$8 Billion Spent, No Records Kept

wkmac

Well-Known Member
To say no records were kept is a little misleading isn't it?

Good question. Why don't you contact WorldNet Daily and ask them why they choose to run such a headline.

For schitts and giggles, let's re-write this story to reflect in another light and then see what we think about these records or questionable lack thereof.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services got more than $9 billion from the sale of Taxpayer assets and other tax revenue streams to be used for construction jobs projects and other welfare programs inside the most severe economically depressed areas in the nation but now cannot document where $8.7 billion of those funds went, according to an inspector general's report published online.

Would you be consistent and apply the same standard to one department of gov't that you apply to others?

The military's response in the report noted that the records probably exist, it's just that they're probably archived, and it might take a long time to track them down.

[video=youtube;lWWdEHJRo-4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWWdEHJRo-4[/video]
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
Would you be consistent and apply the same standard to one department of gov't that you apply to others?


Sure I will. I'm not a fan of any department of government and I think a report such as this is a good reason but for far different reasons than one like you does. Reading the report it seems like the biggest problem the government has is the government violated some rule that the government deposit money in a government account. Doesn't seem like that is even practical for the government to do in a combat zone.



So when you read the report they decided to "clarify" it to say that there was no record of a deposit fund account.



So yes I think your title is more than a little misleading. To say no records were kept when even your article says that not only were records kept they likely still exist in storage is misleading and I had only asked since I was curious if it were intentional or not. I didn't think you were gonna claim worldnet made you do it or government made you do it. That was unexpected.

Page 5. The first sentence reads, 'Weaknesses in DoD's financial and management controls leaves it unable to account for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion in DFI funds it received for reconstruction activities in Iraq.' This is a mischaracterization of the facts intended to support this finding. The report backs up the assertion by stating 'DoD did not establish deposit fund accounts within the Department of the Treasury for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion of the DFI funds it controlled.' The fact that deposit accounts were not established does not translate to $8.7 billion being unaccountable. The documents that would account for much of the $8.7 billion are likely archived at a stateside location," said the response.


Do you have a cutsie youtube video for the difference in likely and probably? I'm to lazy to find one for ya.

The military response recommended the following wording: "DoD did not establish deposit fund accounts within the Department of the Treasury for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion of the DFI funds it controlled. As a result, attempting to account for $8.7 billion of the DFI funds controlled by DoD would require significant archival retrieval efforts
.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
If you actually go to the link this is what you'll see.

header_exclusive.gif

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]$8 billion spent, no records kept[/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Inspector general's report raises alarms about funds inside Defense Department[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]Posted: October 27, 2010[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]8:52 pm Eastern[/SIZE]


By Bob Unruh
[SIZE=-1]© 2010 WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]

I took the WND article headline as the thread title, and the secondary headline for the buried link, Again, don't like it, contact WND.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
If you actually go to the link this is what you'll see.



I took the WND article headline as the thread title, and the secondary headline for the buried link, Again, don't like it, contact WND.


It does not matter if I like it or not. The implication of my question was if you were intentional about being misleading and I guess your answer is yes you were so the question becomes why? Is it as simple as you want to bash all things government(which I could agree with) or is it that you cannot find an inefficiency in the government that actually has an impact on our lives. Let's be honest here, the government is plenty inefficient with our money so why do you act surprised that they were inefficient with the Iraqi's money?

This situation occurred because most DoD organizations receiving DFI funds did not establish the required Department of the Treasury accounts and no DoD organization was designated as the executive agent for managing the use of DFI funds.



The problem they are claiming is that there was not enough government involved. I'd think you, since you claim you want no government, would be happy they used less government. Less is closer to no. Since it appears that you are angry that a government agency did not use enough other government agencies will you hold yourself to that standard with other government agencies as well?

I wonder what would have happened if I had offered to pay an Iraqi contractor with a US dept. of treasury check instead of cash?
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
If you actually go to the link this is what you'll see.
.



This situation occurred because most DoD organizations receiving DFI funds did not establish the required Department of the Treasury accounts and no DoD organization was designated as the executive agent for managing the use of DFI funds.


Page 5. The first sentence reads, 'Weaknesses in DoD's financial and management controls leaves it unable to account for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion in DFI funds it received for reconstruction activities in Iraq.' This is a mischaracterization of the facts intended to support this finding. The report backs up the assertion by stating 'DoD did not establish deposit fund accounts within the Department of the Treasury for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion of the DFI funds it controlled.' The fact that deposit accounts were not established does not translate to $8.7 billion being unaccountable. The documents that would account for much of the $8.7 billion are likely archived at a stateside location," said the response.

The military response recommended the following wording: "DoD did not establish deposit fund accounts within the Department of the Treasury for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion of the DFI funds it controlled.

I didn't even have to click on the link to read the actual report which I did.
 
Top