.
These "ideas" have snowed balled into a catastrophic debt in the tune of 14 trillion and counting. The en lement mentality makes it almost impossible to take back what shouldn't have been given to begin with.
"In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
If we go broke, we go broke. God bless us all.
"catastrophic debt in the tune of 14 trillion and counting"
You Lie
the national debit is due to Repug unfunded policies (exorbitant spending!!):
2 bogus/botched wars,
Medicare Advantage/Part D
paying BigPharma full price (no negotiation)
tax cuts for the super wealthy
tax cuts for the corps.
etc, etc. ALL Repug policies.
Both sides are at fault dumbass.
You Lie with reflexive false equivalence. dubya's 2001 tax cuts got through, over, the Senate Dems only with reconciliation.
Both sides are at fault dumbass.
dubya and the neocons/PNCA wanted Iraq war BEFORE he was even elected.
We could always sell the evil foreigners among us to make up the difference. Unless of course they are from Israel.
I wonder what the going rate for Canadians is?However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Remember when Obama came along and got rid of Medicare D and raised everyones taxes to counteract those evil Bush tax cuts? Good times!
Yeah, when he had the house and senate his first two years he really showed those republicans what fiscal responsibility was all about...
too bad Republicans had nothing to teach the Dems either
Speaking about attempting fiscal responsibility, what did you think about Rand Paul's latest budget proposal?
I think we have all agreed that medicare will have to be addressed for a long term solution.
The tax cuts? I'm not sure I agree with this long term.
Paul Ryan?
Haven't read it yet, but the early buzz is that it's still too unspecific (particularly on the revenue side) to evaluate fairly.
I agree that Medicare/Medicaid needs to be addressed, but preserving the Bush/Obama tax cuts would be a mistake, unless they're offset somewhere else in the budget.
You mean like reduce wasteful government spending?
Maybe curtailing the spending that appears to have no end in sight of it's increases?
tax cuts should be offset by spending cuts. en lements and defense both need to be trimmed.
Defense has been trimmed. The overall trend is down already. If I take the data and put a linear trend line through it, it is clearly dropping. It clear without adding the trend line. Don't you see it?
I know you're bad at reading graphs but that graph shows growth in military spending.
Uhhh...IMHO Defense could still be cut a lot more. I like all the cool toys just in CASE we need them, but we don't need to be the worlds policeman and could seriously cut back on our army ground forces.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
