“So I'm wondering if you think that because the foundation is less than, in your opinion, a viable source of information, that the examples presented, at least the top ten, are not worthy of examination and public concern.” – SD
Slip, I think it is ‘viable’ if a person has specific goals, interests and appetites. I think that everything is worthy of examination and much is of public concern. I just discriminate when it comes to which attitudes I chose to place my attention on and/or receive impressions from. One criterion I use is what is the ‘bottom line’ for the person/ group involved. I find that the bottom line for The Heritage Foundation is just that, the bottom line, money. And, as much as money is of interest to most of us, it is not of primary importance to me. Nor is the tunnel vision and dogmatic approach this particular group uses. “I wouldn't doubt that the DD wasted $100 million on unused tickets. I think there is so much money flowing in that they just act irresponsibly as a matter of course. People struggle to survive by living within austerity budgets and these A holes are just throwing money away, to the tune of billions.” – SD Slip, the DOD has been near the center of US economic policy for centuries. This is not questioned by most people and is verifiable. I and most people I know wish a different focus when it comes to what drives the economic wheels of this culture. To that end, I and many friends not only chose not to support the given complex but place our attention elsewhere on the whole. Only when institutions lose all support do they wither and die. Every ‘hit’ to the Heritage Found webpage just makes it easier for them to solicit funds. I do not wish to support their views and propaganda in any way. So, yes, some of their topics are worth discussing and often I would change the wording of said topics. It is the axioms they use that I wish to eschew. So, I do. On Sep 26, 7:25 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > So I'm wondering if you think that because the foundation is less > than, in your opinion, a viable source of information, that the > examples presented, at least the top ten, are not worthy of > examination and public concern. I wouldn't doubt that the DD wasted > $100 million on unused tickets. I think there is so much money > flowing in that they just act irresponsibly as a matter of course. > People struggle to survive by living within austerity budgets and > these A holes are just throwing money away, to the tune of billions. > > On Sep 26, 4:26 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
