1
   

Marines pay 100k per jeep. D.R. pays 33k per jeep. Absurd.

 
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jan, 2006 02:15 pm
parados wrote:
We have no way of knowing how much of that additional 296 million has been contracted in the purchase of the 400 vehicles.



We do if we know how government contracts work.

The $296 million is the ceiling cost - the maximum that can be expended on the contract before the contract has to be re-bid. The government can obligate any amount up to the $296 million over the life of the contract. (In Federal government contract lingo - things aren't bought until there is an obligation.)

But what they HAVE obligated is the $18 million amount. That amount is a matter of public record and is all that the Congress has authorized the DoD to obligate. If the government has obligated more than that they are in violation of federal law.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jan, 2006 02:40 pm
Fishin,
you story is from Nov 2004 and the 18 mill appears to be design cost and doesn't include a fixed number of vehicles that I can see.

The story is from Dec 2005 and says..

Quote:
The Marines budgeted to buy more than 400 vehicles, called Growlers, under a contract that could total $296 million including ammunition, USA Today said, citing Pentagon records.



The Marine budget in 2005 is not the same thing as the signed contract in 2004. The Marines may have budgeted the entire $296mill in Dec of 2005 or only another $1. We can't tell from the information given. I can't tell from the information given what the vehicles will cost per unit. I can surmise that they are 2 different budget years from the standpoint of the US budget.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jan, 2006 05:48 pm
The military-indutrial complex.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jan, 2006 06:40 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Just, if you fail to see the point, purpose, and relevance of what I posted, there is no point further elucidating. I'll observe only that the welfare and future of civilization is well served in that those of the sociopolitical bent evidenced by your posts have seen to it through the electoral process that they are not in charge of seeing to the necessary details.


Wallowing in the mud in a wet suit of high falutin prose is still wallowing.

Sorry Timber but our exchange was recent enough that I couldn't let this one pass without comment.

Like I said before, though, you're my new model of A2K propriety. Now I know what an acceptible insult looks like. Hey, I've worn that wetsuit before, and I sure as hell can don it again.

Cool
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jan, 2006 10:04 pm
That ain't A2K propriety, Finn - its basic netiquet and civil forensics; no personal aspersions cast, though the position at issue was served harshly.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 05:40 pm
timberlandko wrote:
That ain't A2K propriety, Finn - its basic netiquet and civil forensics; no personal aspersions cast, though the position at issue was served harshly.


Yeah, like you said.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 11:08:01