How many billions to be tossed away!!????

[jimnyc]

Hey look, another lecture for me. Perhaps I should just say that I'd approve if some other members parents had an abortion, as that appears to be fine discussion, even when it's not related to the discussion at hand.

No more lectures. I'll just remove you from discussions. I'm not here to debate moderator decisions or to seek your approval. Bye.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Back on topic... -Tyr

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/politi...ernment-waste/

Coburn shows what $28 billion in government waste looks like


By Leigh Ann Caldwell, CNN

updated 3:03 PM EST, Tue December 17, 2013

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, speaks during a news conference to release his annual report of what he calls

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, speaks during a news conference to release his annual report of what he calls "wasteful and low-priority" spending.



STORY HIGHLIGHTS
GOP Sen. Tom Coburn released his annual report on government waste
He highlighted 100 government programs and $28 billion worth of "questionable" spending
Coburn cites programs and other spending in many government agencies
Agencies in question consider the spending legitimate




Washington (CNN) -- Q. What does NASA's "Green Ninja," calm wives and military weapons in Afghanistan have in common?

A. They all made Republican Sen. Tom Coburn's annual book of government waste.

The Oklahoma Republican, a devout believer in small government, said the federal government wasted $28 billion in 2013 on "questionable and lower-priority" programs.

Coburn, who supports deep cuts to the federal budget, said government waste could still be found despite outrage over the automatic budget cuts that went into effect last year.

"While (President Barack Obama) and his Cabinet issued dire warnings about the cataclysmic impacts of sequestration, taxpayers were not alerted to all of the waste being spared from the budget axe," Coburn wrote in his report titled "Wastebook 2013."

Agencies that received the money don't consider it wasted, however.

The 177-page report that Coburn has been compiling for five years highlighted programs from the departments of Defense to Agriculture, from NASA to the National Institutes of Health.

"The nearly $30 billion in questionable and lower-priority spending in

"Wastebook 2013" is a small fraction of the more than $200 billion we throw away every year through fraud, waste, duplication and mismanagement," he said.

Coburn's examples of waste:

Weapons destruction -- $7 billion

Weapons destruction: Coburn said the Pentagon junking weapons and vehicles used in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

"The military has decided to simply destroy more than $7 billion worth of equipment rather than sell it or ship it back home," Coburn said.

For instance, Coburn said "thousands" of heavily armored vehicles -- MRAPs --used to protect troops from roadside bombs "will simply be shredded."

[fj1200]

Or...

It would be easy to snicker and denounce waste with the benefit of hindsight. And it is spiteful to nickel and dime when the lives of the troops are at stake. But one thing is sure, it has proven remarkably expensive to fight an enemy equipped with donkeys and Toyota pickup trucks. At least the US military is not falling victim to the sunk cost fallacy, or, in plain speak, the act of throwing good money after bad. If MRAPs have met their goals and are just too costly to ship back to the US or to friendly nations, then scrapping them might well be the only rational thing left to do.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-needs-019723/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Or...


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-needs-019723/

What is worse waste, greed and corruption or using waste ,greed and corruption as a means to an end. Using it as a weakening tactic? War and Defense hinge on the amount of money spent and how well its used to develop weapons systems to stay ahead. Waste billions and weaken the military is as easy to think up as a strategy as flattening a tire on an opponents car during a race. And has an additional benefit if a huge chunk of the money can be sent into political allies hands . Anybody that thinks Obama's handler George Soros doesn't know this is ignorant and gullible to boot. --Tyr

[fj1200]

What is worse waste, greed and corruption or using waste ,greed and corruption as a means to an end. Using it as a weakening tactic? War and Defense hinge on the amount of money spent and how well its used to develop weapons systems to stay ahead. Waste billions and weaken the military is as easy to think up as a strategy as flattening a tire on an opponents car during a race. And has an additional benefit if a huge chunk of the money can be sent into political allies hands . Anybody that thinks Obama's handler George Soros doesn't know this is ignorant and gullible to boot. --Tyr

And you keep alleging that with no proof. The "waste" has already occurred over the past 10 years and was specifically for the safety of the troops in particular theaters and response to particular threats. Are you suggesting that we should not have "wasted" those funds protecting the troops?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And you keep alleging that with no proof. The "waste" has already occurred over the past 10 years and was specifically for the safety of the troops in particular theaters and response to particular threats. Are you suggesting that we should not have "wasted" those funds protecting the troops?

Really!?? So Obama wasn't CIC for 5 of those "ten years"? You see it is just that kind of thinking that gives him a pass on most things. He has it set up where he gets all the credit for anything going well and zero blame for things going badly. A great setup if one can ever manage to get it into place. Are you saying as the Prez and the CIC he has no responsibility for what goes on in the military? Proof was in the link and other links I gave. --Tyr

[fj1200]

Really!?? So Obama wasn't CIC for 5 of those "ten years"? You see it is just that kind of thinking that gives him a pass on most things. He has it set up where he gets all the credit for anything going well and zero blame for things going badly. A great setup if one can ever manage to get it into place. Are you saying as the Prez and the CIC he has no responsibility for what goes on in the military? Proof was in the link and other links I gave. --Tyr

Are you suggesting that Congress did not vote on the appropriations for advanced vehicles for the safety of our troops. If I even bother to look I would probably find that the votes were taken during the Bush administration but that's just a guess.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Are you suggesting that Congress did not vote on the appropriations for advanced vehicles for the safety of our troops. If I even bother to look I would probably find that the votes were taken during the Bush administration but that's just a guess.

Are you suggesting that all waste going on now goes back to Bush!?? You know Obama is in his second term, right? --Tyr

[fj1200]

Are you suggesting that all waste going on now goes back to Bush!?? You know Obama is in his second term, right? --Tyr

You didn't answer my question. Whatever "waste" there was is due to having to roll out new equipment to fight the enemy.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You didn't answer my question. Whatever "waste" there was is due to having to roll out new equipment to fight the enemy.

I disagree. The waste is in not either selling or using those vehicles at our bases around the world and I will not accept any bull about it costing too much to ship them. Let is get into another war where such vehicles are necessary and watch many billions more go into paying for more to be built. WW2 was over 70 years ago and those battle rifles are not useless are they? If you think they are try facing off against the M1 or M1 Garand RIFLE . I'd take either the M1 Garand or the even better M14 over any crap they have now myself. The M14 battle rifle I rate over any battle rifle made past or present. Waste is destroying weapons/weapon systems that still have use. -Tyr

[fj1200]

I disagree. The waste is in not either selling or using those vehicles at our bases around the world and I will not accept any bull about it costing too much to ship them. Let is get into another war where such vehicles are necessary and watch many billions more go into paying for more to be built. WW2 was over 70 years ago and those battle rifles are not useless are they? If you think they are try facing off against the M1 or M1 Garand RIFLE . I'd take either the M1 Garand or the even better M14 over any crap they have now myself. The M14 battle rifle I rate over any battle rifle made past or present. Waste is destroying weapons/weapon systems that still have use. -Tyr

That well may be but the disagreement is with some Army decision and not POTUS fiat that your alleging. And when it costs as much as a vehicle is worth to ship and would likely cost as much to refurbish as it would to purchase one new with upgraded capabilities, safety, etc. it's just not a matter of putting a gun in a cabinet.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That well may be but the disagreement is with some Army decision and not POTUS fiat that your alleging. And when it costs as much as a vehicle is worth to ship and would likely cost as much to refurbish as it would to purchase one new with upgraded capabilities, safety, etc. it's just not a matter of putting a gun in a cabinet.

Not that again, "cost as much as its worth to ship"?? Prove that lie will ya? That lie was given to justify doing the crap they are doing. Don't you ever question such outrageous claims as that? -Tyr

[fj1200]

Not that again, "cost as much as its worth to ship"?? Prove that lie will ya? That lie was given to justify doing the crap they are doing. Don't you ever question such outrageous claims as that? -Tyr

You're getting on me about questioning outrageous claims? They cost a million bucks new and estimate a 1/4 + of that to ship it back, that's estimating 5-7 billion to get them back and then there are the security issues of driving them out.

The cost of shipping an MRAP back to the US and fixing it up runs the Pentagon about $250,000 to $300,000 per vehicle. With about 11,000 MRAPs in Afghanistan, bringing them all back home is too expensive to contemplate, according to Pentagon officials. Overall, the US military is destroying about $7 billion worth of material in Afghanistan as US troops head for the exits.
...
Between January 2013 and the end of December 2014, it’s estimated that it will cost between $5 billion and $7 billion to bring all US equipment out of Afghanistan, either by ground transport through Pakistan or by air through the Northern Distribution Network.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...han-MRAP-Fleet

BAGRAM, Afghanistan — Faced with an epidemic of deadly roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. military officials ordered up a fleet of V-hulled 16-ton armored behemoths in 2007 to help protect American soldiers and Marines.
...
As it turns out, the Pentagon produced a glut of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks. The military brass has now calculated that it's not worth the cost of shipping home damaged, worn or excess MRAPs to bases already deemed oversupplied with the blast-deflecting vehicles.As they are "demilitarized," many of the MRAPs are sold as scrap metal to eager Afghan buyers.
It costs about $12,000 to crunch and dispose of a single MRAP here, said Mark E. Wright, a Defense Department spokesman. To ship one back to the U.S. and rebuild it to current standards would cost $250,000 to $450,000, he said. Selling the vehicles as scrap instead of shipping them home and refitting them will consequently save about $500 million, Wright said.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec...armor-20131227

It's just a cost of war, not a conspiracy.

[aboutime]

This discussion about MRAP is important here on DP because?????????

Would anyone care to tell, or share what talking about the BILLIONS being wasted...other than for the MRAP's? Like...the more important, more visible, much easier to control spending???

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You're getting on me about questioning outrageous claims? They cost a million bucks new and estimate a 1/4 + of that to ship it back, that's estimating 5-7 billion to get them back and then there are the security issues of driving them out.


http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...han-MRAP-Fleet


http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec...armor-20131227

It's just a cost of war, not a conspiracy.

I am not the one saying a million dollar war weapon is not worth shipping back. And if you believe that bullshit that it would cost 250,000 each to ship back you need some serious help my friend. That is pure Pentagon justification right there. And Obama is CiC in case you don't know WHAT that means = he appoints the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WHICH HE THEN GETS TO TELL TO DO CRAP LIKE THIS. The buck stops with Obama, wiggle how you like and pretend he knows nothing about nothing . His party and he himself hates our military, so why are you adamant in defending him on this? Sure he doesn't have to issue an Executive Order or send a written command to get it done. He simply tells his chief of staff to tell the Secretary of Defense to do it. Sure you say no big deal as 7 billion is peanuts but hey those peanuts add up if you do enough of them. How and why people so dearly want to not hold the damn Commander in Chief responsible for the waste and corruption when its the damn military is beyond my reasoning out. All those excuses you gave were put forth by the Pentagon. Do you think the Pentagon runs the CiC or the other way around? bamscum gives a damn order heads will row if its not carried out no matter how damn many stars they have on their shoulders! Bamscum has canned many career officers for much less and also for simply not playing ball with his treason.--Tyr