U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-30-2014, 05:14 PM
 
19,237 posts, read 11,179,747 times
Reputation: 8387

Advertisements

Oh it is the lobbyist alright- they push to have it go their way -their product -their contract-
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-30-2014, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Lebanon, OH
5,687 posts, read 5,903,885 times
Reputation: 12043
I guess the Ron Paul supporters were right after all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 07:18 AM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa?
5,836 posts, read 3,782,775 times
Reputation: 5015
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
The article is awfully vague about waste, but here is one thing that I know. Unless the government burned the money, it was spent on something. That something was produced by a private company, and if the government spends less, it buys less from the private contractors.

For example: About a year ago a teen conducted an experiment in which he concluded that the US government could save nearly $500 million in ink and paper if it printed all of its documents in Garamond font instead of Times New Roman. Let's assume that his conclusions are valid (they probably aren't valid, but for the sake of argument, let's say that they are.)

If the government spends $500 million less on paper and ink, then:
a. the companies that produce the paper and ink will see a drop in sales and revenue.
b. when revenues go down, companies may have to lay off people
c. when people are laid off, they rely on unemployment and other government benefits.
d. laid off people spend less and the decrease in spending hits restaurants, grocers, etc.

It is not a national tragedy, but in a city or town where the paper industry or the ink/toner industry is the major employer, it will have important repercussions.
In the same vein, I am sure that the people, whoever they are, who somehow find this wasted money in their private accounts can justify it, due to the fact they are spending that money and by doing that they help the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 08:10 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,542 posts, read 17,764,355 times
Reputation: 3681
Quote:
Originally Posted by headingtoDenver View Post
Actually I DO know it happens because I've seen it and been a part of it while in the military. Happens all the time.

Of course I cannot say for EVERY department just as nobody out there can say it does or does not happen in every department of the government, but the fact remains is that is does happen in certain areas of spending.
well what you said here is a lot different than the first one, where you implied that it happens a lot. like i said, i don't doubt that it happens. just like it happens in corporate america.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 08:32 AM
Status: "Finally Done With C-D BYE BYE" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,947 posts, read 21,523,597 times
Reputation: 15431
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
The article is awfully vague about waste, but here is one thing that I know. Unless the government burned the money, it was spent on something. That something was produced by a private company, and if the government spends less, it buys less from the private contractors.

For example: About a year ago a teen conducted an experiment in which he concluded that the US government could save nearly $500 million in ink and paper if it printed all of its documents in Garamond font instead of Times New Roman. Let's assume that his conclusions are valid (they probably aren't valid, but for the sake of argument, let's say that they are.)

If the government spends $500 million less on paper and ink, then:
a. the companies that produce the paper and ink will see a drop in sales and revenue.
b. when revenues go down, companies may have to lay off people
c. when people are laid off, they rely on unemployment and other government benefits.
d. laid off people spend less and the decrease in spending hits restaurants, grocers, etc.

It is not a national tragedy, but in a city or town where the paper industry or the ink/toner industry is the major employer, it will have important repercussions.
Or, we're treated like adults and allowed to spend our money the way we see fit instead of "mom and dad" deciding where our money will be spent. What you leave out of your analysis is that the money the government spends is OURS to begin with. If it didn't spend that money it wouldn't need as much from US which puts more in OUR pockets to spend on what WE want.

What you seem to advocate is the big government/we know better than you system that's been in effect for many years now and is obviously flawed and rife with waste/corruption.

I believe the people who make the money from the lowliest housekeeper to the highest CEO know better where their money needs to be spent NOT the sugar daddies in Washington.
Washington should only be spending the monies needed to operate, not picking winners and losers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 09:26 AM
 
3,493 posts, read 4,715,338 times
Reputation: 5358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
As a financial analyst how much do you project or give yourself for margin of error when putting something together? Just curious as it's been pointed out that as a percentage of total spend it's not that much.
More than 1%, that's for darn sure!

However, that is also related to my having to work from publicly available data rather than having insider budgets.

When I deal with my family finances, I would be horrified if I was wasting 1% of my income. Wasting, of course, means something I get no return on. I spend over 1% on going out to sushi restaurants, but I get a very clear benefit from that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 09:38 AM
 
Location: P.C.F
1,973 posts, read 1,521,663 times
Reputation: 1602
SOME of you people need to get a lot smarter...wiki who and what is fiscal times... its "owned" by Peter G Peterson..
founder of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation who is a billionaire investment banker! A BILLIONAIRE Investment Banker ( read GWB Bank Bailout Recipient ) who has long advocated deficit reduction, reduced social welfare program expenditures, and cuts to Social Security. Its ALL about HIM and NOTHING about you .. Get Smart folks learn who is directing you and why? Peter is sooooooo wealthy he finances a blog written by professional writers to concience you , that you need less so he can have more! I will now ask you ? Who does the OP work for? Is it PP?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 10:18 AM
 
17,645 posts, read 12,266,270 times
Reputation: 12883
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurtsman View Post
More than 1%, that's for darn sure!

However, that is also related to my having to work from publicly available data rather than having insider budgets.

When I deal with my family finances, I would be horrified if I was wasting 1% of my income. Wasting, of course, means something I get no return on. I spend over 1% on going out to sushi restaurants, but I get a very clear benefit from that.


Well it's more than 1% of income due to deficit spending. However having your expenditures for a full year be off by 1% isn't bad at all. It's a potential rounding error.


I'm not horrified by my personal wasteful spending that far exceeds 1% of my income. You have to live some but in full disclosure I do save a lot of money as well but wasting 1% isn't something you should be horrified over imo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 10:51 AM
 
8,329 posts, read 8,608,793 times
Reputation: 26037
Quote:
Originally Posted by i_love_autumn View Post
Every year, tens of billions of tax dollars are lost to waste, fraud and abuse within the federal government.

All in, the government wastes close to $800 billion every year. Enough to fix every road and bridge, invest in jobs and the future, and really help those who need it most.

Auditors Say Feds Needlessly Wasted $43 Billion

If we'd get rid of all the thieves in Washington,by downsizing government to about 1/4 the size it is,our financial woes would be over! The worst enemy of the people is our own government!
I wonder if you bothered to actually think through what it would mean to reduce government to 1/4 of its current size.

You'd have to start by abolishing social security, medicare, and medicaid. Those items, plus interest on the national debt are about 75% of all spending by the federal government.

I guess we could stop funding environmental protection, the national park service, the forest service, and the bureau of land management which manage most recreational lands in the USA.

If you read the article you cited closely, its not an argument for eliminating most federal government. Its an argument for granting auditors, under the Inspector General, greater powers to deal with waste in government. That seems like a reasonable agenda and one I could support.

I personally want social security, medicare, environmental protection, and national parks. I don't want a government so limited that all it does is pay for a national defense and the light bill in Washington, D.C.

Honestly, you'd probably be lynched by the large percentage of people receiving social security and medicare if you tried to abolish these items. So, I wouldn't waste my time going down that path. No, better to actually think through a rational approach to dealing with waste in government like the author of the article you cited has done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 11:04 AM
 
7,980 posts, read 3,750,254 times
Reputation: 10440
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
Also, it's worth noting:

$43 Billion was identified, and $11B of that was RETURNED.

So the remaining $32B is what Congress failed to take action on.

$32B is roughly 1.07% of the entire federal budget.

So, while it's not an amount of money to laugh at, we're talking about 1% of the budget.

My company wastes a larger percentage than that printing reports for meetings that no one ever looks at.
This type of mentality drives me insane. "It is only 1/2 of 1%, so big whoop" is the refrain from many who either have a horse in the race, or are just so apathetic they make excuses.

The only way to reduce and try to effectively prevent it in the future is to treat even the tiniest theft/fraud/willful waste as something very significant.

Remember that 1% here, 2% there, adds up. Just because our economy is huge is no excuse to minimize the amounts as insignificant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top