U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-14-2011, 06:07 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
21,878 posts, read 16,692,462 times
Reputation: 30805
Default Found Money - Unobligated Funds

"Balances of Budget Authority — Budget of the U.S. Government — Fiscal Year 2011."

"On page 8, Table 1 indicates in black and white that this fiscal year’s federal budget contains $703,128,000,000 in 'unobligated balances.' While unspent obligated money must be stewarded for specific purposes for up to five years, these unobligated funds 'have not yet been committed by contract or other legally binding action by the government,' OMB explains. Senator Coburn’s office estimates that $82.4 billion of these funds are between six and 20 years old! You read correctly: At this very second, the federal budget contains $82.4 billion that has hibernated in numerous accounts between FY 1991 and FY 2005. While agency chiefs and lobbyists might scream that these funds are sacred, such arguments become hilarious when applied to taxpayer dollars that have remained untouched for at least half a dozen years."

The Federal Government

So, does Congress take it back (along with the unspent stimulus money) to reduce the national debt? Technically, no one would feel it if they haven't felt any impact from this money for the last 6 years or more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-14-2011, 06:10 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 2,929,839 times
Reputation: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
"Balances of Budget Authority — Budget of the U.S. Government — Fiscal Year 2011."

"On page 8, Table 1 indicates in black and white that this fiscal year’s federal budget contains $703,128,000,000 in 'unobligated balances.' While unspent obligated money must be stewarded for specific purposes for up to five years, these unobligated funds 'have not yet been committed by contract or other legally binding action by the government,' OMB explains. Senator Coburn’s office estimates that $82.4 billion of these funds are between six and 20 years old! You read correctly: At this very second, the federal budget contains $82.4 billion that has hibernated in numerous accounts between FY 1991 and FY 2005. While agency chiefs and lobbyists might scream that these funds are sacred, such arguments become hilarious when applied to taxpayer dollars that have remained untouched for at least half a dozen years."

The Federal Government

So, does Congress take it back (along with the unspent stimulus money) to reduce the national debt? Technically, no one would feel it if they haven't felt any impact from this money for the last 6 years or more.
It will be interesting to see if the GOP has the guts to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2011, 06:14 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
33,256 posts, read 27,271,631 times
Reputation: 15211
Bad accounting? Squirrels in the financed department sitting on their stash?

Why doesn’t the Federal Government pay off the deficit by instituting a 10% tax on all income from all sources on the top 10% of the incomes and a 5% tax on all corporate profit until the debt is paid off? That makes more sense than trying to squeeze more out of the lower 70%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2011, 06:16 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 2,929,839 times
Reputation: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Bad accounting? Squirrels in the financed department sitting on their stash?

Why doesn’t the Federal Government pay off the deficit by instituting a 10% tax on all income from all sources on the top 10% of the incomes and a 5% tax on all corporate profit until the debt is paid off? That makes more sense than trying to squeeze more out of the lower 70%.
Bad accounting. And some nitwits actually want to give those nitwits control of our health care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2011, 06:21 AM
 
10,115 posts, read 3,044,399 times
Reputation: 3389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Bad accounting. And some nitwits actually want to give those nitwits control of our health care.
The money's been stashed in there from 1991 to 2005 or--not 2008 or even 2006. That was under a R house and President for at least 8 years. Who are you calling nitwits now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2011, 06:24 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 2,929,839 times
Reputation: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547 View Post
The money's been stashed in there from 1991 to 2005 or--not 2008 or even 2006. That was under a R house and President for at least 8 years. Who are you calling nitwits now?
That's kind of my point--it's not about what party is managing it. If you think the dems are wonderful, fine people that have your best interests in mind..what happens in a few years when Skippy is out of office and it goes Republican? On the other hand, if you believe the GOP is great...what happens when it all swings back to the dems in 12 years? I don't believe for a second that government can manage things efficiently. They're all nitwits. And people actually think they can manage our health care effectively?


Really?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2011, 06:28 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
33,256 posts, read 27,271,631 times
Reputation: 15211
I would prefer government nitwits controlling the payment of health bills than having the current crooked bastards overcharging whenever they can.

I think the GOP was trying to figure out a way of getting the money to their favorites after letting the financiers speculate with it for a while. I actually wonder if it is still available.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2011, 06:29 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 2,929,839 times
Reputation: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
I would prefer government nitwits controlling the payment of health bills than having the current crooked bastards overcharging whenever they can.

I think the GOP was trying to figure out a way of getting the money to their favorites after letting the financiers speculate with it for a while. I actually wonder if it is still available.
lol...yah...you're right. Thanks to President Skippy and the gang we'll all have cheap, free health care.

And we can all ride unicorns to work, too.

People that act like you are acting now is why we have this sort of problem. You trust the politicians too much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2011, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
21,878 posts, read 16,692,462 times
Reputation: 30805
I think one of the 2 points of the article has to do with Congressional financial mismanagement and not following up as to whether the money appropriated was ever spent. I liken it to issuing visas and then losing the overstay people. Good at giving it, not good at monitoring it/oversight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2011, 06:38 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 2,929,839 times
Reputation: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
I think one of the 2 points of the article has to do with Congressional financial mismanagement and not following up as to whether the money appropriated was ever spent. I liken it to issuing visas and then losing the overstay people. Good at giving it, not good at monitoring it/oversight.
ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding


We have a winner!!!! Complete lack of ability to oversee spending. Does anyone honestly think any government program can reduce cost?
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 $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, 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 - Top