>The fact that the $6.5T figure appears anywhere on Pentagon account books is the problem
It doesn't as I linked. It's derived from a (quote) "non-statistical sample" and is full of double billing. I pointed this out with sources. This number is not from tallying items on books - it's from taking not statistically controlled sample and extrapolating, using poor methodology (as pointed out in the links I provided). This is basic stats and arithmetic.
When X money comes from gov to dept A, goes on a book, then goes to dept B, goes on a book, this is not 2X dollars. This is how they get such ridiculous numbers by not balancing books. This is pointed out in enough well sources internet places besides what I posted that it's not worth digging it up more.
Coincidentally, the DoD recently completed it's second complete audit [1] in late 2019, even later than the 2018 one I posted above. Again, they found "No evidence of fraud". If you search that gov site, you'll find documents in depth about the audit(s).
I get that you want to stick to a clearly incorrect audit from 2016 for your narrative of incompetence and fraud, but when I've provided 2 annual audits that show otherwise, it's clear you're holding onto a belief over fact.
You're linking to press releases now, so this discussion has run its course. You refuse to acknowledge that unjustified adjustments have overwhelmed the rest of the books. Reading the press release, we find it's bragging about a few parts of DoD, not even including USArmy which is what we were talking about.
So your first link in this thread, which is a press release, and your second link, which is a Dave Lindoff opinion piece, are valid, but linking a .gov release with a link to the actual audit means this thread has run it's course? That's intellectually dishonest.
>not even including USArmy which is what we were talking about.
The linked audit clearly states Army. Look at the audit page. Search the word "Army". First (and only) Army link goes to the Army section of the audit. Since you didn't even look, I'll post the Army section for you [1].
This has become completely dishonest. You're not even looking at the audits from the DoD, including the one you care about, to update your world view.
>You refuse to acknowledge that unjustified adjustments have overwhelmed the rest of the books.
I admit they did in 2016. The 2018 and 2019 audits no longer have that result. Do you acknowledge subsequent audits resolved the discrepancies and found no evidence of fraud?
It doesn't as I linked. It's derived from a (quote) "non-statistical sample" and is full of double billing. I pointed this out with sources. This number is not from tallying items on books - it's from taking not statistically controlled sample and extrapolating, using poor methodology (as pointed out in the links I provided). This is basic stats and arithmetic.
When X money comes from gov to dept A, goes on a book, then goes to dept B, goes on a book, this is not 2X dollars. This is how they get such ridiculous numbers by not balancing books. This is pointed out in enough well sources internet places besides what I posted that it's not worth digging it up more.
Coincidentally, the DoD recently completed it's second complete audit [1] in late 2019, even later than the 2018 one I posted above. Again, they found "No evidence of fraud". If you search that gov site, you'll find documents in depth about the audit(s).
I get that you want to stick to a clearly incorrect audit from 2016 for your narrative of incompetence and fraud, but when I've provided 2 annual audits that show otherwise, it's clear you're holding onto a belief over fact.
[1] https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/20...