Panel tallies massive waste and fraud in wartime U.S. contracts

[onq]

Here we are all saving pennies and there is a 12 Million Dollar a Day fraud being perpetrated on the taxpayers supporting the world's largest economy - by its own military!

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/31/wartime.contracting/index.html

Minster for Finance Noonan was on the radio this morning warning that they worst may not be over for Ireland, that there is still financial instability in then markets and if something happens to reduce Ireland's exports the course we are on could be diverted.

Stealing money out of an ailing economy AFTER the bank bailouts and QE2 is criminal, and any fallout in America will affect the entire world.

No wonder they don't believe in Social Welfare in the States.

Over there they rob the taxes of the relatively poor to pay those who are already unbelievably rich - to make them even richer!

This needs to stop.

 

[Purple]

Ther's already a thread on US military spending in this section.

 

[Chris]

No wonder they don't believe in Social Welfare in the States.

I think it is more a case of not believing in any kind of welfare, whether it be social or corporate. Both have the same damaging effect on the economy.
Unfortunately, bar very few politicians, the divide in America is Democrats for social welfare but against corporate welfare, Republicans for corporate welfare but against social welfare; this is the case only on a verbal scale, as no matter what kind of President or Congress both social and corporate welfare programs are increased. Pretty much the only voice against both types of welfare is Ron Paul.

 

[onq]

Ther's already a thread on US military spending in this section.

Always useful to post a link.

(rummages)

Oh, you mean *my* thread.

Well, its a big subject - the previous was about the quantity of overall spending - $1.2 Trillion per year average for the past ten years.

This thread is about systemic corruption.

 

[onq]

I think it is more a case of not believing in any kind of welfare, whether it be social or corporate. Both have the same damaging effect on the economy.
Unfortunately, bar very few politicians, the divide in America is Democrats for social welfare but against corporate welfare, Republicans for corporate welfare but against social welfare; this is the case only on a verbal scale, as no matter what kind of President or Congress both social and corporate welfare programs are increased. Pretty much the only voice against both types of welfare is Ron Paul.

I've read some of Ron Pauls words.

He appears to have taken the Malthusian doctrine to heart, however...
This "survival of the fittest" only works where everyone has a natural enemy.
When a dominant species has no natural enemies, it multiplies to the limits of available energy [= food air and light for most animals].

Long before the rest of the eco-ssytem shuts down, the dominant life form [whose consumption per capita has grown to gargantuan proportions], enters the die back phase.

For people like Ron Paul, self regulation = stagnation, but the alternative is endless wars of expansion, whether military or economic.

The point of this thread though is that you're not seeing leaner, meaner, more competent companies, even in the American Military, even in the run up to war.
The affair of the Bradley's development shows how hamstrung the US military is and what they do to whistle-blowers.
The affair of the American Banks shows they are not capable of self-regulation on even a basic level.

What you're seeing is large scale underpayments and corruption, widespread demotivating knowledge of this and companies who are not playing on level playing fields, who transpose their protected status unto unfair market advantage in other fields.

United Fruit, anyone?

So the promoters of free market capitalism are in fact hugely subvented and this subvention extends influence into every town in America where the Military has a presence or every conurbation near where the Military have a base.

It is a huge economic powerhouse for the States, and it is not to be questioned.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16181

It is my firm belief that America cannot be trust with the responsibility it holds in the world economy.

 

[Purple]

Always useful to post a link.

(rummages)

Oh, you mean *my* thread.

I thought that was obvious. (I don’t think I need to let you know if I’m sighing or shaking my head while I type but if you think it helps let me know)

Well, its a big subject - the previous was about the quantity of overall spending - $1.2 Trillion per year average for the past ten years.

This thread is about systemic corruption.

Yes, this is the letting off steam section of an Irish site about financial issues, generally that concern Ireland. If it was a site about the US military, of military topics in general, then two threads might be appropriate but in the context of this site I don’t think it is.

 

[Purple]

Global Research is a very biased site run by a "Nutty Professor".

 

[onq]

Re Globalresearch

As opposed to the American Military, which is run by war-mongers who misappropriate billions in taxpayers money and kill innocent civilians?

Name the "Nutty Professor" and show why he is unbalanced in your view, otherwise your incisive criticism may be lost on me.

Re the original post and the article I posted

Its from the CNN website, not Globalresearch, which shows your in depth analysis of the thread topic might be off.

CNN is a mainstream website in the United States, which shows how seriously America views this overspend.

If its serious enough to be an issue on CNN, then its newsworthy here and fair comment.

 

[onq]

I thought that was obvious. (I don’t think I need to let you know if I’m sighing or shaking my head while I type but if you think it helps let me know)

Authority figures with vested interests do that to show disapproval, even where the people involved can't see them - its part of the territory.

Yes, this is the letting off steam section of an Irish site about financial issues, generally that concern Ireland.

Any website purporting to be knowledgeable about a "small, open economy like Ireland's" should have incisive knowledge of -

- its international trading partners
- the state of their financial health and
- those factors affecting their economies which have directly brought about the current global economic crisis
​

- which have seriously affected Ireland, in case you've forgotten.

Imagine where the credibility of AAM would go it it were seen to support a "don't criticize international finances or business practices" policy.
The single greatest source of all our woes, rogue traders and their products, would be off the radar.

If it was a site about the US military, of military topics in general, then two threads might be appropriate but in the context of this site I don’t think it is.

I do not post information on AAM from "sensationalist" websites.

The original article I posted covered criticism of the American Military by a state sponsored review body - from CNN, practically "the voice of America".
In case you think CNN was being misleading, here is a quote from the article giving a link to the Report.

"The 240-page final report of the Commission on Wartime Contracting is online at http://www.wartimecontracting.gov/."

 

[Purple]

Authority figures with vested interests do that to show disapproval, even where the people involved can't see them - its part of the territory.

So why do you do it?

The Nutty Professor is Michel Chossudovsky. He was described as Canada's nuttiest professor. Google him.

 

[onq]

"So why do you do it?"

An IKYABWAI? (Google it)

Slightly better than an ad hominem I suppose... LOL!

I didn't say I did it - you confessed to it and I interpreted it based on my experience.

-------------------------------------------

I've read Michel Chossudovsky, Noam Chomsky and others whose achievements I commend any committed democrat to read about.

The name calling of Chossudovsky as "Canada's nuttiest professor" occurred in the Western Standard, which replaced the Alberta Report - both right wing Meeja Organs.

The paper calling Chossudovsky names was launched by Ezra Levant noted for libelling Ron Ghitter and George Soros.

The writer calling him names was [broken link removed], whose right wing penship has not spared even prominent judges such as Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

O'Neill included several other people in the article in which he attempted to discredit Chossudovsky, most with a left-wing liberal agenda.

All of them point to the exploitation of people that Globalization trades on, its destruction of the middle classes in first world countries and its undermining of cultural diversity worldwide.

If you think that calling names and jeering sarcasm is the standard of journalism we should apply to writers and academics of the calibre of Chossudovsky et al, be my guest.

 

[Purple]

I've read Noam Chomsky and while he makes some good points he is a communist (he thinks that workers should own the means of production) and has strong anarchistic leanings. Where I have a problem with his writing is how he doesn't present all of the facts or pertinent views in a debate. There is little difference between that and misrepresenting the facts.

Much of the anti-globalisation debate is plain nonsense. Chomsky is the champion of this branch of the debate. Talk of “wage slaves” and the cultural damage caused by globalisation is selective nonsense. Countries decide how free their citizens are and how wealth is distributed through their political system and government. The impact of globalised capital on an educated population can be seen in many countries. A few examples are Korea, Costa Rica and Ireland. It’s also worth noting that conditions for poorer Chinese people have improved greatly in the 20 years since they started to embrace capitalism.

 

[onq]

"...he doesn't present all of the facts or pertinent views in a debate. There is little difference between that and misrepresenting the facts."

I see you're a quick study Purple.

In this thread the topic is -

"Panel tallies massive waste and fraud in wartime U.S. contracts"
Either post a comment on what Chomsky says about this subject or don't.

I you want to start a thread on Globalization and its effects I'd be delighted to join you.
I you want to start a thread on latter-day communists and why capitalists hate them, I'd love that too.
(hint - its because Capitalists hate thinking that anyone owns anything except them, and what they don't directly own, they control)

However if you're going to start either of them, you'll have to up your game.
Stating "much" of something is "nonsense" but not showing why is not a credible means of presenting an argument.
Stating someone is a communist because he may have said at some point that workers should own the means of production or has anarchistic leanings (please cite supporting references) is irrelevant.
That kind of ad-hominem is practiced by Fine Gael and Republican shills - the relevant issue is "does what he says on a particular issue stack up?"

Regarding Globalization -

This is a form of "divide and conquer", as well as an agenda which makes production more dependent on international transport than before, when goods were produced and sourced locally.

We need a healthy, indigenous local industry base, not just Globalized industry - and we need to sell these goods based on improved quality, durability and reliability, not just price. "3-minute culture" works for some things, but not others. If we don't see the value in a local independent economy, in what we produce ourselves, our economy will become prey to whatever the next Global Crisis is. We need strength in depth.

I'll now may some unfounded assumptions.
In this context, why should the need for your products be mainly in America and Europe?
Why isn't the need for them here? No services are provided that need them here.
Why aren't we developing the expertise in jobs that use them here.
Cheaper to do so elsewhere - BLAM! Globalization. Limits of.

Just remember, CRH runs its entire Global Operation from Dublin.

 

[Purple]

ONQ, we seem to have different opinions about your opinions. Therefore further discussion on this topic is pointless.

 

[Chris]

I've read some of Ron Pauls words.

He appears to have taken the Malthusian doctrine to heart, however...
This "survival of the fittest" only works where everyone has a natural enemy.
When a dominant species has no natural enemies, it multiplies to the limits of available energy [= food air and light for most animals].

Long before the rest of the eco-ssytem shuts down, the dominant life form [whose consumption per capita has grown to gargantuan proportions], enters the die back phase.

For people like Ron Paul, self regulation = stagnation, but the alternative is endless wars of expansion, whether military or economic.

I think you need to read a bit more about Ron Paul before you come to such conclusions. Wars are started by countries and not private companies. It is actually something that Paul is completely opposed to and he has suggested that the US should bring home ALL foreign based troops in the 150+ countries that they are stationed in. Wars are not the result of free market capitalism.

So the promoters of free market capitalism are in fact hugely subvented and this subvention extends influence into every town in America where the Military has a presence or every conurbation near where the Military have a base.

Large military contractors are not promoters of free market capitalism, but rather the exact opposite. They are looking for ever increasing payments from government, which is the exact opposite of free market capitalism. What these, and many other, large government protected companies are looking for is more of the system we have in place now, i.e. corporatism/cronyism.

 

[Purple]

Large military contractors are not promoters of free market capitalism, but rather the exact opposite. They are looking for ever increasing payments from government, which is the exact opposite of free market capitalism. What these, and many other, large government protected companies are looking for is more of the system we have in place now, i.e. corporatism/cronyism.

Good point. This is a good example of what happens when the state controls the market.

 

[onq]

I think you need to read a bit more about Ron Paul before you come to such conclusions. Wars are started by countries and not private companies. It is actually something that Paul is completely opposed to and he has suggested that the US should bring home ALL foreign based troops in the 150+ countries that they are stationed in. Wars are not the result of free market capitalism.

The United States IS a private company and its starts wars using false flag operations and sells arms to both sides. One reason it wanted Russia out of the way was to remove a competitor in the market for arms.

Large military contractors are not promoters of free market capitalism, but rather the exact opposite. They are looking for ever increasing payments from government, which is the exact opposite of free market capitalism. What these, and many other, large government protected companies are looking for is more of the system we have in place now, i.e. corporatism/cronyism.

Here we are in total agreement. Now look at how much influence such companies wield in the US already - an unaccountable Defense budget - and see if you don't agree with me that private companies run the US - IMO it does not behave like a sovereign state, but a collection of private companies.

These play the role of Planter Colonies in economic terms. Plantations are used to supplant indigenous peoples. When they are threatened, the military arm swings into action. We in this country have seen in it Northern Ireland, the Wild West has endless legends about it, and the Israeli's practice it on the West Bank and Gaza.

Look at the countries America has subverted, invaded of blockaded because they have threatened American business interests.

Guatamala, Panama, Cuba, Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan. The list is extensive and well-documented.

And what they leave in their wake is no respecter of culture OR democracy.

ONQ.

 

[onq]

ONQ, we seem to have different opinions about your opinions.

I'm not beholden to America - Wall Street has helped destroy our banking industry.

That having been said, there are a lot of people over there with whom I make common cause.

Therefore further discussion on this topic is pointless.

Alternatively, you could try to back up your points with supporting references.

 

[onq]

This follow up piece by Ellen Brown (who has given me permission to quote her article, for those who are interested or worried about such things) refers to the economic upside of putting cash where it should be put instead of taking it out of the economy and feeding it to the Banks and the Military.

From http://www.opednews.com/articles/War-The-Fiscal-Stimulus-o-by-Ellen-Brown-110911-549.html

In the 1930s, the government was allowed to invest in such domestic ventures as the Tennessee Valley Authority, but this was largely because private sector investors did not believe they could turn a sufficient profit on the projects themselves. T he upshot was that the years between 1933 and 1937 proved to be the biggest cyclical boom in U.S. history. Real gross domestic product (GDP) grew at a 12 percent rate and nominal GDP grew at a 14 percent rate. But when the economy appeared to be back on its feet in 1937, Roosevelt was leaned on to cut back on public investment. The result was a surge in unemployment. The economic boom died and the economy slipped back into depression.

Perish the thought that the canon fodder for the next was might prefer working at home in a good job to dying on a field in Europe or the Isles of Japan.

From http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/War-The-Fiscal-Stimulus-o-by-Ellen-Brown-110911-549.html

In a recent [broken link removed], David Swanson cites a [broken link removed] by Robert Greenwald and Derrick Crowe, looking at the $60 billion lost by the Pentagon to waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. They calculated that this money could have created 193,000 more jobs than its military use created, if diverted to domestic commercial purposes. Swanson goes on:

There are some other calculations in the same study . . . . If we had spent that $60 billion on clean energy, we would have created (directly or indirectly) 330,000 more jobs. If we'd spent it on healthcare, we'd have created 480,000 more jobs. And if we'd spent it on education, we'd have created 1.05 million more jobs. . . .

 

[Purple]

ONQ, between the last quarter of 1929 and the first quarter of 1933 US GDP fell by over 30.8% with consumer prices falling by 24.4% during the same period. Therefore a bounce of 14% over the next 4 years is not that surprising. Strong governmental intervention caused short term boosts but in the end things really improved when the government realised what they couldn’t do.
I haven't read Ellen Brown's piece but if the above is typical then I haven't missed much.
Here's a good link that should help you understand the period.