Post #348,422
9/30/11 1:45:54 PM
|
aaannd ... retraction.
"Except it turns out the story wasnÂt quite right. Hilton Worldwide fired back, claiming that $16 was in fact the price for a continental breakfast, complete with coffee, fruit, and juice. In a letter to Senator Barbara Mikulski (DÂMd.)Âwho had called for an explanationÂJustice Dept. officials wrote that if their accusers had examined all the receipts they would have found the actual price was $14.29 per person per day, and included breakfast and rental fees for the workshop space and conference rooms. ... In a statement to Bloomberg Businessweek on Tuesday, the chastened Inspector GeneralÂs office conceded that it might not have been in possession of all the facts."
http://www.businessw...fin-09292011.html
|
Post #348,423
9/30/11 1:53:24 PM
|
Unpossible!
|
Post #348,424
9/30/11 2:03:49 PM
|
So ...
Now everyone who said this was an example of how government can't spend money right, so they shouldn't be given any ... all those people will now admit they were wrong?
But hey, if we were using it as an example when "we thought it was true" (no we didn't), then what is it an example of now? Maybe it's an example that proves critics of government spending are full of shit who make things up to win arguments. So we don't need to listen to those critics any more. Right?
--
Drew
|
Post #348,425
9/30/11 2:24:27 PM
|
Don't hold your breath.
Digby's comments on "Smell Test" Scandals 101 is apropos, I think.
http://digbysblog.bl...scandals-101.html
[...]
What to do with this scandal is advance the idea that government spending is inherently corrupt. It's a neat trick after their years of cronyism but they understand the press very well and know this is exactly the kind of "fleecing of America" story they can pull off the shelf and run with without having to think too much. Before long it will just be a shorthand for "Obama scandal" and they'll be off.
[...]
The more they make the government look like a hopeless, corrupt clown show, the better off they are. I'm not sure how you fight that. I expect it would be a bit easier if the Village media weren't so anxious to jump on every manufactured tid-bit from the right wing noise machine, but I've pretty much given up on them. They are addicted to phony corruption scandals. (The real ones, not so much.)
Yup.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #348,428
9/30/11 2:34:00 PM
|
What he said
--
Drew
|
Post #348,436
9/30/11 2:52:52 PM
|
s /he/she/ :-)
|
Post #348,438
9/30/11 2:54:23 PM
|
Yeah, whichever :-P
--
Drew
|
Post #348,435
9/30/11 2:47:58 PM
|
Ibid.
|
Post #348,431
9/30/11 2:36:04 PM
|
In this example,
I was wrong to use it.
However, to pretend there aren't hundreds of other examples...well go ahead I suppose, and let this make you feel better that the government is a perfect steward of your money. As long as your comfortable, when they come back to you for more money you'll feel better about it.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #348,427
9/30/11 2:33:02 PM
|
Cool
so in retraction the IG office admits it auditors suck.
Now we can't trust either side.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #348,429
9/30/11 2:34:43 PM
|
Lots of people believe that ... do you?
--
Drew
|
Post #348,432
9/30/11 2:37:37 PM
|
Re: Lots of people believe that ... do you?
I suppose I would need you to clarify "that" before I would answer.
Or maybe you could ask Barry, since he apparently has no issue with making up positions for me.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #348,437
9/30/11 2:54:00 PM
9/30/11 4:02:38 PM
|
That this example proves anything
A report comes out saying that government spending is out of control. Everyone gets their panties in a twist.
A followup comes out saying no, the previous report was incomplete. Now you're saying both spending and auditing "can't be trusted".
An auditor's role is to find things that seem wrong and ask about them. Sometimes there are good reasons for things to be exactly as they are. This was one of those cases.
Both procurement and auditing worked exactly as they're supposed to. Well ... except that someone took a line from an audit and turned it into a manufactured scandal. This incident doesn't prove anything about procurement or auditing practices.
PS: The bottom line: A mountain of treats can get pricey. In 2008-2009, the Justice Dept. alone held 1,832 conferences costing a total of $121 million. That's not the bottom line. The bottom line is that we just spent a few days arguing about a manufactured scandal relating to 0.000000000011% of the federal budget. --
Drew
Edited by drook
Sept. 30, 2011, 04:02:38 PM EDT
|
Post #348,505
10/1/11 3:08:43 PM
|
¡PrecÃsaménte..!
Those who tiresomely parse inane 'media-spawned incidents' seeking YAN red herring to immolate.. perpetually beg The Fundamental Question (IMO):
Just what IS IT??? that--
'Conservatives-'11==includes all the Radical Reactionaries who daily hide behind that more innocuous name of this brain disease
--they imagine they are "conserving"?
(and.. for Whom?)
==amidst the cacophony of [n+1] warring-sects, all sanctimoniously pissing on the same banner:
as if Each represented TheMuricanPeepul ... or any similar meaningless/lying grouping
of cha cha chas
|
