As we like to say in the submarine force, “the stupid shall be punished”.

This really is hilarious. I GOTTA MEET THIS PERSON. I cant believe anyone would be this nuts.

Good job liberals. Reminds me of something I saw on tv where a woman started a business where everything was free… people traded what they had rofl.

On November 25th, 2008 at 3:34 am, SpeakEasy said:
The only thing magical in her shop are the mushrooms.
“A fool and his money…”
Enough said.

I’ve often wondered how a fool and his money got together in the first place.

On November 24th, 2008 at 1:34 pm, zorro said:
“I’ve always said this place is magical, so maybe something magical will come of it,” said Horowitz.
Wow. And she’s probably registered to vote too. May God help us all.

Probably? Absolutely no doubt she pulled the lever for Obama.

“A fool and his money…”

Enough said.

You’ve been watching too much “The Price is Right” over the years, huh?

TooMuchTime said:

Um… I wish to associate myself with these remarks. Absolutely SPOT ON.

Rather, it is how that money is spent that is important.

That is exactly what I tell my children about the inefficiency of the public schools:

It’s not that you spend money, it’s how you spend money.

Unfortunately, the public schools are pretty much run by idiots like Jane Horowitz. They have no comprehension of the value of money. The money is spent on over-inflated teacher salaries, useless administrators, and sub-standard education.

If we had a voucher system in our schools (a true voucher system, not a socialist sliding scale), we would see a vast improvement in the intelligence of our students.

Can’t have that, though. Then the young ones might not vote democrat.

Only if employees are incentivized to be efficient. An employee who receives a bonus for reducing costs, for example. In which case, the employee is no longer strictly spending other people’s money on other people, but has a financial stake in the outcome.

The Federal government works precisely the opposite way. Agencies are encouraged to spend to the limit of their budgets so they can demand increases the following year.

The amount of money spent does not decide efficiency. Rather, it is how that money is spent that is important.

Incentives to spend an entire budget do not preclude incentives for efficiency. It’s possible to have both.

I’ll bid 29 cents.

eBay sniper!

On November 24th, 2008 at 4:04 pm, cabrerski said:
I am willing to pay 28 cents for the last $500.00 she has in the business checking account.

I’ll bid 29 cents.

A man is talking to his future son-in-law. He asks him, “How are you going to provide for you and my daughter?”

The boy responded, “I am a biblical scholar and God will provide.”

The man asked, “Do you have a job?”

The boy responded, “I am going to school and God will provide.”

The man asked, “If you have children, what will you do?”

The boy replied, “I will study, and God will provide.”

After the talk, the man’s wife asked how the converstation went. The man said, “Well, he does have one redeeming feature; he thinks I’m God!”

I think corporations can be quite efficient, perhaps even more so than an individual spending money on himself.

Only if employees are incentivized to be efficient. An employee who receives a bonus for reducing costs, for example. In which case, the employee is no longer strictly spending other people’s money on other people, but has a financial stake in the outcome.

The Federal government works precisely the opposite way. Agencies are encouraged to spend to the limit of their budgets so they can demand increases the following year.