[Dark Helmet]

The next day was 9/11/01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUKJNxdmX6Y

[Big Mac]

Thank you, SWG... I don't know why you're so interested in American politics, but that was an eye opener. $2.3 Trillion, wow, a portion of that could have been used to pay down the national debt instead. Ah, the double edged sword of having a standing military...

[Dark Helmet]

$8000 per American Citizen. If it was me I would be interested on how much that much money is casually lost.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't know why you're so interested in American politics

He isn't. Just American bashing.

All governments pretty much such. Even Canada's

Sponsorship scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Railroader]

What, the pentagon under Clinton's administration couldn't account for it's spending in the tune of 2.3 trillion?!?!

You have to give Rumsfeld credit for coming clean about the lack of accountability. It's too bad we got distracted. Hopefully they'll get back on auditing and accounting for spending.

Why are you so interested in American Politics SWG?

[Tuoder]

I wonder how much of that is discretionary spending. I wonder how much of that is black op spending. I wonder how much of that is good old-fasioned corruption. I thik a part of this is just due to governmental inefficiency.

[Railroader]

Perhaps the OP should be a little more concerned about where his own money is being wasted.

CBC News In Depth: Newfoundland and Labrador Audit Scandal

Newfoundland and Labrador Audit Scandal
Spending scandal rocks province's political scene
July 8, 2006
CBC News
Since the audit scandal erupted onto the Newfoundland and Labrador political scene in late June, the province has been shaken by stunning allegations involving millions in misused public dollars and representatives of all three parties in the house of assembly.


John Noseworthy (CBC)
Sparking the scandal were Auditor General John Noseworthy's investigations into spending at the house of assembly, which dealt with two things – MHA constituency allowances and questionable payments made to companies by the legislature.
In his reports, Noseworthy said four politicians misused approximately $1 million from their constituency allowances – money given to members of the provincial legislature to pay for items such as office rentals, supplies and miscellaneous services.

Noseworthy also reported that more than $2.6 million was paid to three companies for trinkets like lapel pins and fridge magnets over a seven-year period, while an additional $170,000 went to a company owned by the legislature's now-suspended director of financial operations, Bill Murray.

Four reports, four politicians

The first public signs of scandal occurred on June 21 when Premier Danny Williams unexpectedly announced that Ed Byrne, a senior member of the provincial Tories, had stepped aside as natural resources minister because of a review by the auditor general's office.


Ed Byrne resigned his post as Newfoundland and Labrador's natural resources minister in June. (CBC)
The announcement rocked political circles because Byrne, 43, had been one of Williams's most trusted colleagues. In 2001, Byrne stepped down as leader of the Progressive Conservatives to make way for Williams to lead the party. He has also served as government house leader in the legislature.
However, Byrne's decision to leave cabinet in June was sparked by Noseworthy's first report, which dealt exclusively with Byrne. In it, the auditor general reported that Byrne had signed and submitted claims for $358,142 during the 2003 and 2004 fiscal years – or more than $326,000 above his $31,500 limit. All the money allegedly came from Byrne's constituency allowance, and Noseworthy claimed to have a paper trail of receipts and cancelled cheques showing the money was deposited into Byrne's personal bank accounts.

Noseworthy said the overspending could not have happened without accounting staff from the legislature knowing about it.


Wally Andersen, who represents the northern Labrador district of Torngat Mountains, has confirmed he has been contacted by Auditor General John Noseworthy. (CBC)
The auditor general also announced he had found similar problems with the constituency allowances of three other politicians and, on July 4, he released three more reports identifying New Democrat MHA Randy Collins, Liberal MHA Wally Andersen and former Liberal cabinet minister Jim Walsh as overspenders.
Noseworthy said Collins received $295,418 more than he was entitled to between 2003 and 2006. He also said that Andersen received $243,244 above his constituency allowance during the same time period, while Walsh received $228,169 above his $61,000 limit over two years – 2003 and 2004.

The total for the constituency allowance investigation of all four politicians comes to more than $1 million.

All that bling


Randy Collins, NDP member for Labrador West, confirmed he had sought legal counsel after he was contacted by the Auditor General's Office. (CBC)
On June 27, Noseworthy released another report that dealt with questionable spending at the house of assembly – a report that did not deal directly with constituency allowances.
Noseworthy's office reported that payments totalling $2.8 million were made between 1999 and 2005 in untendered contracts to buy low-cost promotional materials items – including lapel pins, fridge magnets and key chains – as well as a number of more expensive items, including 79 gold rings for MHAs that cost $750 each, plus tax.

Payments were allegedly made to four companies: Zodiac Agencies, JAS Enterprises, Cedar Scents International and Unique Keepsakes.

Noseworthy's staff also identified a possible conflict of interest when they reported Unique Keepsakes was tied to Bill Murray, who was suspended in June as the house's director of financial operations. Between 2001 and 2005, Unique Keepsakes received $170,000 of public money, Noseworthy found.


The legislature paid for 79 gold rings for MHAs at a cost of $750 each, plus tax, the N.L. Auditor General's Office has reported. (CBC)
The gold rings were purchased from Zodiac Agencies, and Noseworthy's audit reported that no tenders were ever issued for the goods.
While Noseworthy's staff could not find proof that the trinkets ever existed, some of the rings have since been found. Some politicians say they were unaware the rings even existed until after the scandal broke.

Still, all of the items were paid for with public money that came out of various budgets at the house of assembly, including the constituency allowances of MHAs.

One-man operation

It is possible that the rings and the novelty items were bought without the knowledge of many MHAs, even if they were charged to the MHAs' budgets, or if the rings ended up on their fingers, because there was only one man managing the legislature's finances – Murray.


Bill Murray, pictured in 1990, has been suspended from his post at the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature. (CBC)
Before being suspended as the legislature's director of financial operations, Murray managed the constituency allowances that are the subject of Noseworthy's first investigation, involving Byrne, Collins, Andersen and Walsh.
According to Noseworthy's report, Murray also placed the orders and paid the bills to the companies that are the focus of the auditor general's second investigation into questionable payments.

However, while Murray may be a common factor, there is no evidence that the two investigations are connected.

Although the four politicians in the constituency allowance investigation dealt directly with Murray, there is no evidence they had dealings with each other, or that they had any direct dealings with the four companies involved in the second investigation.

On July 4, Noseworthy said he has finished his investigation into spending at the house of assembly and will no longer talk publicly about the expense scandal. The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is now investigating the matter.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Perhaps the OP should be a little more concerned about where his own money is being wasted.

CBC News In Depth: Newfoundland and Labrador Audit Scandal

I fail to see how that brings back 2.3 trillion. If the government says to you "Why does SWG care and in canada they spent $1 million poorly" is that a good enough answer for you?

And keep in mind what happened a year ago in Canada when it was discovered that money was used improperly by the government... they got the friggin boot.

You guys are actually backing up the loss of 2.3 Trillion which I expected but didn't actually think you could rationalize in any way.

[Railroader]

They didn't lose the money. And possibly it wasn't wasted. It's just not accounted for properly. An audit and proper accounting will locate where it was spent.

Hopefully it wasn't spent on "trinkets like lapel pins and fridge magnets" like it was in Canada.

Again, to Rumsfeld for coming forward with the news when he did and acknowledging that it problems needed to be taken care of.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

They didn't lose the money. And possibly it wasn't wasted. It's just not accounted for properly. An audit and proper accounting will locate where it was spent.

So how long does that take cuz we are 5 years later. Do they need 10?

[black bear theory]

how can the DOD misplace $2.3 trillion dollars in a year, when it's yearly budget is in the $200-$400 billion dollar range?

[Chuckit]

I like it how it's OK to be interested enough in the affairs of a foreign country to invade it and plunge it into civil war, but God forbid a Canadian discuss the goings-on of its neighbor, the world's only superpower.

Unfortunately, I wonder if a lot more of the government isn't the same way. The government is so full of pointless bullshit, I'm kind of amazed when money goes to anything useful.

Originally Posted by black bear theory 

how can the DOD misplace $2.3 trillion dollars in a year, when it's yearly budget is in the $200-$400 billion dollar range?

I don't think they said it was the spending for one year.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by black bear theory 

how can the DOD misplace $2.3 trillion dollars in a year, when it's yearly budget is in the $200-$400 billion dollar range?

It's not in a year. It's years.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I like it how it's OK to be interested enough in the affairs of a foreign country to invade it and plunge it into civil war, but God forbid a Canadian discuss the goings-on of its neighbor, the world's only superpower.

It's not Canadians. It's a Canadian.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I like it how it's OK to be interested enough in the affairs of a foreign country to invade it and plunge it into civil war, but God forbid a Canadian discuss the goings-on of its neighbor, the world's only superpower.

I know it is hilarious. US is in TWO wars with little or no World support and Railroaders fascinated as to why I would be interested what jack-ass move the US is done that effects my own country.

Hilarious.

Better question. Why are you so defensive and concerned as to why I would care? Actually, I don't care so just think about it and don't bother answering

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I like it how it's OK to be interested enough in the affairs of a foreign country to invade it and plunge it into civil war, but God forbid a Canadian discuss the goings-on of its neighbor, the world's only superpower.

If he actually had a clue what was going on, or didn't have the sole intention of just America bashing, you might have a point.

I don't care when people bring up America. SWG is just transparent.

He has a chip on his shoulder.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If he actually had a clue what was going on, or didn't have the sole intention of just America bashing, you might have a point.

I don't care when people bring up America. SWG is just transparent.

He has a chip on his shoulder.

In terms of bashing America, seems to me that Rummy did a pretty good job about it.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

You have to give Rumsfeld credit for coming clean about the lack of accountability. It's too bad we got distracted. Hopefully they'll get back on auditing and accounting for spending.

..He says just as we are throwing away $2 trillion in Iraq, much of it on no-bid contracts with corrupt, politically-connected companies.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

I know it is hilarious. US is in TWO wars with little or no World support and Railroaders fascinated as to why I would be interested what jack-ass move the US is done that effects my own country.

Hilarious.

Better question. Why are you so defensive and concerned as to why I would care? Actually, I don't care so just think about it and don't bother answering

Nevermind. It's pointless to respond to you.

You're simply breaking the rules by trolling with these kinds of threads anyway.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by tie 

..He says just as we are throwing away $2 trillion in Iraq, much of it on no-bid contracts with corrupt, politically-connected companies.

I don't have a lot of respect for Rumsfeld, and you won't find posts on here from me defending the war, but I do give credit to Rumsfeld for trying to do something right. Don't you?

[tie]

No, I give him no credit. Look how many people have died because of his incompetent failure to plan for post-war Iraq, his mistakes and his deliberate lies. Perhaps he lied because he honestly thought it was for the better? Bush should have accepted his resignations after the first torture scandal (Abu Ghraib).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by tie 

No, I give him no credit. Look how many people have died because of his incompetent failure to plan for post-war Iraq

Wasn't that largely Colin Powell's job?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

..He says just as we are throwing away $2 trillion in Iraq, much of it on no-bid contracts with corrupt, politically-connected companies.

How much of it did we throw away on corrupt, politically-connected companies? I suspect you're referring to Haliburton as I seem to recall a lot of bumperstickers talking about this. Did the bumpersticker happen to tell you how much Cheney profited from Haliburton from 2001 to present? Did the bumpersticker provide you a list of the companies more qualified to do what Haliburton was commissioned to do? You may have to dig a little deeper than that.

I'm beginning to think you and 'the left' are the same poster.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

No, I give him no credit. Look how many people have died because of his incompetent failure to plan for post-war Iraq,

What military strategist do you think had a better plan and why?

his mistakes and his deliberate lies.

Perhaps you could highlight some of the lies. I'd be curious in seeing them.

[Spliffdaddy]

Update: Canada to receive $2.3 Trillion charge for USA military protection.

[Blasphemy]

Maybe they're spending it on virtual reality sex. Now that's a sweeet recruitment tool.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

He isn't. Just American bashing.

All governments pretty much such. Even Canada's

Sponsorship scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see how this is "America bashing" (although I do admit.. it happens). Or why you would follow up "America bashing" with "Canada bashing".

The two of you need a couples therapist.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I do give credit to Rumsfeld for trying to do something right. Don't you?

That depends. DId he admit this on his way out?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Update: Canada to receive $2.3 Trillion charge for USA military protection.

And that's probably more like the truth.

greg

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

That depends. DId he admit this on his way out?

Did you watch the video?

[ironknee]

why are you guys not upset about the 2.3 TRILLION dollars (us no less)

how do you forget that? and where is the money now? did abramoff get half of it?

come on, if you love america, you can't be ok with this

[ghporter]

Before anyone starts getting his panties in a wad, I think it's important to point out that there is NEVER any transaction involving the Department of Defense that is without a huge amount of both formal oversight and incredible complication.

That 2+trillion dollars could have been tied up in "pre-commit" funding, "net 30" statements and grants for DARPA projects and NOBODY at the top might have a clue where it went. A good part of that is because CONGRESS dictates where every penny (EVERY SINGLE STINKING PENNY) goes. The Defense Department doesn't buy toilet paper without Congressional approval-it's the LAW. And Congress has made Defense spending so convoluted and byzantine, that it's a wonder anyone knows where any money goes.

I do know a bit about this; I used to be a "Government Purchase Card" holder-that means I had a government-issued credit card that I was authorized to use to make official purchases. I had to go to a four hour course in how to document my purchases, how to handle the statements, and so on, and most importantly what the rules were. I had to get refresher training every year too. Being a card holder was about as difficult as keeping up with my debit card on the day-to-day level, but when the statement came in, it got to be downright stupid; purchases I got approved ahead of time were routinely questioned for validity, and I often had to document not only the purchase, but my research in finding the lowest price-and why the lowest price was crap compared to what I wound up selecting. Why all this crap? It lets Congress have control of every stinking penny that goes out of the Pentagon.

Don't get me started about Congressional retirements and health care compared to Veterans'... You won't like the result.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

In terms of bashing America, seems to me that Rummy did a pretty good job about it.

What does this political rah rah partisan shilling have anything to do with what I said?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

I don't see how this is "America bashing"

The OP has a history of posting things he doesn't really understand, believing it to "bash America"

Or why you would follow up "America bashing" with "Canada bashing".

If I wanted to Bash Canada I would post a ton of threads on here like he does. I was showing him how he needed to worry about his own country.

Why doesn't he ever post any threads about Canada?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Did you watch the video?

No.

Edit: Oh, he admitted this 9.10.01?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

No.

Edit: Oh, he admitted this 9.10.01?

He didn't "admit" it. He brought it out in the open. And since he had only been in office a short time it's not like he was the one responsible.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

why are you guys not upset about the 2.3 TRILLION dollars (us no less)

how do you forget that? and where is the money now? did abramoff get half of it?

come on, if you love america, you can't be ok with this

I don't love America, but I am not completely ignorant. SWG is being intentionally ignorant about this. As he usually is when he posts some CNN news story about America.

[ironknee]

it's cbsnews

if it were true despite SWG would you be concerned?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

it's cbsnews

if it were true despite SWG would you be concerned?

Actually it's youtube, but who's keeping track.

Do you have any idea what the real issue is? It's not a huge issue. Read ghporter's post.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And that's probably more like the truth.

greg

II don't think so. If there were a conflict with the ex-USSR countries, Canada would be one of the battlefields. SO our defense is to be understood with that perspective.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What does this political rah rah partisan shilling have anything to do with what I said?

Me? Partisan?

You're kidding, right?

I can barely see the difference between republicans and democrats; they're either on the far right or the middle-right!

In reply to ghporter, I am cerain Congress controls a lot of that money. I am also certain veterans are not compensated enough for their past tours of duties.

However, we also know hom this military operation in Iraq appears to have been improvised, so notwithstanding the precommitted funds, 2.3 trillion dollars probably covers a lot of machinery breaking because of the dust, maintenance of the equipment, food for the soldiers, and "aid", and construction, re-construction and re-reconstructions costs.

Oh yeah? And that effort to rebuild Iraq, I mean, this is all free, right? It's all donations from major corporations across the world, and of course, no one is getting richer from misery, right?

Except Iraqis, of course; they're free, and that's priceless...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

Me? Partisan?

You're kidding, right?

I can barely see the difference between republicans and democrats; they're either on the far right or the middle-right!

Most frustrating to the partisan on the far left.

Oh yeah? And that effort to rebuild Iraq, I mean, this is all free, right? It's all donations from major corporations across the world, and of course, no one is getting richer from misery, right?

Are you referring to those who were profiting from Saddam on the backs of the Iraqi poor before or after the Oil For Food scandal? Who's getting richer now and who was getting richer before? Isn't everyone pretty much profiting on the misery of others at all times? Did the bumpersticker not go into any detail on human nature?

Except Iraqis, of course; they're free, and that's priceless...

Priceless? I don't know. To the 67+% of them that risked their lives voting to participate in the process, I'd say they felt it was priceless. Freedom may not be priceless to you, but it might be to those who don't actually have it yet.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Most frustrating to the partisan on the far left.

That's funny.

Are you referring to those who were profiting from Saddam on the backs of the Iraqi poor before or after the Oil For Food scandal? Who's getting richer now and who was getting richer before? Isn't everyone pretty much profiting on the misery of others at all times? Did the bumpersticker not go into any detail on human nature?

Either way, one does not justify the other. The fact that you bring the oil-for-food "scandal" will not make Rumsfeld any purer. To entertain the notion that the evil of one side allows the evil on the other side springs from a very disconcerting ethic.

Priceless? I don't know. To the 67+% of them that risked their lives voting to participate in the process, I'd say they felt it was priceless. Freedom may not be priceless to you, but it might be to those who don't actually have it yet.

Woaw, what a spin. Freedom has a price, which is why other countries in the world, unlike Hussein's Iraq, (which is rich in oil, favored by a very nice geopolitical location, and extremely weak militarily) are not worthy of such an expense, or so it seems, according to US Foreign policy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

That's funny.

... and accurate from the rhetoric I'm seeing.

Either way, one does not justify the other. The fact that you bring the oil-for-food "scandal" will not make Rumsfeld any purer.

No, but it does suggest that no matter what the situation; someone can claim there's profiteering on the backs of (enter miserable people here).

To entertain the notion that the evil of one side allows the evil on the other side springs from a very disconcerting ethic.

I'm sure not to be outdone by your disconcerting claim of Rumsfeld being eeevilll. I wonder what disconcerting ethical standard you'll be using to define evil. You and only the most fringe leftists believe Rumsfeld is evil. What was funny about your "partisan shilling" again?

Woaw, what a spin. Freedom has a price, which is why other countries in the world, unlike Hussein's Iraq, (which is rich in oil, favored by a very nice geopolitical location, and extremely weak militarily) are not worthy of such an expense, or so it seems, according to US Foreign policy.

Extremely weak militarily? Was this the same feeble "elite guard" that was going to wipe us clean according to you and your ilk just three years ago?

Absolutely Iraq! I can't personally think of a better country to invade specifically because of its wealth of resources, its relation to Iran and several other noteworthy players geographically and because of the actions of its dictator in repeat noncompliance with an International body.

The really funny thing is; Russia understands how important Iraq is. China understands how important Iraq is. Cuba and Venezuela understand how important Iraq is. N. Korea and Syria understand how important Iraq is. The US understands how important Iraq is.

It seems the only people who don't understand how important Iraq is are the ever-lonely Pendergast and a few other fringe leftists. Again, just based on the rhetoric I'm seeing.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

II don't think so. If there were a conflict with the ex-USSR countries, Canada would be one of the battlefields. SO our defense is to be understood with that perspective.

Your perspective is incorrect. Canada has historically treated defense and the military with far less concern than other first-world nations. Why? Because the greatest superpower in the world is right next door, that's why. We have always relied heavily on the United States to protect us.

Hence, why your example of "Canada being a battlefield" doesn't make any sense as an argument against my comment. Why? Because while Canada has had some part in their creation, northern defense systems have always largely been a product of US involvement, policing and financing.

It's the same with almost any other aspect of national security you can mention. Canada skimps, because the US can make up for us.

This can be clearly seen if you study US-Canadian relations: when military matters/issues arise, the US always brings the issue to Canada. When economic matters arise, Canada always approaches the United States. This trend can be easily seen in World War II, through Trudeau's regime, and onwards: the military and foreign conflicts always take a second seat to Canada's economic prosperity.

greg

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Extremely weak militarily? Was this the same feeble "elite guard" that was going to wipe us clean according to you and your ilk just three years ago?

I recommend against talking to ilks. They're bad news, man.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I recommend against talking to ilks. They're bad news, man.

I happen to agree with you and in fact cringe when I see the word ilk because it generally follows a sweeping generalization. In this case I couldn't resist.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I like it how it's OK to be interested enough in the affairs of a foreign country to invade it and plunge it into civil war, but God forbid a Canadian discuss the goings-on of its neighbor, the world's only superpower.

Unfortunately, I wonder if a lot more of the government isn't the same way. The government is so full of pointless bullshit, I'm kind of amazed when money goes to anything useful.


I don't think they said it was the spending for one year.

where's canada?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Extremely weak militarily? Was this the same feeble "elite guard" that was going to wipe us clean according to you and your ilk just three years ago?

Did people really say Iraq's military was going to cause the US problems? I'm curious. Because that's the most ridiculous idea ever.

greg

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Did people really say Iraq's military was going to cause the US problems? I'm curious. Because that's the most ridiculous idea ever.

greg

IIRC winning baghdad was the big concern - guerilla warfare. thankfully it didn't pan out as some predicted it. you can argue that we face a guerilla war in iraq today, but not on a scale that could have been - lots of iraqis smartly fled rather than face the us head on.

back on topic, i've read numerous accounts that lockheed martin (and possibly others) in addition to their well-known military contracts with the DOD, also have pretty nice financial bookkeeping contracts with both the pentagon and HUD, which suffer from large percentages of their budget being lost, misplaced or wasted. they've held these contracts for years despite this knowledge.

might be a clue to where the corruption is happening.