Question about the US govt and military/other contracts...

So the American Government collects taxes, and it must show that all these billions of dollars collected from Americans have to go somewhere right?

So say Bush wants to order some military supplies from his very very close friends in the military company, and say these supplies cost... 20 million.

What is the other company "charges" the Govt 120 million for the supplies? And 100 mil is not split in the pockets of a few people because of this deal?

Is this a possible scenario? For the govt to "show" that ALOT more money was spent on stuff while they are simply pocketing all the money and laughing at the American public?

discuss/debate

[WWC]

Yup its all business for them... The World, Inc.

[squishypimp]

sadly it works very similar. politics is more corrupt than any other "industry" in this world sadly

[OG LennyT]

Originally Posted by squishypimp

sadly it works very similar. politics is more corrupt than any other "industry" in this world sadly

like you have any clue how the govt. works

[BitAudioVideo]

you dont think they really spend $1800 for a toilet seat do you?

[slapass]

Originally Posted by bdjuf

So the American Government collects taxes, and it must show that all these billions of dollars collected from Americans have to go somewhere right?

So say Bush wants to order some military supplies from his very very close friends in the military company, and say these supplies cost... 20 million.

What is the other company "charges" the Govt 120 million for the supplies? And 100 mil is not split in the pockets of a few people because of this deal?

Is this a possible scenario? For the govt to "show" that ALOT more money was spent on stuff while they are simply pocketing all the money and laughing at the American public?

discuss/debate

Military spending is a fucked up mess. So no this does not work. As the friend has to go through 30 hoops before he gets the contract. It also will take several years at which time a new president will try and give this to his friend who will then burn millions and not get the contract either.

You are better off to have friends in the right spots already and then invade countries and fuck with the oil reserves of the world. Then your friends who were already there are happy and you make them tons of money.

any other opinions?

[Sly]

Where exactly would Bush "pocket" this money? All of his finances are disclosed. He has to claim the $5k bike somebody just gave him.

One thing a lot of people don't seem to realize about politicians is that when they get into politics they take a huge pay cut. If they worked in the private sector they would make a significant amount of more money, and they can anytime they get out. The Presidents salary of $400k? Thats nothing to a man that owns and has stake in many successful companies. They take office because they like power, and believe it or not, they do care about the country and have an idea of what's best for the country.

"Stealing" money here and there just wouldn't be worth it. Now doing favors for others? Yes, every politician returns favors to those that help him/her get into office. Thats how people work.

[kane]

It's pretty common knowledge that government contracts are often awarded to companies that are "friendly" with whomever is in the white house at the time and that they are often grossly overpaid. It wasn't too long ago that there was a story showing that Halliburton overcharged the US government 108million for fuel it used doing jobs in Iraq. They also overcharged in other areas like meals. They billed the US government for 42,000 meals when they actually only served 14,000.

This type of stuff happens all the time. Its sad, but it's true.

[E$_manager]

THe War is always bussiness. Very good one.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Sly

Where exactly would Bush "pocket" this money? All of his finances are disclosed. He has to claim the $5k bike somebody just gave him.

One thing a lot of people don't seem to realize about politicians is that when they get into politics they take a huge pay cut. If they worked in the private sector they would make a significant amount of more money, and they can anytime they get out. The Presidents salary of $400k? That's nothing to a man that owns and has stake in many successful companies. They take office because they like power, and believe it or not, they do care about the country and have an idea of what's best for the country.

"Stealing" money here and there just wouldn't be worth it. Now doing favors for others? Yes, every politician returns favors to those that help him/her get into office. That's how people work.

Of course they don't just take the money directly because they would get caught pretty easily. There was actually a case a little while back where a guy from the house of representatives ( I think he may have been a senator though) sold all of his postal items provided, like stamps and things like that and pocketed the money. It was around $2500, and he got reamed hard for doing it. A couple of typical ways they take money is they have people make donations to their re-elections campaign and to charities they run. They take a salary for running the charity and get some money there, with the re-election campaign, they could buy a lot of stuff and claim it was needed to help them get elected. There are not a lot of rules limiting what they spend that money on.

Mostly though they use the contacts they make in politics to cash in later. Bush actually makes 1million a year. Clinton made 500K, Bush got a raise and whoever is next will get another raise. When he leaves the white house he will get paid a huge chunk of cash to write a book or two and he can really cash in on the lecture circuit. Clinton makes around 100-150K to show up and speak at an event. Other politicians will use these connections for jobs. Dick Cheney is a great example. Before he was Vice President he was Sec Defense under Bush Sr and before that he was a Representative. He took his connections at the pentagon as Sec Defense and parlayed them into a CEO job for Halliburton. They wanted a Washington insider to run the company and he was a perfect fit. I don't know what he made as Sec Defense, but it was nowhere near the 12+million a year he made running Halliburton.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by kane

Mostly though they use the contacts they make in politics to cash in later. Bush actually makes 1million a year. Clinton made 500K, Bush got a raise and whoever is next will get another raise. When he leaves the white house he will get paid a huge chunk of cash to write a book or two and he can really cash in on the lecture circuit. Clinton makes around 100-150K to show up and speak at an event. Other politicians will use these connections for jobs. Dick Cheney is a great example. Before he was Vice President he was Sec Defense under Bush Sr and before that he was a Representative. He took his connections at the pentagon as Sec Defense and parlayed them into a CEO job for Halliburton. They wanted a Washington insider to run the company and he was a perfect fit. I don't know what he made as Sec Defense, but it was nowhere near the 12+million a year he made running Halliburton.

Thats pretty much what I just said.

[spunkmaster]

Originally Posted by bdjuf

any other opinions?

They can't hide "for bid" contracts !

If you look it up you'll see almost every Senator and congressman gets
a contract for their friends and family. It's not illegal help a company when it comes to contracts but what is illegal is getting anything in return such as bribe money or a house or land very cheap that can be flipped for a huge profit.

The contracts that get abused the most are the no bid contracts. These are when the Gov't awards a contract to a company without regard to the costs. This is money that isn't monitored and the terms of the contract are fuzzy.

Two examples of this are Katrina and Iraq.

In Iraq there was only one company that had the ability to provide the services in a war zone and that was Haliburton and after Katrina time was the issue so FEMA spent billions without any bids.

There are pros and cons to the bid and no bid contract system. Back in the 80's I had to monitor contractors overseas for a few years and I would see the contractor get a bid for millions then do 20% of the job then go out of business. Then I'd go to a briefing with the new contractor who got the new bid to finish the job and it would be the same people sitting at the table but with a different company patch. This would go on and on the contractor ended up getting 5 times for a contract they were supposed to complete in the first bid.

With a no bid contract the job gets done the first time but at a higher cost then if they got bids. The bottom line is if it's an emergency or war a no bid contract is the better way to go but there will always be fraud and lost, stolen or defective materials !

[corvette]

interesting you should ask this, related article from the nyt today:

While acknowledging that it might cost much more to build the 58 planned cutters with composite hulls instead of steel, Northrop and Lockheed claimed the boats would last longer and require less maintenance, saving money over the long run.

Coast Guard engineers again were doubtful that Northrop’s design would work, citing concerns about weight, hull shape and fuel consumption. The Coast Guard also found inconsistencies in the cost data Northrop used to justify the new hull.

One former Northrop executive said the company was pushing the plan not because it was in the best interest of the Coast Guard, but because Northrop had just spent $64 million to turn its shipyard in Gulfport, Miss., into the country’s first large-scale composite hull manufacturing plant for military ships.

“It was a pure business decision,” said the former executive, who disagreed with the plan and would speak only anonymously for fear of retribution. “And it was the wrong one.”



And the contractors failed to fulfill their obligation to make sure the government got the best price, frequently steering work to their subsidiaries or business partners instead of competitors, according to government auditors and people affiliated with the program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us...ewanted=1&_r=1

[corvette]

the link is that many of the large companies getting the contract contribute to the coffers of many of the people making the decisions, have large lobbyist budgets, etc

[alexg]

it's called corruption...

[corvette]

in my experience, most decisions are made with idea of getting ahead, if possible. I remember another article i read about 2 months ago about how many of the larger companies started making more donations to the campaigns of democrats, that money flows up to the decision makers that appreciate the loyalty of their supporters

just how it works

[aico]

Originally Posted by squishypimp

sadly it works very similar. politics is more corrupt than any other "industry" in this world sadly

It's a close race between Politics and Christianity.

[woj]

of course it happens, maybe not in an obvious way like you described, but wherever there is money involved (especially a lot of it) people will figure out a way to somehow steal it...

[Webby]

Originally Posted by woj

of course it happens, maybe not in an obvious way like you described, but wherever there is money involved (especially a lot of it) people will figure out a way to somehow steal it...

It's that simple woj Seen the same old scenario replayed time and again and at all levels, - not just in govt, tho they "supposed" to be in a position of trust and exist to serve a nation, not defraud the taxpayers coffers.

Also noticed the same in scenarios where individual/s hold the purse strings for millions/billions. Out of the woodword comes all kinds of animal life who purport to be friends, helpers, manipulators trying to appeal to ego, lawyers pressing to offer the best legal advice, govt ministers showing great concern for whatever project. The lineup never ends

The keyword in your post is "steal"

[madawgz]

Originally Posted by OG LennyT

like you have any clue how the govt. works

LOL

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by bdjuf

So say Bush wants to order some military supplies from his very very close friends in the military company, and say these supplies cost... 20 million.

What is the other company "charges" the Govt 120 million for the supplies? And 100 mil is not split in the pockets of a few people because of this deal?

the president doesn't buy military hardware. the military does and its approved by congress.

[LiveDose]

Originally Posted by bdjuf

So the American Government collects taxes, and it must show that all these billions of dollars collected from Americans have to go somewhere right?

So say Bush wants to order some military supplies from his very very close friends in the military company, and say these supplies cost... 20 million.

What is the other company "charges" the Govt 120 million for the supplies? And 100 mil is not split in the pockets of a few people because of this deal?

Is this a possible scenario? For the govt to "show" that ALOT more money was spent on stuff while they are simply pocketing all the money and laughing at the American public?

discuss/debate

Yup this is actually how government functions in all countries. Not just the US.