Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Americans Have Spent Enough Money On A Broken Plane To Buy Every Homeless Person A Mansion

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

It didn't go missing. It was an accounting issue. The Air Force, the Navy, and the Army all use different accounting software, and then all the subcontractors use different software. So they were having to go through each project manually, to account for receipts. The problem was that all the different programs didn't talk to the main budgeting program, so when they audited, they came up over 2T short. It took awhile but from what I heard, they accounted for most of, if not all of it eventually.




posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Collateral
a reply to: jrflipjr

The flow down effects for society come from: job creation, Structural, mechanical, electrical, IT engineering advances that would of not been made otherwise, technology development and enhancement, communication development, export sales, self defence...the list goes on.

Another aspect of the article which could apply to all things you just listed



The United States is falling apart. A lack of funding for bridges, roads, and other infrastructure has led to collapses across the country and the more than 63,000 bridges that have been labeled as “structurally deficient.” The Department of Transportation’s total budget request for next year is $90.1 billion, part of a four-year budget of $302.1 billion with $199 billion set aside to rebuild America’s roads and bridges. Obama has for the last two years called for a $50 billion lump sum to be added to the on top of DOT’s budget to help address the growing need, and twice Congress has rejected this proposal. If the U.S. were to have channeled the $298 billion is has spent so far on the F-35 — and continued spending at that level for the next six years — the U.S. would be halfway towards closing the $1.1 trillion gap in investment needed in infrastructure, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. In addition, a report from the Center for American Progress, citing Moody’s Analytic’s chief economist, estimates infrastructure investment generates $1.44 of economic activity for each $1 spent. That sort of claim can’t be duplicated in the spending on the F-35.



edit on America/ChicagoWednesdayAmerica/Chicago07America/Chicago731pmWednesday10 by elementalgrove because: (no reason given)
edit on America/ChicagoWednesdayAmerica/Chicago07America/Chicago731pmWednesday10 by elementalgrove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It is quite the price tag, who was held accountable for this? I suppose I would like to see proof of it being accounted for eventually.

I mean in any business shady people can embezzle money and often times it is an accounting issue.
edit on America/ChicagoWednesdayAmerica/Chicago07America/Chicago731pmWednesday10 by elementalgrove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I understand that aspect of things, defending our country, they spend quite the amount on that quite consistently. Sometimes it goes unaccounted for, a good example being the 2.2 Trillion that vanished right before 9/11

Also, part of defending out country should on some level work towards a less aggressive foreign policy. I do not wish to get into this on this thread.

That's an erroneous talking point. There is no 2.2 Trillion missing.

Good thing we don't have to. Aggressive or Passive we need weapon systems like the F-35.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

The problem with that idea, is that to stop now, and start all over with something new, is that we're looking at 20 years, and even more money than we've spent now. There are huge cancellation penalties. The Navy cancelled the A-12 program in January of 1991 for breach of contract. They settled all the lawsuits and payments in January of this year.

The military can't afford another 20 years of development for a new aircraft. Our current fleet is approaching dangerous ages, and loss of capabilities.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Zaphod58

It is quite the price tag, who was held accountable for this? I suppose I would like to see proof of it being accounted for eventually.

I mean in any business shady people can embezzle money and often times it is an accounting issue.

Here.

In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.

www.defense.gov...



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

There's been a massive overhaul of both the accounting, and the contract award process since then. Now everyone uses the same software for talking to the Pentagon accounting system, and a lot of contracts are now fixed price, such as the KC-46 awarded to Boeing recently. There is even talk of the next carrier being fixed price, with completion incentives.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

That is a much more realistic and sensible area to invest money as it will generate money in itself.

Having said that, hindsight is a wonderful thing and to pull the plug on the F35 now would be worse than spending more and seeing it through.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Xaphan


Your not the first in this thread to say the following is "Commie talk"



Free health care.
Homes for everyone.
Decent education.
Huge amounts of money for sensible research projects.
etc etc

The opposite is the following.

Health care only for those that can afford it.
Homes only for those that can afford them.
Poor education.
No money for sensible research.
etc etc.

Offered to the public I wonder which they'd choose?

My guess is we'd all be commies



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   


Just imagine how we'd all be living if we didn't have to pay for wars?

Free health care.
Homes for everyone.
Decent education.
Huge amounts of money for sensible research projects.
etc etc

But no, instead we give it all away to the men who make bombs and then we drop them on ourselves.

What a sick world we live in.
a reply to: VoidHawk

You hit the nail on the head my friend. It's sick that a majority of our taxes are spent on weapons for war. What amazes me, is people will criticize and complain about programs that help people and humanity as a whole, yet ignore or justify government expenditures for the military. The U.S. spends 6 times more on military spending than China who is second to none in military spending. The average Joe is shooting themselves in the foot every time they complain about programs that focus on helping American citizens.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: Xaphan


Your not the first in this thread to say the following is "Commie talk"



Free health care.
Homes for everyone.
Decent education.
Huge amounts of money for sensible research projects.
etc etc

The opposite is the following.

Health care only for those that can afford it.
Homes only for those that can afford them.
Poor education.
No money for sensible research.
etc etc.

Offered to the public I wonder which they'd choose?

My guess is we'd all be commies



Presenting a false dichotomy is a logical fallacy.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

And yet, for all that spending our military is in bad shape. The Air Force is flying planes twice the age of the crews flying them. Our main interceptor/fighter, the F-15 is well over 20 years old, has been limited to about 6-7Gs, and Mach 1.2 or so. At one point 25% of the F-16 fleet had cracks in the wings or bulkheads, as well as being over 20 years old on average.

The Navy has been pushing off maintenance on ships to the point where last year, we had two carriers available for deployment if anything happened around the world. The rest were down for maintenance/refueling, and their escorts and sub were undergoing major maintenance, and just trying to catch up on routine maintenance.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: Xaphan


Your not the first in this thread to say the following is "Commie talk"



Free health care.
Homes for everyone.
Decent education.
Huge amounts of money for sensible research projects.
etc etc

The opposite is the following.

Health care only for those that can afford it.
Homes only for those that can afford them.
Poor education.
No money for sensible research.
etc etc.

Offered to the public I wonder which they'd choose?

My guess is we'd all be commies



Presenting a false dichotomy is a logical fallacy.


I didn't say it was one or the other, I just showed the opposite.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The structure of those aircraft a might be old, but the technology inside them is constantly updated.

Likewise with the navy, ships run to a schedule where they will always have a number down for maintenance while others are out at sea.
It's all about scheduling.

The American armed forces are second to none.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Collateral

You still reach a point of diminishing returns. As the structure weakens, you reach the point where certain upgrades become more problematical. Not to mention that some of the upgrades will require more power from them, that eventually they can't provide.

When you start to get into the numbers of combat, you really start to see the weakness. Over the years, BVR combat has not been all it's cracked up to be. Israel fired more BVR missiles than any other country, the last time that I had looked into it, and had less than a 20% kill rate with all those missiles. That means that as much as people say it's dead, you're still going to have a lot of WVR combat. Now you have aircraft with weakened internal structures, that are already G limited and speed limited, that are forced into having to make hard maneuvers in combat, against aircraft that are at least their equal, and in some cases, their superior in aerodynamics and maneuverability.

As for the Navy, yes they have a schedule, but that was my point. They were pushing that schedule off. There should NEVER be that many carriers in maintenance at the same time. That completely eliminates your flexibility, and ability to respond to events around the world.
edit on 7/30/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: Xaphan


Your not the first in this thread to say the following is "Commie talk"



Free health care.
Homes for everyone.
Decent education.
Huge amounts of money for sensible research projects.
etc etc

The opposite is the following.

Health care only for those that can afford it.
Homes only for those that can afford them.
Poor education.
No money for sensible research.
etc etc.

Offered to the public I wonder which they'd choose?

My guess is we'd all be commies



Presenting a false dichotomy is a logical fallacy.


I didn't say it was one or the other, I just showed the opposite.

Hence the false dichotomy ....



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh I agree.

Aircraft and naval systems structurally are under a lot of pressure.

Electronically and mechanically is where you will make up for it though over the platforms lifetime as these systems typically become smaller, light & more efficient and make up for structural losses.

Don't forget though that the opposition is dealing with the same problems.

As for carrier deployment, the US doesn't need a massive amount out at sea right now. They dwarf the opposition with numbers and the current scenario isnt requiring their constant presence.

I was reading an article in Time about how AC's are becoming redundant anyway. Slowness, vulnerability and dependence on other vessels defending them are making them a weakness these days and not an asset, especially when you factor in the massive costs involved for them.

IMO, the future is in multi platform submarines.
edit on 30-7-2014 by Collateral because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: elementalgrove

a reply to: Zaphod58



It is quite the price tag, who was held accountable for this? I suppose I would like to see proof of it being accounted for eventually.



I mean in any business shady people can embezzle money and often times it is an accounting issue.


Here.

In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.


www.defense.gov...



I did not see anywhere in here any kind of proof as to it being accounted for. I see call for more accountability which is great, however what is not so great and makes me extremely skeptical about the sincerity is that this is the man who was in charge of it!


Reforming such a financial giant will take a long time, but it must happen and is one of his highest priorities, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Collateral

Except if you look at any potential opponent, they are growing their forces at an incredible rate. A few years ago, there was almost a three year period where the Air Force didn't even buy a single plane. The newest operational aircraft in the inventory is currently the F-22, which ended production a couple of years ago. UAVs are currently unable to go counterair, so they're useless in that role.

Meanwhile, you have China and Russia both developing multiple stealth fighters, practicing long range missions with their current aircraft, China developing a true blue water navy, etc.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: WeRpeons



And yet, for all that spending our military is in bad shape. The Air Force is flying planes twice the age of the crews flying them. Our main interceptor/fighter, the F-15 is well over 20 years old, has been limited to about 6-7Gs, and Mach 1.2 or so. At one point 25% of the F-16 fleet had cracks in the wings or bulkheads, as well as being over 20 years old on average.



The Navy has been pushing off maintenance on ships to the point where last year, we had two carriers available for deployment if anything happened around the world. The rest were down for maintenance/refueling, and their escorts and sub were undergoing major maintenance, and just trying to catch up on routine maintenance.


Exactly! How is this possible!? We have spent more than all the other nations combined, not just in one year, but in many and this is still the situation!

The money is going somewhere, the arms industry has never been bigger, however what exactly do we the taxpayers have to show for it? The ability to say we spend more on military than the entire rest of the world combined!






top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join