$800 toilet Seats? How about $2,531,600 for 2lbs of Ham!!!

HMTKSteve

I thought the good old days of fraud, waste and abuse were behind us...

HAM, WATER ADDED, COOKED, FROZEN, SLICED, 2-LB $2,531,600
2 POUND FROZEN HAM SLICED $1,191,200
RECOVERY ACT-PROJECT 630A4-08-406, REPLACE AND UPGRADE THE DUMBWAITER $351,807
MOZZARELLA CHEESE $1,562,568
PROCESS CHEESE $5,708,260

OMG WTF? How does one get to be a vendor for this stuff? I could walk down to the A&P and in about 5 minutes have a 2lb ham I could sell to the government for millions!!!!

Churba

Typical Americans, 5.7 Mil on process cheese, but only 1.5 mil on mozzarella. I'm disgusted with the lot of you, buying cheap Mozz.

HungryJoe

Typical Americans, 5.7 Mil on process cheese, but only 1.5 mil on mozzarella. I'm disgusted with the lot of you, buying cheap Mozz.

I agree. I definitely would have spent more on mozzarella. I wonder how much they spent on provolone. I hope it was a lot. We need as much provolone as we can get.

...

Hm, this might just be a clever way to make the war in Iraq NOT look like a total waste of money.

ElJoe0

well, tis better than before,

The Republicans would have done this without telling the public

Apreche

This sort of thing is almost certainly a misunderstanding. It's just an artifact of names entered into accounting systems. Clearly this report you are looking at is only displaying the names of the products purchased and the amount spent. It isn't showing the quantities purchased. In all likelihood they didn't just get 2 pounds of ham for $1.1 million dollars. It's simply that the name of the item is "2 POUND FROZEN HAM SLICED", and that item was purchased in such quantity to ad up to $1.1 million. They're just not showing the number of 2 pound hams. Most likely they bought thousands upon thousands of hams.

HungryJoe

LOL. It wouldn't be the first time Steve misunderstood something he tried to read. Steve = Reading Comprehension Fail.

TheWhaleShark

This sort of thing is almost certainly a misunderstanding. It's just an artifact of names entered into accounting systems. Clearly this report you are looking at is only displaying the names of the products purchased and the amount spent. It isn't showing the quantities purchased. In all likelihood they didn't just get 2 pounds of ham for $1.1 million dollars. It's simply that the name of the item is "2 POUND FROZEN HAM SLICED", and that item was purchased in such quantity to ad up to $1.1 million. They're just not showing the number of 2 pound hams. Most likely they bought thousands upon thousands of hams.

That's exactly what I was thinking. You have no way of knowing how many of a particular item they purchased. The project also lasted 4 months. Maybe they bought 4 months worth of ham.

The "replacing and upgrading the dumbwaiter" thing is actually not outrageous. Dumbwaiters are, for the most part, very old and hard-to-find things. Additionally, "upgrading" it might mean replacing it with an entirely new lift solution. My old apartment building has a service elevator from 1910 and a large part needs replacing. The condo owners were quoted somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000 for the project. So, I don't see the dumbwaiter thing as being outside the realm of possibility.

Omnutia

LOL. It wouldn't be the first time Steve misunderstood something he tried to read. Steve = Reading Comprehension Fail.

Goading others into needless and petty arguments. That is so degrading.

HungryJoe

LOL. It wouldn't be the first time Steve misunderstood something he tried to read. Steve = Reading Comprehension Fail.

Goading others into needless and petty arguments. That is so degrading.

It's not a petty argument at all. It's merely the truth. He initiated an entire thread because he doesn't comprehend what he reads. That's not petty. That is a major credibility problem.

Omnutia

I suppose I should have made that joke more obvious.

HungryJoe

I suppose I should have made that joke more obvious.

Sorry. I probably should have taken more time to decide whether it was a joke. No harm. Cheers.

HMTKSteve

This sort of thing is almost certainly a misunderstanding. It's just an artifact of names entered into accounting systems. Clearly this report you are looking at is only displaying the names of the products purchased and the amount spent. It isn't showing the quantities purchased. In all likelihood they didn't just get 2 pounds of ham for $1.1 million dollars. It's simply that the name of the item is "2 POUND FROZEN HAM SLICED", and that item was purchased in such quantity to ad up to $1.1 million. They're just not showing the number of 2 pound hams. Most likely they bought thousands upon thousands of hams.

So it's a failure of accounting and transparency then? Why are the full details not posted?

“Press reports suggesting that the Recovery Act spent $1.19 million to buy ‘2 pounds of ham’ are wrong,” Vilsack said in a statement. “In fact, the contract in question purchased 760,000 pounds of ham for $1.191m, at a cost of approximately $1.50 per pound.”

USDA: 760,000 pounds of ham for $1.2M

I'm always amazed at the way some people choose to launch personal attacks when a simple Google search and a link will suffice to explain something. I can't throw the balls any slower...

Andrew

I'm always amazed at the way some people choose to launch personal attacks when a simple Google search and a link will suffice to explain something. I can't throw the balls any slower...

If it was a simple google search, then why make the fuss about it? I don't understand why you posted this shit in the first place...

HMTKSteve

I'm always amazed at the way some people choose to launch personal attacks when a simple Google search and a link will suffice to explain something. I can't throw the balls any slower...

If it was a simple google search, then why make the fuss about it? I don't understand why you posted this shit in the first place...

1) It is news.
2) The article I linked to that explains the numbers was posted at 11:33AM (hours after I started the thread).
3) I wanted to see how many forum members would take a moment to think about the news before posting and how many would use it to launch a personal attack.

It is obvious to anyone with even half a brain that there is insufficient information on the recovery.gov site to ascertain whether or not their is actual fraud, waste or abuse going on. The problem is not the amount of money being spent but the lack of proper information being put out to the public about the expenditures. In this regard the recovery.gov site is a total failure. That's my point.

Apreche

The problem is not the amount of money being spent but the lack of proper information being put out to the public about the expenditures. In this regard the recovery.gov site is a total failure. That's my point.

What makes this new or noteworthy? I have yet to see any government in the entire world that is technologically competent. It would be news if the government got a web-site done right. It's not news that they got one wrong.

Andrew

1) It is news.

Government wasting money is hardly news.

2) The article I linked to that explains the numbers was posted at 11:33AM (hours after I started the thread).

Which means you were either trolling to get HungryJoe's panties in a bundle or you didn't take the time to think that you may have come to a hasty generalization.

3) I wanted to see how many forum members would take a moment to think about the news before posting and how many would use it to launch a personal attack.

Which is just trolling.

It is obvious to anyone with even half a brain that there is insufficient information on the recovery.gov site to ascertain whether or not their is actual fraud, waste or abuse going on.

Like every single other aspect of the government. This is nothing new to any of us. We get it, you don't like the current administration. No one here gives a fuck when you post the most irrelevant or insignificant fuck up by them, especially when you specifically do it to troll.

GreatTeacherMacRoss

Well said, Andrew.