“…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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
