We all have drunk some flavor of Kool-Aid...and some of us know it. -orn Yeah, maybe so. But at least mine's not flavored with cyanide!
dj On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 3:34 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > “…I think the more measured and scholarly approach to > solving problems that the Heritage Foundation takes makes much more > sense….” – DJ > > Sense, perhaps…wisdom, no! Personally I find any blind use of dogmatic > social philosophy to be anathema, even more so than simple fantasy and/ > or hyperbole. The latter can show clarity while the former can not. We > all have drunk some flavor of Kool-Aid...and some of us know it. > > On Sep 26, 12:56 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> Well I wouldn't go so far as to say I 'trust' them but I definitely >> respect them. Like you say, they aren't shy about stating their >> purpose. They have some sound opinions on the health care bill that >> make a lot of sense to me. Naomi Klein, on the other hand, comes >> across as your typical purveyor of agitprop. I remember when she was >> instrumental in playing the race card after Hurricane Katrina. >> Writing some hogwash about Bush deliberately putting blacks at risk >> while saving whites after the storm. Just silly. She has a history of >> fabricating truths and exaggerating evidence to support her own sick >> fantasies. I think the more measured and scholarly approach to >> solving problems that the Heritage Foundation takes makes much more >> sense. >> >> In a completely unrelated matter; why do so many 'activists' hide(or >> at least obscure) their true ideologies? People that live and breath >> a Marxist doctrine will look you straight in the eye and tell you they >> aren't a communist. Do you think they're ignorant, stupid or are they >> trying to put one over on us? Not that there is anything wrong with >> being a communist... I'm just curious what some of you think of the >> often un-clever attempts of some journalists to muddy their political >> leanings. Do they think we're all stupid or something? >> >> dj >> >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 12:23 AM, ornamentalmind >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Around the time of the formation of this organization (The Heritage >> > Foundation) I had begun to become politically and economically aware. >> > Quite quickly I learned to study who funded and ran such ‘think >> > tanks’. Their stated mission: >> >> > “Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a New Right think tank. >> > Its stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public >> > policies based on the principles of "free enterprise, limited >> > government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a >> > strong national defense." It is widely considered one of the world's >> > most influential public policy research institutes.” >> >> > …sounds innocent enough, no? And, they do come right out and state >> > their political and economic dogma. >> >> >http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation >> >> > Further down the page, on the above link, one can find the primary >> > corporate funders of the foundation, big-pharma, tobacco, insurance >> > companies, military contractors. >> >> > They, along with the Cato Institute and others who manufacture >> > consent, are anathema to anyone other than the top 1% financially in >> > the US and similar people worldwide. >> >> > From an article by Naomi Klein a year or so ago: >> >> > “But, you know, I was interested that yesterday the Heritage >> > Foundation, which has always been a staunch Friedmanite think tank, >> > that they came out in favor of the bailout. They came out in favor of >> > the bailout; they said it was vital. And what’s interesting about that >> > is, of course, the bailout is creating a crisis in the economic—in the >> > public sphere. It’s taking a private crisis, a crisis on Wall Street, >> > which of course isn’t restricted to Wall Street, and it will affect >> > everyone, but it is moving it, moving those bad debts, onto the public >> > books.” >> >> > Her website:http://www.naomiklein.org/main >> >> > …some of her views on the Heritage Fondation: >> >http://www.naomiklein.org/search/node/the+heritage+foundation >> >> > The most recent ‘Research’ by the Heritage Institute: >> >> > September 25, 2009 >> > Defunding ACORN: Necessary and Proper, and Certainly Constitutional >> > by Hans A. von Spakovsky >> >> > September 25, 2009 >> > The Baucus Individual Health Insurance Mandate: Taxing Low-Income and >> > Moderate-Income Workers >> > by Robert A. Book, Ph.D., Guinevere Nell, and Paul L. Winfree >> >> > September 25, 2009 >> > The Baucus Health Bill: A Medicare Physician Payment Shell Game >> > by Dennis G. Smith >> >> > The above is from their own site. >> >> > I have never trusted this organization when it comes to helping >> > humanity. They clearly continue to push the same old economic dogma >> > that produced our current situation. I guess one gets what they pay >> > for, no? >> >> > On Sep 25, 5:24 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> April 2005 >> >> Top 10 Examples of Government Waste >> >> by Brian M. Riedl >> >> >> President George W. Bush has proposed terminating or strongly >> >> reducing the budgets of over 150 inefficient or ineffective programs. >> >> This is a step in the right direction to pare back the runaway >> >> spending that has pushed the budget deficit over $400 billion. In less >> >> than three years, the first baby boomers will begin to collect Social >> >> Security: Lawmakers must therefore begin to reduce spending now to >> >> make room for the massive Social Security and Medicare costs that will >> >> follow. >> >> >> The first place to trim runaway federal spending is in waste, fraud, >> >> and abuse. Congress, however, has largely abandoned its constitutional >> >> duty of overseeing the executive branch and has steadfastly refused to >> >> address the waste littered across government programs. In 2003, an >> >> attempt by House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R–IA) to >> >> address wasteful spending was rejected by the House of >> >> Representatives, and similar calls in 2004 by then-Senate Budget >> >> Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R–OK) were rejected by the Senate. A >> >> small group of House lawmakers has formed the Washington Waste >> >> Watchers, but their agenda has not been embraced by the whole House. >> >> >> Lack of information is not the problem. Today, government waste >> >> investigations and recommendations can be found in hundreds of >> >> reports, such as: >> >> >> * >> >> Studies published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office >> >> (GAO),[1] >> >> * >> >> The Congressional Budget Office’s Budget Options book, >> >> * >> >> Inspector general reports of each agency, >> >> * >> >> Government Performance and Results Act reports of each agency, >> >> * >> >> The White House’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) program >> >> reviews, and >> >> * >> >> The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee’s 2001 Government at >> >> the Brink reports. >> >> >> For those seeking past recommendations that went unheeded, the 1984 >> >> Grace Commission report on government waste and the 1993–1995 >> >> publications of Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review >> >> can still be found. >> >> >> With all of this available information and in an era of tight budgets, >> >> why are lawmakers so resistant to reducing waste? One reason is that >> >> they see it as a thankless job that would go unnoticed back home. With >> >> Congress in session just 80 days annually, reducing waste would take >> >> precious time away from most lawmakers’ higher priorities of increas >> >> ing spending on popular programs and bringing pork-barrel projects >> >> home. >> >> >> A second reason is that some of the most wasteful programs are also >> >> the most popular (e.g., Medicare), and lawmakers fear that opponents >> >> would portray them as “attacking” popular programs. Consequently, >> >> waste and inefficiencies continue to build up, costing taxpayers more >> >> while providing beneficiaries with less. >> >> >> A real war on government waste could easily save over $100 billion >> >> annually without harming the legitimate operations and benefits of >> >> government programs. As a first step, lawmakers should address the 10 >> >> following examples of egregious waste. >> >> >> 1. The Missing $25 Billion >> >> >> Buried in the Department of the Treasury’s 2003 Financial Report of >> >> the United States Government is a short section titled “Unreconciled >> >> Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position,” which explains >> >> that these unreconciled transactions totaled $24.5 billion in 2003.[2] >> >> >> The unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot >> >> account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, >> >> somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where >> >> it was spent, or on what it was spent. Blaming these unreconciled >> >> transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their >> >> expenditures adequately, the Treasury report concludes that locating >> >> the money is “a priority.” >> >> >> The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department >> >> of Justice for an entire year. >> >> >> 2. Unused Flight Tickets Totaling $100 Million >> >> >> A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense >> >> Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 >> >> commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even >> >> worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully >> >> refundable tickets. The GAO blamed a system that relied on department >> >> personnel to notify the travel office when purchased tickets went >> >> unused.[3] >> >> >> Auditors also found 27,000 transactions between 2001 and 2002 in which >> >> the Pentagon paid twice for the same ticket. The department would >> >> purchase the ticket directly and then inexplicably reimburse the >> >> employee for the cost of the ticket. (In one case, an employee who >> >> allegedly made seven false claims for airline tickets professed not to >> >> have noticed that $9,700 was deposited into his/her account). These >> >> additional transactions cost taxpayers $8 million. >> >> >> This $108 million could have purchased seven Blackhawk helicopters, 17 >> >> M1 Abrams tanks, or a large supply of additional body armor for U.S. >> >> troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. >> >> >> 3. Embezzled Funds at the Department of Agriculture >> >> >> Federal employee credit card programs were designed to save money. >> >> Rather than weaving through a lengthy procurement process to acquire >> >> basic supplies, federal employees could purchase job-related products >> >> with >> >> ... >> >> read more »- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
