Where is all our money going?

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

I can say with a high degree of certainty that it's impossible to waste 10 times the amount of the overall DoD budget.

I have often cited... In its defense, I work for DoD (is that really a defense? LoL). We are right-side up where I work. Oh, but wait, make sure you don't play through, read on.

 

In 1960, the site where I work was built for 6 million dollars. In 56 years, we haven't even scratched 70 million dollars in overhead out.

 

Now... A 60 day closure, for that one infrastructure site I work at costs the national economy:

 

18 million dollars.

 

In only 60 days!

 

 

...And yet, they are running the place into the ground as we ride that aging 60 year old structure, w/the wheels coming off, Great Depression/WWII machinery and technology, squeezing every penny out of it... Waiting for a catastrophic breakdown.

 

...But the water is getting cleaner, and cleaner, the enviro flourishing and "some" fish "may" (which their not) getting through... So they throw +100 million $$ in the last 5+ years @ that boondoggle... On all kinds of wonderful things like biologists. Like the world needs another biologist. Not all wasted, electric barrier is working. Or should I say, "there."

 

That just shot being right-side up to sh*t? Not even close. In a x1000 improving enviro over the last 60 years while still maintaining an upright economy in a "rambunctious garden"... The enviro loons still have their foot firmly planted on the pedal as money hemorrhages faster than saying: "You got Ebola!"

 

Priorities my dear friends. That is where your money is going: "Chicken Little fear."

 

But wait, we are still right-side up. It only takes 2 years to generate 200 million for the economy.

 

Ride it till the wheels come off approach! ?? What's the fun if nobody can't make any money while people are being inconvenienced! Welcome to 'America!

[/dev/null]

Rock on! 'MERICA!

 

https://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/gao-u-s-has-fired-250000-rounds-for-every-insurgent-killed/

 

"US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand..."

 

Oh... And don't forget about the suitcases of greenbacks going to pay off some Afghan villagers... Yeah, maybe that doesn't happen? LoL...

Considering how many thoisNds of rounds fired in training alone, multimedia by 15 years 250k per kill isn't that much. And the curren run on ammo might have something to do with all the orders by various Federal civilian agencies that suddenly felt the need to arm themselves

[ExiledInIllinois]

Considering how many thoisNds of rounds fired in training alone, multimedia by 15 years 250k per kill isn't that much. And the curren run on ammo might have something to do with all the orders by various Federal civilian agencies that suddenly felt the need to arm themselves

Yeah.

 

There is only one Federal Agency that does NOT have an enforcement arm. It relies solely on municipal, state policing.

 

Can you guess which one?

 

It also among the agencies that deals with the public the most.

 

;-) ;-)

Edited August 22, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois

[keepthefaith]

Yeah.

 

There is only one Federal Agency that does NOT have an enforcement arm. It relies soley on municipal, state policing.

 

Can you guess which one?

 

It also among the agencies that deals with the public the most.

 

;-) ;-)

The sanitation department?

[ExiledInIllinois]

The sanitation department?

Nope. It's the oldest in the country. Heck, even BEFORE the country. Oldest in military too.

 

Hint:

 

16 June 1775

 

Hint II:

 

Battle of Bunker Hill was: 17 June 1775

 

;-) :-P

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I can say with a high degree of certainty that it's impossible to waste 10 times the amount of the overall DoD budget.

 

So then it's just fudged numbers entirely?

[DC Tom]

Rock on! 'MERICA!

 

https://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/gao-u-s-has-fired-250000-rounds-for-every-insurgent-killed/

 

"US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand..."

 

Yeah? In World War 2 it was 25-50 thousand. There's many good reasons that number is high:

1) Artillery does the majority of the killing. Not guns.

2) Soldiers don't shoot to kill so much as they shoot to suppress.

3) US ground doctrine stresses firepower - in fact, the US Army invented the concept of "put as much **** on the target as possible" in World War 2. (It's also why the US military has friendly fire issues - you put that much **** in the air, some of it goes where you don't want it.)

4) Overkill is underrated.

[DC Tom]

 

So then it's just fudged numbers entirely?

 

Show me the actual report.

 

And don't show me the article from Forbes, or from RT, which are both the Reuters article reprinted.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Yeah? In World War 2 it was 25-50 thousand. There's many good reasons that number is high:

1) Artillery does the majority of the killing. Not guns.

2) Soldiers don't shoot to kill so much as they shoot to suppress.

3) US ground doctrine stresses firepower - in fact, the US Army invented the concept of "put as much **** on the target as possible" in World War 2. (It's also why the US military has friendly fire issues - you put that much **** in the air, some of it goes where you don't want it.)

4) Overkill is underrated.

I understand. But can we afford the bill?

 

I got no problem with spending the money. Rob Peter to pay Paul if we must.

 

You are either all in or all out. And we are all in know... Now onto those suitcases of cash... ;-) War is expensive, don't you think the terrorists know that?

Edited August 22, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois

[GG]

 

Show me the actual report.

 

And don't show me the article from Forbes, or from RT, which are both the Reuters article reprinted.

 

That's what I asked for. Can't comment on an article by an author who doesn't understand what he's writing about.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Show me the actual report.

 

And don't show me the article from Forbes, or from RT, which are both the Reuters article reprinted.

 

 

That's what I asked for. Can't comment on an article by an author who doesn't understand what he's writing about.

That's a fair request, certainly. What's Reuters' got to gain from flubbing information so badly on this issue in your mind? Is there an agenda or is it just lousy reporting?

 

Secondly (and unrelated) how much of the DoD budget is classified and not announced even to congress outside of committee -- let alone the public? Asking because I don't know and keep getting wildly different answers from different sources... I've seen 59b which seems awfully low, and I've seen numbers as high as 3t which seems absurdly high.

[GG]

 

That's a fair request, certainly. What's Reuters' got to gain from flubbing information so badly on this issue in your mind? Is there an agenda or is it just lousy reporting?

 

Secondly (and unrelated) how much of the DoD budget is classified and not announced even to congress outside of committee -- let alone the public? Asking because I don't know and keep getting wildly different answers from different sources... I've seen 59b which seems awfully low, and I've seen numbers as high as 3t which seems absurdly high.

 

I think it's lousy reporting.

 

I have no idea of what's going on, but here's an example of how a stupid reporter can repeat a stupid tale.

 

The Army just took possession of 200 helicopters that cost $2 billion, and allocated them somewhere in domestic command. Somebody realized a mistake, and 100 of the helicopters needed to be allocated to Afghanistan, while the others to other Army bases. So to correct the mistake could add up to a total of $6 billion - which is totally the wrong way to look at it. ($2 billion original entry, $2 billion reversal of the original entry, $1 billion new entry to Afghanistan and $1 billion to the other bases)

 

This isn't an exact example, but it shows how stupid reporters just parrot what they see instead of doing the math. At the end of the day, there was no waste, just bad accounting entries that were corrected, but boy did they add up to big numbers.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

I think it's lousy reporting.

 

I have no idea of what's going on, but here's an example of how a stupid reporter can repeat a stupid tale.

 

The Army just took possession of 200 helicopters that cost $2 billion, and allocated them somewhere in domestic command. Somebody realized a mistake, and 100 of the helicopters needed to be allocated to Afghanistan, while the others to other Army bases. So to correct the mistake could add up to a total of $6 billion - which is totally the wrong way to look at it. ($2 billion original entry, $2 billion reversal of the original entry, $1 billion new entry to Afghanistan and $1 billion to the other bases)

 

This isn't an exact example, but it shows how stupid reporters just parrot what they see instead of doing the math. At the end of the day, there was no waste, just bad accounting entries that were corrected, but boy did they add up to big numbers.

Boy! Ain't that the truth w/every story!

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I think it's lousy reporting.

 

I have no idea of what's going on, but here's an example of how a stupid reporter can repeat a stupid tale.

 

The Army just took possession of 200 helicopters that cost $2 billion, and allocated them somewhere in domestic command. Somebody realized a mistake, and 100 of the helicopters needed to be allocated to Afghanistan, while the others to other Army bases. So to correct the mistake could add up to a total of $6 billion - which is totally the wrong way to look at it. ($2 billion original entry, $2 billion reversal of the original entry, $1 billion new entry to Afghanistan and $1 billion to the other bases)

 

This isn't an exact example, but it shows how stupid reporters just parrot what they see instead of doing the math. At the end of the day, there was no waste, just bad accounting entries that were corrected, but boy did they add up to big numbers.

[DC Tom]

 

I think it's lousy reporting.

 

I have no idea of what's going on, but here's an example of how a stupid reporter can repeat a stupid tale.

 

The Army just took possession of 200 helicopters that cost $2 billion, and allocated them somewhere in domestic command. Somebody realized a mistake, and 100 of the helicopters needed to be allocated to Afghanistan, while the others to other Army bases. So to correct the mistake could add up to a total of $6 billion - which is totally the wrong way to look at it. ($2 billion original entry, $2 billion reversal of the original entry, $1 billion new entry to Afghanistan and $1 billion to the other bases)

 

This isn't an exact example, but it shows how stupid reporters just parrot what they see instead of doing the math. At the end of the day, there was no waste, just bad accounting entries that were corrected, but boy did they add up to big numbers.

 

That's exactly my suspicion. It also makes a lot of sense considering that the only DoD IG report I could find in June about Army expenditures was about Army suspense accounts, which is pretty much where you'd expect that sort of churn to naturally occur.

 

(And FYI, the finding in that report was that some $5-6b was unaccounted for in the quarter.)

[/dev/null]

I understand. But can we afford the bill?

 

I got no problem with spending the money. Rob Peter to pay Paul if we must.

 

You are either all in or all out. And we are all in know... Now onto those suitcases of cash... ;-) War is expensive, don't you think the terrorists know that?

Just borrow it from Space Command. They've got a few trillion stashed in off world slush funds