Mothering Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,623 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
<a href="http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/6677997.htm" target="_blank">http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...ss/6677997.htm</a><br><br><br>
Here is a mere waste of 5.7 <b>BILLION</b> dollars ----- MY MONEY ------- by the ever-so-wasteful Pentagon.<br><br>
Sen McCain is trying to stop it but says "The fix is in".<br><br>
Oh yeah??? Well, how the fu*k did it get *in* without MY approval???<br><br>
What the hell kind of government is this???<br><br>
:puke<br><br><br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Armed Services is the last of four congressional committees that must approve the proposed $21 billion program for the Pentagon to lease 100 converted Boeing 767 jets as tankers. If, as expected, that committee approves the deal, it is likely that the full Congress would approve it.<br><br>
But at today's Commerce hearing, McCain plans to detail internal Pentagon-Boeing documents released over the weekend that he maintains show a too-close relationship between the Defense Department and one of its biggest suppliers.</td>
</tr></table></div>

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Last week a critical report from the Congressional Budget Office joined an earlier General Accounting Office report, stating that it would be cheaper for the Air Force to buy new tankers outright than to lease them -- $5.7 billion cheaper, according to the budget office.</td>
</tr></table></div>
Many more articles out there if you're interested................<br><br><br>
El
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top