lets hear it!

I'm always hearing "big gobment', me being a yankee still spell it government.What should we shed to get uncle of our backs?First federal, and then state.No one seems interetsed in corporate welfare. Lets have your thoughts.

Corporate America feeds my family. I work for their money as opposed to sitting on my Ase waiting on draw. Any more questions Yankee? Thanks for having an original thought

I'm a born Yankee, with 27 years recent southern experience. Feds need focus on enforcement, not on replacing laws. States need to focus on their social programs' effectiveness and efficiency. Both need to knock off spending on unnecessary things, and live within their budgets. At both levels I'd like to see infrastructure projects that prioritize hiring of folks drawing unemployment. Corporate America needs clean up its ethics, many are exceptional, but the exceptions are increasing. No more fine print offers. No more over embellished products and exaggerating services. Let words like best, fastest, toughest, be words the consumer says to describe the results of the buy, and not a sales pitch."show me", don't exaggerate when you market it.

Last, let's make the battle at Gettysburg a best 2 out of 3, so the south can put up or shut up. Grant rules! :-)

[QUOTE=kygorski;498641]I'm always hearing "big gobment', me being a yankee still spell it government.What should we shed to get uncle of our backs?First federal, and then state.No one seems interetsed in corporate welfare. Lets have your thoughts.[/QUOTE]

Lots of places to cut spending.........LOTS.

* First look at every single program and spend a few hundred million dollars doing a complete, and THOROUGH audit.
* Use this audit data to completely and thoroughly eliminate fraud and abuse.

Once you've done that, you will eliminate about 1/5 of all gubment expenditures without cutting a single program.

Next...

* Eliminate all corporate tax breaks.........EXCEPT for those that create jobs in the United States.
* Offer a 1 time repatriation opportunity to bring money back to the United States.......TAX FREE.
* Install a FLAT corporate tax........FLAT. 15% for everyone, or 10% for Corporations that hire veterans.

I think we could do the above and leave most of ObamaCare in place. I don't know the number, bur I suspect repatriating a few trillion dollars, and a FLAT tax will get stuff cranking here. I also think that by doing a thorough audit of every gubment institution, we will save 500 billion or so a year......don't believe it, just look a the WASTE in gubment spending in IRAQ and Afghanistan.

Later,

Geo

Corporate america paid me for almost 45 years, sometimes quite fairly, and I'm one of the lucky ones from an area that saw many pension plans disolved.I also lived and worked in an era, and area, where I could work part time to augment my pay. There are lots of foolish state, local, and federal aid programs, that coat many, and help few.The flat tax idea, has never been seriously looked at why?[substitute cost for coat, big fingers, old tired eyes].We dont need many new laws, we do need enforcement of those we have. But my biggest bone of contention, is the lobby mob, that in many cases is tax supported.

Tim I learned at an early age, from my parent, "theres no free lunch! Next my learned and beloved platoon sargent explained the last fact of life I should know " The white stuff in chicken s--- is still chicken s---. Rules to live by[ the apostles creed sort of helps also].

I thought for sure the EPA, the AEC, DOT,MSA,OSHA,ACLU,and a big bunch of state and federal regs, would be named and admonished.So whay are the biggest concerns, and rightfully so. Fraud, and ethics.These are human conditions, whenever money is involved personal greed and responsibility come into play.I remember when larger meant that, not family sized.Reduced price didn't mean smaller sized.And some restrictions may apply, means a lie!

[QUOTE=kygorski;498699]I thought for sure the EPA, the AEC, DOT,MSA,OSHA,ACLU,and a big bunch of state and federal regs, would be named and admonished.So whay are the biggest concerns, and rightfully so. Fraud, and ethics.These are human conditions, whenever money is involved personal greed and responsibility come into play.I remember when larger meant that, not family sized.Reduced price didn't mean smaller sized.And some restrictions may apply, means a lie![/QUOTE]

Smaller to me means SMARTER..........I don't mind the EPA, I mind their out of control mentality and wasteful spending.

I don't mind DOT, but I really don't like mindless taxes. I register my canoe, and then register it in Minnesota, AND then pay a FEE to use it in Minnesota, on so called "public" land. HM.

I don't mind OSHA or the ACLU, but they do waste a bunch of money.......AND with OSHA, I think they have done a pretty good job creating workplace safety rules, that SHOULD have eliminated unions.........HM. In my mind we either need OSHA or we need unions, but not both.

Later,

Geo.

If its there, its GOT to be spent, I'll bet there are rules someplace that place a penalty on un used or returned[no such animal]funds.If its there it will get stolen, or misappropreated. Yeah they spend it stupidly. My post about paying brazilian farmers points that out, how many more cases are like that? This crap about adding amendments to bills is more BS. And PORK, what is it?A guy in new mexico thinks a dirt bike trail is essential, and a boat ramp in Ky is pork.Ones man treasure is you know what follows.

[QUOTE=kygorski;498712]If its there, its GOT to be spent, I'll bet there are rules someplace that place a penalty on un used or returned[no such animal]funds.If its there it will get stolen, or misappropreated. Yeah they spend it stupidly. My post about paying brazilian farmers points that out, how many more cases are like that? This crap about adding amendments to bills is more BS. And PORK, what is it?A guy in new mexico thinks a dirt bike trail is essential, and a boat ramp in Ky is pork.Ones man treasure is you know what follows.[/QUOTE]

It's a matter of whether its a multi-year appropriate or annual appropriation. And it matters if its a mandatory or a desrectionary program that has the authorization of congress, and how it has been set up to be funded.

Even though a program is authorized by law, it doesn't guarantee it will be funded, or how much will be funded in a fiscal years appropriations act.

Multi-year appropriations mean I don't have to spend it all in one year or lose it. Annual appropriations do mean I either have to spend it or give it back, where the funds go back into the general fund, or they are de-obligated, which means disbursement from the Treasury, no additional Treasury securities issued, and a slightly lower deficit
.

Penalty? No, not as such. If Congress and the President agree and authorize money for a specific beneficial purpose, than they expect the funds to get spent to achieve that goodness. FYI , this link shows what can happen when money is set a side to fund something and the agency involved doesn't get it spent to achieve a benefit.

[url]http://fcw.com/articles/2012/06/07/coburn-report-unspent-federal-funds.aspx[/url]


OMG-did you catch me sober or what :-)

Thanks Bob, you cleared up one misconception.You do make a lot of sense either sober or

[QUOTE=HURRICANEBOB;498858]

OMG-did you catch me sober or what :-)[/QUOTE]

Oh the humanity, a sober Bob!!:) Maybe we should start a Bob's Bourbon Bill Benefit Ball.