-7
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
-7 points (43.4% liked)
politics
19144 readers
4903 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That’s a loaded headline. It makes it sound like all of the missing funds went to Zelensky but that’s just a guys opinion.
As someone who’s witnessed the US Military’s “use or lose” budget in action, I’d put $100 on a lot of it being jammed in a closet, sitting at the bottom of an ocean, or conveniently lost to fire in a desert somewhere.
Or lost somewhere in a logistics facility unaccounted for.
It's a very big closet.
This is just a GOP propaganda hit piece. The DOD does need a audit, but don't act like it all went to Ukraine.
Or even like the GOP would ever even CONSIDER cutting it's funding down.
Especially considering it's been a DoD problem for many, many years now. The audits they talk about in the article date back to as far as 2017... this isn't a new issue.
Sheesh, one of the conspiracies about 9/11 was that the location of the pentagon hit was where they had just failed an audit. It's a gigantic pit we've been 'losing' money in for decades, if not a full century.
The state of the DoDs finances is a legitimate concern, but OP and the ‘Pub the article cites are just bad faith trolling.
The truth is that in 1990, Congress passed a law directing all federal agencies to produce regular, audited financial statements. More than thirty years later, the Department of Defense is the only agency that has never passed a single audit. That’s under both Dem and Pub administrations.
The shot at Zelensky and the current geopolitical situation is just silly, stupid, and frankly the kind of thing a tankie would say 🙄
It’s probably some sort of psy op to get liberals and lefties on board with giving these guys more money even though they clearly should not get it.
Based on this thread it seems like it worked
About all we can have since the funds are unaccounted for.
Do you think the pentagon has EVER passed an audit?
Do you think a government paying for black projects would discuss these black projects with an accountant just to pass an audit?
You think two thirds of the military’s assets is invested in their handful of projects that random congressional reps don’t get to know about?
come ON
What feedback do you have on the first sentence, which is not hyperbole? Honestly curious. You appear to have very strong opinions on this topic, but you aren't replying to any of the comments pointing out 33 years worth of failed audits.
Is this most recent one particularly suspect compared to audits that have come before it, and more sketchy than ones that have failed during administrations run by the other party?
Sorry you’re asking ME for proof that 61% of the military’s budget isn’t secret from congress?
Dude, if that was even close to possibly true we would have a MUCH larger issue
Yeah, the pentagon only fails budgets because they don’t fucking know what they’re doing with the money. They sent two billion in cash to Iraq and lost all of it, but okay, none of this is because of their 33 years of recorded incompetence!
Some fucking mental gymnastics there bro
No, was asking you for your thoughts on this specific sentence, on its own:
Which you did eventually stumble into, but not before engaging in some mental gymnastics for the sake of accusing me of mental gymnastics. Thanks, sort of?
Honestly, are you a bot because holy shit do you not make any sense
Occam’s razor is that the pentagon is bad at accounting for their assets, not that they’re completely circumventing congressional oversight of the military unconstitutionally, which you seem to think is the case, and that it’s good, somehow.
Imagine licking the boot so bad that you twist two trillion dollars going up in smoke into a win
We seem to keep coming back to how I supposedly think or assumptions about why I was asking the question. Either you have confused me for the original person you were replying to, or you're jackhammering straw men onto anything they might stick to while making a conscious choice to be a tool about it.
As you were.
Speaking as the guy this particular individual mistook you for, it's both.
Politicized speculation is not better than an unknown.
Maybe if Congress stopped automatically green-lighting every military expenditure request without question, instead of demanding concise monthy reports on service/equipment purchases AND verified location, the US taxpayer could feel confident that their leadership actually gives a shit about them.
You could certainly form a better opinion based on an overall understanding of military practices, rather than one pulled out of an ass.
Are you saying that representative pulled it out of his ass that America is sending hundreds of billions of taxpayer money to Ukraine?
I'm saying the representative pulled out of his ass an implication that $2 trillion worth of missing assets all went to Ukraine. The stuff that went to Ukraine almost certainly is accounted for.