It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rumsfeld and the 2.3 trillon

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


Labor was over $150, inspection was $75..it was ridiculous to read the justification they had for the same exact frigging hammer (same company, same item) you could by at a hardware store for $25.




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I've never seen exact details of this, but have read of numerous accounts of government agencies being charged ludicrous amounts for trivial items. Wasn't there a famous one about a screwdriver once?

Basically it seems that any time you're charging something to the government, they do not have the common sense to question the bill. No wonder public works are so friggin' expensive, and take so long to approve...

Rewey



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by praxis


If this 'explanation' was any where near truth, it would prove beyond any doubt that the pentagon and civilian government were incompetent and incapable of running this circus.


Which is exactly what it proves. The government allows massive incompetence and fraud in most things.

Regardless of whether or not this 2.3 trillion was directly related to 9/11, it is still a massive issue as far as I am concerned, regardl;ess of the time frame. It shows the government holds itself to a lower, more lax standard of accounting than it holds the rest of the population.

If I were to screw up my tax returns for a decade that badly, the IRS would seize what little I own and toss me in jail. They wouldn't accept it if I said "oops, i screwed up a bit, give me a little time and I'll fix it." So why should we allow non elected officials any slack, especially when it's OUR damned money to begin with? Gimmie a friggin break!

Swamp Fox, you post does clarify a few things, but it does not seem to totally remove this issue from the 9/11 spotlight. The announcement was made right before the event. One could argue that, having foreknowledge of what was to come, Rumsfeld chose that moment to make said announcement, knowing that the events to come would nearly erase the issue from the minds of the public as a whole.

Which it seems to have done, because I certainly do not remember this announcement, and I used to read the news faithfully. When I first heard about it, it was years after 9/11, and thus, was under the impression that it occurred right before, all at once. Now that you show me this, I am more curious, in relation to it's bearing on 9/11, than i am as to just how the hell they lost track of that much money.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Anyone who think taht 2.3 trillion can be lost do to bad accounting is correct the issue is that the money was lost by the intentional bad accounting and used for other means probably to fund black operations.

Here is the CBS broadcast on the subject. Hilarious that Rummy did a press conference on Sept 10th 2001 day before 9/11 can't make this stuff up.




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
This sort of reminds me of the fire at Baumholder Germany. The base fire trucks were the LAST to arrive (they had a couple of blocks to travel) the out of town fire trucks arrived first. Seems the building burnt to the ground - with all the files - the day before the big inspection into major graft etc.

A plane is a bit more imaginative way to get rid of the evidence



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


You mean the threaded fastener insertion tool?? Yes that was one of the items too.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


Different computer systems, different accounting methods, lost inventory, someone saying, "Oh screw it, we know that number in that system is right, so change this one to match"

Remember, the 2.3 trillion was originally adjustments that did not have proper documentation......



2.3 trillion in entries either did not contain adequate documentation or were improperly reconciled or were made to force buyer and seller data to agree






[edit on 9-9-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Beefcake
 


No, you cant make this stuff up.

You can, however, do the necessary research to see that it is in no way connected to the events of 9/11.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 





Regardless of whether or not this 2.3 trillion was directly related to 9/11, it is still a massive issue as far as I am concerned, regardl;ess of the time frame. It shows the government holds itself to a lower, more lax standard of accounting than it holds the rest of the population.


You are right, it is an issue. Funny thing is, the more accountants they add to the system to "fix" things....the more screwed up it gets. I have always had problems with the ways the government spends the money it gets. Way too much is eaten up in overhead, and as we are in the last month of the Fiscal Year, the annual spending spree is commencing as we speak. What I mean is, this is when all Federal agencies are reconciling their books and discovering how much money they have left, and if this money DOESNT get spent before Oct 1, then next year the agency wont get as much money. Sooo....this is the month when new furniture is bought, new vehicles, all sorts of stuff, which a bunch of it....isnt strictly necessary to have (some is, most..probably not).....but if you dont spend this years budget, you will not get as much for next year's budget. Crappy way of doing business...



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigenous equity
I owned a manufacturing company in California from 87-2005. We made some of those components people love to single out and extrapolate misuse of funds.

However they never research why a hammer could cost 700.00. In our case it was actually 560.00, and it was due to the fact it would be used in ICBM silo's and therefore could not spark or by its operation create a spark. The fuel and other products contained within a Nuclear Silo could be adversely affected ( explosion).


Maybe the government should have gone here? It has free shipping too!



Or here's one they could have got from Amazon...



Both are non-sparking. Neither are $560. Did you charge the general public the same price, or just the government buffoons who bought from you?

Rewey



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
Both are non-sparking. Neither are $560. Did you charge the general public the same price, or just the government buffoons who bought from you?


Well?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigenous equity
I owned a manufacturing company in California from 87-2005. We made some of those components people love to single out and extrapolate misuse of funds.


I'd actually really like an answer to this... You complain that people single you out and extrapolate that it's nothing but a misuse of funds, but here's two hammers which are both non-sparking, and both made in America, and cost only 10-15% of what you claim you sold yours to the government for.

So to the layman, yes - it does look like a misuse of funds, and blatant profiteering from government buffoons.

So why does it bother you that people call it 'misuse of funds'? It seems pretty apparent that it is...

Rewey



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
The Pentagon has been dealing with crap like that for years. The problem is too many bean counters sitting in offices going over contracts and not knowing a hammer from a precision hand-held.... Unfortunately, the solution from Congress is to always put more bean counters into the mix. Pretty soon you are making 7 trillion dollars worth of accounting corrections covering crap dating back to the Vietnam War.


Do you really expect people to swallow that the government just lost 2.3 TRILLION dollars over the course of x years? Give me a break! Does the government hire freshman accountants;i.e only one year of college?

Perhaps I can apply for a job then since I have an associate degree






I've been saying for years that if you really wanted to hold someone accountable, we needed to clean out the career politicians in Washington and start over. That still doesnt change the fact that the 2.3 trillion issue had absolutely no connection to 9/11/01.


When only 8 people in capital hill get to see waived saps go through then you and I know there is a serious problem in budgeting! Nevermind the CIA budget which is totally classified. I am merely talking about DOD spending WHICH SHOULD BE TOTALLY ACCOUNTED FOR since its taxpayer money.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Do you really expect people to swallow that the government just lost 2.3 TRILLION dollars over the course of x years?


Okay, I am going to try to say this as nicely as possible. Try reading the flipping articles. No one "lost" 2.3 trillion dollars. There were a total of 7 trillion dollars in corrections made in the books (going back DECADES) and of that, 2.3 trillion had insufficient documentation. In other words, they didnt have all the paperwork to back them up.

How hard is it to understand that it wasnt cash that turned up missing?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
So to the layman, yes - it does look like a misuse of funds, and blatant profiteering from government buffoons.


Hmmm... I guess we take it that it WAS misuse of funds and blatant profiteering from government buffoons.

I guess next time you complain about how much tax you pay, you'll have to consider how you contribute to the ludicrous spending of your tax dollars, huh?

Rewey



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Does it not occur to you that "insufficient paperwork" for 2.3 trillion dollars means "lost money"? How more obvious can it get
You can provide me a million links but it won't change a single damm thing.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beefcake
Hilarious that Rummy did a press conference on Sept 10th 2001 day before 9/11 can't make this stuff up.


Howdy Beefcake ~

This was not the first time this was brought up. As you will see, there were many times prior to Rumsfield on Sept. 10th that this topic was brought up to the press. It was also brought up again post 911.

I hope these links will be usefull for you!

Dr. P.


Pentagon's finances in disarray

By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern .........The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.


hv.greenspun.com...


January 7, 2001
The Defense Department's inspector general recently identified $6.9 trillion in accounting entries, but $2.3 trillion was not supported by adequate audit trails or sufficient evidence to determine its validity.

Another $2 trillion worth of entries were not examined because of time constraints, and therefore, the inspector general was able to audit only $2.6 trillion of accounting entries in a $6.9 trillion pot.


source:
Contra Costa Times (California)


January 11, 2001
Senator Byrd: A recent article in the Los Angeles Times, written by a retired vice admiral and a civilian employee in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, accused the Department of Defense of being unable to account for the funds that Congress appropriates to it. The authors wrote, and I quote in part, quote, "The Pentagon's books are in such utter disarray that no one knows what America's military actually owns or spends." ...

That audit report found that out of $7.6 trillion in department-level accounting interest, 2.3 trillion in entries either did not contain adequate documentation or were improperly reconciled or were made to force buyer and seller data to agree. This DoD-IG report is very disturbing....


SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING
HEADLINE: AFTERNOON SESSION OF A HEARING OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: THE NOMINATION OF DONALD RUMSFELD TO BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE


February 12th 2001
The inspector general of the Pentagon said there are 2.3 trillion dollars in items that they can't quite account for. That's not billion. That's trillion dollars. $2.3 trillion -- and the General Accounting Office said there are about $27 billion in inventory items that they can't find.
John Isaacs PBS Online NewsHour


www.pbs.org...


June 3rd 2001
Secretary Rumsfeld Media Availability en route to Turkey


www.defenselink.mil...


June 28, 2001 Thursday
DOBBS: Well, let me, if I may, go to a management by objective. We know what you want to do. How many months are you giving yourself to get it done?

RUMSFELD: Oh, it's years. It's years. This department didn't get like this in five minutes, and it's not going to get out of this in five minutes. It is an enormous task. It's like turning a battleship. It doesn't turn on a dime. And we'll have to work with the Congress and find a way inside this institution to fix our acquisition system, which is broken.

It takes 20 years to produce a weapon system, at a time where technology is turning over every 24 months. Our financial management systems can't account for $2.6. trillion worth of transactions, simply because the way they're arranged and organized...


Source:

CNN SHOW: LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE 18:30



[edit on 21-9-2009 by ImAPepper]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

Does it not occur to you that "insufficient paperwork" for 2.3 trillion dollars means "lost money"? How more obvious can it get
You can provide me a million links but it won't change a single damm thing.


Yes, but I think you're missing SwampFox's point...

$2.3 trillion is gone - it's not there any more. We get that.

But it's NOT as though it was $2.3 trillion in cash sitting in a room that someone picked up and walked out the back door with. THAT'S what SwampFox is getting at.

It's money that has been used throughout the years that simply has been overlooked, or not properly accounted for, or someone didn't ask for a receipt... which over time ACCUMULATES to $2.3 trillion.

But when you've got so many people dealing out so much money over so many years (much of it for stupid things like $600 hammers), these things have a habit of adding up quickly.

A hammer here, a bunch of toner for the photocopier there, a few thousand for an informant now and then...

Rewey

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


SwampFox is merely trying to change the PERCEPTION that it's a big wad of cash which has gone missing as part of a consipracy surrounding 9/11. It was money which was misappropriated for years, and has nothing to do with the events of 9/11.

As IAmPepper points out, 10 September was NOT the first time the issue was raised, and therefore it is NOT some huge freaky coincidence that it was the day before 9/11, designed to be overlooked by the media in the wake of bigger events.

Rewey



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I know. I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make him drink..

I can give someone books, take them to school and they still dont get it...

Right now, my unit is doing the end of the year accounting. There are a couple days during the year that we do not have the receipts from the tanker unit we used on those days. Some of the paperwork is lost. We have other documents for those days, we know how much fuel we got, we know how much money was transferred from our unit to theirs, BUT without the actual receipt, the other documentation is considered "inadequate" for accounting purposes.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join