“Yeah, maybe so. But at least mine's not flavored with cyanide!” – DJ
Nope, oil perhaps? ;-) Regardless, it appears to even more acerbic than cyanide. On Sep 26, 2:04 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
