While it seems most of America is caught up in the election year theatrics, similar to what occurs during a fight on an elementary school playground, a report released on money wasted during the Iraq war goes unnoticed.
The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Funds is quoted as saying “the precise amount lost to fraud and waste can never be known”. The figure seems to be well into the billions, though.
So while we are all getting the entertainment of such content as name calling and label throwing, corruption will exist because the public allows it to. We are all focused on the carnival barker leadership, that detracts from our awareness on other huge problems.
Mark Swartz
Mesa
Arizona Willie posted at 10:09 am on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.
You got it!
Distract, confuse, bamboozle.
The 3 main elements of professional politics.
It's the same thing as " professional " wrestling.
Fake from the word go.
Congressmen in both the National and State Legislatures should be required to wear jumpsuits with the names of their contributors like race car drivers do.
Every single one of them is for sale to the highest bidder.
As an example of the contempt the political parties hold the voters ... the Republican party is allowing two people to run against each other here in AZ with much fanfare.
We are besieged nightly by dozens of commercials for these two candidates:
Cardon: who campaigns as anti-illegal immigration while he has employed illegals in his restaurant chain.
Flake: and admitted liar who said he admitted he lied and laughed about it on TV. He thinks it's funny to have lied to the voters.
The sad part is -- the Republican Party is right. The voters will, most likely, vote one of those two into office because they can't see any further than the R behind the names.
Not that the Democrats are much better. We have a President who refuses to enforce the immigration laws of the country and wants to allow millions of people to stream into our country because he thinks they will become Democratic voters.
He doesn't give a d*a*m*n how many citizens are harmed by the invading aliens.
Cerulean posted at 4:39 pm on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.
From the Washington Post “. . . but one small example of failure stood out: A contractor got away with charging $80 for a pipe fitting that its competitor was selling for $1.41. Why? The company’s billing documents were reviewed sloppily by U.S. contracting officers or were not reviewed at all.”
“Bowen’s office [the Inspector General] has spent more than $200 million tracking the reconstruction funds, and in addition to producing numerous reports, his office has investigated criminal fraud that has resulted in 87 indictments, 71 convictions and $176 million in fines and other penalties. These include civilians and military members accused of kickbacks, bribery, bid-rigging, fraud, embezzlement and outright theft of government property and funds.”
$176 million recovered out of billions in fraud do not make good averages.
The article goes on “In that same report, the inspector general, Stuart Bowen, recalled what then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld asked when they met shortly after Bowen started in January 2004: “Why did you take this job? It’s an impossible task.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/final-us-audit-of-reconstruction-effort-in-iraq-says-billions-of-dollars-likely-wasted/2012/07/13/gJQAkAVviW_story.html
chatmandu002 posted at 5:03 pm on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.
I am sure that although the fraud, waste and abuse in Iraq was in the billions. I'm also sure the fraud, waste and abuse of Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, wellfare and food stamps programs would make Iraq look like chump change. Bigger government will mean bigger fraud, waste and abuse.
fae4now posted at 11:01 pm on Wed, Jul 18, 2012.
Chat,
So what bothers you more - a poor person getting a free meal or the loss of thousands of American lives while Bush/Cheney and their Haliburton sub-contractor friends funnel billions to get filthy rich off a phoney war based on utterly STUPID claims of WMD?
And those crazy liberals who called shenanigans from the start? The ones who were slammed brutally and called un-patriotic?
I'm glad the writer has had an epiphany. But this isn't news to some.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:25 am on Thu, Jul 19, 2012.
chatmanduu ... the only waste in the Social Security program was caused by Congresscritters " borrowing " the money for pork projects with absolutely no intention of paying it back.
Social Security is solvent as of today and can easily be saved by:
a) changing the law so Congress can no longer borrow any funds from it
b) remove the earnings cap
Actually a would possibly be enough all by itself. But Congress has NO INTENTION of keeping it's fingers off of that pile of money.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:37 am on Thu, Jul 19, 2012.
Politic$ involve$ money and power. And money and power corrupt. Money buy$ power. Power and money go together like hor$e and carriage. Same old $ame old.
chatmandu002 posted at 12:14 pm on Thu, Jul 19, 2012.
fae4now,
It's all one way or the other for you. I didn't say that we should eliminate any programs, I said that the fraud, waste and abuse is always rampant when the government is involved. The bigger the government the bigger the fraud, waste and abuse.
Willie,
Check your facts, SS will be insolvent by 2030 according to the SS trustees. And you only solution is to raise the earning cap. Why has Obama stop collecting the SS tax from workers now? Why were people added to SS for disability, dependents and other reasons when the programs was not set up for that? Social Security is a ponzi scheme, the pool of payers is shrinking, while the pool of takers is increasing.
Dale,
So who has the power? The government or the money people. I don't see money people buying a controlling interest in GM. I don't see money people wasting money on bankrupt green energy companies. I do see the government controlling and regulating the energy, financial, healthcare, transportation industry through it's power of taxation and regulation. So who really has the power?
Arizona Willie posted at 4:38 pm on Thu, Jul 19, 2012.
chatmanduu --- I said " Social Security is solvent as of today " which is TRUE.
2030 is 18 years away.
I offered TWO solutions for Social Security but you conveniently ignore the first one.
Stop Congress from stealing the money.
Removing the cap was the second one and I said that the first one all by itself might be enough -- but you ignored that too.
chatmandu002 posted at 12:22 pm on Fri, Jul 20, 2012.
Willie,
You call for raising the cap on SS earnings cap. Which will penalize the higher income bracket. SS is supposed to be a fair contributions system to receive fair return for the money paid in. When you raise the SS earnings cap, the payer of that higher taxpayer will never receive the fair of distribution compared to what other lower payers receive. The maximum payment for SS will not equal the paid in amount. You still refuse to admit that SS is a ponzi scheme. With payers pool shrinking while the takers pool growing larger and larger.
As for the government taking from the SS fund, they are supposed to leave IOUs notes in the fund. But thanks to President Johnson and the democrats they raided the SS fund to pay for the Vietnam war and the "New Deal" welfare programs.
Arizona Willie posted at 1:23 pm on Fri, Jul 20, 2012.
chatmandu ... in order for the government to pay those IOU'S they have to find some revenue. There are only a couple of ways to raise revenue. Increase fees for various government services and tariffs on imported good or raise taxes.
Raising tariffs and fees is a non-starter on several levels.
Raising taxes is political suicide and no politician is going to advocate that, at least in that form.
Congressmen raided Social Security for MANY things. The used the surplus to conceal the true size of the debt as well as paying for pork projects and social needs.
Many / most of the things they spent the money on were valid needs but raising taxes in an honest and visible manner is not something congresscritters are going to do.
As for raising the earnings cap, as I said, that is a fall back in case simply stopping the theft of the money doesn't work. Social Security is still generating a surplus now. But that surplus will disappear because it will be " borrowed ".
You call SS a ponzi scheme because faux news has drilled that into your head.
SS works much like most insurance programs. A large base pays in but the people who draw are a smaller pool because of natural circumstances. Some people die young from illness. Accidents kill others. A good percentage doesn't live long enough to collect on their SS insurance. Which leaves money for those who do to collect and get more than they paid in.
So those who make enough to be over the earnings cap and live long enough draw MUCH more than lower wage earners during the time they draw SS. Therefore, there is no good reason they shouldn't pay more in. The SS insurance works just the same for them as it does for the peons.
And, the wealthier they are the less it will hurt them to have the earnings cap on SS removed. And then they would pay in a fairer share of what those who survive will receive.
The high earners draw a larger benefit from SS so why shouldn't they pay more into the program?
sockratties posted at 6:57 am on Sat, Jul 21, 2012.
Actually SS doesn’t have to go broke, it is being allowed to go broke. The money that goes into the SS fund has been borrowed by congress and replaced with non-negotiable low interest notes and because this money is borrowed it shows up as almost $3 trillion of national debt. That’s why so many people think SS adds to the national debt. The $3T is really a SS surplus that hasn’t been allowed to earn what it could if it were properly invested. If the funds had always been invested in a properly administered (not some “Congress in bed with Wall Street scheme) mutual fund it would now be worth at least 3 or 4 times the $3T it is now.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:36 am on Sat, Jul 21, 2012.
sockratties --- there is no question that the ONLY reason SS will be in trouble in 18 years is because Congress has " borrowed " the surplus funds.
The question is: How can Congress repay the " borrowed " funds?
Our income tax receipts are not enough to cover expenses as it is, and we have accumulated a massive debt with two unfunded wars and an unfunded Medicare prescription benefit -- thanks to the Bush administration.
We don't even have enough money to be paying down this huge debt for the wars.
How are we supposed to also pay back money to SS?
Where will the money come from?
If Congress just stopped borrowing the current surpluses it would help.
But, various other steps will probably have to be taken eventually.
We have 18 years before SS actually tips over the line and has to pay out more than is coming in -- according to current figures. So Congress is going to continue to do nothing but talk. Congress will continue to borrow the surpluses unless the people demand they stop.
What would happen if Congress stopped borrowing the surpluses? Our debt figure would take a dramatic jump because they use the surplus to conceal the true size of the debt. Many programs that Congress has funded with the SS surplus would go away.
SS clock would be extended by many years ( how many I don't know, it would take the CBO to figure that out ).
But the wage ceiling on the SS tax should be removed so that the wealthier would pay more in to SS. They draw much higher amounts than the average Joe so why shouldn't they pay more? Having everyone only pay on the first X dollars isn't logical.
For that matter, I'm not sure there should be ANY earnings cap at all. Probably everyone should pay SS on their entire income.
That would certainly remove all problem with SS potentially going broke in 18 years.
America may be called the land of the FREE -- but being a citizen is NOT free.
The benefits of being an American are NOT free.
Taxes are the price we pay for operating our society.
The more we receive FROM society -- the more we have to pay TO society.
Those who don't want to pay taxes are FREELOADERS.
sockratties posted at 7:17 am on Sun, Jul 22, 2012.
AZ Willie -- You make some good points.
I think the reason SS is destined to run out of money is because the amount of money paid out to those who are eligible will exceed the amount collected from those paying in. We pay in at a low rate for about 45 years then start receiving benefits at a much higher rate. The aging population still retires around 65 years of age. Combine that with the fact that people live about 20 years longer now than they did when SS was introduced. This means more people receive benefits for more years. This trend is expected to continue.
The age of eligibility needs to be adjusted, as does the eligibility age for Medicare. Medicare should not become available until one is no longer earning an income above a determined, adjusted level. If someone is making a couple of million dollars a year from investments, why do they need to receive SS or Medicare just because they reached some age? Those programs are supposed to be safety nets, not gravy. We should pay into SS and Medicare in case we are going to need it as the average worker will. We should receive SS and Medicare benefits if our retirement plans or invested earnings would lower our standard of living below some acceptable level. Our own investments and planning should raise us above that level. At some level we don't need SS to maintain that standard of living and that supplementary income can be denied.
Current tax code can address this with appropriate tax exemptions and tax levels for the average wage earner and retirement funds but much of the income of the wealthy are tax exempt or tax capped. There just needs to be an income level above which government does not pay from the public dole.
Arizona Willie posted at 11:42 am on Sun, Jul 22, 2012.
sockratties, I could probably agree with raising the eligibility age ... in most cases.
IF they eased the rules for getting SS Disability Retirement as people got older. Many people with physical occupations have worn their bodies out by the time they hit 65. Raising the age for them would verge on being cruel.
Although means testing seems reasonable ... it also is wrong because it is basically stealing their money. Having the wealthy pay more in income taxes is one thing, because they benefit from all the things society uses the taxes for. But to take their money for a specific benefit .. and then deny them the benefit is nothing less than theft.
It is simply jealousy and saying ' they are so rich they don't need it ".
That may well be true but denying the wealthy Medicare and SS because they are wealthy would be class warfare.
And ... the government would soon be lowering the cut off level.
They might start and say ' anyone with a net worth of 100 million doesn't qualify ' and soon they would be saying ' anyone with a net worth of 10 million doesn't qualify ' and not long after that it would be down to 1 million.
sockratties posted at 3:49 pm on Sun, Jul 22, 2012.
AZW -- somehow we need to find a way that makes our congresspersons pull back a bloody stump when they put their hand in the money jar!
I don't think it's unfair when a person pays for insurance but never needs it. SS was originally conceived as a way to prevent masses of indigent old folks from dying on charity farms. A person who earns $100,000,000.00 is still eligible to get a few hundred a month out of the SS system. The only difference is they will have to pay taxes on it if their taxable income is above some minimum amount. That’s more of a crime, in my opinion. It’s no better than the billionaire showing up at the soup kitchen for a free meal. His rights are the same as the needy, but he’s not needy.
Arizona Willie posted at 11:39 am on Mon, Jul 23, 2012.
sockratties: it would be interesting to see the stats on how many of the uber rich collect their SS and how many have declined it.
wangly posted at 10:39 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.
Voorhies stared into space and mumbled "to herself or to to fake designer handbags to others who weren't there" during the interview. When asked
explain her behavior, Voorhies said, "I have a strong spiritual spiritual cheap moncler jackets spiritual sense. You caught me in moments of pray."Asked whether
not she's bipolar, Voorhies told ABCNews.com, "no comment."If she is is jordan 11 is bipolar, she's in good company: Obama
Back Day After Debate DefeatObama Heads Wisconsin As Romney Looks Looks jordan concord Looks To Build On Debate MomentumBy GREGORY J. KRIEG and
DWYEROct. 4, 2012 Looking to rebound from his uninspired performance performance moncler down jackets performance in Wednesday night's debate, President Obama today mocked
opponent for shape-shifting into a "spirited fellow" who "couldn't have have moncler jackets men have been Mitt Romney.""The real Mitt Romney has been running
the county for the last year promising $5 trillion in in replica designer handbags in tax cuts to favor the wealthy," the president told
in Denver. "The fellow on the stage last night said said replica designer handbags said he didn't know about that.""The Mitt Romney we all
he said, had invested in companies that sent jobs overseas. overseas. fake designer handbags overseas. "The guy onstage last night, he said that he
even know that there are such laws that encourage outsourcing."Obama outsourcing."Obama knockoff handbags outsourcing."Obama also joked about Romney's threat to end federal funding
PBS as part of a deficit reduction plan."Thank goodness somebody somebody jordan 11 concords somebody is finally getting tough on Big Bird," he said.